CEDAW/C/64/D/67/2014 prove prostitution, 2 which confirmed the systematic nature of such unlawful police conduct. 2.6 On 20 February 2007, the police filed charges of illegal prostitution against the author before the Tulln Administrative District Authority, based on the evidence obtained the previous day. On 3 July 2007, the District Authority suspended the administrative criminal proceedings against the author when it realized that the sex life of the author was a matter of her private life, not prostitution. However, while the author communicated her concerns about human rights violations to the District Authority on 9 March 2007, it neither initiated an investigation of the police conduct nor informed the author about the existence of a remedy through an administrative complaints procedure. 2.7 The police also filed previously collected mail and pictures and generated new sensitive personal data by linking this information with the name of the author (which the police had known since 12 February 2007). The purpose of this data collection was to collect evidence to prove the administrative charges of illegal prostitution against her at the Tulln Administrative District Authority. The police offered the above-mentioned sexually explicit photographs as evidence. In addition, the police sent copies of these charges to the Tulln Municipal Authority and the Tulln Tax Office, although sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Data Privacy Act provide that such information may be used only for a previously defined legitimate purpose, and only by authorized institutions. Information about the sex life or the health of a person is particularly sensitive (section 4 of the Data Privacy Act) and, under sections 29 and 53 of the Security Police Act, the police may not collect such sensitive information unless it is necessary to fight serious crime. On an unspecified date, the Tax Office initiated proceedings against the author. 3 She eventually won that case in 2012, but it caused her substantial suffering, as for five years the Tax Office repeatedly reiterated false claims of prostitution. 2.8 On 21 August 2008, the author filed a complaint regarding police misconduct before the Independent Administrative Panel of Lower Austria and complained about degrading treatment, violations of her private life, private home, da ta protection and procedural rights, and discrimination. The complaint was based, among other things, on a notification from the police, received on 8 August 2008 (dated 6 August 2008), that the Security Police Act was the legal basis of the undercover investigation against her. On 15 December 2008, the applicant was notified that there had been no independent control over that investigation; the next day she added that fact to her complaint. On 5 May 2009, however, the Panel rejected her complaint as time barred, since the statutory time limit for the complaint had begun at the end of the undercover investigation, on 19 February 2007. 2.9 On 17 July 2009, the author filed an appeal to the Constitutional Court. On 23 February 2010, the Constitutional Court stated that the case did not give rise to issues of constitutional law and referred it to the Administrative Court. On 14 April 2010, in a letter served to the author ’s attorney on 19 April 2010, the Administrative Court invited the author to resubmit the appeal in a different format. The author __________________ 2 3 4/20 The author submits in evidence a letter dated 6 August 2008. No information is available in the author ’s initial submission, except a reference to the final decision of the Administrative Court of 25 January 2012 (VwGH 2009/13/0011), copy provided in German. 16-13831