Fundamental Rights Section The case law of the Constitutional Court already understood those provisions 25 years ago, as serving the protection of minorities, as a 'value decision by the constitutional legislator for the benefit of protecting minorities' (thus, expressly VfSIg. 9.224/1981). On the basis of the (majority) resolution passed on January 26, 2007, the Ombudsman Board prompted an ordinance examination procedure with the Constitutional Court, regarding the illegal place-name descriptions in Schwabegg/Žvabek (against: Ombudsman Mag. Kabas). The Ombudsman Board has passed a (majority) decision to ensure, by all means available to it, that the value decision of the federal constitutional legislator for the benefit of protecting minorities, is neither thwarted by the federal government, nor by the member of the Carinthian state government, who is responsible for traffic matters. 2.2 Fundamental constitutional requirements of the federal constitution (Arts. 18 and 129 et seq. B-VG) 2.2.1 Rescission of an approval pursuant to Sect. 134a Luftfahrtgesetz (Aviation Act) (VA BD/445-V/05, Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology-15.500/00122-I/PR3/2006) An Austrian citizen who, on the basis of the legally stipulated reliability examination by the Federal Ministry of the Interior, based on Article 173 para. 16 Aviation Act (Luftfahrtgesetz LFG), had his airport pass revoked by the civil airport keeper, approached the Ombudsman Board, after his application for access to files was rejected as being inadmissible by the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology, with an official notification dated December 23, 2005, with reference to Sect. 134a para. 4 LFG. Sect. 134a para. 4 LFG provides for 'notifications' of the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology to the civil airport keeper, that misgivings exist against a person examined by the security authorities, within the meaning of the Directive (EC) No. 2320/2002 ('has been notified'). Such a 'notification' has the legal consequence that the civil airport keeper is not permitted to issue an airport pass for the person affected and respectively, must revoke an already-issued airport pass. According to the Ombudsman Board, Sect. 134a para. 4 LFG must be interpreted in conformity with the constitution, such that the person affected by this measure must be granted a right to defence in the proceeding resulting in 'notification' and therefore (also) has a right 30