filling leadership positions. In addition to the statutory obligation to advance women in the event they are underrepresented – this is clearly the case in the Public Employment Service Austria in Burgenland where there is one female regional office manager and six male managers – the tender criterion “knowledge of the regional labour market” cannot be understood to mean that inevitably every other application that is not from a member of the current staff must be viewed as lower ranking. Still, the Federal Minister defended his decision and stated with regard to the discriminating remark alleged by Ms. N. in her appeal petition, which had been made during the hearing, that this remark is not to be found in any of the documents available. Austrian Constitutional Court determines violation of equality The Austrian Constitutional Court, to whom Ms. N. addressed her complaint, took a completely different position. In its ruling on 27 June 2012, it determined that Ms. N.’s right of all citizens to equality before the law, which is guaranteed under the Austrian Constitution, had been violated. Obviously, the Austrian Constitutional Court is presuming that in a tort litigation pursuant to Sections 18a and 20 (3) of the Federal Equal Opportunities Act every investigating public agency must pursue ex officio all indications pointing to possible discrimination. Austrian Constitutional Court sees arbitrariness According to the grounds for the cited ruling, Ms. N. alleged in her appeal that the question was asked during the proceeding, why women could not find their fulfilment in raising children. The fact that this remark had been made was never disputed either in the administrative proceeding or in the preliminary proceeding before the Constitutional Court and had been explicitly confirmed in the expert opinion of the Federal Equal Opportunities Commission. Nevertheless, the Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection neglected to deal with this question, which the Austrian Constitutional Court characterised as yet another deficiency of the proceedings that extends into the constitutional sphere. AOB demands that procedural methods adhere to the Constitution In light of this ruling, the AOB demanded that both the Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection and the Public Employment Service Austria amend all contradictory procedural guidelines. Both the Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection and the Public Employment Service Austria assured the AOB that in the meantime appropriate steps had been taken and that negotiations were being conducted regarding an out-of-court settlement in respect of the amount of Ms. N.’s claim for damages. 72