Fundamental Rights Section 2.2.2.5 Unreasonable delays in authorisation proceedings under water laws for constructing a shore-protection facility – BH Neusiedl/See (BD/161-LF/02, BMLF [Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry] 16.241/01-I6/03) N.N. filed a grievance that, after the ruling handed down on October 17, 2002 by the administrative court of justice, the supreme water-laws authority had only released after unnecessary postponement an alternative ruling on the appeal of several neighbours to the authorisation granted to him to construct a shore-protection facility. The delay on the part of the supreme water-laws authority was especially grave in this particular case due to the facts that the complainant had already filed his petition on November 12, 1998 (!) and that considerable delays had already occurred in first-instance authorisation proceedings (ruling dated May 26, 2000). The state authority was responsible for delays in the subsequent appeal proceedings and the Federal Ministry called upon via an escheat petition also failed unlawfully to reach a relevant decision. The Federal Ministry did not render its ruling (dated November 26, 2003) on the neighbours’ appeal until the dismissal of the escheat petition was suspended on May 2, 2002 by virtue of a decision rendered on October 17, 2002 by the Administrative Court of Justice and the filing of a new grievance of delay. 2.3 Principle of Equality (Art. 7 of the Federal Constitution, Art. 2 of the StGG Act) 2.3.1 A. Legal Practice 2.3.1.1 1967 Family Allowance Act (VA BD/25-JF/02) [Familienlastenausgleichsgesetz] According to Art. 30j Par. 2 First Sentence of the 1967 Family Allowance Act as amended through Fed. Law Gaz. No. 311/1992, fares may only be refunded contingent upon other conditions to apprentices in a legally acknowledged apprenticeship. By contrast, young people who are being educated in an apprenticeship not legally acknowledged (e.g. medical-office assistant) are precluded without exception from receiving fare refunds. th In its 26 Report to the National Council and National Council, the AOB pointed out in its Fundamental Rights section that the legislature’s ruling according to which granting refunds of fares is based on a case of a legally acknowledged apprenticeship only would not stand up to a review for equality. The Constitutional Court of Justice shared this view in a decision handed down on March 3, 2003 and struck down the word “legally” from the 16