Fundamental Rights Section first sentence of Art. 30j Par. 2 of the 1967 Family Allowance Act as being unconstitutional. 2.3.1.2 Non-consideration of multiple births within the framework of childcareallowance funds th In its 26 Report to the National Council and National Council, the AOB demonstrated in its Fundamental Rights section that, in terms of equality law, it is not clear why it should be factually justified that child allowances are to be paid out only singly in a case of twins and/or progeny of a multiple birth, thus treating a multiple birth equivalent with a single birth. It is to be noted in this connection that the legislature supported this critique in the year under review by passing Art. 3a of the Childcare Allowance Act [Kinderbetreuungsgeldgesetz], stipulating that, in a case of multiple birth, the childcare allowance for the second and every other child increases by 50% of the sum set out in Art. 3 Par. 1 leg. cit. 2.3.1.2.1 Witnesses’ entitlement to refund of their expenditures (VA BD/201-V/02) According to Art. 51a and d of the 1991 AVG Act, only those witnesses and other parties involved who are heard for purposes of gathering evidence in independent administrative appellate court proceedings or who are not heard in such proceedings through no fault of their own, are entitled to fees in accordance with Art. 2 Par. 3 and Art. 3 through 18 of the 1975 Fee Entitlement Act [Gebührenanspruchsgesetz]. The fact that there are no similar regulations regarding proceedings before all other administrative authorities means that witnesses heard in these proceedings have no entitlement to a refund of their expenditures. According to invariable jurisdiction at the Constitutional Court of Justice, the principle of equality prohibits the judicature from making any differentiation’s other than those, which can be factually substantiated. Therefore, legal differentiation's are only in line with the Federal Constitution if they can be justified by actual differences in the established facts and circumstances. In light of this jurisdiction, it seems unconstitutional to make the entitlements of witnesses and other parties involved to a fee contingent upon whether they have been heard before an independent appellate court or another administrative authority. 17