(Application no. 49616/06)
10 December 2009
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Koottummel v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date.
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
“(5) Key workers are foreigners who have particular training or specific know- how and professional experience which are requested on the domestic labour market and who would receive for their employment a monthly gross salary of at least 60% of the maximum contribution level under Section 108 para. 3 of the General Social Security Act. Moreover, at least one of the following conditions must be fulfilled:
1. the intended employment goes beyond the interest of the employing company and is of specific relevance for the region or the sector of the labour market concerned or
2. the intended employment fosters the creation of new employments and ensures the protection of existing employments or
3. the foreigner has a crucial influence on the management of the company (executive managerial post) or
4. the intended employment leads to a transfer of capital investment to Austria or
5. the foreigner is a university or polytechnics graduate or holds a certificate proving that he has accomplished a specially recognised training.”
Further relevant provisions of that act can be found in the judgments in the cases of Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau v. Austria (no. 62539/00, 27 July 2007) and Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria (no. 10523/02, 27 July 2006).
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 December 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis