EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 17371/90
C. G.
against
Austria
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 11 January 1995)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
A. The application
(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
B. The proceedings
(paras. 5-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
C. The present Report
(paras. 11-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 16-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
A. The particular circumstances of the case
(paras. 16 - 19). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
B. Relevant domestic law
(paras. 20 - 21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 22 - 58) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
A. Complaints declared admissible
(para. 22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
B. Points at issue
(para. 23). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
C. As to Article 6 of the Convention
(paras. 24 - 37). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
CONCLUSION
(para. 38 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
D. As to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
and Article 14 of the Convention
(paras. 39 - 51). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
CONCLUSION
(para. 52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
E. As to Article 8 of the Convention
(paras. 53 - 54). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
CONCLUSION
(para. 55). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
F. Recapitulation
(paras. 56 - 58). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PARTIALLY CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING
OPINION OF Mrs. J. LIDDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
APPENDIX I : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . 12
APPENDIX II : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 13
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the
European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the
Commission.
A. The application
2. The applicant is a Turkish citizen. Until, apparently, September
1987 he lived in Hörsching, in Upper Austria, and since then he has
lived in Izmir in Turkey. He was represented before the Commission by
Mr. H. Blum, lawyer, of Linz.
3. The application is directed against Austria. The respondent
Government were represented by their agent, Ambassador F. Cede, head
of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for Foreign
Affairs.
4. The case concerns the refusal by the Austrian courts - based on
the relevant legislation - to grant the applicant a specific social
welfare benefit. The applicant invokes Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the
Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
B. The proceedings
5. The application was introduced on 17 May 1990 and registered on
29 October 1990.
6. On 2 September 1992 the Commission (First Chamber) decided,
pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give
notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite
the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and
merits.
7. The Government's observations were submitted on 19 November 1992
and the applicant submitted his observations in reply on 8 January
1993. On 5 March 1993 the Government submitted a translation of their
observations.
8. On 11 January 1994 the Commission declared the application
admissible.
9. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent
to the parties on 28 January 1994 and they were invited to submit such
further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The
applicant submitted observations on 2 March 1994 and the Government
submitted observations on 7 April 1994. On 27 April 1994 the
Government submitted a reply to the applicant's observations of
2 March, and the applicant submitted comments thereon on 8 July 1994.
10. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in
accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed
itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a
friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the
Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement
can be effected.
C. The present Report
11. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First
Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after
deliberations and votes, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
12. The text of this Report was adopted on 11 January 1995 by the
Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the
Convention.
13. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the
Convention, is :
(i) to establish the facts, and
(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose
a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under
the Convention.
14. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the
Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's
decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.
15. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the
documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the
Commission.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
A. The particular circumstances of the case
16. On 6 July 1987 the applicant applied for an advance on his
pension by way of emergency payment (Antrag auf Gewährung der
Notstandshilfe in Form eines Pensionsvorschusses in Form der
Notstandshilfe) under the the Unemployment Insurance Act
(Arbeitslosenversicherungsgesetz - ALVG).
17. The application was refused by the Linz Labour Office
(Arbeitsamt) and the Upper Austrian Regional Labour Office
(Landsarbeitsamt) because the applicant failed to fulfil the
requirement of Section 33 para. 2 (a) of the ALVG that only Austrian
citizens qualify for such payments.
18. The applicant made a complaint to the Constitutional Court
(Verfassungsgerichtshof) in which he alleged violation of Article 6 of
the Convention, of Article 5 of the Basic Law of 21 December 1867
(Staatsgrundgesetz) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention,
and of Article 8 of the Convention. On 26 February 1988 the
Constitutional Court declined to deal with the case. It found, by
general reference to its case-law, that the application had no adequate
prospect of success, and also found that it was not excluded from the
jurisdiction of the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof)
(Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution). The Constitutional
Court referred the case to the Administrative Court.
19. As a result of the Administrative Court being seized of the case,
the applicant was requested to complete his application. He replied
on 7 July 1988, referring to his right under the law to an advance on
his pension. He requested the Administrative Court to quash the
decision of the Upper Austrian Labour Office and to have the
constitutionality of Section 33 para. 2 (a) of the ALVG determined by
the Constitutional Court. On 19 September 1989 (received by the
applicant's representative on 20 November 1989) the Administrative
Court rejected the complaint. It referred to previous cases in which
it had found that complaints concerning the application of, inter alia,
unconstitutional laws fell to be decided by the Constitutional Court.
It considered that the applicant's complaint - namely that of the
requirement of Austrian citizenship for payment of an advance on
pension by way of emergency payment under the ALVG - was such a
complaint. Accordingly, the complaint fell outside the jurisdiction
of the Administrative Court and was duly rejected.
B. Relevant domestic law
20. Section 33 of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides, so far as
relevant, as follows:
[German]
"(1) Arbeitslosen, die den Anspruch auf Arbeitslosengeld ...
erschöpft haben, kann auf Antrag Notstandshilfe gewährt werden.
(2) Voraussetzung für die Gewährung der Notstandshilfe ist, daß
der Arbeitslose
a) die österreichische Staatsbürgerschaft besitzt ..."
[Translation]
"(1) An emergency payment can be made to any unemployed person
who is no longer entitled to claim unemployment benefit ..
(2) It is a precondition for the grant of an emergency payment
that the unemployed person
a) has Austrian nationality ..."
21. Emergency payments are assessed on the basis of need, but must
not exceed a fixed proportion of the unemployment benefit a person
would receive if still entitled to such benefit. Unemployment benefit
is earnings-related and is funded partly from contributions and partly
from various Government sources.
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A. Complaints declared admissible
22. The Commission has declared admissible the complaints that the
applicant's ineligibility for an advance on his pension by way of
emergency payment was in violation Articles 6, 8 and 14
(Art. 6, 8, 14) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) to the Convention.
B. Points at issue
23. The issues to be determined are:
- whether there has been a violation of the applicant's right to
a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of
the Convention;
- whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Art. 1-P1) to the Convention, either alone or taken together
with Article 14 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-14), and
- whether there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the
Convention.
C. As to Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention
24. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides, so far
as relevant, as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
25. The applicant points out that emergency payments are inextricably
linked to the recipient of such payments having had a contract of
employment, as the possibility of a payment under Section 33
para. 2 (a) only arises where unemployment benefit, or payments whilst
on special leave, is no longer being paid. Since both of these
categories can apply only to persons who have worked for the requisite
time under private-law contracts, he sees the payment as "civil" in
nature.
26. The Government emphasise the public-law characteristics of
emergency payments under the ALVG, in particular that emergency
payments are based on need rather than income, and that the various
Government sources for the payments indicate that the scheme is not
managed as a private or private-type scheme. They consider that
Article 6 (Art. 6) was not at all applicable to the proceedings at
issue, but that if it was, then the Constitutional Court in declining
to deal with a case in fact has to form a view as to its merits, such
that the applicant had access to that court. They also point out that
the Administrative Court was bound to state that it had no jurisdiction
because of the nature of the applicant's complaints, and consider that
the Administrative Court's decision should be disregarded, with the
result that the applicant has failed to comply with the six months
time-limit in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. The Government
underline that the Constitutional and Administrative Courts are part
of the Austrian judicial system and the judges are independent of the
executive. As to the extent to which the courts review facts, the
Government point to the comprehensive possibility to review which they
say derives from Section 42 para. 2 (a) - (c) of the Administrative
Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz).
27. The Commission recalls that the civil guarantees of Article 6
(Art. 6) of the Convention only apply to proceedings in which there is
a "dispute" over a "right". There must be a right which can be said,
at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised in domestic law, the
dispute must be genuine and serious, and the result of the proceedings
must be directly decisive for the right in question (see, for example,
Eur. Court H.R., Mats Jacobsson of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 180,
p. 29, paras. 30, 31 with further references).
28. In the present case, Section 33 para. 2 (a) of the ALVG states
that it is a precondition for the grant of an emergency payment that
the unemployed person has Austrian nationality. The provision is
unambiguous, and the applicant did not contend in the domestic
proceedings that he had Austrian nationality. It must have been
apparent to the applicant from the clarity of the replies he received
from the Linz Labour Office and the Upper Austrian Labour Office that
ordinary law precluded a successful application for an emergency
payment.
29. The Commission finds that ordinary Austrian law unequivocally
excluded the applicant from the operation of Section 33 (1) of the
ALVG.
30. The applicant, however, made a constitutional complaint in which
he alleged violation of various provisions of the Convention and
Protocol No. 1, (P1) and Article 5 of the Basic Law of
21 December 1867, which guarantees the right to property. The
Commission must therefore also decide whether the allegations the
applicant made in those constitutional proceedings were capable of
amounting to the serious and genuine dispute as to the existence of a
right to the particular social welfare benefit at issue.
31. The European Court of Human Rights has found in a case in which
there were close links between underlying proceedings which were
"civil" and constitutional proceedings taken in the course of those
underlying proceedings, that those constitutional proceedings also fell
to be considered under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention (Eur. Court
H.R., Ruiz-Mateos judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 24,
para. 59).
32. The present case is different from the Ruiz-Mateos case. Whilst
in that case there were in existence proceedings which were undoubtedly
"civil" within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6), and the
constitutional proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the
underlying proceedings, in the present case, there were no underlying
civil proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention as the applicant did not have - even arguably - a right in
ordinary domestic law to the benefit he claimed (see para. 29 above).
33. In such circumstances, the constitutional proceedings can only
be regarded in isolation.
34. The subject matter of the applicant's constitutional complaint
was not an alleged right to a particular social welfare benefit, but
an allegation that the legislation which denied him such a right was
in conflict with the constitutional provisions of Austrian law,
including the Convention. Such an allegation is not, of itself,
sufficient to constitute a "right" in domestic law. In particular,
before the applicant could have benefitted from the allegation of
unconstitutionality, the Constitutional Court would have had to adjourn
the proceedings brought by the applicant for norm control proceedings
to be instituted, and those norm control proceedings would have had to
result in the quashing of the provision at issue.
35. That the applicant did not have a right to the contested social
welfare benefit in ordinary domestic law, is confirmed in that if there
had been a right, he would have been able to allege before the
Administrative Court that it had not been properly determined. As
there was no right, he was able merely to allege before the
Constitutional Court that he ought to have one.
36. In the context of the constitutional complaints which were made
in the present case, that is, completely divorced from any proceedings
to which the guarantees of Article 6 (Art. 6) attach, the Commission
finds that, for the purposes of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention,
the applicant was not making allegations that he had a "right" in
domestic law.
37. Accordingly, there was no "right" in domestic law, and the
Commission is not required to determine whether any dispute was genuine
and serious, or whether the outcome of the proceedings was decisive.
CONCLUSION
38. The Commission concludes, by 12 votes to 1, that there has been
no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
D. As to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention and
Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention
39. Given that the applicant was excluded from the operation of
Section 33 of the ALVG by law, such that he is complaining effectively
that Austrian law operates discriminatorily, the Commission will
consider his complaint under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention in
connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
40. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention provides as
follows:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair
the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary
to control the use of property in accordance with the general
interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions
or penalties."
41. Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides as follows:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground
such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, association with a national
minority, property, birth or other status."
42. The applicant considers that the right to an emergency payment
has its basis in private law since it results from the acquisition of
credits based on the period during which a person has been insured
under a private-law contract of employment. He considers it impossible
to justify the difference in treatment between Austrians and non-
Austrians when each has paid contributions on exactly the same basis.
43. The Government point out that the applicant did not fall within
the class of persons eligible for an emergency payment under the
legislation, so that his unsuccessful, public-law claims could not give
rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
44. In their submissions made subsequent to the Commission's
admissibility decision, the Government consider that the applicant was
in any event not entitled to the benefit claimed as advances on
pensions - not emergency payments as the applicant claims - can only
be made where a person is able and willing to work. The applicant had
applied for an invalidity pension on 29 October 1985 (before he made
the application at issue in the present case), and so in effect
declared that he was not willing to work on ground of alleged
infirmity. The application for an invalidity pension was finally
rejected on 17 August 1987 as the applicant was not infirm, and so the
request for an advance could only have been in connection with the
period to that date. Finally, the Government point out that after the
applicant left Austria he was in any event not entitled to an advance
on his pension, and would not have been so entitled if he had been
Austrian.
45. In reply to these submissions, the applicant confirms that he
applied for an emergency payment in the form of an advance on his
pension, and he refers to Sections 23 and 33 of the ALVG. He points
out that the application was refused on the sole ground that the
applicant did not have Austrian nationality, and that reference was
made to Section 33 para. 2 (a) of the ALVG. He considers that the
rejection of his application for an invalidity pension is irrelevant,
as the ALVG does not require repayment of advances where a substantive
request for an invalidity pension is refused. Had he been Austrian,
he would have received the advance. He adds that the only reason why
he left Austria was because he no longer had any means of support.
46. In connection with Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention, the
Government state that the legislature considered it admissible to limit
the benefit to Austrian citizens only, and that it did so in the
expectation that other states would look after the emergency needs of
their own citizens. The Government also refer to the difficult
financial situation.
47. The Commission notes that the social welfare benefit the
applicant was claiming, and which the Austrian authorities refused him
on the ground that he was not Austrian, formed part of the benefits to
which persons who have contributed to the relevant fund are, in
general, entitled if they comply with the statutory conditions. The
Commission considers that, as the obligation to pay "taxes or other
contributions" falls within the field of application of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1, (P1-1) the ensuing benefits also fall with the field
of application of that provision. Accordingly, Article 14 (Art. 14)
is also applicable (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Darby judgment of 23 October
1990, Series A no. 187, p. 12, para. 30).
48. Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention protects individuals
placed in similar situations from discrimination in their enjoyment of
their rights under the Convention and its Protocols. However, a
difference in treatment of one of these individuals will only be
discriminatory if it has no "objective and reasonable justification",
that is if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" and if there is no
"reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed
and the aim sought to be realised (above-mentioned Darby judgment,
p. 12, para. 31).
49. The Commission notes that the Government do not deny that Section
33 para. 2 (a) of the ALVG sets up a condition which excludes those who
are not Austrians, and they do not contend that the contributions made
by Austrians differ from those made by non-Austrians. They do argue
that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit he applied for on
grounds which were not discriminatory as they would have applied
equally to Austrian nationals. Thus they state that the applicant's
original application cannot have been for an emergency payment but must
have been for an advance on his pension, and they say that this must
have related to he invalidity pension he had already applied for. They
also argue that as he left Austria in 1987, an Austrian would
thereafter not have been entitled to a benefit, either.
50. The Commission notes that the Government do not proffer a
justification for the difference in treatment, but merely refer to the
fact that the Austrian Parliament deemed it admissible and necessary
to grant such benefits to Austrian citizens only, and they refer to the
expectation that other states would ensure minimum subsistence levels
for their own nationals, and to the difficult financial position. The
Commission finds no indication of a justification in this. If foreign
citizens are permitted to enter and to work in a country, and if they
make payments into the prevailing system of insurance on the same basis
as nationals, the difference in treatment does not appear to have
objective and reasonable justification within the meaning of the case-
law to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.
51. The Government have contended that the applicant was not - apart
from the criterion of nationality - entitled to the benefit he applied
for. The Commission would, however, note that the domestic decisions
without exception rely on Section 33 para. 2 (a) rather than any of the
considerations referred to by the Government. Moreover, even if it is
correct that from September 1987 the applicant had left the country and
so would not have been eligible for the benefit even if he had been
Austrian, there is no doubt that from 6 July 1987 until that date he
was in the country and was treated differently from an Austrian in
otherwise the same position.
CONCLUSION
52. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a
violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention taken together with
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
E. As to Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention
53. The applicant also alleges violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the
Convention.
54. In the light of its conclusions above, the Commission finds that
the application raises no separate issue in connection with Article 8
(Art. 8) of the Convention.
CONCLUSION
55. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that no separate issue is
raised in connection with Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.
F. Recapitulation
56. The Commission concludes, by 12 votes to 1, that there has been
no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention
(para. 38).
57. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a
violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ((Art. 14+P1-1) (para. 52).
58. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that no separate issue is
raised in connection with Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention
(para. 55).
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C. R. ROZAKIS)
(Or. English)
PARTIALLY CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING
OPINION OF Mrs. J. LIDDY
With hesitation I voted for a finding of violation of Article 6
in this case.
The majority are of the view that an allegation that the
legislation at issue conflicted with the constitutional guarantee of
the right to property is not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a
"right" in domestic law. This is because the successful invocation of
the constitutional right would only have resulted in the quashing of
the relevant legislative provision.
While I see the force in the latter argument, this seems to me
to relate more to whether the proceedings would have been "decisive"
for the determination of the applicant's right, rather than whether
there was a "right" in domestic law to begin with. It appears to me
inconceivable that the quashing of such a provision would not result
in the legislature taking fresh action to remedy a situation which, in
the eyes of the Constitutional Court, infringed a fundamental right of
an individual. On the facts of the present case, the position is even
clearer. Section 33(2)(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which
provides for the nationality condition, is clearly severable and the
offending words could have been deleted by the Constitutional Court,
without any lacuna in the law calling for legislative action. The
Constitutional Court could then have remitted the case to the
administrative appeal authority in order for a decision to be made on
the basis of the law as it stood in the light of the deletion, and the
applicant would then have obtained a decision on the facts of his own
case. Accordingly, a challenge to the constitutionality of the law
would have been decisive for the applicant's rights.
Moreover, the right in issue was "civil": the Commission has
accepted the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The right
was of a pecuniary nature. It is true that emergency payments under
the ALVG have public-law characteristics, but as pointed out by the
applicant, they are inextricably linked to the fact that the recipient
had a contract of employment. I note in this connection that the
amount of an emergency payment is assessed by reference to the
individual's entitlement to unemployment benefit, which is earnings-
related and funded partly from contributions.
The applicant was unable to obtain a hearing of his case before
the Constitutional Court, which declined to deal with the case. The
Administrative Court was not competent to deal with his complaint.
Accordingly, there was no fair hearing before an independent and
impartial tribunal.
For these reasons I voted in the sense indicated.
APPENDIX I
HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Date Item
_________________________________________________________________
17 May 1990 Introduction of application
29 October 1990 Registration of application
Examination of admissibility
2 September 1992 Commission's decision (First Chamber) to
communicate the case to the respondent
Government and to invite the parties to submit
observations on admissibility and merits
19 November 1992 Government's observations
8 January 1993 Applicant's observations in reply
11 January 1994 Commission's decision to declare the application
admissible
Examination of the merits
28 January 1994 Decision on admissibility transmitted to
parties. Invitation to parties to submit further
observations on the merits
2 March 1994 Applicant's observations
7 April 1994 Government's observations
27 April 1994 Government's further observations
8 July 1994 Applicant's further observations
17 May 1994 Commission's consideration of the state of
proceedings
18 October 1994 Commission's consideration of the state of
proceedings
11 January 1995 Commission's deliberations on the merits, final
vote and consideration of text of the Report and
adoption of Report
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy