4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Vienna. He worked as a civil servant for the Ministry of Economics and Labour (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit). 5.  On 23 August 2004 the Disciplinary Prosecutor (Disziplinaranwalt) of the Ministry of Economics and Labour reported to the Disciplinary Council (Disziplinarkommission) of the Ministry of Economics and Labour that it suspected the applicant of having committed disciplinary offences. The report indicated that the applicant had been working on a project for the implementation of an electronic administration system for foreign trade since 2001. The Disciplinary Prosecutor accused the applicant of not having conducted an award procedure (Vergabeverfahren). Furthermore, the applicant had allegedly placed orders without consulting the Ministry and asking for permission beforehand. He had thereby caused damage amounting to around 200,000 euros (EUR). Furthermore, he had disobeyed orders from the Ministry and subsequently tampered with the files. He had therefore breached his official duties (Verletzung der Dienstpflicht). 6.  In his submissions of 7 September 2004, the applicant contested these accusations. 7.  On 1 October 2004 the Disciplinary Council of the Ministry of Economics and Labour decided not to institute disciplinary proceedings against the applicant as it considered that prosecution of the reported offences had become time-barred. 8.  On 30 December 2004 the Appeals Commission at the Federal Chancellery (Berufungskommission beim Bundeskanzleramt) allowed the appeal of the Disciplinary Prosecutor and quashed the decision by the Disciplinary Council. It held that the authority had only learned about the applicant’s offences on 1 July 2004 and therefore prosecution had not become time-barred. 9.  On 25 January 2005 the Disciplinary Council decided to institute disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. 10.  On 7 April 2005 the Appeals Commission dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision. 11.  On 11 October 2005, the Vienna Public Prosecutor informed the applicant that criminal investigations against him on the grounds of suspected embezzlement had been discontinued. 12.  On 15 March 2006 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the Appeals Commission’s decision of 7 April 2005 (see paragraph 10 above). 13.  Meanwhile, on 20 December 2005, the Disciplinary Council had decided to summon the applicant to an oral hearing and specified the offences of which he was accused, namely the breach of official duties. 14.  On 28 February 2006 the Appeals Commission dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision. 15.  On 6 December 2006 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of the Appeals Commission of 28 February 2006. 16.  Meanwhile, on 1, 24 and 27 March 2006 the applicant had lodged three requests for the re-opening of the disciplinary proceedings on issues which had already been decided by the authorities at previous stages. He had further requested that the proceedings before the Disciplinary Council be stayed and that no oral hearings be held as long as the proceedings concerning his complaints before the Constitutional Court were pending (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above). 17.  On 7 April 2006 the Ministry of Economics and Labour ex officio placed the applicant in retirement as from 1 May 2006. It held that the applicant was suffering from a personality disorder, was not able to exercise his official duties and was therefore unfit for service. 18.  In spite of the applicant’s request to stay the disciplinary proceedings (see paragraph 16 above), the Disciplinary Council held oral hearings on 27, 28 and 31 March, 5 April, 2, 3, 22, 23 and 24 May and 28 June 2006. 19.  On 28 June 2006 the Disciplinary Council convicted the applicant of breach of official duties and imposed the disciplinary penalty of loss of all his rights and entitlements from his public employment. The applicant appealed. 20.  On 20 July 2006 the Appeals Commission rejected the applicant’s request for re-opening of 24 March 2006 (see paragraph 16 above). 21.  On 5 September 2006 the Disciplinary Council rejected the applicant’s requests for re-opening of 1 and 27 March 2006 (see paragraph 16 above). On the same day, the applicant lodged an application for transfer of jurisdiction to the superior authority (Devolutionsantrag) with the Appeals Commission. 22.  On 14 December 2006 the Appeals Commission quashed the Disciplinary Council’s decision of 28 June 2006 (see paragraph 19 above) and remitted the case to the Disciplinary Council on the grounds that the Disciplinary Council had not sufficiently assessed the evidence before it. It found several procedural errors and ordered the Disciplinary Council to appoint a psychiatric expert to establish whether the applicant could be held accountable for his actions. 23.  On 9 January 2007 the Appeals Commission rejected the application for transfer of jurisdiction to the superior authority and on 15 March 2007 it dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Disciplinary Council’s decision of 5 September 2006 (see paragraph 21 above). 24.  Between 21 September 2007 and 16 June 2008 the Disciplinary Council held several hearings, in the course of which it appointed a psychiatric expert to submit a report on whether the applicant could be held responsible for his actions. Since, despite several previous summonses, the applicant failed to appear before the expert, on 4 April 2008 the Disciplinary Council requested the expert to deliver his opinion on the basis of the medical certificates and expertises obtained so far in parallel proceedings. 25.  Meanwhile, on 23 October 2007, the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Ministry of Economics and Labour of 7 April 2006, and the applicant’s compulsory retirement became final (see paragraph 17 above). 26.  On 20 June 2008 the Disciplinary Council again convicted the applicant of breach of official duties and imposed as punishment the loss of all his rights. 27.  On 2 December 2008 the Appeals Commission quashed the decision again and remitted the case to the Disciplinary Council on similar grounds to those set out in its decision of 14 December 2006 (see paragraph 22 above). 28.  Thereupon the Disciplinary Council held oral hearings on 27 April, 5 and 18 May, 3, 4 and 10 June and 1 July 2009. 29.  On 1 July 2009 the Disciplinary Council decided that the applicant was not guilty of having committed a breach of his official duties. In its reasoning the Disciplinary Council noted that there were doubts as to whether the applicant could be held responsible for his actions at the relevant time. The Disciplinary Prosecutor appealed against this decision. 30.  By decision of 28 October 2009, the Appeals Commission upheld in essence the reasoning of the Disciplinary Council and dismissed the Disciplinary Prosecutor’s appeal. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Prosecutor filed a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). 31.  On 2 July 2010, after the Disciplinary Prosecutor had withdrawn her complaint, the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings and ordered the Disciplinary Prosecutor to reimburse the applicant’s expenses in the amount of EUR 1,106.40. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 3 August 2010. 32.  By judgment of the Vienna Court of Appeal of 25 May 2011 concerning the official liability proceedings instituted by the applicant, he was awarded EUR 4,608, corresponding to the costs of his appeals against the Disciplinary Council’s decisions of 28 June 2006 and 20 June 2008 (see paragraphs 19 and 26 above), which were both quashed by the Appeals Commission due to procedural errors and lack of reasoning (see paragraphs 22 and 27 above).