5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and died on 27 May 2014. On 24 October 2014 his wife, Mrs Schwab, was established as his heir. 6.  As of 1987 the applicant had intermittently received emergency relief benefits (Notstandshilfe) under the Unemployment Insurance Act (Arbeitslosenversicherungsgesetz). 7.  On 4 February 2008 the Vienna Prandaugasse Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarktservice) retroactively revoked these benefits in so far as they related to the period from 22 August 2002 to 31 July 2007, and ordered the applicant to refund the payments concerned, holding that he had not been entitled to them as he had been living in a joint household with his wife during that period. 8.  The applicant appealed, claiming that his wife had moved to her parents’ house in September 2000, and that they had been running separate households ever since. 9.  On 8 August 2008 the Vienna Regional Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarktservice Landesgeschäftsstelle; hereinafter, “the Labour Market Service”) dismissed the appeal. It held that its preliminary investigations had not shown that the applicant and his wife had terminated their joint household during the period in question. 10.  The applicant made a request to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) for legal aid to lodge a complaint against this decision. On 6 November 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the request for lack of prospects of success. 11.  On 6 November 2008 the applicant complained to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) about the Labour Market Service’s decision of 8 August 2008 (see paragraph 9 above), explicitly requesting an oral hearing before the Administrative Court. He contested, inter alia, that he had been living in a joint household with his wife during the period in question. 12.  By decision of 25 May 2011 the Administrative Court, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the complaint as unfounded. It held that the Labour Market Service had, in view of the evidence established during its preliminary investigations, reasonably assumed that the applicant had been living in a joint household with his wife. The applicant’s request for an oral hearing was not addressed. 13.  The Administrative Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 17 June 2011.