4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Traun. 5.  The applicant was employed as a civil servant of the Traun Municipality (Stadtgemeinde Traun). 6.  On 5 August 2002 the applicant declared to resign from his civil service employment as of 31 August 2002. However, on 29 August 2002 he revoked his declaration. 7.  On 12 September 2002 the mayor of Traun informed the applicant that the Traun City Council (Stadtrat) had not been able to accept his revocation and that his employment as a civil servant had therefore ended on 31 August 2002. 8.  On 26 September 2003 the applicant requested that his employment relationship be declared as still valid. On 11 December 2003 the City Council dismissed the request. 9.  On 30 December 2003 the applicant appealed. On 15 January 2004 he requested that suspensive effect be granted in respect of his appeal. On 18 May 2004 he requested that the City Council declare him entitled to (retroactive) payment of his salary as from 1 September 2002. 10.  On 18 June 2004 the Traun Municipal Council (Gemeinderat) dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicant was not entitled to his salary after 31 August 2002 and rejected his request for suspensive effect of 15 January 2004 as having been filed out of time. 11.  On 8 July 2004 the applicant filed an objection (Vorstellung) against the Municipal Council’s decision of 18 June 2004. On 24 June 2005 the Upper Austria Regional Government (hereinafter, “the Regional Government”) quashed the Municipal Council’s decision in the part rejecting the applicant’s request for suspensive effect of 15 June 2004 (see paragraph 9 above) and referred it back to the lower instance for a new decision. The remainder of the applicant’s objection was dismissed. 12.  On 5 August 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against the Regional Government’s decision of 24 June 2005. On 25 September 2006 the Constitutional Court declined to examine the complaint and on 15 November 2006, at the applicant’s request, transferred the complaint to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). 13.  On 15 November 2007 the Administrative Court lifted the Regional Government’s decision of 24 June 2005 (see paragraph 11 above) on the ground that it had not heard the applicant in order to assess his credibility. 14.  On 4 March 2008 the Regional Government lifted the Municipal Council’s decision of 18 June 2004 (see paragraph 10 above) and referred the case back to the lower instance for a new decision. 15.  On 3 December 2006 the applicant complained to the Administrative Court about the Municipal Council’s failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde) on his request for suspensive effect of 15 January 2004 (see paragraph  9  above). On 31 January 2007 the Administrative Court rejected the complaint because the Municipal Council had not been competent to decide on this issue. 16.  On 25 June 2007 the applicant filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) with the Municipal Council regarding his request of 15 January 2004, claiming that the City Council had failed to render a decision in due time. 17.  On 4 January 2008 the applicant complained to the Administrative Court about the Municipal Council’s failure to decide on his request for suspensive effect. 18.  On 27 June 2008 the Municipal Council dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the City Council’s decision of 11 December 2003 (see paragraph 8 above) and his request for suspensive effect of 15 January 2004 (see paragraph 9 above). Consequently, on 5 September 2008 the Administrative Court closed the proceedings regarding the applicant’s complaint of 4 January 2008 about the Municipal Council’s failure to decide (see paragraph 17 above) and awarded costs to the applicant. 19.  On 7 July 2008 the applicant filed an objection with the Regional Government against the Municipal Council’s decision of 27 June 2008. 20.  On 4 February 2009 the applicant complained to the Administrative Court about the Regional Government’s failure to decide on his objection. On 9 February 2009 the Regional Government dismissed the objection. Therefore, on 13 March 2009 the Administrative Court closed the proceedings regarding the Regional Government’s failure to decide and awarded costs to the applicant. 21.  On 25 March 2009 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court against the Regional Government’s decision of 9 February 2009 (see paragraph 20 above). On 29 November 2010 the Constitutional Court declined to examine the complaint and on 27 January 2011, at the applicant’s request, transferred the complaint to the Administrative Court. 22.  On 25 January 2012 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint against the Regional Government’s decision of 9 February 2009. The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 9 February 2012.