ChapterVIII
DECISIONS OF NATIONA LTRIBUNALS
Austr ia
Austrian Supreme Cour t, Decision of 23 April 2014, 10ObS40/14a
C A F B E-
F U N O D C
V—E -A U N
S . () H A
UN —P H -
A
In 2014, the Austrian Supreme Court dealt with the claim of an employee of the
UnitedNations Oce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) against t he Vienna Regional Health
Insurance Fund concerning childcare a llowance. By decision of 29 Februar y 2012, the
Respondent had rejected the Claima nt’s application for childcare allowance for her daugh-
ter born on 15 January 2012, pointing to Sec tion39 lit. (b) of the Agreement between the
Republic of Austria and the UnitedNations regarding the Seat of the United Nations in
Vienna (hereinaer referred to as “Headquar ters Agreement”). According to this provi-
sion “Ocials of the UnitedNations and the members of t heir families living in t he same
household to whom this Agreement applies shall not be entit led to payments out of the
Family Burden Equa lization Fund or an instr ument with equivalent objectives, u nless such
persons are Austrian nationals or stateless persons resident in Austria”. e claimant, a
citizen of the Russia n Federation, challenged the Respondent’s decision to reject her appli-
cation for childcare al lowance, arguing that the exclusion provided for in Sec tion39 lit. (b)
of the Headquarters Agreement was not applicable in her case because her husband and
child were Austrian cit izens. She argued that the rejection of her chi ldcare allowance ap-
plication would subject an Austria n citizen marr ied to a non-Austrian UnitedNations
employee to additional nancia l burden, for which there was no justication. e Cla imant
further emphasi zed that despite her position as employee of the UnitedNations she did not
enjoy immunity or diplomatic privi leges.
e court of rst inst ance dismissed the clai m and stated that childcare a llowance was
encompassed by Section39 lit. (b) of the Headquarters Agreement. In v iew of the tax privi-
leges that the Claima nt enjoyed as an employee of the UnitedNations, the exclusion did not
constitute an unjusti ed dierentiation. e childcare allowance wa s nanced out of the
Austrian Fami ly Burden Equalization Fund to which employees of the UnitedNations did
not contribute. e fact that the Cla imant was the only family member who did not hold
Austrian citi zenship was not relevant. According to Section37 lit. ( f) of the Headquarters
Agreement, ocials of the United Nations assigned to Vienna enjoy “[e]xemption from