Effect and scope of an administrative rehabilitation certificate under the Unlawful Acts Act

The Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept the constitutional complaint for review, thereby leaving the lower administrative court's dismissal of the applicant's claim in force. The dispute concerned the scope and legal effect of an administrative rehabilitation certificate issued under the Unlawful Acts Act, specifically whether the certificate automatically erased all consequences of a prior unlawful administrative act or required a separate review of individual rights. The applicant argued that the administrative courts erred in limiting the restorative effect of the rehabilitation to financial compensation, whereas the state argued the certificate did not trigger a comprehensive administrative re-verification of all ancillary effects. The decision stands on the procedural ground that the constitutional complaint was inadmissible for lack of a substantive legal justification sufficient to meet the admissibility threshold under the Basic Law, without the Chamber issuing a reasoned substantive analysis on the administrative law issues.