Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Rana Haddad challenges a payment reduction imposed by the Graz Participation Benefits Office. She asks the court to cancel a €240 reduction and restore the withheld payment. The office asks the court to deny that request or limit any repayment to an amount supported by the record. 2. The hearing record contains the office’s course assignment and attendance record. It states that Rana was assigned to an integration course and did not attend. The provider-confirmation field is blank. The office says it has no separate reduction decision, no other record explaining why the assignment was treated as a usable place, and no payment calculation. The parties have had an opportunity to make final submissions, and the record shows no further evidence is available. Issues for determination 3. The court must decide whether the record establishes that Rana had a confirmed course place; whether the office had record support for reducing her payment; and whether the evidence supports the requested €240 restoration. The supplied rules place the burden of proving a claim for relief on the party seeking it. Rule 45 requires administrative decisions to have record support, and Rule 47 limits agency discretion where a decision is unexplained or arbitrary. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the harm proved. Submissions of the parties 4. Rana’s side says a provider email on her phone showed that the course was full and she was wait-listed. In the final submission, Rana’s side says she applied but could not attend because she was wait-listed. It argues that the reduction was unjust and asks for cancellation and restoration of €240. The email itself is not presented. 5. The office relies on the assignment and the recorded nonattendance. It also says Rana did not send the provider’s email to her caseworker before the reduction. The office acknowledges that its record does not confirm a place, that it has no separate decision or explanation establishing availability, and that it cannot show how €240 was calculated. It asks the court not to treat the full amount as proven. Evidence and findings 6. The assignment and attendance record is a presented office record. It is relevant and supports two limited facts: Rana received an assignment, and the attendance field records that she did not attend. It does not establish that the provider had confirmed a place. The blank confirmation field is part of the record and directly limits what can be inferred from the assignment. The record is repeated in several exhibits, but repetition of the same record does not add independent confirmation. 7. Rana’s account of the provider email is an allegation in her submissions, not the email itself or admitted testimony. It is relevant as an explanation for nonattendance, but its contents cannot be independently checked. The court therefore does not find that the course was full or that Rana was wait-listed. Nor does the court find that a place was available: the office’s own record does not establish that fact. 8. The office’s submissions acknowledge the absence of a separate decision, an explanation establishing availability, and a payment calculation. Those acknowledgments are part of the hearing record. The office’s assertion that Rana did not notify her caseworker is also in the record, but no separate notice record is presented. Even accepting that assertion for purposes of weighing the office’s argument, it does not establish that a course place was confirmed or explain the basis for the reduction. Reasons 9. On course availability, Rana bears the burden of proving her claim that she lacked a confirmed place. The assignment alone does not prove confirmation, particularly because the provider-confirmation field is blank. But the email said to show a wait-list is not presented. The court therefore finds that neither a confirmed place nor the claimed wait-list status is established. This finding does not resolve the reduction in the office’s favor: the office must still support its own decision with the record. 10. On the basis for the reduction, the office bears the burden of showing record support for its decision. The assignment and nonattendance are evidence that Rana was assigned and did not attend. They do not show that a place was available or that the assignment was usable. The office expressly says it has no other record explaining that conclusion. Under Rule 45, the decision is not adequately supported by the record on the central question that would make nonattendance a basis for reducing payment. Rule 47 likewise does not permit the court to uphold an unexplained exercise of agency discretion merely because nonattendance was recorded. The office’s point about lack of timely notice does not cure this gap: it does not establish availability or supply the missing explanation. This issue is resolved against the office. 11. On the amount and remedy, Rana bears the burden of establishing the requested €240 restoration. The office’s admission that it has no calculation does not prove that €240 was withheld or that this is the amount properly restored. No payment accounting or decision establishing the amount is in the record. Rule 6 requires relief to be tied to a proven amount. The court therefore cannot order payment of €240 on this record. This is not a finding that the reduction was justified; it is a finding that the specific monetary amount requested has not been established. 12. The office’s alternative request to limit repayment to what the record supports is consistent with the evidentiary limit on the amount. It does not, however, provide a basis to preserve the reduction itself. The court has considered the complete hearing record, including the final submissions, and does not treat either side’s unsupported assertions as proof. No adjournment is appropriate: the parties have stated that the email and payment calculation are unavailable, and further inquiry would not produce obtainable proof on this record. Final order 13. The challenge is allowed in part. The payment reduction is set aside because the office has not shown record support that a course place was confirmed or otherwise explained why the assignment was treated as usable. The office may not rely on the recorded nonattendance alone to sustain this reduction on the evidence presented. 14. Rana’s request for a specific €240 restoration is denied because the amount withheld is not established by a payment calculation or other accounting. No specific payment is ordered. This judgment does not find that Rana was wait-listed, that the course was full, or that €240 was in fact withheld; those matters remain unproven. The result is partial relief for Rana, with no monetary award established on the available record.