not covered by their claims, was redressed under the terms of Law 24.043. 11. After they had returned to their jobs, Ms. Perrone filed an administrative claim in April 1983, demanding her right to receive earnings for the aforesaid period; Mr. Preckel joined the suit in July 1985. The Technical and Legal Affairs Directorate of the General Tax Directorate and the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of the Economy declared these claims admissible. The Office of the National Treasury Attorney ruled that they be thrown out: this was because, although they might have been admissible under the text of Collective Labor Agreement Nº 46/75 and the statute approved by Decree Law 6666/57 since there was no specific provision indicating the contrary, Circular Nº 5 of 1977 from the General Secretary of the President’s Office restricted payment to situations in which it was authorized by such a specific provision. This opinion formed the basis for the decision of the Minister of the Economy, who dismissed the claims in Resolution Nº 75 of March 19, 1987 (Ms. Perrone), and Resolution Nº 1217 of December 17, 1987 (Mr. Preckel); these resolutions concluded the administrative proceedings. In the petitioner’s opinion, under the above-mentioned circular, “payment of indemnification based on the updated earnings that the agent should have received” could have been considered admissible, in light of the peculiar nature of this situation and because no negligence or blame could be attached to the agents. 12. The victims filed suit with the courts in June 1988. Ms. Perrone’s suit sought payment of the earnings not received between July 6, 1976, and October 19, 1982, of the days off that she accrued but which she neither enjoyed nor had credited to her, and recognition of her seniority for reasons related to social security and other purposes. Mr. Preckel claimed payment of earnings not received between July 6, 1976, and February 4, 1985, his share in the Incentive Fund, the days off that he accrued but which he neither enjoyed nor had credited to him, and recognition of his seniority for reasons related to social security and other purposes. The suits were based on Article 14.c of Decree 3413 of 1979, which justified the payment of earnings when agents of the General Tax Directorate were absent from work on account of weather conditions and proven instances of force majeure. 13. The petitioner holds that the judge introduced a completely spurious issue into the case and did not give a ruling on the factual and legal issues put forward in the claim. The petitioner claimed that in both cases, the first-instance judge stated that a suit against the State for 4