Habsburg law

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Habsburg law
Long title: Law of April 3, 1919, pertaining to the eviction and the takeover of the property of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen.
Type: Federal Constitutional Law
Scope: Republic of Austria
Legal matter: Constitutional law
Reference: StGBl . No. 209/1919 StGBl. No. 209/1919. in ALEX
Date of law: April 3, 1919
Effective date: April 10, 1919,
with constitutional status: November 10, 1920
Last change: January 1, 2008
(Art. 2 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 1. BVRBG,
Federal Law Gazette I No. 2/2008 )
Legal text: Habsburg Act as amended in the RIS
Please note the note on the applicable legal version !

The law of April 3, 1919 on the expulsion from the country and the takeover of the property of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen , later abbreviated as the Habsburg Law , affects the rights of the Habsburg-Lothringen family and their branches in Austria after the end of the First World War and the dissolution of Austria-Hungary .

As a shortcut, found mostly HabsburgerG, particularly in the official range of laws and court decisions , in rarer cases, is HabsbG to find, mainly in literature and jurisprudence.

First republic

prehistory

Original signatures under the law

Old and new state

In autumn 1918, partly with reference to the Imperial Manifesto of October 16, 1918, political representatives of the individual nationalities of Cisleithania were formed; for German Austria this was the Provisional National Assembly . Most of the nationalities' representatives had already announced their objectives when the Reichsrat was convened in spring 1917. The Imperial Government in Vienna it was since then, as before 1914, failed to find viable solutions to the national problems that largely also Transleithania concerned (see also: the end of the Dual Monarchy ).

At the end of October 1918, large areas of Cisleithania fell from the monarchy, mostly through the establishment of new states, which took place without the consent of Emperor Charles . Formally, at the beginning of November 1918, he and his government were only responsible for German Austria and for the dissolution of the Joint Army . The emperor had nothing to counter the collapse of the monarchy, since the previous bracket of the multi-ethnic state, the common army, was also dissolved. The soldiers returning from the front and formally demobilized by Karl on November 6, 1918, made themselves available to the governments of the new states.

Waiver

Declaration of waiver by Charles I.

In German Austria , the Renner I state government , elected on October 30, 1918 by the Council of State , the executive committee of the Provisional National Assembly, wanted and had to rely largely on the administrative apparatus of the previous monarchy. She did not want to expose civil servants and officers to a conflict of loyalty and also not simply dethrone the monarch. They therefore sought on the unofficial liquidation Ministry called kk government Lammasch the agreement with the emperor on the termination of his government. At the same time, their state secretaries have already taken over the specialist ministries from the imperial and royal ministers.

The two Social Democrats, State Chancellor Karl Renner and Karl Seitz , Chairman of the Provisional National Assembly and the Council of State, as representatives of the new state, and above all Prime Minister Heinrich Lammasch, Minister of Social Affairs Ignaz Seipel and Finance Minister Josef Redlich as representatives of the old state, drafted a draft on November 10, 1918 (on On November 9th, the abdication and emigration of the German emperor had been announced) together the so-called declaration of renunciation , which was clearly formulated but avoided stimulus terms such as abdication (it was excluded especially for Empress Zita because of the divine mandate to rule). According to Redlich, Lammasch and Interior Minister Edmund von Gayer went to Schönbrunn on the evening of November 10th with the still unfinished draft and on November 11th at 11.10 a.m. with the completed proclamation of abdication (Redlich) to get the emperor to sign the took place at noon. (At 11 a.m., the German-Austrian Council of State had already decided to submit the proposal for the law on the form of state and government in German-Austria to the Provisional National Assembly the next day .)

The emperor removed his government from office (the formal act took place at 2 p.m. in Schönbrunn), renounced any share in state affairs, recognized in advance the decision that German Austria would make about its form of government and wished the people unity and conciliation for the people Reorganization. The emperor's declaration was published that afternoon in a special edition of the official Wiener Zeitung ; it also contained the draft law that was to be passed the next day.

The law was passed on November 12, 1918 and the republic was proclaimed by Franz Dinghofer on behalf of the Provisional National Assembly on the parliamentary ramp.

Attempt at revision

For the German-Austrian state government , the former bearer of the crown (as he was referred to in the Habsburg Law in 1919), who moved to Eckartsau Castle near Vienna on November 11, 1918 , was now a private person. A little later, however, the emperor himself interpreted his declaration of renunciation, contrary to its unambiguous wording, as if he had not renounced the throne, but had only temporarily withdrawn from state affairs. For Empress Zita in particular, it was impossible for the people to force the ruler's abdication by the grace of God.

Karl from Eckartsau wrote (quoted from Die Presse , February 2010) to the Vienna Archbishop Cardinal Piffl , whose support for the monarchy Karl had hoped for in the days before the declaration of renunciation : “... I am and will remain the rightful ruler of German Austria. I have never and will never abdicate […]. The current government is a revolutionary government because it has eliminated the governmental authority established by God. I would like to compare my manifesto of November 11th with a check which a mugger with a revolver is forcing us to fill out with many thousands of kroner. [...] After the army could no longer be relied on and we had left the castle guard myself, I decided to sign. I feel absolutely not bound by this. "

However, the Kaiser was far removed from political decisions in Eckartsau and could not mobilize a large following.

Departure of the former bearer of the crown

The lack of clarity about the future behavior of the emperor put the Renner I state government under pressure. At the beginning of January 1919 Karl Renner went to Eckartsau to persuade Karl Habsburg-Lothringen to leave the country. But Renner was not received by Karl and Zita because he had not registered according to the imperial ceremony. At the end of February 1919, following the intervention of the brothers von Zita, Sixtus and Xavier von Bourbon-Parma, King George V of England sent British Lieutenant Colonel Edward Lisle Strutt to Eckartsau as an "honorary officer" with a royal address of solidarity and an assurance of "moral support". The aim of the British mission was not to repeat the fate of the Russian royal family .

The Christian Socials now also advocated bringing the former emperor out of the country. On March 15, 1919, the Renner II state government , a coalition of Social Democrats and Christian Socials, was installed. She formulated the alternatives: Karl had the choice of either formally abdicating and staying with his family as citizens of the Republic in Austria, not abdicating and leaving, or, if these two options were refused, he would be interned. Strutt, who was informed of these alternatives by the state government, was able to persuade Karl to leave and organized this. The only remaining condition of the Emperor Strutt: "Promise me that I will leave as Emperor and not like a thief in the night." Switzerland agreed to take in the family.

On the evening of March 23, 1919, Emperor Karl I - in the uniform of a field marshal and "in full honor" - with his wife and children, his mother and a few others started their journey into exile on the imperial court train from the nearby station in Kopfstetten. In the morning hours of March 24, 1919, the special train came to Feldkirch . Theoretically from there, Karl revoked his waiver with the largely secret “Feldkirch Manifesto” (Brook-Shepherd: … published… without being made public… ) and protested against his dismissal: “Was die deutsch -Austrian Government, Provisional and Constitutional National Assembly since November 11, 1918 […] have decided and decreed and will continue to resolve, is null and void for Me and My House. ”Copies of the manifesto were sent to befriended heads of state; in German Austria, the manifesto was not published, as the top politicians in the Christian social community had urgently advised Karl against it.

The law

On the initiative of State Chancellor Renner, the Constituent National Assembly , which had been elected in the first general elections for women and men on February 16, 1919, passed the law of April 3, 1919, on expulsion from the country and taking over the Property of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen, later briefly called Habsburg Law . It was published in the State Law Gazette on April 10, 1919 and, in accordance with its Section 9, came into force on that day. (Also on April 3, 1919, the Nobility Repeal Act was passed.)

The former bearer of the crown living abroad was expelled permanently, the other members of “the House of Habsburg-Lothringen” only insofar as they did not expressly renounce their membership “in this house and all claims to power derived from it and as loyal citizens of the republic have confessed ”. The state, but in the administration of the imperial court seasoned hofärarische movable and immovable property in the territory of the Republic of German Austria (now the Republic of Austria) of state administration was assumed. The so-called private and family funds of the House of Habsburg and its branches, mostly joint family assets administered by the respective head of the house, were expropriated and made state property. Personal private property was preserved. The oaths given to the emperor as head of state were declared in § 3 as "non-binding".

With the Nobility Repeal Act, also of April 3, 1919, the nobility, its external honorary privileges, as well as all nobility titles and dignities in German Austria were abolished. The use of nobility denominations, titles and dignities was forbidden and made a punishable offense. With Section 3 of the Habsburg Law, the “use of titles and addresses that contradict the provisions of Section 1 […] was prohibited.” In contrast to the Nobility Repeal Act, this means that not only “leadership”, but also the use of and the address with "Archduke / Archduchess", with her lost title, as well as "Imperial Highness", is no longer constitutionally permissible.

After the Habsburg family had requested the disposal of various foundations and funds as personal private property and in order to eliminate any related ambiguities, the Habsburg Law was amended on October 30, 1919 - retroactively from April 3 - and expressly stated which funds or foundations were claimed in particular are considered expropriated.

Exception Burgenland

When the Austrian Federal Constitution came into force on November 10, 1920, the law was raised to constitutional status. However, the provisions of the Habsburg Law regarding expropriation were expressly not put into force in Burgenland in 1922 when it was admitted to the Republic of Austria. For realpolitical reasons, the Burgenland nobility at the time (including members of the Habsburg family) wanted to vote pro-Austrian. Since then, critics have doubted that the expropriation provisions as constitutional law, which thus no longer applied uniformly throughout the national territory, had legal validity in constitutional status since then, and were of the opinion that they were only to be regarded as simple legal provisions since then. However, both the legislature and the Constitutional Court assumed that it was still a matter of valid constitutional law.

As of January 1, 2008, the First Federal Constitutional Law Consolidation Act expressly stated that the constitutional provisions also apply as constitutional laws in Burgenland. The Habsburg Act and the Nobility Repeal Act are also affected.

Corporate state and time of National Socialism

In the Austro-Fascist corporate state , under Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, the Habsburg Law (without mentioning it expressis verbis ) was downgraded to a simple federal law in Section 56 (4) of the 1934 Constitutional Transitional Act of June 19, 1934.

Under Federal Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg it was changed on July 13, 1935 with the federal law concerning the repeal of the relocation and the return of the property of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen . With its § 1, § 2 of the Habsburg Law was repealed and the expulsion of the members of the Habsburg-Lothringen family was repealed. With Sections 2 to 6, the federal government was left to reimburse individual members of the Habsburg-Lothringen family or to funds to be set up for their benefit, at its own discretion, assets that had been transferred into state property in 1919. (The law made no statement as to the extent to which this refund should be made.)

After the " Anschluss " to the German Reich of Reich Governor issued Arthur Seyss-Inquart , head of the Austrian government, due to a Fuehrer order of Hitler on March 14, 1939, the law on the cancellation of the handing over of assets to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine with which the corporate state law of July 13, 1935 in its §§ 2 to 7 was repealed. With this, the Habsburg fortune fell again without compensation to the "Land of Austria", part of the Greater German Empire . The annulment of Section 1 of the Habsburg Law by the Corporate State Law, with which the ban was repealed, remained unaffected by the National Socialist Law.

Second republic

The Second Republic put the Federal Constitution 1920/1929 back into force in 1945 with the status of 1933. With the Constitutional Transition Act , all constitutional laws enacted between 1933 and 1945 and all simple laws that were not compatible with the constitution that was in force until 1933 were repealed, thus restoring the legal position of the first republic. The Habsburg Law of 1919 in its version of October 30, 1919 was automatically valid again; Both the changes made to the Habsburg law by Schuschnigg in 1935 and those made by Seyß-Inquart in 1939 were now repealed.

The Republic of Austria made reservations about numerous international agreements after 1945, so that these agreements are not fully applicable with regard to the members of the Habsburg family in Austria, for example the Convention on Human Rights and the Anti-Discrimination Convention . The latter was implemented into national law with the BVG on the elimination of racial discrimination of August 10, 1973. While Art. 1 regulates the prohibition of discrimination, Art. 2 states that the Habsburg Law and the exclusion of the eligibility for election as Federal President of the members of the Habsburg-Lothringen family remained unaffected.

State Treaty of Vienna

In 1955, at the express request of the USSR , the Habsburg Law became part of the State Treaty .

In the run-up to the treaty, there were clashes between communists and the monarchists known as legitimists in February . They wanted to hold a meeting, the communists occupied the hall beforehand and blew up the event, which was then dissolved by the police. A new meeting was banned in advance by the then ÖVP head of government, later known as Julius Raab , who would later be called the “State Treaty Chancellor” , who was concerned about the international attention it received. The trigger for this was Otto Habsburg-Lothringen , who attacked the draft contract at the beginning of January 1955 in the daily newspaper “ Salzburger Nachrichten ”. The aim of his agitation was the clause maintaining the Habsburg law.

In this context, the government at the time admitted "that numerous articles of the State Treaty were actually untenable," as the German news magazine " Der Spiegel " reported. The arguments of Habsburg and the Legitimists were countered by saying that “it is essential to sign [...] in order to have Austria evacuated by foreign troops. Later you can see how the question of Habsburg property is to be settled. ”The Vice Chancellor Adolf Schärf , appointed by the SPÖ , accused the Legitimists of a lack of patriotism and is said to have meant ironically:“ All those who propose to please the Habsburgs should be excluded If the draft state treaty is to be revised for any reason, I recommend starting the negotiations all over again. "

Chancellor Raab thus got into a quandary, as he feared that the ÖVP would split off from pro-Habsburg groups and lose the Chancellor's majority. In addition, Habsburg sought support abroad. Through friends of the Republican Party of the United States, he had succeeded in drawing the interest of the United Nations (UNO) on the subject. Habsburg asked whether the Habsburg Law anchored in the State Treaty did not violate the conditions for subsequent admission to the UN. Raab, concerned about the international agitation of the Legitimists (and probably also the Habsburgs) against the State Treaty, made a radio speech on March 20, 1955 and then, as mentioned above, banned the planned monarchist rally. Shortly before his departure in April 1955 for the last state treaty negotiations in Moscow, Raab was asked about Habsburg's objections to the state treaty and is therefore said to have replied: "Would he like to improve?"

Expropriation and attempts at restitution

The renewed expropriation of the Habsburg family funds in 1939 could not yet be contested, as the owner of the Habsburg property in 1938 (the fund) was not listed as a re-erectable fund in the Foundation and Fund Act after 1945, and therefore could not be re-established, and accordingly various highest court judgments of individual family members are not legitimized. Legitimacy would only go to the non-rebuildable fund.

The Habsburg family sought or is constantly seeking legal remedies against the property law provisions of the Habsburg Law: The financial claims (including castles, apartment buildings in Vienna and around 27,000 hectares of land with an estimated total value of 200 million euros) are considerable. Until now, however, they have been rejected or rejected for formal reasons through the rulings of the Austrian highest courts. From today's point of view, the legal question remains open whether the expropriation provisions issued in 1919 have fulfilled their legal purpose with the expropriation of 1919 and thus no longer have legal effect for further events (legal: are consumed) or whether they imply a permanent ban on return.

In the report of the Historians' Commission , which was active from 1998-2003, a ban on return was denied, while the Arbitration Panel of the General Settlement Fund (National Fund of the Republic of Austria) considered such a ban on return to be obvious.

The Arbitration Panel (decisions 5/2004, 6/2004, 7/2004) has declared that it is not responsible for applications by the Habsburg family for constitutional or international law reasons. The Arbitration Panel had spoken out against the demand for in rem restitution with reference to the new expropriation in 1939 under the Nazi regime (see section on the history of the law ), as the first expropriation had already taken place in the first republic.

Thereupon, in the name of the 'Familienversorgung 1936' association "for the application and administration of benefits from the compensation fund", the family provision fund of the House of Habsburg-Lothringens, as well as two family members, lodged before the Constitutional Court (VfGH) and the legislative motions "against the decision of the arbitration panel for restitution in rem dated December 6, 2004, No. 6/2004 “were rejected with a decision dated May 16, 2005. The reason for the rejection was given that the Arbitration Panel for In Rem restitution did not have a notification character; the rejection of the individual applications due to a lack of immediate and current concern or due to a lack of relevant explanations. Ultimately, it was justified that "only legal questions [were] to be decided that had already been clarified by the previous judicature."

According to media reports (e.g. Salzburger Nachrichten , February 2010), Carl-Ludwig and Felix Habsburg-Lothringen, Otto's younger brothers, lodged a (similar) complaint with the Constitutional Court against the decision (s) of the Arbitration Panel. In this case, the Constitutional Court did not consider itself to be responsible for formal reasons. The then President of the Austrian Constitutional Court Korinek had informed the Habsburg family of the possibility of civil legal action in order to clarify the question of the return of the expropriated property before the ordinary courts . This apparently based on the fiction that the family pension fund did not go under in 1938, and therefore could not be rebuilt and still exists. The family has not sought a decision from an Austrian authority since then.

discussion

In the discussion on the subject, proponents of the expropriation at the time point out that “the Habsburgs” were to blame for the First World War. The deprived property is only a symbolic compensation for the damage caused by the decision to go to war.

Proponents of the return of the family funds argue that the use of the proceeds of the goods for war victims, as provided for by the Habsburg law, is obsolete, since no victims of the First World War are still alive. They also claim that the Habsburg-Lothringen family was not to blame for the war because it was not a family decision. Emperor Franz Joseph I made this decision without advice or encouragement from family members. It is therefore a matter of clan liability, which is frowned upon today, and extreme unequal treatment, since no other Austrian noble family has been expropriated.

Karl Habsburg-Lothringen stated for the family :

“The assets were used for a widow's and orphan's fund - with the condition that they be returned when the widow's and orphan's fund is dissolved. The fund was dissolved in 1928, but the property has not been illegally returned. So, really wrong has been done here. "

Referral: Development since 1960

Habsburg crisis 1962/63

From 1960 onwards, several members of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen who had not yet done so, signed waivers. In 1961 the head of the family at the time, the emperor's son Otto Habsburg-Lothringen, signed it .

His entry was delayed by the Habsburg crisis : the Gorbach (I) federal government , which had to assess whether the declaration was sufficient and then had to involve the main committee of the National Council , was unable to make a decision because of the resistance of the SPÖ ministers to this entry grasp. The Administrative Court , which had been called on by Otto's government in default, recognized that the waiver was sufficient, while the Constitutional Court , which had been called before, had declared that it was not responsible because this was a political decision. There were controversial public and political debates, strikes and demonstrations against Habsburg, discussions about the divergent practice and the legal uncertainty that had arisen . SPÖ Justice Minister Christian Broda spoke in 1963 of a “judicial coup”, since the VwGH had decided not only in place of the government, but also in place of the main committee of the National Council responsible. The SPÖ and FPÖ therefore decided on July 4, 1963, against the will of the Chancellor ÖVP, an authentic interpretation of the Habsburg Law. The law had spoken of the state government and the national assembly in 1919. It has now been unequivocally clarified: The Federal Government, in agreement with the main committee of the National Council, is entitled to determine whether this declaration is sufficient.

Otto Habsburg-Lothringen returned for the first time on October 31, 1966 - at that time the Federal Government Klaus (II) was in office , an ÖVP sole government with an absolute majority in the National Council.

1980: no entry ban for subsequent babies

The entry ban in the absence of a waiver only applied to family members who were already alive when the Habsburg Law came into force, but not to those born after April 10, 1919. This was determined in 1980 by the Administrative Court at the request of Rudolph Habsburg-Lothringen , who was born the son of Karl and Zitas in Switzerland on September 5, 1919 (see also: Notes 4 to 7 on Lemma Rudolph ).

1982: no entry ban for the last empress

Without a waiver, the Kreisky IV federal government allowed the last empress, Zita Habsburg-Lothringen , to enter the country in 1982 because she was only married to the House of Habsburg and could never have claimed rulers' rights. The decision was attributed to an intervention by King Juan Carlos I of Spain.

1996: Entry ban becomes dead right

In 1996, the expulsion from the state only affected two people, Carl Ludwig and Felix Habsburg-Lothringen . Both made waivers under the Habsburg law; The Council of Ministers and the Main Committee of the National Council (unanimously) granted both of them entry permits. Since there were no other affected persons alive, the entry ban was now to be regarded as a dead right.

2011: Assumption of assets confirmed

With the 2011 Electoral Law Amendment Act (see following section), constitutional provisions relating to the Habsburg-Lothringen family were changed. This would have been a possible date to formally override § 2 HabsburgerG. On the other hand, it was emphasized in the 2011 law that, from the lifting of the exclusion of the “passive right to vote” for the election of the Federal President, “the law on expulsion from the country and the assumption of property of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen, StGBl. No. 209/1919, unaffected ”remains. This affirmation of the Habsburg Law could have been formulated to allay fears that the Habsburgs' admission to the federal presidential election could be a prejudice for the return of the expropriated family funds that they demanded.

In an interview in December 2013, Karl Habsburg-Lothringen described the Habsburg law as “complete nonsense” and compared it with the Beneš decrees .

Eligibility for Federal President

In addition to the Habsburg Law, Art. 60, Paragraph 3, Clause 2 of the Federal Constitutional Law (the constitution that came into force on November 10, 1920) concluded "Members of ruling houses or such families who previously ruled" until 2011 of the Eligibility (so-called “passive right to vote”) for the Federal President . With the 2011 Electoral Law Amendment Act, this constitutional provision was repealed by the National Council on June 16, 2011. As of October 1, 2011, the members of the Habsburg-Lothringen family are no longer excluded from the office of Federal President.

Legal history

literature

  • Wolfram Bitschnau: Return of the Habsburgs. The struggle to end the expulsion. Ares , Graz 2005, ISBN 3-902475-09-9 .
  • Michael Kadgien: The Habsburg Law. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-631-53359-4 ( publications on international and public law. Volume 60).

Web links

References and comments

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Neue Freie Presse October 26, 1918, p. 1.
  2. ↑ Josef Redlich in his diary, quoted in: Rudolf Neck (Ed.): Austria in the year 1918. Reports and documents , Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich 1968, p. 132 f.
  3. ↑ Gordon Brook-Shepherd: To Crown and Empire. The tragedy of the last Habsburg emperor , Fritz Molden Verlag, Vienna 1968, p. 254 f.
  4. ^ Vienna, November 11th. The emperor issued the following rally:. In:  Extra edition of the Wiener Zeitung. , November 11, 1918, p. 1 (online at ANNO ). “Since my accession to the throne, I have ceaselessly endeavored to lead My peoples out of the horrors of the war, for the outbreak of which I am not to blame. I did not hesitate to restore constitutional life and opened the way for the peoples to their independent state development. Still filled with unchangeable love for all of my peoples, I do not want to oppose my person as an obstacle to their free development . I acknowledge in advance the decision that German Austria will make about its future form of government. The people have taken over the government through their representatives. I renounce any share in state affairs. At the same time I remove my Austrian government from office. May the people of German Austria create and consolidate the new order in harmony and conciliation. The happiness of my peoples has been the goal of my hottest wishes from the beginning. Only inner peace can heal the wounds of this war. Karl m. p. Lammasch mp "Template: ANNO / Maintenance / ext













  5. ↑ a b c d Habsburg: The Hofburg remains firmly locked. “Why no family member is allowed to run for the office of Austrian Federal President. The ominous passage has existed since October 1, 1920. “In: DiePresse.com , February 19, 2010. Retrieved June 19, 2011.
  6. ↑ a b c Martin Mutschlechner: Eckartsau Castle: Emperor Karl on the way into exile. ( Memento of the original from August 28, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Schloß Schönbrunn Kultur- und Betriebsges.mbH (Hrsg.), 2010. Accessed on June 19, 2011. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / text.habsburger.net
  7. ↑ Gordon Brook-Shepherd: To Crown and Empire. The tragedy of the last Habsburg emperor , Fritz Molden Verlag, Vienna 1968, p. 252
  8. ↑ Gordon Brook-Shepherd: To Crown and Empire. The tragedy of the last Habsburg emperor , Fritz Molden Verlag, Vienna 1968, p. 266
  9. ↑ Gordon Brook-Shepherd: To Crown and Empire. The tragedy of the last Habsburg emperor , Fritz Molden Verlag, Vienna 1968, p. 290
  10. ↑ Quoted from Markus Benesch: The end of the monarchy and the beginning of the republic. Austria between 1916 and 1919. Diploma thesis, University of Vienna, 2003, p. 107. Taken from: Johannes Mattes , Michael Wagner: End and beginning of the Austrian Revolution - November 1918. (PDF; 62 kB) “A project as part of the course” PK Power in pictures, texts and media "", University of Vienna, winter semester 2006/07, p. 11f. Retrieved June 19, 2011.
  11. ↑ Gordon Brook-Shepherd: To Crown and Empire. The tragedy of the last Habsburg emperor , Fritz Molden Verlag, Vienna 1968, p. 299
  12. ↑ 8th session of the Constituent National Assembly for German Austria on April 3, 1919, Stenographic Protocol, p. 176
  13. ↑ Federal Constitutional Law, which changes the Federal Constitutional Law and enacts the First Federal Constitutional Law Consolidation Law. Art. 2, “Federal Constitutional Act to Adjust Federal Constitutional Law (First Federal Constitutional Law Consolidation Act - 1. BVRBG)”, Section 1, Paragraph 5 ( Federal Law Gazette I No. 2/2008 ).
  14. ↑ Federal Law Gazette II No. 75/1934 (= p. 159)
  15. ↑ Federal Law Gazette No. 299/1935 (= p. 1355)
  16. ↑ GBl.fdLÖ. No. 312/1939 (= p. 943)
  17. ↑ Federal Constitutional Law of July 3, 1973 for the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Law as amended in: RIS.
  18. ↑ Art. 10 Zi. 2 State Treaty of Vienna, entered into force on July 27, 1955, Federal Law Gazette No. 152/1955 : “Austria also undertakes to uphold the law of April 3, 1919 concerning the House of Habsburg-Lothringen . "
  19. ↑ a b c Austria / State Treaty: "Hot he an better?" In: Der Spiegel . No. 15 , 1955, pp. 31 f . ( online ).
  20. ↑ a b c d e f Maria Zimmermann: Dispute about the Habsburg inheritance.  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: Salzburger Nachrichten Online , February 12, 2010. Accessed June 19, 2011.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.salzburg.com  
  21. ↑ Clemens Jabloner, Brigitte Bailer-Galanda, Eva Blimlinger, Georg Graf, Robert Knight, Lorenz Mikoletzky, Bertrand Perz, Roman Sandgruber, Karl Stuhlpfarrer, Alice Teichova: Deprivation of property during the Nazi era as well as provisions and compensation since 1945 in Austria. Research report of the Historians' Commission of the Republic of Austria. In: final report. Summaries and assessments. ( Web link to PDF ( Memento of the original from July 1, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this note. On the website of the Commission of Historians.) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.historikerkommission.gv.at
  22. ↑ a b Decisions of the Arbitration Panel of the General Settlement Fund (search form) on the website of the National Fund .
  23. ↑ knowledge B62 / 05, G5 / 05, inter alia, the Constitutional Court of 16 May 2005, available in the legal information system of the Republic of Austria (RIS).
  24. ↑ Karl Habsburg: "To be emperor is not a job one strives for." October 28, 2018. Accessed February 23, 2019. 
  25. ^ The Habsburg Crisis - more than party-political disputes. The focus is on fundamental questions of the constitution and parliament. Parliament correspondence No. 743 of September 15, 2006 (online, parlament.gv.at)
  26. ^ Maria Wirth: Christian Broda: Einepolitische Biographie , Vienna University Press in the V&R unipreiss (Vandenhoeve & Ruprecht), 2011, ISBN 978-3-89971-829-4 , p. 254 (( limited preview in the Google book search)
  27. ↑ Federal Law Gazette No. 172/1963 , entered into force July 27, 1963
  28. ↑ Austria: Honor of the Altars , in: Der Spiegel news magazine , No. 45, November 8, 1982
  29. ↑ Short title Wahlrechtsänderungsgesetz 2011. In: Committee report of the Austrian Parliament . See Art. 1, Z. 4 Electoral Rights Amendment Act 2011: “(46) Art. 6 Paragraph 4, Art. 26 Paragraph 5 and Art. 60 Paragraph 3 in the version of the Federal Law Gazette I No. xxx / 2011 join Effective October 1, 2011. The expiry of the previous Art. 60 Para. 3, second sentence, allows the law on relocation and the takeover of the property of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen, StGBl. No. 209/1919, unaffected. "
  30. ^ Maria Zimmermann: Controversy about the Habsburg heritage , in: Salzburger Nachrichten newspaper , Salzburg, February 12, 2010, online version  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.salzburg.com  
  31. ↑ ORF.at Kaiser-Enkel compares Habsburg laws with Benes decrees.
  32. ↑ Today in Parliament: National Council repairs postal voting. In: Der Standard / APA , June 16, 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2011.
  33. ↑ Electoral Law Amendment Act 2011 - resolution of the National Council. ( Memento of the original from June 24, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: HELP.gv.at June 16, 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2011.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.help.gv.at

Remarks

  1. ^ Habsburg law became the official short title. The spelling of the Habsburg Law, which has not established itself as a short title either in legislation or in judicature, is used sporadically in literature and in the media (e.g. Spiegel , FAZ and Standard ).
  2. ↑ The abbreviation HabsburgerG can be found in the established jurisprudence of the Austrian highest courts VfGH , VwGH and OGH , as well as a short name for the norm in the legal information system of the Republic of Austria (RIS).
  3. ↑ The abbreviation HabsbG can be found ...