CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 septembre 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                            AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 17517/90                         by Carl-Ludwig HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN                         against Austria             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 6 September 1991, the following members being present:                MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission,           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 20 September 1990 by Carl-Ludwig HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN against Austria and registered on 4 December 1990 under file No. 17517/90;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1918, resides in Brussels.   He is a son of Charles, the last Emperor of Austria. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr.   W. Bitschnau, a lawyer practising at Bludenz in Austria.           The present case concerns family and grandparents foundations (Familienversorgungs- und Avitikalenfonds) of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen which were established by Empress Maria Theresia. The foundations included real property and bonds.   Their regulations were issued in 1839.                                      I.             Charles, Emperor of Austria, abdicated on 11 November 1918.           On 3 April 1919 the Austrian Act on the Banishment and the Expropriation of the Property of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen (Gesetz betreffend die Landesverweisung und die Übernahme des Vermögens des Hauses Habsburg-Lothringen) was enacted.   The relevant provisions of this Act state (translation; German original appended as Annex):   "Section 5           The Republic of Austria is the proprietor of the entire movable and immovable property on its territory of the Court treasury as well as properties tied to the previously reigning House or a branch thereof.   Section 7       (1) The net yield of the property which falls to the Republic of Austria according to this Statute must be employed, after deduction of all costs connected with the transfer of the property or which arise for the State on account of this transfer, for the welfare of citizens whose health has been damaged, or who have been deprived of their breadwinner, in the World War..."           Section 2 concerns the banishment of the members of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen.           Paras. 2, 3 and 4 of Section 6 define the tied property referred to in Section 5 as being, inter alia, family foundations (Familienfonds) and perpetual entails in trust (Fideikommisse).           In 1920 the Austrian Constitution (Bundesverfassung) was enacted.   It was reenacted in 1929.   After a new Constitution was again adopted in 1934, the family foundations of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen were reinstituted in 1936 by an Act of 13 July 1935 (BGBl Nr. 299/1935).   The applicant's eldest brother, O., became their representative and head of the foundations.           Following a subsequent Act of 14 March 1939 (Gesetzblatt für das Land Österreich Nr. 311/1939) repealing the Act of 1935, the family foundation rights of the House were transferred to the German Reich.           By virtue of Constitutional Statute (Verfassungs- Überleitungsgesetz) of 1 May 1945 the Austrian Constitution of 1920 was reenacted in the form of 1929.   Section 149 of the Constitution confirms the validity of the Act of 3 April 1919.           On 6 July 1954 the Federal Act concerning measures in matters of trusts and foundations (Bundesgesetz betreffend Maßnahmen auf dem Gebiet des Stiftungs- und Fondswesens) was enacted.   It provides for resumption of the legal personality of foundations which were dissolved between 1938 and 1945.   However, according to Section 7 of the Act, in the case of foundations which were dissolved by Statute ("durch Gesetz"), the Republic of Austria is entitled to raise claims concerning the transfer of fortune.           As a result of the 1954 Act, the Republic of Austria decreed on 19 November 1954 that the real property which had been transferred to the Habsburg family foundations after 1936 fell back to the Republic (Rückstellung).           In Article 10 para. 2 of the Vienna State Treaty (Staatsvertrag) of 15 May 1955, the Republic of Austria undertook to maintain the Act of 3 April 1919.                                      II.           On 10 August 1985 the applicant's eldest brother O. transferred the rights and duties of his function as head of the family foundations to the applicant.           On 21 March 1989 the applicant requested the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) to quash as unconstitutional provisions of various laws, inter alia of the Acts of 3 April 1919 and 6 July 1954.           On 29 November 1989 the Constitutional Court rejected the request as being inadmissible, inter alia as the 1919 Habsburg Act which had obtained constitutional force together with Section 149 of the Constitution, could not be assessed on the basis of other constitutional rules which were created in the same constitutional act.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alone and taken together with Article 14 of the Convention, that the dissolution of the family foundations since 1939 constitutes a deprivation of the property of the family.   The Austrian Republic obtained this result by determining in the Act of 6 July 1954 that the Republic itself was entitled to raise claims, rather than the head of the foundations.   As a result, the Habsburg family is completely excluded from the family foundations, without having obtained compensation herefor.   The effects of this expropriation exist to this day.     THE LAW           The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), taken alone and together with Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention, of the dissolution of the family foundations.   The Habsburg family is excluded from the benefits therefrom without having obtained compensation.   The applicant submits that he is still affected by the consequences thereof.           However, Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention provides that the Commission shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 25 (Art. 25) which is substantially the same as a matter which has already been examined by the Commission and if it contains no new information.           In the present case, the Commission notes that on 14 December 1989 it declared inadmissible one part of Application No. 15344/89 as being outside the competence of the Commission ratione temporis.   That part of the application also concerned the applicant's complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 (P1-1, Art. 14) of the Convention that the dissolution of the family foundations of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen amounted to an expropriation of his property which was not followed by a prompt, adequate and effective compensation.           After examining the present application, the Commission considers that it concerns the applicant's complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 (P1-1, Art. 14) of the Convention that the dissolution of the family foundations of the House of Habsburg- Lothringen amounted to an expropriation of property without compensation having been obtained.   The Commission thus finds that the present application is substantially the same as the matter which has already been considered by the Commission in Application No. 15344/89, and that the applicant has not produced any relevant new information.           It follows that the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.             For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission               (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (C.A. NØRGAARD)