|
Date |
9th October 2019 |
|
Type of Act (name in English / in the official language) |
Decision of the Constitutional Court, E1851/2019 |
|
Enacted by |
Constitutional Court |
|
Reference to the Constitution (art.) |
§ 2 Annulment of nobility Act (Adelsaufhebungsgesetz) [constitutional law] |
|
Subject area |
Annulment of nobility |
|
If the act implements a source of EU Law: cite the relevant EU legal source |
|
|
Comment |
The Constitutional Court had to decide whether the finding, that the complainant was found guilty because he used “von” (as a title of nobility) in his name on his homepage, constituted a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights. The Court could not find a violation. Since § 2 Annulment of nobility Act is part of the Austrian Constitution further considerations regarding the constitutionality were not to be made. |
|
Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any) |
|
|
Available Text |
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20191009_19E01851_00 |
|
Date of entry into force |
|
Date |
1st October 2019 |
|
Type of Act (name in English / in the official language) |
Decision of the Constitutional Court, E1643/2019 (rejection of the complaint) |
|
Enacted by |
Constitutional Court |
|
Reference to the Constitution (art.) |
Art 7 and Art 144 Austrian Constitution |
|
Subject area |
Environmental impact assessment |
|
If the act implements a source of EU Law: cite the relevant EU legal source |
|
|
Comment |
Based on Art 144 the Constitutional Court may reject a complaint if there is no prospect of success. The complaint was based on Art 7 Austrian Constitution and claimed, that the Federal Administrative Court had arbitrarily construed a contradiction between Austrian Law and EU Law (Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment). Yet, the Constitutional Court acknowledged, that the Federal Administrative Courts´ reasoning was based on the jurisprudence of the ECJ. According to the Constitutional Court, such reasoning might be taken. It is reasonable to classify places which are listed as cultural heritage according to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage as particularly worthy of protection, and as a material criterion according to Annex III, No. 2, lit. c Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. |
|
Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any) |
|
|
Available Text |
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20191001_19E01643_00 |
|
Date of entry into force |