Name of the act/s*

Administrative High Court 28^th February 2020; Ra 2018/01/0159 (EU 2020/0001) of 13^th February 2020, C-118/20 (Preliminary reference)

Subject area

Citizenship law

Brief description of the contents of the act

 A national of the Republic of Estonia applied for the Austrian Citizenship. The Government of Lower Austria ensured to grant her the Austrian citizenship in case she could prove within two years that she had given up the Estonian citizenship. The originally Estonian applicant gave up her Estonian citizenship and is since then stateless and no longer a citizen of the EU.

In the meanwhile, the applicant had moved to Vienna and the competent government of Vienna revoked the assurance of Lower Austria and rejected the application to become an Austrian citizen. The decision was based on the fact, that the applicant had committed two serious administrative offenses since the application and was therefore not fulfilling the prerequisites for Austrian citizenship (laid down in the Austrian Citizenship Act [StBG]) anymore. The applicant filed a complaint at the Vienna Administrative Court, which was rejected.

The Administrative High Court, the applicant then appealed to, decided to refer (amongst others) the following question to the ECJ: Does the situation of a person who has renounced the nationality of a member state of the EU and thus the citizenship of the EU to acquire the nationality of another member state and whose possibility of recovering citizenship of the Union is removed as a consequence fall within the scope of EU law, so EU law must be observed when revoking the assurance of granting the citizenship?

Comment

The Vienna Administrative Court found, that the case was not falling into the scope of EU law, because the applicant had already renounced the Estonian citizenship (and therefore her EU citizenship). Since the Vienna Administrative Court had carried out a proportionality analysis based on Austrian law and not on EU law, the Administrative High Court asked the ECJ whether the case fell into the scope of EU law (to find out whether a proportionality analysis based on EU law as well was necessary in the concrete case).

*Act citation /year and number

Administrative High Court 28^th February 2020; Ra 2018/01/0159 (EU 2020/0001) of 13^th February 2020, C-118/20

Enacted by

Administrative High Court

Official link to the text of the act

https://www.vwgh.gv.at/rechtsprechung/vorabentscheidungsantraege_an_den_eugh/ra_2018010159.pdf?7qkupl

Name of the act/s*

Constitutional Court 30^th September 2020; G 144-145/2020-13, V 332/2020-13

Subject area

Constitutional Law; Climate Actions

Brief description of the contents of the act

Several persons claimed, that several provisions of the (Austrian) Value Added Tax Act and the Mineral Oil Tax Act were unconstitutional because they violated (amongst) others the claimants’ right to equality (Art 2 Basic Law [Staatsgrundgesetz 1867], Art 7 Federal Constitutional Act), to life (Art 2 ECHR, Art 2 FRC) and private and family life (Art 8 ECHR, Art 7 FRC). Moreover, they claimed that Art 6 ECHR and Art 47 FRC, Art 13 ECHR and Art 47 FRC as well as Art 37 FRC and §§ 1 and 3 Federal Constitutional Act on sustainability, animal welfare, environmental protection, securing the water and food supply, and research were violated. The main reason for the alleged violations was seen in the promotion of climate-relevant emissions through the provisions addressed and in the fact, that the Austrian legislation did not comply with its duties to protect life arising from Art 2 ECHR.

The Court rejected the claim referring to its settled case law. According to Art 140 Federal Constitutional Act (B-VG), individuals can only bring laws before the Court when their legal sphere is touched upon. The Court did not consider the legal sphere of the claimants concerned since the Value Added Tax Act and the Mineral Oil Tax Act were primarily aiming at entrepreneurs.

Comment

The Austrian Federal Constitution does not contain a fundamental right to environmental protection. Yet, the protection of the environment is laid down in a state aim (Federal Act on sustainability, animal welfare,  environmental protection, securing the water and food supply, and research). This claim can be seen as an attempt to bring a healthy environment, and especially the climate emergency, before the Constitutional Court and to end the legal privileges of air traffic.

The Court did not accept the claim on formal grounds and did not change its case law regarding Art 140 Federal Constitutional Act (B-VG).

*Act citation /year and number

Constitutional Court 30^th September 2020; G 144-145/2020-13, V 332/2020-13

Enacted by

Constitutional Court

Official link to the text of the act

https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH_Beschluss_G_144_2020_vom_30._September_2020.pdf

Name of the act/s*

Constitutional Court, 1st of October 2020, V 392/2020-12

Subject area

Constitutional Law; Covid-19

Brief description of the contents of the act

In its decision, the Constitutional Court emphasized, that an administrative authority which enacts an administrative regulation (based on the COVID-19 Maßnahmengesetz [Act on Measures against COVID-19]) taking measures against COVID-19 has to be based on facts, which allow for the assessment of its proportionality. The enacting authority has to record these facts.

Comment

The decision of the Constitutional Court can be considered a follow-up decision since the Court already took a similar decision in July 2020 (14^th July 2020, V 411/2020). It is of significance because the Court is stressing the fact, that the administrative regulation has to be based on evidence and that this evidence has to be recorded.

*Act citation /year and number

Constitutional Court, 1st of October 2020, V 392/2020-12

Enacted by

Constitutional Court

Official link to the text of the act

https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH-Erkenntnis_V_392_2020_vom_1._Oktober_2020.pdf

Name of the act/s*

Bundesgesetz, mit dem ein Bundesgesetz über die Errichtung des COVID-19-Krisenbewältigungsfonds (COVID-19-FondsG) und ein Bundesgesetz betreffend vorläufige Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung der Verbreitung von COVID-19 (COVID-19-Maßnahmengesetz) erlassen sowie das Gesetzliche Budgetprovisorium 2020, das Bundesfinanzrahmengesetz 2019 bis 2022, das Bundesgesetz über die Einrichtung einer Abbaubeteiligungsaktiengesellschaft des Bundes, das Arbeitsmarktpolitik-Finanzierungsgesetz, das Arbeitsmarktservicegesetz und das Arbeitsvertragsrechts-Anpassungsgesetz geändert werden (COVID-19 Gesetz)

Subject area

Covid-19

Brief description of the contents of the act

The Federal law introduces a bundle of Federal laws aiming at fighting the Coronavirus pandemic: implementation of a special fond dedicated to combat the Convid-19; measures aiming at fighting the diffusion of the Coronavirus by limiting access to business premises and other localities; labour law regulations on reduced work hours and special permits for child care.

Comment

The Federal Law has been deliberated unanimously on a Sunday, (15th of March 2020) by the National Council and within 2 hours by the Federal Council, than signed by the Federal President and published on Monday, 16th March 2020.

*Act citation /year and number

BGBl. I Nr. 12/2020

Enacted by

Federation

Official link to the text of the act

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/I/2020/12/20200315