Imperial Estates Case

• Jurisdiction: Republica Checa
• Docket Number: Case No. 185
• Date: 10 June 1938
• Court: Obsolete Court (Czechoslovakia)

Czechoslovak Supreme Court.

Case No. 185

Imperial Estates Case.

Treaties — Operation of — Necessity of Municipal Legislation — The Law of Czechoslovakia.

The Facts.—The plaintiff, who was an official connected with the administration of the private estates of the Austrian Emperor, had been dismissed in 1913 as a result of disciplinary action taken against him. He now asked for a declaration that he was wrongfully dismissed and for the payment of his salary or pension from the date of the alleged wrongful dismissal. It appears that the plaintiff relied on a Treaty governing the matter and concluded in 1923 between Czechoslovakia and Austria but not incorporated in any Czechoslovak statute.

Held (by the Courts of all three instances): that the claim succeeded. The Supreme Court said: “It has been held in many decisions of this Court … that the Czechoslovak State has come into being in an original way and that it is not the legal successor either of former Austria, or of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy, or of the private funds of the former Austrian-Hungarian dynasty. It has acquired the estates of this dynasty according to Article 208 of the peace treaty with Austria concluded in St. Germain and Articles 1 and 3 of the Czechoslovak Statute, No. 354, ex. 1921. What took place was an independent and original mode of acquisition of property. It was only by the treaty with Austria1… that Czechoslovakia took over the obligation of granting and paying pensions to the former officials connected with the administration of those estates. It is true that no statute executing this treaty has been passed, but both Houses of the National Assembly agreed to it in conformity with Article 64, para. 1, No. 1, of the Constitution. … This consent need not be given in the form of a statute as long as no change of or addition to the Constitution is in question, in which latter case the consent would have to be given in the form of a statute amending the Constitution. This is not the position in the present case. As far as the treaty deals with a matter which is normally dealt with by the legislative authority, it is not necessary that there should be passed, in addition, a special statute, since the consent of the National Assembly to the negotiation and ratification of the treaty has already been expressed. It would be contrary to the intention of the legislator, expressed in Article 64, para. 1, No. 1,2 of the Constitution, if the legislative body, after having already...