Talk:Constitution of Austria

Austria Top‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Vague rebellion"[edit]

the vaguely rebellious para-fascist movements

What does this mean? How can one vaguely rebel? Mr. Jones 12:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed that language and added some links. Martg76 12:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the federal cabinet answerable to the Bundesreg?[edit]

I don't understand this claim: "While Austria's federal cabinet is technically not answerable to the legislature". Article 74 B-VG states (in German): "(1) Versagt der Nationalrat der Bundesregierung oder einzelnen ihrer Mitglieder durch ausdrückliche Entschließung das Vertrauen, so ist die Bundesregierung oder der betreffende Bundesminister des Amtes zu entheben." This means that the National Council can pass a motion of no confidence against the cabinet as a whole or against individual ministers. I think you wanted to describe that the cabinet takes office immediatly after being sworn-in by the president. But article 70 (3) indirectly says that the cabinet has to present itself to the National Council within one week. I think this needs same clarification. 80.108.21.77 20:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) - forgot to login Ixi

Hi -- one of the principles of Wikipedia is to "be bold" and edit articles whereever you feel that they need revision. I didn't work on that particular section of the article, only some other ones. Since it seems that you are totally right, I suggest that you go ahead when you have time. Martg76 22:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The constitution OR the Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz?[edit]

Is this article about the Austrian Constitution in General or the Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz as the main constitutional document? While I think the article is about the important regulations in all the constitutional law in Austria the first sentence gives the impression it is just about the Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz; one gets the impression that the Bundes-Verfassungsgesetzt is THE Constitution of Austria; in fact, it is just the main document AFAIK. The reasons why I didn't change it myself are 1) I'm not absolutely sure and 2) perhaps the title Constitution of Austria is the correct translation for the B-VG (but I don't think so).

In my eyes this article should be about the constitution as a whole and not just about the B-VG. IMHO the first two sentences of the German version of this article describe it better:

Die Bundesverfassung in Österreich ist die Sammlung aller Verfassungsgesetze und ist in vielen verschiedenen Rechtsquellen zu finden. Das Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz 1920 in der Fassung von 1929, kurz B-VG, enthält die wichtigsten Teile des Bundesverfassungsrechtes.

quick translation, should be improved:

The Austrian federal constitution is the accumulation of all constitutional laws and is split into many different acts. The Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz 1920 in the version of 1929, abbreviated B-VG, contains the most important part of the federal constitution law.

I think you're right. It makes no sense at this point to have separate articles on different constitutional documents, meaning that this article should give an overview of the main structure of Austrian constututional law and not only the B-VG. Translating B-VG as "Constitution of Austria" would be overly broad. In that vein, we already have the section on civil and human rights. I think the history section also needs to make updated. So please go ahead if you have the time at hand. Martg76 21:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've rewritten the first paragraph, mainly by translating the first few sentences of the german version. I don't think the other parts need major corrections. Could someone with more competence in englisch-speaking law text correct my errors please. --Wirthi 13:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial and administrative review - source wanted[edit]

alright, "Austria was the third country in the world to have judicial review at all." i just trust it.

but: "Many European countries adopted the Austrian system of review after World War II." i'd really like a source for that. or rather multiple sources, because it's emplying that many countries copied a - in my opinion everything but unimportant - system from one country.--Forgivememydear 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want sources? How about that for starters:[edit]

Thomas Olechowski: The Austrian Constitutional Court as the Prototype of the European Model of Judicial Review. Speech at the Universidad Diego Portales, 17. Aug. 2007, Santiago de Chile. (He quotes Stourzh, Wege zur Grundrechtsdemokratie (1989), pp. 37ff, pp. 309ff and Kelsen, Österreichisches Staatsrecht (1923), pp. 208ff)

Zdzislaw Czeszejko-Sochacki, The Origins of Constitutional Review in Poland, 1996 St. Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic L.J. 15, 15:
[T]he European model of judicial review, based on 18th and 19th century ideals and significantly different from its American archetype, unquestionably derives from the Austrian Constitutional Court established by the ... 1920 Austrian Constitution.

Manfred Nowak (Vice-President of the Human rights Commission for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Professor at the University of Vienna and Director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights):
Austria was, therefore, the first country in the world which in its 1920 Constitution already established a special Constitutional Court (based to some degree on the experience of the Reichsgericht from the time of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy). This court has served as a model for similar institutions in many other countries, the most recent examples being various constitutional courts in Central and Eastern European States, including the Russian Federation and Georgia. (http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/1999/CDL-JU(1999)021-e.asp)

Anna Gamper, Judge Made Federalism? The Role of the Constitutional Court in Austria (2005):
The Austrian Constitutional Court is recognized as a historic prototype of constitutional courts worldwide. (http://www.costituzioniregionali.it/federalismi/document/20102005104516.pdf - cf. footnote 2 in particular)

John E. Ferejohn, Constitutional Review in the Global Context:
The United States is virtually unique in having judicial review, if judicial review means a system in which ordinary judges can review and strike down legislation. ... In every [other] case, the nations adopted the same model, pretty much. The choice was always what I shall call the Kelsenian model: specialized constitutional courts, populated by law professors ... Hans Kelsen, an Austrian legal theorist, deserves credit for inventing the model of constitutional adjudication that has become popular over the past few decades. (http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/legislation/articles/vol6num1/ferejohn.pdf)

Greil 09:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, all these scholars are wrong. At least, because the first ever Constitutional Court was established in Czechoslovak constitution, 29.02.1920. Austria did it afterwards, October 1920. That is a historical fact. But of course, lawyers from Czechoslovakia were mostly followers of Kelsen and other famous lawyers. So to me, it sounds more realistic and truthfull - Constitutional Court is a heritege of Austrian - Czechoslovak experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.253.173 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Olechowski, Thomas (2020). Hans Kelsen: Biographie einer Rechtswissenschaftler. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. pp. 271–305. doi:10.1628/978-3-16-159293-5. ISBN 978-3-16-159293-5. Errantius (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Landesgerichte[edit]

Those aren´t only courts of appeal but also the first level of jurisdiction in criminal cases that treat an element of a crime wich is punished with more than one year imprisonment and cases in civil Law with an amount in controversy of more than 10.000€. It would be nice if anyone could fix that up, because my English isn´t the best... --193.170.52.132 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Government responsability, constitutional revision, etc.?[edit]

"While Austria's federal cabinet is technically not answerable to the legislature (except for a motion of censure), it would be almost totally paralyzed without the active support of the National Council."

What is the difference between this and being "technically answerable to the legislature"? Afaik, when we say that a government is answerable to the legislature, this mean that the parliament has to power to destitute the government - and austrian parliament has this power (by a motion of censure). What is the difference between Austria and almost all parliamentary or semi-presidential systems in the world?

"Probably the most unusual and problematic aspect of Austrian constitutional law is the relative ease with which it can be changed (...) In reality, all that is needed is a majority of two-thirds in the National Council. "

This is unusual? Portuguese constitution could also be changed by 2/3 pf the parliament, and I imagine that many european constitutions requeire similar majorites to an Amendment.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]