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)