CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 octobre 1972

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  THE FACTS   The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows:   The applicant states that he is an Austrian and British citizen. He was born in Vienna in 1888 and is now living in London.   It appears that the applicant found out in 1970 in connection with certain compensation proceedings (Verfahren wegen Opferfürsorge) that allegedly he had lost his Austrian citizenship. He therefore requested the Local Office of the Vienna Government (Amt der Wiener Landesregierung) to declare that he was still an Austrian citizen.   By decision (Bescheid) of .. February 1971 this office found that the applicant had lost his Austrian citizenship according to Article 9, paragraph 1 (1) of the Austrian Law on Citizenship of 1945 (Staatsbürgerschaftsgesetz) because he had acquired, in 1948, British citizenship by way of naturalisation.   The applicant was informed that there was no remedy (Rechtsmittel) against this decision. However, he requested the Local Office of the Vienna Government to withdraw the decision (Antrag auf Widerruf). This request was rejected on .. June 1971. The Office stated that its first decision had been served on the applicant on .. May 1971 and was final (rechtskräftig) from that date.   Complaints   The applicant complains that he was deprived of his Austrian citizenship without even a fair hearing. He alleges a violation of Article 6 (1) of the Convention.   THE LAW   The applicant has complained that he was deprived of his Austrian citizenship. However, under Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) of the Convention, it is only the alleged violation of one of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention that can be the subject of an application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals. In particular, no right to citizenship is as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and in this respect the Commission refers to its previous decisions on the admissibility of applications Nos. 288/57, Ann. I, p. 209; 2226/64.   It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.   The applicant has further complained that he was not given a fair hearing with regard to the proceedings which he instituted in order to obtain confirmation that he was still an Austrian citizen. He alleged in this respect a violation of Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. The provisions of this Article, however, apply exclusively to proceedings which deal with "the determination of ... civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge". Accordingly, they do not apply to the above proceedings instituted by the applicant since they clearly did not determine a criminal charge brought against him and his civil rights and obligations were not involved as it is a prerogative of the State to regulate citizenship and the relevant rules constitute public law. The proceedings in question, therefore, were of a public law nature.   It follows that this complaint is also incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.