Published on 2 5 May 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 19475/20 Maximilian KÃœNSBERG SARRE against Austria and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 7 May 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants are all members of the same family: the first and the fourth applicant are brothers. The second applicant is the wife of the fourth applicant. The third applicant is their son (see table below).

The applicants submit that they never belonged to nobility, but that their ancestor Ralph von Künsberg Sarre invented their family name when emigrating to the United States in 1961. The first, third and fourth applicants have been bearing this name since birth (in 1975, 2001 and 1969, respectively). The second applicant took on her husband ’ s last name at their marriage in the year 2000.

On 14 and 20 September 2018, respectively, the Graz Municipality decided that the first, second and fourth applicants ’ last name was to be rectified ex officio from “von Künsberg Sarre ” to “ Künsberg Sarre ”. The third applicant applied for an identity card ( Personalausweis ) issued on the name of “von Künsberg Sarre ”, which the Austrian Consul in Munich dismissed on 12 October 2017. The authorities based their respective decisions on sections 1 and 2 of the 1919 Abolition of Nobility Act ( Adelsaufhebungsgesetz – “the AAG”, a constitutional law), and sections 1 and 2 of the 1919 Enforcement Instruction ( Vollzugsanweisung ) of the AAG.

The applicants ’ appeals against these decisions were dismissed by the Styria Regional Administrative Court ( Landesverwaltungsgericht ) on 5 and 6 February 2019, respectively. The Constitutional Court ( Verfassungsgerichtshof ) rejected dealing with their complaints on 11 June 2019. The Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) rejected their requests for revision on 15 October and 14 November 2019, respectively.

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that these decisions violated their right to bear their name. In particular, they argue that the prefix “von” had nothing to do with nobility, but formed part of their name. Under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8, they complain that other prepositions such as “van”, “de” and “von der” were excluded from the scope of application of the AAG without objective justification.

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1 .

19475/20

Künsberg Sarre v. Austria

23/04/2020

Maximilian KÃœNSBERG SARRE 1975 Perchtoldsdorf Austrian

Wolfram PROKSCH

2.

20149/20

Künsberg Sarre v. Austria

07/05/2020

Michaela KÃœNSBERG SARRE 1969 Fellbach Austrian

Wolfram PROKSCH

3.

20153/20

Künsberg Sarre v. Austria

07/05/2020

Nikolaus KÃœNSBERG SARRE 2001 Fellbach Austrian

Wolfram PROKSCH

4.

20157/20

Künsberg Sarre v. Austria

07/05/2020

Thomas Martin KÃœNSBERG SARRE 1969 Fellbach Austrian

Wolfram PROKSCH

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Daróczy v. Hungary , no. 44378/05, § 34, 1 July 2008)? Was, in this context, the individual situation of each applicant properly assessed?

2. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their right to bear a name under Article 8 of the Convention, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison to Austrian citizens who bear other prefixes as a part of their last name? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?