CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

JAN ONDŘEJ – MAGDA UXOVÁ CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ genuine connection, even if the person is a permanent resident of another State. On the other hand, the second interpretation could be directed to the tendency indicated in the Report of the International Law Commission of 2006, i.e. that no genuine link will be required between the State and its member. The end of the First World War represented the breakdown of the powers that historically played a major role in this territory, namely Austria-Hungary and the German Empire, which ceased to exist in 1918. The legal successors of the territory, subsequently emerged national states, solved many problems and fundamental questions, one of which was citizenship. As for the Czechoslovak Republic (the official name from 1918 to 1920 was the Czechoslovak Republic or the Czechoslovak State, from 1920 to 1938 the name Czechoslovak Republic was used), which was established in 1918 and as the First Republic existed until 1938, the question of citizenship was very important. Due to the establishment of the republic, the inhabitants living in the territory of Czechoslovakia changed by succession the state citizenship of Austria-Hungary into the state citizenship of Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovak legal system was merged, together with the existing Austrian-Hungarian legal order, by Article 2 of Act No. 11/1918 Coll., on the Establishment of an Independent State of Czechoslovakia – the Reception Act, which became the default norm 26 . Subsequently, the issue of citizenship was supplemented in 1920 by the Constitutional Act No. 236/1920 Coll. on Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship and the Right of Home in the Czechoslovak Republic, which retroactively regulated the issue of citizenship until the establishment of an independent republic in 1918. As far as the historical development on which the Czechoslovak legislation was based, the legal concept of the right of domicile (Heimatrecht) is a very interesting and important issue. This juridical concept institute consisted of the unrestricted right of a citizen to stay in his home village. An important part of the right of domicile was also the duty of the municipality to take care of citizens who became impoverished or found themselves in a difficult social or heath situation. For example, since 1863, the right of domicile had been regulated by the Imperial Act. 105/1863 on the right of domicile; § 1 stated that the right of domicile means that the person who possess this right can stay in their community without disturbance and if impoverished could ask for assistance. Citizens who had the right of domicile and lived in a particular community, could never be exiled or expelled. 27 At this point, it is also worth mentioning the obligation that every citizen living in the territory of a given state must have the right of domicile within its borders. According to § 2 every citizen of the state should have the domicile in one municipality. 28 This right could only be granted to them in one community. It followed that every citizen of Austria-Hungary had to have their home community within the boundaries of the monarchy, and they could only belong to one community at the same time. Subsequently, it was also established in § 2 of this Act that the right of domicile in the municipality could only be acquired by citizens, 29 i.e. foreigners did not have the right of domicile in the territory of Austria-Hungary. After the establishment of 26 EMMERT, F. Citizenship in the Czech Republic in the past and present. First issue. Prague: Leges, 2016. p. 23. 3. The issue of state citizenship after the creation of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918

27 § 1 The Imperial Act No. 105/1863, on the right of domicile. 28 § 2 The Imperial Act No. 105/1863, on the right of domicile. 29 § 2 The Imperial Act No. 105/1863, on the right of domicile.

72