Page 224 - Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2023. Glasbena društva v dolgem 19. stoletju: med ljubiteljsko in profesionalno kulturo ▪︎ Music societies in the long 19th century: Between amateur and professional culture. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 6
P. 224
glasbena društva v dolgem 19. stoletju: med ljubiteljsko in profesionalno kulturo
The key contours of freedom of association are given in the para-
graphs 6, 7 and 8 of the 1867 Act.22 Different to the previous state of affairs,
where the authorities of the state enjoyed discretionary powers to allow the
forming of an association and were not pressed into deciding by any time
frame,23 the new Act limited the authorities twofold.
Firstly, even though it was still within the powers of the authorities of
the land24 to forbid the constituting of an association, they could only act
this way if they found it illegal or constituting a threat to the state. Second-
ly, the authorities had to impose the barring in writing in a very short time
period of only four weeks after they had received the application. Failing
to issue the decision to bar the forming of an association within this peri-
od resulted in the association automatically starting with its legal life. That
was based on the autonomously adopted set of associations’ rules (Statuten,
Satzungen; pravila, statuti) that the authorities were presented with upon
the application, however according to 1867 Act without having the right to
discretionally impose concrete changes to the wording of the rules as was
the case previously. The presenting of the rules to the authorities amount-
ed now more to the act of notification and not to an application for confir-
mation of the rules, as one can still read it in the non-legal literature. This
point presented a very important symbolic post-1867 change, which the au-
thorities were keen to uphold. This was directly reflected in a somewhat cu-
rious standard wording that any association that was not barred received:
the association “is not forbidden” (“se ne prepove” or “ni zadržka”; “ist nicht
untersagt”). Still, if the decision to bar an association was issued, the appli-
cant could challenge it before the Ministry of the Interior within a 60-day
period. Already in the literature of the time, this procedural cluster was
conceptualized as ‘application model’, different to ‘concession model’ of the
1852 Act from the neo-absolutist era, closely associated with the Minister of
the Interior, Alexander von Bach.
22 Freund, Vereins-und Versammlungs-Gesetz, 51–2. For Slovenian readers, also An-
drejka, Društveno pravo, 183.
23 On comparing the major differences between the Act of 1867 and that of 1852, cf.
Freund, Vereins- und Versammlungsgesetz, 128–46, together with the text of the Act
itself. For Slovenian readers, also Andrejka, Društevno pravo¸ 192–227.
24 Another important change, that was introduced by the 1867 Act was, that the juris-
diction in the matters of associations was now in principle in the hands of the pro-
vincial authorities (Landesstelle) and not anymore in those of the state (Ministry of
the Interior). To the latter it only befell to decide in cases brought against the written
barring of an association by the provincial authorities.
222
The key contours of freedom of association are given in the para-
graphs 6, 7 and 8 of the 1867 Act.22 Different to the previous state of affairs,
where the authorities of the state enjoyed discretionary powers to allow the
forming of an association and were not pressed into deciding by any time
frame,23 the new Act limited the authorities twofold.
Firstly, even though it was still within the powers of the authorities of
the land24 to forbid the constituting of an association, they could only act
this way if they found it illegal or constituting a threat to the state. Second-
ly, the authorities had to impose the barring in writing in a very short time
period of only four weeks after they had received the application. Failing
to issue the decision to bar the forming of an association within this peri-
od resulted in the association automatically starting with its legal life. That
was based on the autonomously adopted set of associations’ rules (Statuten,
Satzungen; pravila, statuti) that the authorities were presented with upon
the application, however according to 1867 Act without having the right to
discretionally impose concrete changes to the wording of the rules as was
the case previously. The presenting of the rules to the authorities amount-
ed now more to the act of notification and not to an application for confir-
mation of the rules, as one can still read it in the non-legal literature. This
point presented a very important symbolic post-1867 change, which the au-
thorities were keen to uphold. This was directly reflected in a somewhat cu-
rious standard wording that any association that was not barred received:
the association “is not forbidden” (“se ne prepove” or “ni zadržka”; “ist nicht
untersagt”). Still, if the decision to bar an association was issued, the appli-
cant could challenge it before the Ministry of the Interior within a 60-day
period. Already in the literature of the time, this procedural cluster was
conceptualized as ‘application model’, different to ‘concession model’ of the
1852 Act from the neo-absolutist era, closely associated with the Minister of
the Interior, Alexander von Bach.
22 Freund, Vereins-und Versammlungs-Gesetz, 51–2. For Slovenian readers, also An-
drejka, Društveno pravo, 183.
23 On comparing the major differences between the Act of 1867 and that of 1852, cf.
Freund, Vereins- und Versammlungsgesetz, 128–46, together with the text of the Act
itself. For Slovenian readers, also Andrejka, Društevno pravo¸ 192–227.
24 Another important change, that was introduced by the 1867 Act was, that the juris-
diction in the matters of associations was now in principle in the hands of the pro-
vincial authorities (Landesstelle) and not anymore in those of the state (Ministry of
the Interior). To the latter it only befell to decide in cases brought against the written
barring of an association by the provincial authorities.
222
