1. The negotiations for conclusion of the Concordat had come to an end already on 5 June 1933, on which day the Concordat had been initialed in Vatican City.
Regardless of that, the Concordat was not submitted for further constitutional processing by the federal government of Austria for almost a whole year, because the National Council of Austria was considered suspended in accordance with the so-called "self-elimination" thesis represented by the federal government due to the resignation of all its three presidents, and beyond that, the acceptance of the Concordat could not be expected because of the majority relationships as they existed at that time within the National Council.
The constitutional processing, in accordance with article 50 of the federal constitutional law as provided for in the version of 1929 (RGBl Nr 1/1930), would have had to consist of the fact that the Concordat, being a political and law-changing treaty of the State, would have to be presented to the National Council for approval in order to attain its validity, in which connection the respective decision regarding the character of this State treaty, which simultaneously changes the constitution, can only be made in the presence of at least half of the members of the National Council with a majority of two thirds of the votes cast; besides, the decision of the National Council would have had to be submitted to further prescribed procedure (presentation to the Federal Council).
The Concordat was processed further only in conjunction with the development which led to the constitution of 1934, and that in the following manner:
While, up to that date, the repeatedly uttered request for another session of the National Council had always been opposed on the ground that it was impossible to convoke it because of the so-called "self-elimination program" and whilst, on the basis of this claim, one had governed by means of the enabling act for war economy which had originally been passed for certain exclusively economic purposes (RGBl. No. 307/1917), now all of a sudden, also based on this act, by a decree dated 24 April 1934 (RGBl. I No. 238/1934), the federal act concerning the rules of procedure of the National Council was amended to the effect that, although a president did not exist, the National Council was in a position to reassemble.
This procedure was absolutely unconstitutional. The Federal Government prevented through police power the attempt of the last-retired president of the National Council to revive this body by summoning the National Council anew in his capacity as the last president. On the other hand, the Federal Government had also constantly refused to use the possibility given by article 18, paragraph 3-5 of the Federal constitutional Law of 1929, to set the National Council going again through an emergency decree of the Federal president. Instead of this, in the meantime, all possible legal measures were based upon the enabling act for war economy, which was entirely contrary to the realm of authorization of this law and entirely against the constitution. An especially notorious abuse of the enabling act for war economy was the employment of the enabling act for war economy for the issuance of the aforementioned decree with which the rules of procedure of the National Council were changed.
As it turned out, the National Council summoned on this basis no longer had the composition with which it had emerged from the last elections; on the contrary it was only a rump-parliament, because all mandates of the Social Democratic Labor Party in the meantime were also declared void by a decree of February 16, 1934 (RGBl. I Nr 100/1934) also based upon the before-mentioned enabling act for war economy.
This rump-parliament assembled on 30 April 1934 for a conference in which solemn declarations were made by the Gross Deutsche Volkspartei and the Landbund—the two parties with outspoken National character—in which the constitutional legality of the whole procedure was expressly disputed, after which all delegates of the two named parties left the conference, with the exception of one delegate of the Landbund who at the same time was holding a public office, so that for the further discussions and resolutions only the before-mentioned one delegate of the Landbund and the delegates of the Christian-Social-Party and the Heimatschutz remained who together comprised only 76 delegates.
These 76 delegates now passed the so called Federal Constitutional Law concerning extraordinary measures within the jurisdiction of the constitution (RGBl. I Nr. 255/1934). Through Art. I of which the above mentioned decrees of Art. 50 of the Federal Constitutional Law of 1929 concerning the co-operation of the National Council in National treaties were cancelled. This constituted, in addition to the unconstitutional manner of the summons, a further very substantial violation of the constitution, in that—as has been mentioned already in the beginning—according to Art. 44, section 1, of the Federal Constitutional Law in the version of 1929, constitutional laws could only be passed in the presence of at least one half of the members of the National Council with a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, but the National Council consisted, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the election rules of 165 delegates and therefore the presence of at least 83 delegates would have been required in order to pass upon a resolution changing the constitution.
After the federal constitutional law of 30 April 1934 had also been presented to the Federal Council which for the same reasons as the National Council, held sessions as a rump body, and it had issued no protest, it was announced yet on 30 April 1934, causing the day of its taking effect to be 1 May 1934.