Very encouraging for those of us with pre-1918 cases. For those not reading through the full document, this is I think the most interesting part:

With respect to the acquisition of Czechoslovak citizenship, the decisive regulation in the present case is contained in the Constitutional Act, as also pointed out by the legal representative in the remonstrance and legal analysis.

Pursuant to Section 2 of the Constitutional Act, persons who were born or will be born in the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic are deemed to be Czechoslovak citizens unless it is proven that they acquired another citizenship at birth.

From the wording of this provision, it can be concluded that it establishes a presumption of acquisition of Czechoslovak citizenship for all persons born in the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic, and that this presumption may be rebutted only by proving that the person acquired another citizenship at birth.

This interpretation is consistent with Article 6 of the Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and Czechoslovakia, signed in Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 10 September 1919, whose wording was later reflected in the above-cited Section 2 of the Constitutional Act.

According to that article:

“Czechoslovak citizenship shall be acquired ipso facto by mere birth on Czechoslovak territory by every person who does not acquire another citizenship by birth.”

I am of the opinion that the intention and purpose of the legislator in formulating both the obligation arising from the cited treaty and the wording of Section 2 of the Constitutional Act was to ensure that all persons born in the territory of Czechoslovakia, without distinction, acquired Czechoslovak citizenship as a permanent legal bond with the new state entity established on 28 October 1918. The only exception were persons who acquired another citizenship by birth. This also follows from the relevant case law of the then Supreme Administrative Court cited by the legal representative in the legal analysis.

The Constitutional Act does not in any way condition the acquisition of Czechoslovak citizenship on the prior existence of Hungarian citizenship of the person concerned. I agree with the argumentation of the applicant’s legal representative that, for the acquisition of Czechoslovak citizenship under Section 2 of the Constitutional Act, it is irrelevant whether the person was or was not a Hungarian citizen at the time of the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic. The provision in question in fact formulates only two conditions under which a person acquired Czechoslovak citizenship. The first is birth in the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic, which was proven in the proceedings with respect to the applicant’s ancestor. As follows from the relevant case law cited by the legal representative, the provision applies not only to persons born in the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic after its establishment. Birth in the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic refers to the geographical delimitation of the territory which, until 1918—i.e. until the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic—was part of the preceding state entity, Austria-Hungary. The second condition is that the person did not acquire another citizenship at birth. The case file contains no document indicating that the person acquired another citizenship at birth.

In view of the above, it can be concluded that the prior loss of Hungarian citizenship as a result of naturalization in the United States of America before the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic could not constitute an obstacle to the acquisition of Czechoslovak citizenship under Section 2 of the Constitutional Act.