`  First: These so-called ``biographers`` are not legal-historians, who can understand the legal stance of countries, they are not experts on that field. Second: Hungary had own customs borders, own passport and own citizenship.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-hungary  The division was so marked between Austria and Hungary that there was no common citizenship: a person was either an Austrian or a Hungarian citizen, and no one was allowed to hold dual citizenship.[11][12][clarification needed] The difference in citizenship also meant tha there were always separate Austrian and Hungarian passports, never a common one.[13][14]  The Empire of Austria and Kingdom of Hungary have always maintained separate parliaments. (See: Imperial Council (Austria) and Diet of Hungary.) Legally, except for the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, common laws have never existed in the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary. All laws, even the ones with identical content such as the compromise of 1867, had to pass the parliaments of both Vienna and Budapest.    Despite the fact that Austria and Hungary shared a common currency they were fiscally sovereign and independent entities.[15] From 1527 (the creation of the monarchic personal union) to 1851 the Kingdom of Hungary maintained its own customs borders which separated her from the other parts of the Habsburg-ruled territories.[16] Since 1867 the Austrian and Hungarian customs union agreement had to be renegotiated and stipulated every ten years. The agreements were renewed and signed by Vienna and Budapest at the end of every decade because both countries hoped to derive mutual economic benefit by the customs union.   Austrians were always treated as foreign people and citizens by the Hungarian legal system and laws in Kingdom of Hungary. (and vica-versa)`