Decision no. 8/2004

In her application for restitution the applicant F. explained that all three real estate properties were confiscated by the German Reich due to the political persecution of the owners – the owners were the married couple F. and their son A. In 1939, the property in question was acquired by the German Settlement Organization (Deutsche Ansiedlungsgesellschaft, DAG), which was instructed by the German Wehrmacht, for the construction of the military training area Döllersheim. The real estate was located in the Lower Austrian municipality Allentsteig. In April 1939, the real estate of the F.-parents were acquired on behalf of the German Wehrmacht for 143,000.00 Reichsmark; the properties of their son already in March 1939 for 3,265. After the sale, the family F. remained in Allentsteig. From 1940 on, A. served in the German Wehrmacht and returned from captivity to Allentsteig in 1946. In 1949, both parents and their son claimed the restitution of their properties which were sold in 1939. In 1955, both procedures were ceded by the at first responsible Restitution Commissions to the Financial Directorate for Vienna (FLD). From this point on, the applications for restitution were examined in accordance with the Third State Treaty Implementation Law whether the sale to the Wehrmacht happened on the basis of “misuse of legal application” or “merely due to political persecution” of the concerned persons. In both procedures the FLD answered in the negative the existence of the prerequisites for a confiscation and dismissed the applications. Mr. and Mrs. F. appealed against this decision and emphasized the political persecution of their son. He became unpopular with the NSDAP – specifically with the village group leader (Ortsgruppenleiter) and mayor Fritz O. The persecution acts also brought discredit upon the parents, in such a manner that they saw themselves forced to sell their entire property to the DAG. In 1961, the application for restitution of Mr. and Mrs. F. was concluded with a settlement with the Republic of Austria. The settlement intended the restitution of one part of the former property, which was not used by the military. In the Sixties and Seventies, A. unsuccessfully brought several actions which among other things had the goal of annulling the settlement of 1961and the continuation of the parental restitution procedure.

In their juridical appraisal the Arbitration Panel was to establish whether political reasons of persecution were decisive for the sale of the real estate to the German Wehrmacht in 1939. The Arbitration Panel arrived at the conclusion that the construction of the military training area for itself does not represent a persecution and that also the realization of the real estate purchase in confrontation with Mr. and Mrs. F. does not contain any indications for a political persecution. In regard to A. the Arbitration Panel regarded a persecution as proven. Among other things, this assessment could be based on the fact that in the eyes of the NSDAP-village group A. was a “traitor” and also from the side of the NS-district authorities his “political unreliability” was held in front of him. However, the Arbitration Panel came to the conclusion that the actual property purchase by the Wehrmacht was in no casual connection to the according discriminations. A.’s property would have been demanded by the Wehrmacht anyway. Also the realization of the sale was carried out on way that does not make a discriminating treatment of A. recognizable. For this reason, the Arbitration Panel also did not recognize a property confiscation.