Decision no. 9/2005

In March 1938, the 54,000m² real estate, on which a late baroque castle and numerous farm buildings stand, was in the sole ownership of Marie M.-A. With a purchase contract dated 7 July and supplement dated 15 September 1938, Marie M.-A. sold the house to the "Reichsführer-SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei, Polizeiverwaltung" (Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the German Police, police administration) for a total purchase price of 580,000 Reichsmark. After the war, the French occupying forces took over the real estate and established the French High Commissioner's office in the building.

In March 1954, the three joint successors to Marie M.-A., Heinrich M.-A. jun., Maria B. and Flora P. handed over written waivers. In these waivers, they confirmed that the real estate in question was sold in 1938 by means of an proper purchase contract with the German Reich (police administration), that "the purchase contract was concluded voluntarily without any duress or other influence", the agreed purchase price corresponded with the true value of the object and the purchase price was paid, although late, in its entirety. Additionally, the heirs declared that they would not make any claims against the purchaser or his/her legal successors resulting from an earlier legal entitlement to restitution. In the course of the transformation of the State Treaty in 1955, the ownership title passed to the Republic of Austria in August 1957. The great grandson of Marie M.-A. eventually applied for the restitution of the real estate.

In the juridical appraisal, the Arbitration Panel had to examine whether the original aggrieved owner was politically persecuted in the sense of sec. 27 of the General Settlement Fund Law. The purchase contract contained no unusual clauses and otherwise was also equivalent to unobjectionable purchase contracts. Also, the additional certification that the original aggrieved owner was "Aryan", in the opinion of the Arbitration Panel lets the conclusion be drawn, that she had not per se belonged to a group of persons discriminated against or politically persecuted by National Socialism. As the Arbitration Panel was unable to establish whether Marie M.-A. was subject to pressure or the implementation of means of enforcement, these circumstances cannot be judged as actual discriminative actions. The application was therefore rejected in the absence of persecution of the original owner.