Decision no. 25/2005

In 1938, the claimed real estate belonged to the siblings M. R, Dr. H. H and M. W. Dr. H. H. and the family of the deceased M. W. had to leave the country to save their lives and had to sell all of the real estate which belonged to them. M. R., the third one-third portion owner, remained with her "Aryan" husband in Vienna where she found herself under house arrest. She was also forced to sell respectively to donate her real estate to her children which were considered "second degree half-breeds". In 1940 the "aryanized" G&W H company acquired the real estate – the size of 5,309 m² - in Inzersdorf for a purchase price of 58,000 Reichsmark. In 1943, V. O. who was a company partner acquired the real estate for himself. In 1949, the G&W H company bought the property back from V. O. for the total price of 150,000.00 Schilling. In 1947 and 1948, restitution claims for the real estate were filed by the families of two one-third portion owners, Dr. H. H. and M. W.. The one-third owner M. R. did not claim for a restitution. In 1949 and 1950, the heirs of M. W. and H. H concluded settlements with the G&W H company, in which they waived the restitution of their real estate portions.

For the Arbitration Panel there was no doubt that the siblings M. R., Dr. H. H. and M. W. were considered Jews in accordance with the Nuremberg Laws of 15 September 1935. Hence, they were persecuted for religious reasons and reasons of origin. In its decision the Arbitration Panel was to establish whether the real estate in Inzersdorf was sold in connection with the Nazi persecution of the co-owners. In the opinion of the Arbitration Panel, the fact that the sale proceeds were used to refund the succession tax paid by M. R. for her siblings does not alter the fact that the real estate was sold due to the persecution of the owners and hence represented a confiscation. Besides this, the Arbitration Panel had to establish whether prior restitution proceedings regarding the real estate portions had taken place. In this connection a distinction had to be made between the one-third property shares of M. R. and the two-thirds property shares of M. W. and Dr. H. H. The latter claimed restitution regarding their real estate portions. Both claims were concluded with settlements. The Arbitration Panel did not consider these settlements as "extreme injustice" according to the General Settlement Fund Law. Important for this assessment was the fact that the two-thirds owners deliberately waived their restitution claims since the sale proceeds had been used in their interest for succession tax payments. Moreover, the records on the modalities of the settlement conclusion did not contain any indications that the freedom of contract of the persons involved had been limited. Also a parallel familial dispute among the settlement parties about shares of the G&W H. company did not allow an according assumption. Hence, a prior procedure regarding the real estate portions of the settlement was extant.

Regarding M. R.'s one-third portion, a prior procedure could not be established. Hence, the Arbitration Panel regarded the claim of M. R.'s heirs as principally being rightly extant. However, the Arbitration Panel regarded an actual restitution as not practical since a communal building is situated on the property at issue. Therefore, the Panel will award a comparable asset after consultations with the City of Vienna.