Decision no. 28/2005

The claimed estate belonged to the married couple G. in 1938 and was unencumbered. Having fled to England in 1939 – both were considered as Jews according to the Nuremberg Laws – their entire property was confiscated by the Gestapo. The forfeiture in favour of the German Reich occurred through the coming into force of the Eleventh Decree to the Reich’s Citizen Law on November 25, 1941.

In April 1948 A.G. and the estate after his late wife filed for restitution of the estate and the deletion of the liens for discriminating taxes in the land register with the Financial Directorate for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland. In addition, the claimants renounced “explicitly and irrevocably the settlement of proceeds from the estate”. The renunciation was repeated in the second claim for restitution in 1949. This second claim, although similar in content, was necessary, as the certificate of inheritances had not been submitted because the inheritance procedure had not yet been completed.

On June 30, 1950 the estate – severely damaged during World War II – was returned to A.G. and his daughter L.W., the heir to the late Mrs G. With regards to the deletion of the lien, the claimants were advised to appeal directly to the Land Register Court. In 1951, A.G. and L.W. sold the property to Dr K.G. for 145,000 Austrian Schillings. According to the sales contract, the property was transferred unencumbered. Dr K.G. then sold the renovated property for 9 million Austrian Schillings to the Republic of Austria in 1965.

The Arbitration Panel had to examine whether the earlier restitution in the condition described above and for which no additional compensation was awarded, presented a case of extreme injustice. The Arbitration Panel could not find any reasoning suggesting that the restitution authorities had not acted correctly with regard to the claim and in accordance with the First Restitution Law. As the claimants had renounced all rental income, such proceeds were not subject to the decision. The revision of the norms underlying the restitution decision does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Panel under the General Settlement Fund Law.