Decision no. 46/2006

In 1938, the claimed real-estate property – which had been tilled with a one-story apartment house – belonged to the Jews A.L. and M.B. In November 1938, they sold the real-estate property for 12.000,- Reichsmark to Mr and Mrs W. The realization of the real-estate property transaction was only possible with a permit by the NS-authorities. M. B. was able to escape the country in March of 1939. In March of 1941, A. L. was deported to the ghetto of Modliborzyce. Her further fate is unknown. After the end of World War II., A. L. was declared deceased.

In July of 1950, M. B. and the heir after A. L. filed for the restitution of the real-estate property. In March of 1953, the parties terminated these procedures with a settlement. The injured owners renounced to the restitution of the real-estate property in exchange for the payment of 6.000,- Schilling. As a result, the real-estate property remained under the ownership of Mr and Mrs W. In 1958, after a partial refurbishment of the house, which had been damaged by bombs, Mr and Mrs W. sold the real-estate property to the City of Vienna for 180.000,- Schilling. In the early 60ies, the City of Vienna had the apartment house demolished and erected a school building on the real-estate property as well as on the bordering real-estate properties.

Since in accordance with the General Settlement Fund Law, the reopening of trials which had been concluded with a settlement is only possible under exceptional circumstances, the Arbitration Panel had to examine in detail the restitution procedures. In particular, the Arbitration Panel was to examine whether the parties involved in the restitution proceedings were on at least approximately equal terms during the restitution proceedings. In the opinion of the Arbitration Panel, strong situations of inequality, which highly complicated the pursuance of the interests of the applicants for restitution, can give rise to a reassessment of restitution settlements.

However, in this specific case sufficient indications of this fact could not be established. Both applicants for restitution had been legally represented and had concluded the settlement with the support of an attorney. In addition, at the time A. L. – the heir after the majority-owner – was residing in Austria. Also, no other indications of a head start of Mr and Mrs W. – as far as information is concerned – which could have lead to doubts concerning the equal terms between the two parties, were to be found. Finally, the striking difference between the settlement sum and the purchase price, which had been cleared by Mr and Mrs W. some years later, could be partially explained with the refurbishment of the house carried out after the conclusion of the settlement. Hence, the settlement concluded between two private parties was not to be assessed as being an extreme injustice. Therefore, the recommendation of the restitution of the applied for real-estate property had to be dismissed.