Decision no. 3a/2007

Application

 

Applicant, Status

Franz Karl E., Dismissal
Victor E., Dismissal
Elisabeth G., Dismissal
Maria H., Dismissal

Public owner

Republik Österreich

Type of property

immovable

Real estate in

KG Innere Stadt (01004), Wien, Wien | show on map

Decision

 

Number

3a/2007

Date

15 May 2007

Reason

Other grounds for the decision

Type

substantive

Decision in anonymous form

Related decision

Press release

Press Release Decision No. 3a/2007 to 3/2003

Vienna/Innere Stadt
On 15 May 2007, the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution has dismissed a new application for restitution of a real estate in Vienna, Innere Stadt, that on the cut-off date of 17 January 2001 was under the ownership of the Republic of Austria. However, the real estate had already been object of the Arbitration Panel’s decision no. 3/2003 and therein was recommended for restitution. The Arbitration Panel is prevented from pronouncing a repeated recommendation for restitution of the objective real estate due to the foregoing positive decision.
In the course of the National Socialist takeover, the Jewish owners had to the real estate in Vienna, Innere Stadt. In 1957, a settlement was concluded between the Republic of Austria and the applicants for restitution on account of the application for restitution, which was brought forward by the heirs to Heinrich and Flora S. In 2002, a new examination of this restitution procedure was applied for with the Arbitration Panel. In consequence, the Arbitration Panel assessed this settlement to be “extremely unjust” and in decision 3/2003 of 22 October 2003 recommended the restitution of the real estate in Vienna, Innere Stadt, which belonged to the Republic of Austria.

In 2006, one part of the original applicants asserted an additional restitution claim. The reason, which was brought forward by the applicants, was the wrongful distribution of the hereditary shares by the Republic of Austria during the restitution of the real estate.

In this particular case the Arbitration Panel had to deal with the fact that partially the same persons as in 2003 brought forward applications. Hence, the claims had been identical. However, a further claim for restitution of real estate shares, which priorly had been recommended for restitution, seemed to be unthinkable. If at all such a claim could only be directed against other current real estate owners. The case had to be regarded as decided since by decision No. 3/2003 the restitution claims concerning the same real estate had already been affirmed. The assessment of proportional rights of the inheritance did not represent and still does not represent an object of the decisions of the Arbitration Panel. Hence, the application had to be dismissed.
For use by media; not legally binding upon the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution.
For further inquiries contact: