Decision no. 416/2008

Application

 

Applicant, Status

Eva R. K., Rejection

Public owner

Stadt Wien

Type of property

immovable

Real estate in

KG Simmering (01107), Wien, Wien | show on map

Decision

 

Number

416/2008

Date

22 Apr 2008

Reason

In rem restitution already granted after 1945

Type

substantive

Decision in anonymous form

Press release

Press Release Decision No. 416/2008

Vienna, Simmering
The Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution has rejected a claim for in rem restitution on 22 April 2008 of a property owned by the City of Vienna in Vienna, Simmering. It had already been restituted to the aggrieved owner in 1948. Accordingly, the Arbitration Panel was unable to recommend a further restitution of the property, acquired by the City of Vienna in 1954.
In 1938, a property in the 11th District belonged 4/6 to Hugo H. and 1/6 to his brother Arthur H. In March 1939, Hugo and his family had to flee to England and from there they emigrated to the USA in April 1940. Arthur H. also fled to England in April 1939.

The parts of the property belonging to Arthur and Hugo H. were confiscated by the German Reich in November 1941 on the basis of discriminating National Socialist regulations.

After the collapse of the National Socialist regime, the parts of the property came to be administrated by the Financial Directorate for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland. This department of the Federation restituted the shares of the property to the original owners, Hugo H. and Arthur H. in April 1948.

In January 1954, Hugo H., Arthur H. and the remaining owners sold the entire property to the City of Vienna.

The current applicant, daughter of Hugo H. and successor of Arthur H., brought forward in her application that the purchase contract concluded with the City of Vienna in 1954 represents an "extreme injustice" due to the initial bad financial situation the sellers were in as a result of the National Socialist persecution.

The Arbitration Panel has already explained in previous decisions (e.g. 415/2008) that they are not able to recommend the renewed restitution of a previously already restituted property. The claim asserted before the Arbitration Panel has already been positively decided in a prior procedure.

For this reason, a recommendation of a restitution of the real estate could not be pronounced.
For use by media; not legally binding upon the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution.
For further inquiries contact: