Decision no. 441/2008

In 1938, the real estate, on which a villa-type one family house was built in Vienna's 9th district, belonged to the owner of the sweet shop "Zum Zuckerlkönig" Franziska H. As a Jew, she was prohibited from continuing the company after the Anschluss. An administrator appointed by the National Socialist authorities ensured the "aryanisation" of the company, with six branches in total. In the course of the liquidation of the company, the real estate in Vienna, Alsergrund was sold to Emilie K. for 50,000 Reich marks by a liquidator, who was also appointed by a National Socialist department. Franziska H. was deported to the concentration camp Theresienstadt in 1942 and from there she was taken to the extermination camp Auschwitz, where she was murdered

After the collapse of the National Socialist Regime, Franziska H.'s heirs, her children Benno H., Elise Kö. and her grandson Peter F., filed an application with the Restitution Commission Vienna for the restitution of the real estate. The matter was settled in June 1950 by means of a settlement with the adverse party Emilie K. She was to return the real estate to Benno H., Elise Kö., and Peter F. In return, the applicants for restitution paid a sum of 20,000 Schillings to Emilie K. and took on a mortgage of 17,226.06 Schillings.

In July 1951, Benno H. Elise Kö. and Peter F. sold the real estate to the "N. R. G.m.b.H." for 300,000 Schillings. Wienstrom GmbH, through the City of Vienna, acquired it from them in 1999.

The present applicants before the Arbitration Panel, again Peter F and the sucessors to Benno H. and Elise Kö based their application on the assertion that the settlement in 1950 constituted an extreme injustice in the sense of the General Settlement Fund Law. That the applicants for restitution had to pay the "aryaniser" a sum of 20,000 Schillings and take over a mortgage with 17,226.06 Schillings outstanding was viewed as particularly unjust.

The Arbitration Panel has already pronounced in numerous previous decisions, that the cannot recommend the renewed restitution of an already previously restituted real estate

As the claim asserted before the Arbitration Panel has already been decided in the course of prior proceedings in favour of the heirs of the aggrieved owner, a restitution of the real estate could not be pronounced.