Decision no. 9a/2008

In March 1938, the 54,000m² real estate, on which a late baroque castle and numerous farm buildings stand, was in the sole ownership of Marie M.-A. With a purchase contract dated 7 July and supplement dated 15 September 1938, Marie M.-A. sold the house to the "Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the German Police (police administration)" for a total purchase price of 580,000 Reich marks. After the war, the French occupying forces took over the real estate and established the French High Commissioner's office in the building.

In March 1954, the three joint successors to Marie M.-A., Heinrich M.-A. jun., Maria B. and Flora P. handed over written waivers. In these waivers, they confirmed that the real estate in question was sold in 1938 by means of a purchase contract in proper form with the German Reich (police administration), that "the purchase contract was concluded voluntarily without any duress or other influence", the agreed purchase price corresponded with the true value of the object and the purchase price was paid, although late, in its entirety. Additionally, the heirs declared that they would not make any claims against the purchaser or his/her legal successors resulting from an earlier legal entitlement to restitution. In the course of the transformation of the State Treaty in 1955, the ownership title passed to the Republic of Austria in August 1957. The great grandson of Marie M.-A. eventually applied for the restitution of the real estate.

In decision Nr. 9/2005, the Arbitration Panel rejected the restitution of the real estate due to the absence of political persecution of Marie M.-A. In its present supplementary decision, the Arbitration Panel had to legally examine whether the applicant is eligible to file an application in accordance with the General Settlement Fund Law. The mother of the applicant – from whom the applicant’s claim would be derived – was herself however not a successor to Maria B., the joint successor to the original owner Marie M.-A. The further prerequisites for eligibility therefore needed not be examined and the application was dismissed due to the absence of the applicant’s eligibility.