Decision no. 443/2008

In 1938, the property on the "Schwaiberalm" in Grundlsee was owned by the heirs of the industrialist Isidor M., who passed away in 1930 - Stefan M., Marie K., Käthe B., Heinrich M., Lorenz M., Konrad M., and Anna M., who were considered Jews according to the Nuremberg Laws. The property, an alpine hut and areas of meadow, were forfeited to the German Reich in 1941 after all co-owners had fled abroad. From 1941, the alpine hut, which had previously been used by the family M. as a summer retreat was extended by the Technical Flying School in Wischau, Mähren and used by the soldiers of the air force as a relaxation and skiing resort. Eventually in 1944, the property was handed over to the Technical Flying School for the estimated value of 4,462.80 Reichsmark by means of an assignment agreement from the Chief Finance President Oberdonau. This amount was transferred to the headquarters of the Reich Bank Vienna as a partial debt repayment, which - as the National Bank of Austria - had had a claim of 755,000 Schilling against the estate of Isidor M. since 1930.

In 1948, Marie K., Käthe B., Heinrich M., Lorenz M., Michael M. (formerly Konrad M.), Anna W., neé M., and the children of Stephan M., Andreas M., Elisabeth M. and Karl M., all murdered in a National Socialist camp, applied for the restitution of the property from the German Reich at the Restitution Commission Linz. In 1952, the Restitution Commission confirmed the nullity of the assignment agreement of 1944. In June 1953, a settlement took place between Marie K., to whom the restitution claims of the other applicants had been transferred and the German Reich, represented by the representative in absentia: in exchange for a payment of 22,500 Schilling to Marie K., the property remained in the ownership of the German Reich and was conveyed to the Republic of Austria after the State Treaty of 1955. On 17 January 2001, the property was still owned by the Republic of Austria (Federal Forestry Office).

The Arbitration Panel had to examine the question of an "extreme injustice" asserted by the current applicants. In the present case however, the Arbitration Panel reached a difference in value of around only 12 % between a hypothetical restitution judgement and the settlement amount; sufficient limitations on freedom of contract were also unprovable. Therefore, both criteria that would have been able to establish the existence of an extreme injustice were rather weakly developed. For these reasons, it was not possible to pronounce a recommendation for the restitution of this property.