Decision no. WA3/2008

In 1938, the Jewish Community Deutschkreutz and two associations belonging to the Jewish Community owned several properties on which a Torah School, the Synagogue and other buildings were situated. By decision of the Reich Governor in Lower Danube of 25 July 1940, the Jewish Community Deutschkreutz was dissolved and affiliated with the Jewish Community Vienna. For the most part, the location of the religious objects and other assets of the Jewish Community after its dissolution remains unknown.

In 1938, the Chief Rabbi of the Jewish Community Deutschkreutz was able to emigrate to the USA where, with other former members of the Community, he founded the association filing the application at issue.

After 1945, the Zweites Rückstellungsgesetz (“Second Restitution Act”) entitled the existing Jewish Communities to assert the restitution claims of legal entities which were dissolved within the scope of the Jewish Religious Communities. As no new Jewish Community was founded in Deutschkreutz, the Jewish Community Vienna was entitled to file applications pursuant to the Restitution Acts. By decisions of the Restitution Commission at the Provincial Court for Civil Matters Vienna in January 1952, the four properties at issue were restituted to the Jewish Community Vienna.

In decision 411/2007, the Arbitration Panel could see no reason to deviate from this legal situation by affirming the legal succession and thus also the eligibility of the applicant, despite the fact that Sec. 27 (2) of the Entschädigungsfondsgesetz (“General Settlement Fund Law”) gives a broad scope for the assessment of the question of whether an association is the legal successor of a dissolved association.

The applicant filed an application for the reopening of proceedings and submitted new documents which were intended to prove the applicant’s legal succession to the dissolved Jewish Community Deutschkreutz. However, these documents do not justify the assumption that they are adequate to bring about a different outcome to the matter pursuant to Sec. 21a of the Geschäfts- und Verfahrensordnung der Schiedsinstanz (“Rules of Procedure of the Arbitration Panel”). The succession in accordance with religious and proprietary law, which was clearly regulated by the Austrian legislator while taking into account the particular position of the Jewish Religious Community – which is recognized in law –, cannot be assessed differently on the basis of the submitted documents.

Although the Arbitration Panel does not ignore the fact that the applicant, its members and its supporters view themselves as following the religious tradition of the Jewish Community Deutschkreutz, the application for reopening of proceedings had to be rejected.