Decision no. WA4/2008

In her first application to the Arbitration Panel, the applicant Veronika P. asserted the seizure of three properties which had been owned by the G. spouses. Two of the properties were purchased by the German Armed Forces in 1938 during the course of the creation of the military training area “Döllersheim”. The G. Spouses used the proceeds from the sale, among other things, for the acquisition of shares in a property in Vienna, Alsergrund, which belonged to the National Socialist Peoples’ Welfare Organization.

The Viennese property shares had to be restituted to the original owner as a result of restitution proceedings in 1956, as they had been seized by the Liquidation Commissar during the National Socialist era and allocated to the National Socialist People’s Welfare Association.   

In 1956, the G. spouses submitted their own application for restitution concerning one of the properties located in the military training area. The proceedings were finally conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Dritte Staatsvertragsdurchführungsgesetz (“Third State Treaty Implementation Act”) by the Financial Directorate for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland and ended in 1959 with the rejection of the restitution claim. In its final decision, the Financial Directorate pointed out that no improper application of the former Landesbeschaffungsgesetz (“Land Procurement Act”) had occurred during the transfer of property to the German Armed Forces. Political persecution of the former owner had not been asserted and had also not been evident from the status of the case.

In the proceedings before the Arbitration Panel, it was to be examined whether the purchase of the property by the German Armed Forces had occurred in connection with the political persecution of the owners. There were, however, no indications of persecution of the affected persons. The actual implementation of the purchase of the property also showed no indication of an act of persecution. In the opinion of the Arbitration Panel, the establishment of the military training area as such did not constitute a persecuting measure per se. The aim of war preparation can indeed be ascribed to the according laws and planning, not however to the discrimination of certain groups of persons.

The new submission of the applicant Veronica P. was unable to alter the assessment of the persecution of the former property owners, particularly as no new documents were submitted to supplement the existing facts.