Decision no. WA6/2009

Application

 

Applicant, Status

Helene T., Rejection

Public owner

Republik Österreich

Type of property

immovable

Real estate in

KG Josefstadt (01005), Wien, Wien | show on map

Decision

 

Number

WA6/2009

Date

20 May 2009

Reason

No new evidence/facts and circumstances pursuant to Sec. 21a (1) of the Rules of Procedure

Type

substantive

Decision in anonymous form

Related decisions

Press release

Press Release Decision No. WA6/2009

Vienna, Josefstadt

On 20 May 2009, the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution rejected an application for the reopening of proceedings regarding a property in Vienna, Josefstadt. In its decision no. 27/2005 from the year 2005 the Arbitration Panel had recommended the restitution of the property owned by the Republic of Austria. It subsequently extended the recommendation to a total of 39 heirs of the property's former owner, Lothar Fürth. An applicant now contested the right of succession of nine applicants whose eligibility had been recognized by the Arbitration Panel, descendents of a deceased aunt of the original property owner. As the documents submitted did not refute the nine applicants' eligibility to file an application, the Arbitration Panel rejected the application for reopening.

In its decision no. 27/2005 of 15 November 2005, the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution granted the restitution claim to a property in Vienna, Josefstadt belonging to the Republic of Austria. Until 1938, the property's owner Lothar F. had run a sanatorium there. After the National Socialist assumption of power, he was considered Jewish and was subjected to massive anti-Semitic discrimination. He and his wife committed suicide in April 1938. Due to the absence of "aryan" heirs, in 1939 the property was sold by the trustee of the estate to the German Armed Forces. After the war, the building was confiscated by the American occupying power. Upon the enactment of the Staatsvertrag ("State Treaty") 1955 its ownership passed over to the Republic of Austria. In 1960, the Collection Agencies, as receiving organizations for heirless property, filed an application for restitution of the property which had been worth several million Schilling at the time. Following protracted proceedings, in 1965 they agreed on a settlement with the Republic of Austria of 700,000 Schilling. This settlement was concluded within the scope of a general settlement for various restitution claims of the Collection Agencies against the Federation.

In decision no. 27/2005, the Arbitration Panel deemed the settlement concerning the property to be "extremely unjust" as there had been a significant difference in value between a correct hypothetical restitution decision and the achieved settlement sum because, as a result of the general settlement of the collection agency's claims against the Republic, considerations which were not at all connected to the claim for restitution had played a role in the settlement regarding the property in Josefstadt. These considerations would have had no bearing on an individual applicant concerned about his/her personal interests.

In decision 27/2005, the Arbitration Panel positively decided the requests for restitution of the nine applicants which were known at the time of the decision. In decisions 27a/2006 and 27c/2008, it extended this recommendation of restitution to a further 30 applicants. They had not submitted their application for restitution until after the first decision. All persons involved were able to prove their right to inherit from Lothar F. as descendents of the grandparents of the former owner of the property.

The applicant Helene T. now requested the reopening of proceedings. She refuted the right of succession of nine descendents of Pauline Schw., an aunt of the former property owner Lothar F., who had been recognized as heirs by the Arbitration Panel in decision 27c/2008. Contrary to the findings of the Arbitration Panel, she asserted that Pauline Schw. had not died before her husband but in 1932, 16 years after his death. To substantiate this, she submitted documents from Pauline Schw.'s probate file. She asserted that these documents made it clear that the nine applicants who derived their right of succession from Pauline Schw.'s daughter, Marie Lem., had not been eligible to file applications.

The Arbitration Panel examined the new documents to see if they were able to bring about a different outcome to the matter and justify a reopening pursuant to Sec. 21a of the Geschäfts- und Verfahrensordnung ("Rules of Procedure"). As it continues to be true that Pauline Schw. died before Lothar F., pursuant to the provisions of civil law, the right to succeed Lothar F. did not fall to her or any testamentary heirs she may have had but to her children. Pauline Schw.'s date of death and any testamentary dispositions she may have made are therefore irrelevant for determining the right to succeed Lothar F.

Even if these nine persons were not eligible, the ruling in decision 27a/2006 in which the Arbitration Panel decided on the application of Helene T. would remain unaltered, as in both decisions – also in decision 27/2005 – the Arbitration Panel only ruled on the eligibility of the applicants, not the inheritance shares. This task falls to the competent Federal Minister alone.

The Arbitration Panel therefore reached the conclusion that the documents submitted by the applicant Helene T. do not have any effect on the contents of decision 27c/2008. It therefore dismissed the application for the reopening of proceedings and confirmed the eligibility of the nine heirs called into question by Helene T.

For use by media; not legally binding upon the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution.
For further inquiries contact: