Decision no. 550/2009
Application
Applicant, Status
Marialuisa C., Dismissal
Michael F., Dismissal
Eric Neil K., Recommendation
Yuval L., Dismissal
Zohar L., Dismissal
Rachel P., Dismissal
Michael F., Dismissal
Eric Neil K., Recommendation
Yuval L., Dismissal
Zohar L., Dismissal
Rachel P., Dismissal
Public owner
Stadt Wien
Type of property
immovable
Real estate in
KG Neubau (01010), Wien, Wien | show on map
Decision
Number
550/2009
Date
30 Jun 2009
Reasons
No legal succession
"Extreme injustice" pursuant to Sec. 32 (2) item 1 of the GSF Law
"Extreme injustice" pursuant to Sec. 32 (2) item 1 of the GSF Law
Type
substantive
Decision in anonymous form
Related decisions
Press release
Press Release Decision No. 550/2009
Vienna, Neubau
On 30 June 2009, the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution granted an application for restitution of one half of a property belonging to the City of Vienna in Vienna, Neubau. The restitution application regarding the other half of the property had already been positively decided in the decision 89/2006. In the view of the Arbitration Panel, a restitution settlement concluded in 1954 was to be considered "extremely unjust" due to the former claimants' massively restricted scope to negotiate with the City of Vienna during the settlement negotiations.
In 1938 the requested property, on which a tenanted house was located, belonged to Richard G. and to the spouses Nelly and Josef W., each owning one half. Due to persecution by the National Socialists, they were forced to flee abroad. Of the W. family, only the two sons, Emil and Eduard W. survived by fleeing to Palestine. Richard G. was able to escape to New York. In 1939, he and the W. spouses had granted the lawyer Dr. F. power-of-attorney to sell the property. The purchase contract negotiated by Dr. F. with a prospective private buyer was not approved by the National Socialist authorities because the City of Vienna asserted public interest in the property. It wanted to create a thoroughfare on this area. The property was finally sold to the City of Vienna in 1940.
In December 1948 Richard G., together with Emil and Eduard W., claimed for restitution of the property in Vienna, Neubau. The City of Vienna was very interested in retaining the property in order to realize the thoroughfare, which had already been planned during the sale, and therefore aimed for settlement negotiations, which were concluded in 1954 with the signing of a settlement. In this settlement, the restitution claimants waived the restitution of the property in return for a payment of 20,000 Schilling.
The Arbitration Panel had already affirmed that this settlement was "extremely unjust" pursuant to the General Settlement Fund Law in its decision 89/2006 concerning Emil and Eduard W. It now examined whether this was also applicable to Richard G. In the present decision, the Arbitration Panel confirmed that the settlement amount lay below the value which would have been awarded to the restitution claimants by the Restitution Commission. In particular, the earnings had not been taken into consideration. Furthermore, as in the case of Emil and Eduard W., Richard G. had also had very limited room for maneuver in the conclusion of the settlement. Due to his difficult financial situation and problems with his health, he was hugely restricted in his opportunities to select that form of enforcement of his rights which seemed most beneficial and effective to him. In particular, he was not able to select the lawyer of his choice. Of all lawyers, the sole lawyer to offer him legal representation without an advance payment of his fees was Dr. F. - the lawyer who had participated in the property seizure under National Socialist rule. On the other hand, the City of Vienna exerted pressure on the restitution claimants and conveyed to them, among other things, misleading and incomplete information on the costs to be reimbursed.
The interplay of these circumstances caused a grave state of imbalance to the detriment of the restitution claimants, causal for the content of the settlement, which was therefore to be classified "extremely unjust". The Arbitration Panel now recognized the restitution claim of the heirs of Richard G. as merited. As a municipal residential property is located on this property today, the Arbitration Panel regards a restitution as impracticable and, upon consultation with the City of Vienna, will award a comparable asset.
In December 1948 Richard G., together with Emil and Eduard W., claimed for restitution of the property in Vienna, Neubau. The City of Vienna was very interested in retaining the property in order to realize the thoroughfare, which had already been planned during the sale, and therefore aimed for settlement negotiations, which were concluded in 1954 with the signing of a settlement. In this settlement, the restitution claimants waived the restitution of the property in return for a payment of 20,000 Schilling.
The Arbitration Panel had already affirmed that this settlement was "extremely unjust" pursuant to the General Settlement Fund Law in its decision 89/2006 concerning Emil and Eduard W. It now examined whether this was also applicable to Richard G. In the present decision, the Arbitration Panel confirmed that the settlement amount lay below the value which would have been awarded to the restitution claimants by the Restitution Commission. In particular, the earnings had not been taken into consideration. Furthermore, as in the case of Emil and Eduard W., Richard G. had also had very limited room for maneuver in the conclusion of the settlement. Due to his difficult financial situation and problems with his health, he was hugely restricted in his opportunities to select that form of enforcement of his rights which seemed most beneficial and effective to him. In particular, he was not able to select the lawyer of his choice. Of all lawyers, the sole lawyer to offer him legal representation without an advance payment of his fees was Dr. F. - the lawyer who had participated in the property seizure under National Socialist rule. On the other hand, the City of Vienna exerted pressure on the restitution claimants and conveyed to them, among other things, misleading and incomplete information on the costs to be reimbursed.
The interplay of these circumstances caused a grave state of imbalance to the detriment of the restitution claimants, causal for the content of the settlement, which was therefore to be classified "extremely unjust". The Arbitration Panel now recognized the restitution claim of the heirs of Richard G. as merited. As a municipal residential property is located on this property today, the Arbitration Panel regards a restitution as impracticable and, upon consultation with the City of Vienna, will award a comparable asset.
For use by media; not legally binding upon the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution.
For further inquiries contact: presse@nationalfonds.org
For further inquiries contact: presse@nationalfonds.org