Decision no. 630/2010

Application

 

Applicant, Status

Joseph George S., Rejection

Public owner

Stadt Wien

Type of property

immovable

Real estate in

KG Aspern (01651), Wien, Wien | show on map

Decision

 

Number

630/2010

Date

22 Feb 2010

Reason

In rem restitution already granted after 1945

Type

substantive

Decision in anonymous form

Press release

Press Release Decision No. 630/2010

Vienna, Aspern
On 22 February 2010, the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution rejected an application for restitution of a properties owned by the City of Vienna on 17 January 2001 in Vienna, Aspern. These properties had already been restituted to the aggrieved owners in 1949. As a result, the Arbitration Panel was not able to pronounce a renewed restitution.

In 1938, the undeveloped properties in the 22nd Municipal District of Vienna belonged to the mother of the applicant, Emma S., and her sister Anna D., her nephew Gustav Sp. and her niece Eva Sp. In 1942, Emma S.’s shares were allocated to the “Central Office for the Settlement of the Jewish Question in Bohemia and Moravia” and the shares of Gustav Sp. and Eva Sp. Were forfeited to the German Reich. In contrast, Anna D. remained the owner of her shares. In 1942, Emma S. was deported to the concentration camp Auschwitz and in 1944 on to the deportation camp Auschwitz. In 1944, she was deployed as a forced labourer in a satellite camp of the concentration camp Flossenburg where she survived the war. After 1945, she emigrated to England. Gustav Sp. and Eva Sp. succeeded in fleeing to England, from where they emigrated to Australia.

After the end of the National Socialist regime, Emma S. applied to the Restitution Commission Vienna and Gustav and Eva Sp. to the Financial Directorate for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland for the restitution of their seized property shares. Their applications were granted in 1949. She and Peter D., the legal successor of Anna D., subsequently sold the properties to the City of Vienna.

The claim for restitution of the properties asserted before the Arbitration Panel has therefore already been decided in favour of the aggrieved owners in earlier proceedings. The Arbitration Panel has ruled in several previous decisions that it cannot recommend the renewed restitution of a property which has already been restituted.

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