Decision no. 634/2010

In 1938, the property, on which a 120-year-old wine grower's house was situated, was owned by Norbert P., who was considered Jewish in line with the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. In late December 1939, he sold the property to Antonie and Leopold Z., whereby the agreed purchase price of 10,000 Reichsmark was reduced to 8,440 Reichsmark by the National Socialist authorities. In 1942, Norbert P. was deported to the ghetto Izbica (former Generalgouvernement, now Poland). Nothing is known of his further fate. Norbert P. was declared dead after the end of the Second World War.

In late 1947, the heirs of Norbert P., Paul P. and Wilhelmine G. filed for the restitution of the property. In September 1951, both waived the restitution of the property in a settlement, in exchange for a payment of 8,000 Schilling (plus 2,000 Schilling for the reimbursement of expenses). The property therefore remained in the ownership of Antonie and Leopold Z., who had made around 62,000 Schillings of value-increasing investments in the property by the end of the restitution proceedings. In the early 1970s, the City of Vienna acquired the property for 1,000,000 Schilling and had the single family house demolished. The property is presently used as a car park and a partial area of the historical area is publicly-owned.

In the proceedings before the Arbitration Panel the five applicants, the children of the former restitution claimants, asserted that the settlement had been "extremely unjust". There had been a glaring difference between the settlement sum and the consideration that would have been awarded to the applicants in a decision by the Restitution Commission. Due to their financial predicament and traumatization, the autonomy of the restitution claimants had been restricted at the time of the conclusion of the settlement.

However, the available documents did not permit either a determination of the property value at the time of the settlement or the exact quantification of the counterclaims of each party to the proceedings (refund of the purchase price and the investments on one side and payment of the earnings on the other). Therefore the Arbitration Panel was not able to establish a possible difference in value.  

The restitution claimants, who had been living abroad, had been legally represented by their great uncle, who himself was in partially represented by a colleague. Insufficient legal representation and/or a restriction of the autonomy of the restitution claimants were not able to be determined.

As the exceptional case required by the GSF Law did not exist, the Arbitration Panel was not able to grant the applications of four applicants. The fifth application was dismissed due to the ineligibility to file an application.