Decision no. 816/2011

The Humanitarian and Orthodox Prayer House Association Marpe Lanefesch, founded in 1896 and officially licensed since 1900, ran a prayer house in the Second Municipal District of Vienna. In 1919, Miriam W. donated a Torah mantle to the Prayer House Association in thanks for the safe return from the First World War.

After the Anschluss Miriam W. fled to the USA with her children, where she founded the association which filed the application, C.A.Y.

The prayer house of the Prayer House Association Marpe Lanefesch was destroyed during the November Pogroms of 1938; the Torah mantle subject of the application was able to be saved from destruction. On 7 March 1939, the Liquidation Commissar for Clubs, Organizations and Associations on the territory of the former Republic of Austria successfully petitioned for the dissolution of the Prayer House Association Marpe Lanefesch. The Prayer House Association was not re-established after 1945.

At an unknown point in time, the Viennese Judaica collector Max Berger acquired the Torah mantle subject of the application. After his death, in 1989 the City of Vienna acquired the majority of the Berger collection, which formed the main basis for the foundation of the Jewish Museum of the City of Vienna. The Torah mantle was subsequently exhibited at the Museum.

In 2006, having strived for the restitution of the Torah mantle for several years, the Torah mantle was returned to the heirs of Miriam W. by the museum.

The Arbitration Panel had to examine whether the association filing the application, C.A.Y., can be viewed as the legal successor of the dissolved Prayer House Association Marpe Lanefesch. In doing so, it took the following considerations into account:

After 1945, the Second Restitution Act granted the existing Jewish Communities the authorization to assert restitution claims for legal entities of the Jewish Religious Community. The assignment of the restitution claims of the Prayer House Association Marpe Lanefesch (which was not re-established) to the Jewish Community Vienna complies with the constitutional provisions of Art. 15 of the Staatsgrundgesetz (“Basic Law”). Although Sec. 27 (2) of the Entschädigungsfondsgesetz (“General Settlement Fund Law” – GSF Law) sets out a broad scope for the judgment of the question whether an association is the legal successor of a dissolved association, the Arbitration Panel sees no reason to diverge from the outlined legal position and affirm the applicant as the legal successor.

Therefore, the C.A.Y. is not eligible to file an application pursuant to Sec. 27 (2) of the GSF Law. For this reason, the application for in rem restitution was dismissed.