Decision no. 820/2012

In their application for in rem restitution the applicants asserted that the requested properties had been seized by the German Reich due to the political persecution of the owners, the K. spouses. The properties subject of the application had been acquired by the German Armed Forces for 58,300 Reichsmark in July 1941 during the course of the construction of a military training ground.

In June 1952, the K. spouses, the parents of the applicants, claimed restitution of the properties pursuant to the Drittes Rückstellungsgesetz (“Third Restitution Act”). As the required consent of the Allied Commission had not been produced, the proceedings could only be resumed after the Staatsvertrag von 1955 (“State Treaty of 1955”) and the transfer of the properties to the Republic of Austria.

The Financial Directorate for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland, the competent authority from this time, examined the renewed application for restitution in line with the provisions of the Drittes Staatsvertragsdurchführungsgesetz (“Third State Treaty Implementation Act”) to see whether the sale to the German Armed Forces occurred on grounds of an “incorrect application of the law” or “merely on grounds of political persecution” of the affected persons.

As the restitution claimants could not provide any proof in this regard, the Financial Directorate ruled that the required seizure had not occurred and dismissed the application. The K. spouses appealed this decision. In June 1958, the Federal Ministry of Finance, as the second instance, dismissed the appeal as without merit.

In its juridical appraisal, the Arbitration Panel examined whether political persecution was decisive in the sale of the properties to the German Armed Forces in 1941. The Arbitration Panel reached the conclusion that the construction of the military training ground did not constitute persecution per se and that the terms of the sale of the properties did not contain any indications of political persecution of the K. spouses. For this reason, the Arbitration Panel was unable to determine that a property seizure had occurred and rejected the application.