Decision no. 844/2012

In his application for in rem restitution, the applicant asserted that the requested property had been seized by the German Reich due to the political persecution of the owners, the S. spouses. The properties subject of the application had been acquired by the German Armed Forces for 42,000 Reichsmark in September 1938 during the course of the construction of the military training area.

In September 1953, the S. spouses, the applicant’s parents, 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 S. spouses did not appeal this decision.

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 S. spouses. For this reason, the Arbitration Panel was unable to determine that a property seizure had occurred and rejected the application. The application concerning the properties situated outside the military training area had to be rejected as these properties were privately owned on the cut off date pursuant to the GSF Law.