Decision no. 913/2013

In 1938, the requested property, a plot of land with an area of 13,455 m² in Bludenz, Vorarlberg, was owned by the farmer and Swiss national Franz Z. In October 1940, the City of Bludenz purchased the plot for 24,183 Reichsmark as it required replacement land for landowners who had had to surrender plots of land to the City of Bludenz for the development project “Südtiroler Siedlung”.

On 23 June 1939 it was agreed by the German Reich and Italy to resettle the German-speaking population of South Tyrol – which had been annexed to Italy with the peace treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye of 10 September 1919 – within the German Reich. For this purpose, residential buildings were constructed, predominantly in Tyrol and Vorarlberg, where a large majority of the South Tyroleans who had opted to be resettled were housed.

In December 1940, the City of Bludenz transferred the plot of land it had acquired from Franz Z. into the ownership of Anton D. as part of a land exchange. In turn, Anton D. had to transfer to the City of Bludenz plots of land from his property ownership which were required for the “Südtiroler Siedlung”.

Having filed an application for restitution with the Restitution Commission at the Provincial Court Feldkirch in early 1948, Franz Z. concluded a settlement with Anton D. which was implemented in February 1950: Anton D. sold a partial area of 3,111 m² of the plot of land concerned to Franz Z. for 5,600 Schilling. In exchange, Franz Z. withdrew the application for restitution and waived any further claims.

A partial area of 219 m² of the original plot of land was owned by the Province of Vorarlberg on the cut off day 17 January 2001, which had opted in to the proceedings of the Arbitration Panel. The remaining areas of the plot do not constitute publicly-owned property as defined by the GSF Law.

According to the submitted documents, the present applicant, a son-in-law of Franz Z., did not become the heir to his late wife, the daughter of Franz Z.; the application for in rem restitution therefore had to be rejected alone for this reason. Furthermore, it could not be established that – as was asserted – Franz Z. had been pressurized into selling the plot of land. Franz Z. had therefore not been submitted to political persecution as defined by Sec. 27 (1) of the GSF Law.