Decision no. 960/2013

The applicant Alan K. requested the restitution of eight properties in total, in Vienna Heiligenstadt, Wieden, Neubau and Alsergrund.

On 12 March 1938, Camilla K., the applicant’s great aunt, was co-owner of four requested properties in Heiligenstadt and Wieden. Camilla K. was considered Jewish in accordance with the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 and was persecuted by the National Socialist regime. In 1939 she fled to England with her husband. Subsequently, her property ownership in Heiligenstadt was seized by the German Reich on grounds of discriminatory legal provisions. Camilla K. had already had to sell her shares of two properties in Wieden in 1938.

After the end of the National Socialist regime, Camilla K. filed applications for restitution of her shares of the properties in Heiligenstadt and Wieden with the Financial Directorate for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland and the with theRestitution Commission Vienna. In 1947, 1951 and 1952, Camilla K.’s property shares were restituted to her. Subsequently she and her children and heirs sold these shares to buyers including the Republic of Austria.

The applicant’s grandfather and brother-in-law of Camilla K., Martin K., was also considered “Jewish” according to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, as were his wife and children. The family, including the applicant’s father, fled via Italy to Australia. Martin K. had not owned any real estate. The requested properties in Landstraße, Neubau and Alsergrund were merely rented by members of the K. family.

The Arbitration Panel rejected the application for restitution of four properties in Heiligenstadt and Wieden because the applicant was not the legal successor of Camilla K. and, as such, was not eligible to file an application in accordance with the Entschädigungsfondsgesetz (“General Settlement Fund Law”). In addition, the restitution of the requested property shares to Camilla K. after 1945 are a further obstacle to restitution. The four requested properties in Landstraße, Neubau and Alsergrund were not owned by Martin K. or another legal predecessor of the applicant. Therefore, the Arbitration also had to reject this application for in rem restitution.