Decision no. 1000/2014

In 1938, the requested properties – for the most part fields in Burgenland – were all either wholly or jointly owned by the spouses Piroska and Gustav J. and Gustav J.’s mother, Regina J. The J. spouses fled to Argentina in 1938. Their assets and Gustav J.’s claim to the inheritance of his mother, who died in 1940, were forfeited to the German Reich on the basis of the Elfte Verordnung zum Reichsbürgergesetz (“Eleventh Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law”).

After the war, Gustav J. was issued a certificate of inheritance as an heir to his mother and he was able to exercise power of disposition over his inherited share of the property. Furthermore, the J. spouses, who had continued to be recorded in the land register as owners, could once again make use of the properties which had belonged to them in 1938, with the exception of a partial area of 68 m². This area had been acquired by the Deutsche Reichsbahn at the same time as ten other partial areas from properties belonging to other landowners. All of these properties bordered a level crossing at the intersection of train tracks with a provincial road in Gattendorf.

In its juridical appraisal of the application submitted by the son of the J. spouses, the Arbitration Panel examined whether the partial area of the requested properties which was publicly-owned on the cut off day 17 January 2001 had been subject of a seizure or a previous measure as defined by the GSF Law. Although the loss of ownership on the basis of the Eleventh Decree constituted a seizure, following the end of the National Socialist regime the aggrieved owners could once again freely dispose over their properties. As such, the requirements for a recommendation of restitution were not met and the Arbitration Panel rejected the application for restitution of these areas.

With regard to the 68 m² of railway property, the Arbitration Panel reached the conclusion that the loss of ownership of this partial area did not occur in relation to the assumption of power by the National Socialist regime and was not causally connected to the persecution of Gustav and Piroska J. A seizure had therefore not occurred and the application for this area had to be rejected.

The application relating to other properties or parts of properties which were not publicly-owned on the cut off day also had to be rejected.