Decision no. 1052/2014

In March 1938, the requested properties in the 12th Municipal District of Vienna were under the sole ownership of the Jewish master wood turner Bernhard K. A tenanted apartment building stood on one of the properties, with an area of 848 m². The other properties with an area of 5,316 m² had constituted undeveloped development land which was used as a storage area, among other things.

In April 1939 Bernhard K. was able to flee to London, where he died in March 1944.

In order to be able to pay the “Jewish capital levy” imposed on Bernhard K., in August 1940 the representative in absentia appointed for Bernhard K. by the Local Court Fünfhaus sold the property on which a tenanted apartment building was situated to Alois, Marie, Martha, Leopold and Christine Ba. and Hermine Kr. for 22,000 Reichsmark. Among other things, the proceeds from the sale were used to pay discriminatory tax demands. The balance of around 6,700 Reichsmark was deposited on a frozen account and, like the other properties, was forfeited to the German Reich on the basis of the Elfte Verordnung zum Reichsbürgergesetz (“Eleventh Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law”).

After the war, the heirs of Bernhard K. – his four children Leopold K., Josef K., Irene M. und Marie J. – filed for restitution of the properties which had been forfeited to the German Reich from the Financial Directorate for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland. Following their restitution in April 1948 the heirs of Bernhard K. sold these properties in June 1955.

In September 1947 the heirs of Bernhard K. also filed for restitution of the property on which the tenanted apartment building was situated. The proceedings at the Restitution Commission Vienna resulted in the restitution of the entire property in April 1948. In return, the entire purchase price had to be reimbursed to the Ba. family and to Hermine Kr. In June and July 1957 the heirs of Bernhard K. sold the property.

All properties were owed by the City of Vienna on 17 January 2001. However, as the properties had already been fully restituted, the Arbitration Panel rejected the application for in rem restitution.