Decision no. 1058/2014

Originally, a chocolate factory had been situated on the requested property in the 18th Municipal District of Vienna, which had been converted into an apartment building in 1933 and 1934. The property had an area of 1,256 m² and in 1938 it had belonged to Robert B., who had been considered Jewish in accordance with the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 due to his Jewish descent.

On 15 November 1940, Robert B. sold the property to the spouses von Schl.-H. for 180,000 Reichsmark. Numerous claims secured by lien had to be settled using the proceeds from the sale and any remaining balance was to be transferred into a frozen account.

On 28 October 1941, Robert B. was deported to the Lodz Ghetto, where he died sometime before early June 1942. Robert B. had two daughters: Erika B. emigrated from Switzerland to the USA in 1939. Ulrike K. travelled on vacation to Paris on 11 March 1938 and emigrated from there to the USA in June 1938. The applicant is the son and heir of Ulrike K.

On 9 June 1961, the Collection Agency B filed for restitution of the property. On 4 June 1963, the Restitution Commission Vienna ordered the owner Ernestine G. to restitute the property to Erika B. and Ulrike K., who had joined the proceedings in 1962. Further reciprocal claims were not ruled upon in the partial decision. Erika B. and Ulrike K. subsequently held settlement negotiations with Ernestine G. On 28 April 1965 they concluded a settlement in which Erika B. and Ulrike K. waived restitution of the property. In exchange, they received a payment of 390,796.11 Schilling and agreed to assume the costs of Collection Agency B amounting to 84,290 Schilling.

The City of Vienna acquired the property on 12 January 1993. A municipal housing estate is situated on the property today.

The main question addressed in the juridical appraisal of the case by the Arbitration Panel, was whether the settlement of 1965 could be assessed as an “extreme injustice”. As the Arbitration Panel could not find any indications the Erika B. and Ulrike K.’s freedom of contract had been limited during the settlement negotiations and no discrepancy in value could be determined between the settlement amount and the amount that Erika B. and Ulrika K. would had been awarded if the restitution proceedings had been conducted to their conclusion, the Panel did not qualify the settlement as “extremely unjust” and therefore rejected the application.