Decision no. 1068/2014

Application

 

Applicant, Status

Barbara F., Rejection
Helene L., Rejection
Herbert L., Rejection
Robert L., Rejection
Rudolf L., Rejection
Inge P., Rejection
Monika Z., Rejection

Public owner

Land Oberösterreich

Type of property

immovable

Real estate in

KG Wels (51242), Wels, Oberösterreich | show on map
KG Lichtenegg (51215), Wels, Oberösterreich | show on map
Show all on map

Decision

 

Number

1068/2014

Date

24 Sep 2014

Reason

No persecution as defined by the GSF Law

Type

substantive

Decision in anonymous form

Press release

Press Release Decision No. 1068/2014

Upper Austria, Wels
On 24 September 2014, the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution rejected six applications for in rem restitution of parts of a property in Wels, which had been owned on the cut off day by the Province of Upper Austria. It was not possible to determine that the sale of the property in 1940 had occurred on one of the grounds of persecution listed in the Entschädigungsfondsgesetz (“General Settlement Fund Law” – GSF Law).

On 12 March 1938, Rudolf and Franziska L. had owned a property in Wels, Lichtenegg, on which they ran a small farm. After the Anschluss, the Hermann-Göring-Werke Linz acquired the site of an unused factory in the immediate vicinity of the L. spouses’ property. The E. AG moved into the premises as it had had to surrender its previous premises due to the expansion of the Hermann-Göring-Werke near Linz. In order to expand its new premises, the E. AG also planned to acquire the property of the L. spouses.

The Hermann-Göring-Werke subsequently entered into sale negotiations with the L. spouses, who were represented by the lawyer Dr. G., a National Socialist functionary. As a result of their refusal to accept the offer for parts of their properties, the Hermann-Göring-Werke Linz threatened to involve the Reich Office for Land Procurement in Berlin, which had the right to expropriate land in such cases. Rudolf and Franziska L. then accepted the offer, although, through their lawyer, they were able to achieve more favorable terms for the sale. The L. spouses sold two property parcels with an area of 3,852 m² to the E. AG with a purchase contract dated 8 October 1940.

After 1945, the L. spouses filed an application against the E. AG for restitution of these property parcels pursuant to the Drittes Rückstellungsgesetz (“Third Restitution Act”). On 13 July 1948, Rudolf and Franziska L. concluded a settlement with the E. AG, in which they waived restitution of the property parcels in exchange for a payment of 10,000 Schilling.

The applicants founded their applications for restitution on the political persecution of Rudolf L. He had been a known opponent of National Socialism had had had to sell the property parcels for this reason. He had also been poorly advised by his lawyer Dr. G.

The Arbitration Panel had to examine whether Rudolf L. belonged to one of the groups of persecuted persons listed by the GSF Law. However, it was not possible to determine that Rudolf L. had been forced to sell the property parcels on political grounds.

With regard to the assertion that the lawyer Dr. G. had acted to the detriment of Rudolf L. as a result of his National Socialist beliefs, the Arbitration Panel determined that he had, in fact, managed to successfully assert numerous claims of the vendors against the Hermann-Göring-Werke. As a persecution-related transfer of ownership is a fundamental requirement for in rem restitution, it was not possible to recommend the restitution of the property.

For use by media; not legally binding upon the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution.
For further inquiries contact: