Decision no. 1137/2015

On 12 March 1938, the general partnership R. Baugesellschaft had been the owner of the properties in Vienna, St. Pölten and Breitenfurt. The partners of the general partnership, including Max E., also owned properties in Vienna.

As the partners were deemed Jewish by the Nuremberg Laws, following the Anschluss the R. Bausgesellschaft was put firstly under provisional administration and then into liquidation. While the partnership was being wound up the liquidator sold the company and the majority of its properties. Properties owned privately by the partners – who had fled Austria and in some cases not survived the Holocaust – were also sold by the liquidator.

In 1944, an undeveloped property that had remained under the ownership of the R. Baugesellschaft was put up for auction in an enforced procedure to collect on unpaid tax claims of the City of Vienna. In 1946 the City of Vienna acquired the property at auction for 70,000 Schilling.

After the end of the Nazi regime the heirs of the partners appointed a new liquidator for the partnership, who conducted restitution proceedings against the City of Vienna on behalf of the partnership from 1949 onward. Following rulings by the lower authorities that the property had not been subjected to a seizure, the Supreme Restitution Commission annulled their decisions and reopened the proceedings. In September 1950 the partnership concluded a settlement with the City of Vienna whereby restitution was waived in exchange for a payment of 100,000 Schilling.

The applicant, a grandson of Max E., now requested the in rem restitution of properties once owned by his grandfather and asserted among other things that the restitution settlement of 1950 was extremely unjust.

In its juridical appraisal the Arbitration Panel confirmed that the property had been subjected to a seizure as the partners had no longer been able to dispose of the partnership’s assets following the appointment of a provisional administrator. However, the restitution settlement reached in 1950 could not be considered “extremely unjust” pursuant to the GSF Law as there was only a small discrepancy in value to the detriment of the restitution claimant and the claimant’s freedom of contract had not been restricted. Therefore, the application had to be rejected.