Decision no. 1151/2015

Anton R. was a partner in the A. Brauerei OHG (“general commercial partnership”). In February 1938 the partners in the brewery sold the company to the Ö. Brau AG (“corporation”). In addition, an arrangement was reached whereby it was agreed that Anton R. would sell the real estate and inventory belonging to the company on behalf of the Ö. Brau AG.

Following the Anschluss of Austria to the German Reich Anton R. was deemed Jewish pursuant to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. He managed to flee to Switzerland and emigrated to the USA in 1939.

Subsequently a large number of the A. Brauerei’s properties were sold. Several of these properties were subject of a purchase contract concluded in 1938; other properties that were sold on were not covered by this purchase contract and were in many cases sold on by a trustee appointed by the Property Transaction Office.

After the war, a liquidator and lawyer who was appointed by Anton R. conducted several successful restitution proceedings on behalf of the A. Brauerei (OHG).

In their applications filed in 2003 the applicants, the son and grandsons of Anton R., requested in rem restitution of several properties.

On 17 January 2001, two areas totalling approx. 97 m² were owned by the Republic of Austria (Federal Roads Administration).

The Arbitration Panel ruled that these areas had been subject of a seizure. As they had been publicly-owned on 17 January 2001 and there had been no prior measure dealing with them pursuant to Sec. 32 of the Entschädigungsfondsgesetz (“GSF Law”) the applications filed by Anton R.’s legal successors were granted on their merits. As the areas to be restituted formed part of a road now owned by the City of Vienna due to the Bundestraßenübertragungsgesetz (“Act on the Transferral of Federal Roads”), in rem restitution is not feasible. For this reason, following consultations with the Federal Minister for Transport, Innovation and Technology the Arbitration Panel will set the amount of a comparable asset to be awarded as compensation.

In its juridical appraisal the Arbitration Panel examined among other things whether a settlement concluded in 1952 had constituted an extreme injustice pursuant to the GSF Law. The Arbitration Panel was unable to establish any discrepancy in value between the property’s value at the time of the settlement’s conclusion and the amount received in the settlement and therefore rejected the applications. Further, the Arbitration Panel rejected the applications for in rem restitution of the publicly-owned properties that had been subject of the above-mentioned purchase contract of February 1938 as they had not been seized as defined by the GSF Law. The applications for in rem restitution of the properties which had not been covered by the above-mentioned purchase contract were also rejected as the transfer of had not been recorded in the land register until 1955 and 1961 respectively and had therefore not been seized as defined by the GSF Law.