Decision no. 1121a/2015

Application

 

Applicant, Status

Damon B., Recommendation
Jonathan B., Recommendation
Olga Maria B., Recommendation
Sabrina B., Recommendation
Gerhard Franz H., Recommendation
Ariel M., Recommendation
Larissa P., Recommendation
Miguel Carlos R., Recommendation
Roberto Enrique R., Recommendation
Elfriede T., Recommendation

Public owner

Republik Österreich
Stadt Wien

Type of property

immovable

Real estate in

KG Hietzing (01205), Wien, Wien | show on map

Decision

 

Number

1121a/2015

Date

29 Sep 2015

Reason

Award of a comparable asset pursuant to Sec. 34 of the GSF Law

Type

substantive

Decision in anonymous form

Related decisions

Press release

Press Release Decision No. 1121a/2015

Vienna, Hietzing
On 29 September 2015, in supplementation of its decision no. 1121/2015, the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution recommended that the applicants be awarded a total sum of 130,500 Euro, to be distributed in accordance with their corresponding inheritance shares. In decision no. 1121/2015 the applications for in rem restitution of a 174 m² area of road owned by the City of Vienna were granted. As these property parcels for part of a road in rem restitution is unfeasible.

In 1938, Nelly Me., who was considered Jewish according to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, was the owner of an approx. 4,000 m² agricultural property on Vienna’s Küniglberg. It was purchased in fall 1938 by the Reich Treasury (Aviation). Nelly Me. Was deported to the extermination camp Maly Trostinec near Minsk in May 1942 and murdered.

After the war no claim was filed for restitution of the property. Upon enactment of the State Treaty of Vienna the ownership of the requested property passed into the hands of the Republic of Austria. The collection agencies, set up on the basis of the State Treaty, filed an application for restitution of the property formerly belonging to Nelly Me. at the Financial Directorate for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland. The restitution proceedings went as far as the Supreme Administrative Court, which, like the preceding instances, also rejected the restitution as the sale to the German Reich had not constituted a seizure as defined by the Drittes Staatsvertragsdurchführungsgesetz (“Third State Treaty Implementation Act”).

In its juridical appraisal in decision no. 1121/2015, the Arbitration Panel came to the conclusion that the forced sale of Nelly Me.’s property in 1938 had constituted a seizure on the grounds of persecution listed in the GSF Law, chiefly because Nelly Me. had not had power of disposition over any of the proceeds from the sale nor had she had the opportunity to obtain replacement land like her neighbors.

The Federal Ministry of Finance’s rejection of the restitution application did not constitute an “extreme injustice” pursuant to the Entschädigungsfondsgesetz (“General Settlement Fund Law” – GSF Law) as the authority’s ruling complied with the legal situation at the time. However, in its appraisal the Arbitration Panel reached the conclusion that the more comprehensive definition of the term “seizure” in the GSF Law of 2001 derogates the narrower definition of a seizure in the Third State Treaty Implementation Act. As the definition in the Third State Treaty Implementation Act is thereby invalidated, the decision of the Financial Directorate issued on the basis of this law could be discarded. With reference to the aim of the GSF Law, i.e. to settle unresolved property issues, the Arbitration Panel recommended the restitution.

It was not possible to restitute a 174 m² area owned by the City of Vienna as it formed part of a road. For this reason, following consultations with the City of Vienna, the Arbitration Panel obtained a report on the market value of an independent real estate expert. The expert valued the area in question at 130,500 Euros. The Arbitration Panel therefore recommended the City of Vienna to award the applicants a total of 130,500 Euros, distributed in accordance with their corresponding inheritance shares.

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