Decision no. 1526a/2018
Doris L., Recommendation
Type of property
Real estate in
Assignment of entitlement to file an application pursuant to Sec. 16a (3) of the Rules of Procedure
Decision in anonymous form
Press Release Decision No. 1526a/2018
In July 2018, the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution supplemented its decision no. 1526/2018 of 24 April and recommended the Republic of Austria and the City of Vienna to pay the two applicants a sum of 32,400 Euro for a 761 m² area of road that had been owned by the two administrative bodies on the cut off day, 17 January 2001. In its initial decision the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution had granted the two applications on their merits and held that in rem restitution of the relevant area was not practical or feasible and that a comparable asset was to be awarded instead.
In 1938 Julius K., who was considered Jewish pursuant to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 following the Anschluss of Austria to the German Reich, was the owner of land holdings that included three agricultural property parcels in the cadastral district (KG) Leopoldau. Julius K. and his family managed to flee to Australia via Great Britain in 1938/39.
In 1941 the assets of Julius K. were forfeited to the German Reich, including the properties in KG Leopoldau. In 1943 the German Reich sold two of these property parcels to the Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG and the third to the Siemens-Schuckertwerke.
After the war ended in 1945, Julius K. filed several claims for restitution, including claims for the restitution of the properties in Leopoldau. The property parcels that had been sold to the Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG were restituted to Julius K. in 1950.
Following the nationalization of the Siemens-Schuckertwerke in 1946, when they were under the administration of the Soviet occupying power, the restitution proceedings for the third property parcel could only be resumed after the Staatsvertrag von Wien (“State Treaty of Vienna”) of 1955 had come into effect. In 1956 the Restitution Commission Vienna rejected the claim because the Siemens-Schuckertwerke did not fall under the definition of “acquirer” as set out in the Drittes Rückstellungsgesetz (“Third Restitution Act”). The Higher Restitution Commission and the Supreme Restitution Commission both confirmed this decision.
On the cut off day 17 January 2001 a 473 m² area of this property was owned by the City of Vienna and another area of 288 m² was owned by the Republic of Austria. Both form part of public roads.
Since the application for restitution of the seized property parcel had had never been the subject of a substantive decision and neither Julius K. nor his legal successors had ever received any other form of compensation for it, there had been no prior measure as defined by the Entschädigungsfondsgesetz (“General Settlement Fund Law” – GSF Law) and the Arbitration Panel granted the applications. Following consultations with the Republic of Austria and the City of Vienna the Arbitration Panel obtained a valuation report by an independent expert on the market value of the relevant areas, which was determined at 32,400 Euro, and recommended that this sum be awarded to the two applicants as a comparable asset.
For further inquiries contact: firstname.lastname@example.org