Statistics on Application Processing for In Rem Restitution as at 4. April 2019

Applications Total
-- substantive applications [2] 644
---- of which applications for reopening [3] 41
---- of which applications withdrawn 33
-- formal applications [4] 1,434
---- of which applications for reopening [3] 1
---- of which applications withdrawn 39
---- Substantive applications decided 611
------ Substantive applications recommended [5] 140
-------- of which applications for reopening recommended [6] 17
------ Substantive applications rejected [7] 324
-------- of which applications for reopening rejected [8] 22
------ Substantive applications dismissed [9] 147
-------- of which applications for reopening dismissed [10] 2
---- Formal applications decided 1,395
-------- of which applications for reopening dismissed [11] 1
  1. These applications were filed by 2,239 applicants. Applicants could file more than one application. This figure includes applications filed after the deadline. After October 2016, the applications to have proceedings reopened were counted as applications in their own right and integrated into the procedural statistics as such.
  2. These applications fulfilled the fundamental requirements, particularly public ownership on the cut-off date, 17 January 2001 and ownership at the time of the seizure between 1938 and 1945.
  3. After 2007, Sec. 21a of the Rules of Procedure of the Arbitration Panel provided, under certain circumstances, for the reopening of proceedings that had already been concluded, within a period of two years after the decision had been issued. Proceedings were then reopened if an application for reopening was submitted with evidence that had previously been inaccessible and warranted the assumption that it would have led to a different outcome in the previous proceedings. If the Arbitration Panel considered there to be new evidence the proceedings were reopened. In these cases, the previous decision was either repealed or amended/supplemented. If the requirements for a reopening were not met, the Arbitration Panel issued a decision rejecting the application to reopen the proceedings. Applications to have proceedings reopened could only pertain to applications that had already been processed.
  4. Formal applications did not meet the fundamental requirements for in rem restitution, particularly public ownership on the cut-off date, 17 January 2001 and ownership at the time of the seizure between 1938 and 1945. These also included applications which could only be granted if they had been filed by Jewish communal organizations; they were, however, filed by individuals on their own behalf.
  5. Regarding these 140 applications 61 decisions were issued.
  6. These 17 applications for reopening (two of which were reopened ex officio) resulted in two positive decisions on reopening, whereby the initial decision in each case was repealed, and two (supplementary) recommendations.
  7. Regarding these 324 applications 136 decisions were issued. The two rejections that were repealed by reopening, no. 4/2004 and 46/2006, are included in this figure.
  8. These 22 applications for reopening resulted in 11 decisions rejected the applications for reopening.
  9. Regarding these 147 applications 24 decisions were issued.
  10. Regarding these two applications one decision was issued.
  11. Regarding this application one decision was issued.
  12. The processing of these applications was suspended by the Arbitration Panel due to flaws in the applications (missing powers-of-attorney, no eligible applicants known).