No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
German history of the twentieth century offers a rich resource of precedent for property restitution and compensation programs. The Federal Republic of Germany instituted different mass claims proceedings shaped to “reverse” or mitigate violations of property rights that took place as part of (a) the persecutions by the Nazi regime from 1933 to 1945, (b) the Land Reform (Bodenreform) during the Soviet occupation of East German territories from 1945 to 1949, and (c) the nationalization activities of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) from 1949 to 1990. Except for cases under the Land Reform in the Soviet zone, restitution preceded compensation as the main means of redress. All reparation schemes involved specific compensation arrangements including elaborate property evaluation systems.
1 The term “reparations” will be used throughout this article to refer to “things done or given as an attempt to deal with the consequences of political violence” and will comprise both restitution and compensation. The term “restitution” will be used throughout this article to refer “to those measures that seek to reestablish a victim's status quo ante,” whereas “compensation” is being referred to mean “those measures that make up for the harms suffered through the quantification of harms.” See The Handbook of Reparations 456, 564 (Pablo de Greiff, ed., 2006).Google Scholar
2 Cf. Buxbaum, Richard M., A Legal History of International Reparations, 23 Berkeley J. of Int'l L. 314 (2005).Google Scholar
3 The settlement included the establishment of the “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” foundation whose primary purpose was to pay compensation for slave labor and forced labor during the Nazi regime. The program included the amount of 200 million Deutschmark (or 102 million EUR) set aside to compensate for property losses in territories occupied by the German Reich suffered as a result of racial persecution or other Nazi wrong, provided the loss occurred with the “direct, essential and harm-causing participation of a German Enterprise” and had not been covered by any of the previous German Reparation schemes. For details, see Richard M. Buxbaum, Deutsche Industrie, Wiedergutmachung und Völkerrecht, in Profiteure des NS-Systems?: Deutsche Unternehmen und das “Dritte Reich” (Jürgen Lillteicher ed., 2006); International Organization for Migration (IOM), Property Restitution and Compensation: Practices and Experiences of Claims Programs 31–33 (2008) [hereinafter IOM]; Pierre A. Karrer, Innovation to Speed Mass Claims: The Work of the Property Claims Commission of the German Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future,” 5 J. World Investment & Trade 57 et seq. (2004).Google Scholar
4 Barkai, Avraham, Arisierung, in 1 Encyclopedia of the Holocaust 84 (Israel Gutman ed., 1990).Google Scholar
5 Mostert, Hanri, Lost Information and Competing Interests in Restoring Germany's Dispossessed Property – the Recent Decision of the German Federal Administrative Court, 5 German L. J. 2–6 (2004).Google Scholar
6 On West German restitution and compensation, see, for example, Norman Bentwich, The United Restitution Organization 1948-1968 (1969); Kurt Schwerin, German Compensation for Victims of Nazi Persecution, 67 Nw. U. L. R. 479 (1972). For a recent overview of the West German reparations effort (without focus on property restitution), see Ariel Colonomos & Andrea Armstrong, German Reparations to the Jews After World War II: A Turning Point in the History of Reparations, in Handbook of Reparations 390 et seq. (Pablo de Greiff ed., 2006).Google Scholar
7 Barkan, Elazar, The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices xxiv-xxviii, 318 (2000).Google Scholar
8 Colonomos & Armstrong, supra note 6, at 411.Google Scholar
9 See, e.g., John R. Crook, Mass Claims Process: Lessons Learned Over Twenty-Five Years, in Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes 41 (Int'l Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ed., 2006). For listings of the main mass claims programs, see International Mass Claims Processes: Legal and Practical Perspectives 13 (Howard M. Holtzmann & Edda Kristjansdottir eds., 2007); IOM, supra note 3.Google Scholar
10 Hans, Das, The Concept of Mass Claims and the Specificity of Mass Claims Resolution, in Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes 6 (International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ed., 2006).Google Scholar
11 IOM, supra note 3, at 4. See also Jacomijn J. van Haersolte-van Hof, Innovations to Speed Mass Claims: New Standards of Proof, in Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes 13 (Int'l Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ed., 2006).Google Scholar
12 See Holtzmann, & Kristjansdottir, , supra note 9, at 232, 237, 243, 290.Google Scholar
13 IOM, supra note 3, at 1. See also Norbert Wühler, Claims for Restitution and Compensation, in International Migration Review: Developing Paradigms and Key Challenges 204 (Ryszard Cholewinski, Richard Perruchoud & Euan Macdonald eds., 2007).Google Scholar
14 For example, the compensation fund foreseen under Article VII of the Dayton Peace Agreement was never established due to a lack of funding; restitution and confirmation of rights were the only available options for claimants. Scott Leckie, New Directions in Housing and Property Restitution, in Returning Home: Housing and Property Restitution Rights of Refugees and Displaced Persons 38 (Scott Leckie ed., 2003).Google Scholar
15 Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons (“Pinheiro-Principles”), art. 21.2, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/17 (June 28, 2005), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/pinheiro_principles.pdf. See also Agnès Hurwitz, Kaysie Studdard, & Rhodri Williams, Housing, Land, Property and Conflict Management: Identifying Policy Options for Rule of Law Programming 20 (International Peace Academy, Policy Report, October 2005).Google Scholar
16 The Tribunal differed from later mass claims proceedings mainly in that it operated with traditional arbitral procedures and failed to provide timely justice for many claimants. Cf. Crook, supra note 9, at 44.Google Scholar
17 This was noted by the British Foreign Office, which unsuccessfully tried to find historical precedents. See Foreign Office Research Department, Report on Historical Precedents Relevant to the Question of the Compensation of German Nationals (Feb. 28, 1956) (available in the Secretariat of the Chief of Staff British Zone, Advanced Headquarters Berlin, Public Record Office, FO 1046/901). See also Leopold von Carlowitz, The Human Right to Property for Refugees and Displaced Persons?: On the Progressive Development of Customary Law by the International Administrations in the Balkans, 1 Irish Y.B. Int'l L. 227 (2006).Google Scholar
18 Dolzer, Rudolf, Mixed Claims Commissions, in 3 Encyclopedia of Public International Law 438 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 1997).Google Scholar
19 Buxbaum, , supra note 2, at 314.Google Scholar
20 Grundgesetz für Bundersrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], July 22, 1992, BGBl. I at 1257 (Ger.) (Property Act art. 1(VI), sentence 2).Google Scholar
21 Grundgesetz für Bundersrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], Sept. 27 1994, BGBl. I at 2632 (Ger.) (Law on the Compensation of Victims of NS Persecution).Google Scholar
22 For a comprehensive overview, see Simone Latwig-Winters, Wertheim-Ein Warenhausunternehmen und seine Eigentümer: Ein Beispiel der Entwicklung der Berliner Warenhäuser bis zur ‘Arisierung‘ (1997).Google Scholar
23 Blau, Bruno, Das Ausnahmerecht für die Juden in Deutschland 1933 – 1945 7 (3d ed. 1954).Google Scholar
24 Grundgesetz für Bundersrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law] 1992 BGBl. I at 414 (Ger.) (Regulation on the Declaration of Jewish Assets, art. 1).Google Scholar
25 Gesetz zur Änderung der Gewerbeordnung für das Deutsche Reich [Law Amending the German Reich Trade Law], art. 34(b) German Reich Official Gazette, July 6, 1938, RGBl. I at 823 (Ger.).Google Scholar
26 Regulation on the Exclusion of Jews from German Economic Life, German Reich Official Gazette, Nov. 12, 1938, RGBl. I at 1580 (Ger.).Google Scholar
27 Verordnung zur Durchführung der Verordnung zur Ausschaltung der Juden aus dem deutschen Wirtschaftsleben [Regulation Implementing the Regulation on the Exclusion of Jews from German Economic Life], German Reich Official Gazette, Nov. 23, 1938, RGBl. I at 1642 (Ger.).Google Scholar
28 Verordnung über den Einsatz des jüdischen Vermögens [Regulation on the Use of Jewish Property], German Reich Official Gazette, Dec. 3, 1938, RGBl. I at 1709 (Ger.).Google Scholar
29 Browning, Christopher R., Deportations, in 1 Encyclopedia of the Holocaust 365 (Israel Gutman ed., 1990).Google Scholar
30 Id. at 367.Google Scholar
31 Letter from German Reich Minister of Finance, Schnellbrief (Nov. 4, 1941), reprinted in 6 Bundesamt zur Regelung offener Vermögens, Schriftenreihe des Bundesamtes zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen 230 (1994).Google Scholar
32 That Jewish property lost or taken as a consequence of persecution should generally be returned to its owners was a claim not only made by victim groups but also by the Allies as well as—to a lesser extent—by relevant German political and economic circles. No consensus could, however, be reached concerning the extent and underlying principles of the property restitution regime. As a consequence, the remaining German Länder refused to establish restitution regimes themselves with their legislative competence granted without prejudice to the powers of the Allies. The latter were thus forced to take on the lead and to carry regulatory responsibility for the reparations program. Yet, the Allies were unable to find a common approach but adopted, with the exception of the Soviet Union, slightly different restitution legislation for their own occupied zones.Google Scholar
33 Military Government Law no. 59 [Restitution of Identifiable Property], Military Gov't Gazette, Germany United States Area of Control, Issue G (Nov. 10, 1947) (Ger.).Google Scholar
34 Goschler, Constantin, Zwei Wellen der Restitution: Die Rückgabe jüdischen Eigentums nach 1945 und 1990, in Raub und Restitution: Kulturgut aus jüdischem Besitz von 1933 bis heute 105 (Inka Bertz & Michael Dorrmann eds., 2008).Google Scholar
35 Schwerin, , supra note 6, at 490.Google Scholar
36 Military Government Law no. 59, art. 1, para. 1. [Restitution of Identifiable Property], Military Gov't Gazette, Germany United States Area of Control, Issue G, Nov. 10, 1947 (Ger.).Google Scholar
37 Hans-Jörg Graf, Rückgabe von Vermögenswerten an Verfolgte des nationalsozialistischen Regimes im Beitrittsgebiet 53 (1999).Google Scholar
38 Cf. Military Government Law no. 59, supra note 36.Google Scholar
39 Restitution could have been based on the unjust enrichment clauses of the German Civil Code (para. 812 et seq.). However, applying this legal regime would have entailed the intolerable consequence that the German Treasury would inherit the claims in those cases where whole families had perished under the Nazi Regime (compare para. 1936 of the German Civil Code). Moreover, restoring the pre-war situation based on a private law regime would have been extremely time-consuming, inexpedient, and unacceptable for the victims. Civil law proceedings require that every lawsuit must identify an opponent who is procedurally available and solvent. Further, the provisions on tort oblige the victim claiming damages to carry the burden of proof for all facts. These provisions would have made it impossible for many victims to make their case.Google Scholar
40 Ordinance No. 120 [Restitution of Property Which Has Been Subjected to Acts of Theft], Nov. 10, 1947, Military Gov't Gazette, French Area of Control (Ger.).Google Scholar
41 Military Government Law no. 59 [Restitution of Identifiable Property to Victims of Nazi Oppression], May 12, 1949, Military Gov't Gazette, British Area of Control (Ger.).Google Scholar
42 Allied Kommandatura Berlin Order [Restitution of Identifiable Property to Victims of Nazi Oppression], Feb. 16, 1949, BK/O (49), 26 (cited in Restitution of Identifiable Property to Victims of Nazi Oppression: Allied Kommandatura Berlin Order, 44 Am. J. Int'l L. 39–67 (1950)).Google Scholar
43 Schwarz, Walter, Die Wiedergutmachung nationalsozialistischen Unrechts durch die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in 1 Rückerstattung nach den Gesetzen der Alliierten Mächte 27 (1974).Google Scholar
44 For the purposes of this article, the term “claim” will be used for the allegation of the right to restitution or compensation, whereas the term “claim application” will be used for the written submission, requesting confirmation of the claimed right.Google Scholar
45 Schwerin, , supra note 6, at 491.Google Scholar
46 See Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], Oct. 23, 1955, BGBl.II at 69 (Ger.).Google Scholar
47 Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], July 19, 1967, BGBl. I at 734 (Ger.) [Federal Restitution Law].Google Scholar
48 Id. at para. 1.Google Scholar
49 Id. at para. 31. Cf. Schwerin, supra note 6, at 491.Google Scholar
50 Report on the Reparation and Compensation for Nazi Injustice and on the Situation of Sinto and Roma in Germany, Deutscher Bundestag: Drucksachen und Protokolle [BT] 10/6287 (Ger.).Google Scholar
51 Schwerin, , supra note 6, at 490.Google Scholar
52 For a more detailed overview of the various amendments, see Colonomos & Armstrong, supra note 6, at 402 et. seq.Google Scholar
53 See Article 51 of the Final Federal Compensation Law in: Grundgesetz fur die Bundersrepublik Deutschland [Grudngesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], June 29, 1956, BGBl. I at 570 (Ger.).Google Scholar
54 Gesetz über den Lastenausgleich [LAG] [Law on the Adjustments of Burdens], Aug. 14, 1952, BGBl. I at 446 (Ger.). See also Michael L. Hughes, Shouldering the Burdens of Defeat: West Germany and the Reconstruction of Social Justice 77 (1999).Google Scholar
55 See Wiegand, Lutz, Der Lastenausgleich in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945 bis 1985, at 138 et seq. (1992) (providing a detailed description of the system financing the adjustment funds).Google Scholar
56 See infra Part C.III.Google Scholar
57 See Spannuth, Jan Philipp, Rückerstattung Ost: Der Umgang der DDR mit dem ‘arisierten’ Vermögen der Juden und die Gestaltung der Rückerstattung im wiedervereinigten Deutschland, in “Arisierung” und Restitution: Die Rückerstattung jüdischen Eigentums in Deutschland und Österreich nach 1945 und 1989, at 253 (Constantin Goschler & Jürgen Lillteicher eds., 2002).Google Scholar
58 Id. at 250.Google Scholar
59 See Frank, Rainer, Privatization in Eastern Germany: A Comprehensive Study, 27 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 812 (1994) (describing, in more detail, how nationalization concerned industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential property).Google Scholar
60 Schwarz, , supra note 43 at 327.Google Scholar
61 Rürup, Bernhard, Einleitung, in “Arisierung” und Restitution: Die Rückerstattung jüdischen Eigentums in Deutschland und Österreich nach 1945 und 1989, at 193 (Constantin Goschler & Jürgen Lillteicher eds., 2002). See also Colonomos & Armstrong, supra note 6 at 397 et seq. (providing more explanation on the Luxemburg Agreement).Google Scholar
62 The Länder were abolished by the GDR in 1952 and re-established in 1990 as Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia.Google Scholar
63 Gesetz zu dem Abkommen vom 13. Mai 1992 zwischen der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Regierung der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika über die Regelung bestimmter Vermögensansprüche [Act of the 13 May 1992 Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the United States of America concerning the settlement of Certain Property Claims] Dec. 21, 1992, BGBl. II at 1225, art. 3, para. 6 (Ger.).Google Scholar
64 See Southern, D.B., Restitution or Compensation: The Land Question in East Germany, 42 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 692 (1993).Google Scholar
65 Fieberg, Gerhard, Legislation and Judicial Practice in Germany: Landmarks and Central Issues in the Property Question, in Confronting Past Injustices: Approaches to Amnesty, Punishment, Reparation and Restitution in South Africa and Germany 81 et seq. (Medard R. Rwelamiera & Gerhard Werle eds., 1996).Google Scholar
66 Meyer-Seitz, Christian, Die Entwicklung der Rückerstattung in den neuen Ländern: Eine juristische Perspektive, in “Arisierung” und Restitution: Die Rückerstattung jüdischen Eigentums in Deutschland und Österreich nach 1945 und 1989, at 84 (Constantin Goschler & Jürgen Lillteicher eds., 2002) (discussing more generally a socially practicable resolution of the property question).Google Scholar
67 See Verordnung zu dem Übereinkommen zur Regelung bestimmter Fragen in bezug auf Berlin vom 25. September 1990 [Joint Declaration for the Regulation of Open Property Issues], June 15, 1990, BGBl. II at 1273 (Ger.); Vertrag zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik über die Herstellung der Einheit Deutschlands [Einigungsvertrag] [Unification Treaty], Aug. 31, 1990, BGBl. II at 889 (Ger.).Google Scholar
68 Mostert, , supra note 5, at 4-5.Google Scholar
69 Gesetz zur Änderung des Vermögensgesetzes und anderer Vorschriften [Zweites Vermögensrechtsänderungsgesetz] [Second Amendment to the Property Act], July 22, 1992, BGBl. I at 1257, art. 8, para. 1 (Ger.).Google Scholar
70 Id. Google Scholar
71 Id. at art. 1, para. 8a, sentence 2.Google Scholar
72 Id. at art. 1, para. 6, sentence 2. See infra Part C.I.Google Scholar
73 Gesetz über die Entschädigung nach dem Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen und über staatliche Ausgleichsleistungen für Enteignungen auf besatzungsrechtlicher oder besatzungshoheitlicher Grundlage [Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz – EALG] [Compensation and Adjustment Payments Act], Sept. 27, 1994, BGBl. I at 2624 (Ger.).Google Scholar
74 The Compensation Fund was first mentioned in the Joint Declaration by the East and West German Governments. It is a special federal fund without legal personality whose assets are accounted for separately from any other assets of the Federal Republic of Germany. This construction ensures that the Fund is not affected by any budget freezes and continuous liquidity is guaranteed. Unlike compensation arrangements for other categories of claimants, which usually consist of bonds or privileges in property purchases, victims of Nazi persecution could cash in their compensatory entitlements directly. Gesetz über die Entschädigung nach dem Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen und über staatliche Ausgleichsleistungen für Enteignungen auf besatzungsrechtlicher oder besatzungshoheitlicher Grundlage [Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz – EALG] [Law on the Compensation of Victims of NS Persecution], Sept. 27, 1994, BGBl. I at 2632, art. 1(1) (Ger.). The Compensation Fund is administered by the Federal Open Property Office and funded with contributions from the German Privatization Agency (Treuhand) and its successor organizations, former GDR State property, income generated from the Law on the Adjustment of Burdens, and to the largest extent by taxes. Cf. Hermann-Josef Rodenbach, Das Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz, 5 Zeitschrift für offene Vermögensfragen 9 (1995).Google Scholar
75 Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen [Vermögensgesetz – VermG] [Decree of the Restitution of Identifiable Property], July 26, 1949, VOBl. I at 221 (Ger.), available at http://norm.bverwg.de/jur.php?VermG,1.Google Scholar
76 See Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG] [Federal Administrative Court], Case No. 7 C 64/02 (Oct. 23, 2003), http://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/pdf/231003U7C64.02.0.pdf.Google Scholar
77 See Oberlandesgericht München [OLG München] [Higher Regional Court Berlin], NJW/RzW 1954, 252–253; Oberlandesgericht München [OLG München] [Higher Regional Court Berlin], NJW/RzW 1956, 301–302.Google Scholar
78 Oberlandesgericht Hamm [OLG Hamm] [Higher Regional Court Hamm], 1951, NJW/RzW, 326.Google Scholar
79 Compare Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen [Vermögensgesetz – VermG] [Decree of the Restitution of Identifiable Property], July 26, 1949, VOBl. I at 221, art. 3, para 1, item (b), available at http://norm.bverwg.de/jur.php?VermG,1. (Ger.), with Schwarz, supra note 43, at 159.Google Scholar
80 See Gesetz zur Änderung des Vermögensgesetzes und anderer Vorschriften [Zweites Vermögensrechtsänderungsgesetz] [Second Amendment to the Property Act], July 22, 1992, BGBl. I at 1257, art. 1, para. 6, sentence 2; Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen [Vermögensgesetz – VermG] [Decree of the Restitution of Identifiable Property], July 26, 1949, VOBl. I at 221, art. 3, para. 2; Oberlandesgericht München [OLG München] [Higher Regional Court Berlin], NJW/RzW 1954, 104, 253 (providing extra information on what constitutes an adequate price and the free disposal).Google Scholar
81 See Oberlandesgericht München [OLG München] [Higher Regional Court Berlin], NJW/RzW 1949, 143, 206, 234; Oberlandesgericht München [OLG München] [Higher Regional Court Berlin], NJW/RzW 1956, 316; Oberlandesgericht München [OLG München] [Higher Regional Court Berlin], NJW/RzW 1953, 93; Oberlandesgericht München [OLG München] [Higher Regional Court Berlin], NJW/RzW 1952, 48; Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG] [Federal Administrative Court], Case No. 7 C 64/02 (Oct. 23, 2003), http://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/pdf/231003U7C64.02.0.pdf.Google Scholar
82 See generally Marilyn Henry, Confronting the Perpetrators: A History of the Claims Conference (2007) (providing a comprehensive account of the history of the JCC); Ronald W. Zweig, German Reparations and the Jewish World: A History of the Claims Conference (2001) (same).Google Scholar
83 See Gräf, Dieter, Behandlung der vermögensrechtlichen Ansprüche der NS-Verfolgten, 6 Schriftenreihe des Bundesamtes zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen [Federal Open Property Office] 89 (1994) (demonstrating that the succession clause is anchored in art. 2 of the Registration regulation for the Property Act, as well as art. 2, para. 1 of the law itself and that from these two clauses, the JCC's right derives to register/claim communal property, that of associations, as well as heirless and unclaimed property).Google Scholar
84 See Brandt, Adelhaid & Kittke, Horst-Dieter, Rechtsprechung und Gesetzgebung zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen [RGV] 1 Bundesministerium der Justiz [Federal Ministry of Justice], Instruction B(2)(a) (1992); Gesetz zur Änderung des Vermögensgesetzes und anderer Vorschriften [Zweites Vermögensrechtsänderungsgesetz] [Second Amendment to the Property Act], July 22, 1992, BGBl. I at 1257, art. 2.Google Scholar
85 Cf. Gesetz zur Änderung des Vermögensgesetzes und anderer Vorschriften [Zweites Vermögensrechtsänderungsgesetz] [Second Amendment to the Property Act], July 22, 1992, BGBl. I at 1257, art. 16.Google Scholar
86 See id. art. 16, para. 5, (allowing that the claimant also takes over all legal rights and obligations that exist in relation to the asset); see id. art. 18 (describing that the restitution decision also has to determine what happens to the in rem rights of use, which exist in relation to the asset). Continuing legal relationships can be modified or terminated only on the basis of the applicable legislation for these kinds of transactions. The Property Act further regulates how to proceed with mortgages and similar liens that exist with regard to the asset.Google Scholar
87 See id. art. 17.Google Scholar
88 See id. art. 20.Google Scholar
89 See id. art. 20a.Google Scholar
90 Spannuth, , supra note 57, at 258.Google Scholar
91 See Gesetz zur Änderung des Vermögensgesetzes und anderer Vorschriften [Zweites Vermögensrechtsänderungsgesetz] [Second Amendment to the Property Act], July 22, 1992, BGBL. I at 1257, art. 23 (detailing that the Länder established Municipal and Regional Open Property Offices). See id. arts. 6, 6a, 6b (showing that the latter level is competent for decisions regarding claims for restitution of businesses); see id. art. 6, para. 7 (showing that in the case restitutio in rem is impossible and the claimant has filed his claim within the deadline, is also competent regarding the decision on the right to compensation as well as the amount).Google Scholar
To ensure that the Law would be applied coherently within this federal structure, the Federal Open Property Office was founded. It was supported by an advisory board, which was composed of a representative of each of the five Law-implementing Länder, four representatives of lobby groups, as well as four experts. The new Länder therefore originally ruled on all restitution claims according to id. art. 30, para. 1, sentence 1; art. 30a, para. 1, sentence 1.Google Scholar
92 Given that potential claimants were spread all around the globe, advertisements were published in all relevant newspapers and journals to make the possibility to claim most widely known.Google Scholar
93 See Second Amendment to the Property Act, July 22, 1992, BGBL. I, art. 3, para. 3.Google Scholar
94 In blanket application (1), the JCC globally claimed restitution of all identifiable property, which would arise out of files and archives to which it not yet had access to, and which would confirm a loss according to article 1, paragraph 6 of the Property Act and where the JCC was eligible according to article 2. With blanket application (2), the JCC globally requested return of all assets that were claimed by third parties, where during the process it would become clear that the asset was subject to a loss according to article 1, paragraph 6 and where the JCC is the legal successor. With blanket application (3) the JCC globally claimed the return of such assets, which would be ascertainable from certain archives, their stocks and files. Attached to this application was a 77-paged annex with numerous data from national archives in Germany, Israel and the former Soviet Union annexed from regional German archives and national sources. In many claims processes the JCC is referring to these applications, which then concretized and substantiated after the expiry of the exclusions periods. See Philipp Holtmann, Reine Verhandlungssache: Die Jewish Claims Conference steht in der Kritik, Jüdische Zeitung, July 2008 (regarding these blanket applications critically).Google Scholar
95 First, it was decided that an application to claim restitution of an asset had to contain sufficient details that (at least in the way of interpretation) the claimed asset could be identified. The application has to at ensure that the asset can at least be individualized, as to not confront it unjustified with the prohibition of disposal. Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG] [Federal Administrative Court], Case No. 7 C 8.00 (Oct. 5, 2000). In view of the blanket applications of the JCC, the Federal Administrative Court further concretized that the documents submitted with the application would need to directly lead to the claimed asset, meaning that the claimed asset would need to emerge from referenced specific records. Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG] [Federal Administrative Court], Case No. 8 C-15/03 (Nov. 24, 2004). So the crucial question is what constitutes this “lead?” According to the Federal Administrative Court, this can at best be considered, if the documents listed in the blanket application provide a hint to a confiscation or forced sale of Jewish property. In addition, details have to emerge from the file that the records relate to the territorial jurisdiction of the respective Open property office.Google Scholar
96 See Gräf, supra note 83, at 90 (issuing a communication based on this legal opinion regarding the blanket application, which had been published in its series).Google Scholar
97 Deutscher Bundestag: Drucksachen und Protokolle [BT] 15/5576 (Ger.).Google Scholar
98 See id. Google Scholar
99 See id. (describing the particulars of the regulation and decreeing that the law went into effect on 8 September 2005).Google Scholar
100 See Brandt, Adelhaid & Kittke, Horst-Dieter, Rechtsprechung und Gesetzgebung zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen [RGV] 1 Bundesministerium der Justiz [Federal Ministry of Justice], Instruction B(2)(c) (1992).Google Scholar
101 See generally Fieberg, Gerhard et al., Vermögensgesetz: VermG (2007).Google Scholar
102 See Gesetz zur Änderung des Vermögensgesetzes und anderer Vorschriften [Zweites Vermögensrechtsänderungsgesetz] [Second Amendment to the Property Act], July 22, 1992, BGBl. I at 1257, art. 4, para. 1.Google Scholar
103 Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Property Act makes reference to the Regulation on the Foundation and Activities of Companies with Foreign Shares in the GDR (Verordnung über die Gründung und Tätigkeit von Unternehmen mit ausländischer Beteiligung in der DDR) (January 1990), the Privatization Law (Treuhandgesetz) (June 1990), or the Law on the Foundation and Activities of Private Companies and on Company Shares (Gesetz über die Gründung und Tätigkeit privater Unternehmen und über Unternehmensbeteiligungen) (March 1990).Google Scholar
104 Gesetz zur Änderung des Vermögensgesetzes und anderer Vorschriften [Zweites Vermögensrechtsänderungsgesetz] [Second Amendment to the Property Act], BGBl. I at 1257, art. 4, para. 2 (July 22, 1992).Google Scholar
105 Id. Google Scholar
106 Id. art. 4, para. 3.Google Scholar
107 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code], Aug. 18, 1896, Reichsgesetzblatt [RGBl.] 195, § 892.Google Scholar
108 Vermögensgesetz [Property Act], July 22, 1992, BGBL. I art. 5.Google Scholar
109 The Property Act regulates the compensation of equal value and set-off of considerations in significant detail, and the following explanations will limit themselves to the essential, necessary for this article. Id. arts. 7, 7(a).Google Scholar
110 Id. art. 7, para. 1. Should the proof no longer be possible, article 7, paragraph 1, sentence 2 opens the possibility to use estimation. Id. Google Scholar
111 Id. art. 7, para. 2. If the activities of article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 have been financed by mortgages, the indemnity rights do not exist. Id. Google Scholar
112 Id. art. 7, para. 7. The right holder has the right to set-off expenses. Id. at art. 7, para. 3.Google Scholar
113 Id. art. 7(a), para. 2.Google Scholar
114 Cf. Dostal, Caroline, Comment on the Ruling of the Administrative Court of Berlin (Verwaltungsgericht Berlin), in 6 Rechtsprechungsübersicht 29, 29 (Fed. Open Prop. Office ed., 2005).Google Scholar
115 NS-Verfolgtenentschädigungsgesetz [Law on the Compensation of Victims of Nazi Persecution], BGBL. I art. 1, para. 1 (Sept. 27, 1994).Google Scholar
116 The Regional Tax Office Berlin still housed the central archive of the 1930s, which was used as the basis for the calculation of compensation. The Office had played a central role in the aryanization. In January 2004, the competence regarding claims pursuant to article 1, paragraph 6 of the Property Act was transferred to the Federal Office for the Regulation of Open Property Issues, which now decides the merits as well as the compensation amounts. The competence was changed due to the pressure of the JCC, which demanded faster decision making and hoped this measure would accelerate the proceedings.Google Scholar
117 See supra Part B (discussing the Compensation and Adjustment Payments Act in greater detail).Google Scholar
118 The German tax system bases its valuation on the periodic assessment of tax values for real estate, businesses, etc. The last periodic assessment prior to most losses under the Nazi regime occurred in 1934–1935, which—if it is available—is the value being used for these compensation claims. For the Equalization of Burdens, detailed lists were established that would determine the substitute tax value for businesses. Therefore, if it is known that a mechanic had between 2.9 and 3.3 employees, the substitute tax value for his business was 6000 RM.Google Scholar
119 This figure differed from the multiplier in post-1949 compensation.Google Scholar
120 NS-Verfolgtenentschädigungsgesetz [Law on the Compensation of Victims of Nazi Persecution], Sept. 27, 1994, BGBL. I art. 2.Google Scholar
121 Id. art. 2, paras. 2, 3.Google Scholar
122 Entschädigungs—und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz [Compensation and Adjustment Payments Act], Sept. 27, 1994, BGBL. I art. 3, para. 1, sentence 2.Google Scholar
123 NS-Verfolgtenentschädigungsgesetz [Law on the Compensation of Victims of Nazi Persecution], Sept. 27, 1994, BGBL. I art. 2, sentence 2.Google Scholar
124 Id. See also Dostal, Caroline, Die Anrechnung von dinglichen Belastungen bei Betriebsgrundstücken nach VermG, EntschG und NS-VEntschG, 55 Informationsdienst für Lastenausgleich [IFLA], 61–64 (2006) (providing further differentiation).Google Scholar
125 NS-Verfolgtenentschädigungsgesetz [Law on the Compensation of Victims of Nazi Persecution], Sept. 27, 1994, BGBL. I art. 4, para. 2.Google Scholar
126 Bundesausgleichsamt [President of Federal Adjustment Office], Richtzahlen fuer die Ermittlung der Ersatzeinheitswerte der gewerblichen Betriebe des Handwerks, des Einzelhandels, des Grosshandels sowie des Gaststaetten- und Beherbergungsgewerbes [Guiding Figures for Determining the Replacement Value of Commercial Crafts, Retail, Wholesale, Catering and Hotel Businesses] (1958).Google Scholar
127 NS-Verfolgtenentschädigungsgesetz [Law on the Compensation of Victims of Nazi Persecution], Sept. 27, 1994, BGBL. I art. 5, para. 1. In case the private monetary entitlement was accounted for in Reichsmark (and the property was lost prior to 24 June 1948), the exchange calculation differed. The first 100 Reichsmark were exchanged at 50%, the remainder up to 1000 Reichsmark at 10%, and anything above 1000 Reichsmark at 5%. The result of this calculation would then be the basis for the compensation determination.Google Scholar
128 Entschädigungs—und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz [Compensation and Adjustment Payments Act], Sept. 27, 1994, BGBL. I art. 6.Google Scholar
129 Fed. Ministry of Fin., Fed. Open Prop. Office & Reg'l Open Prop. Offices of Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia, Gemeinsame Arbeitshilfe zum Entschädigungsgesetz und Ausgleichleistungsgesetz [Joint Guidance Note on the Compensation and Adjustment Payments Act], in Schriftenreihe des Bundesamtes zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen 32, 329 (Fed. Open Prop. Office ed., 2005).Google Scholar
130 Entschädigungs—und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz [Compensation and Adjustment Payments Act], Sept. 27, 1994, BGBL. I art. 8. See supra Part A.IV (providing additional information on the Act).Google Scholar
131 An interesting comparison in approach, results, speed, and costs to the post-reunification reparation process is the Property Claims Commission under the German Forced Labour Compensation Programme. See IOM, supra note 3.Google Scholar
132 Vermögensgesetz [Property Act], July 22, 1992, BGBL. I art. 31, para. 1.Google Scholar
133 Id. art. 31, para. 3.Google Scholar
134 Id. art. 31, para. 1(b).Google Scholar
135 Id. art. 38.Google Scholar
136 Id. art. 36, para. 1.Google Scholar
137 Vermögensgesetz [Property Act], July 22, 1992, BGBL. I art. 36, para. 4 (as amended in 2005).Google Scholar
138 Vermögensgesetz [Property Act], July 22, 1992, BGBL. I art. 37.Google Scholar
139 Compare with, for example, the prominent case of Ms. Gabriele Hammerstein; the JCC appealed the decision for the restitution of a plot in Schwerin, which led to a considerably lengthened procedure, during which the condition of the house deteriorated further and further and the property lost its value. Ms. Hammerstein sued the JCC in the United States, however, the court decision referred to the German jurisdiction. See Hammerstein v. Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Ger., No. 100767/2007, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 8918 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 2, 2008). Cf. Holtmann, supra note 93 (listing a number of similar such cases). Cf. Christoph Scheuermann, Die Vergessene, 52 Der Spiegel 44–46 (2010) (citing the most recent examples of these cases).Google Scholar
140 It was also in the interest of the State not to promote increasing costs because, on the one hand, interest must be paid on compensation claims by the month prior to the announcement of the ruling as of 1 January 2004 according to article 2 of the Nazi Compensation Act. NS-Verfolgtenentschädigungsgesetz [Law on the Compensation of Victims of Nazi Persecution], Sept. 27, 1994, BGBL. I art. 2. The interest is set at a monthly rate of 0.5% and was implemented so as to expedite the processing of claims. On the other hand, court costs represented a significant expense.Google Scholar
141 Cf. Dostal, , supra note 113, at 29.Google Scholar
142 Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG-Federal Administrative Court], Case No. 7 C 16/05 (Aug. 31, 2006), available at http://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/entscheidung.php?ent=310806U7C16.05.0 (outlining the above-mentioned ruling of the Administrative Court Berlin, which is hereby confirmed). See also Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG-Federal Administrative Court], Case No. 7 B 21/05 (July 29, 2005), available at http://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/entscheidung.php?ent=290705B7B21.05.0.Google Scholar
143 BVerwG, Case No. 7 C 16/05 (Aug. 31, 2006). See also Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG-Federal Administrative Court], Case No. 8 B 5/08 (Apr. 8, 2008), available at http://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/entscheidung.php?ent=080408B8B5.08.0 (discussing the shift in burden of proof).Google Scholar
144 This number contains claims for 149,752 plots of land, for 45,805 enterprises, and for 20,070 movable properties. Approximately 88 percent of the immovable property claims were settled. Fed. Office for Central Services and Unresolved Prop. Issues [BADV], Statistical Overview (2013).Google Scholar
145 Id. Google Scholar
146 Id. Google Scholar
147 Fed. Ministry of Finance, Compensation for National Socialist Injustice—Indemnification Provisions 29 (2012).Google Scholar
148 Id. at 32.Google Scholar
149 Bundesministerium der Finanzen [Federal Ministry of Finance], The Structure of the Federal Budget, http://www.bundeshaushalt-info.de (last visited Sep. 12, 2014).Google Scholar
150 Fed. Ministry of Finance, supra note 147, at 30.Google Scholar
151 IOM, supra note 3, at 1.Google Scholar
152 Meyer-Seitz, Christian, Entwicklung der Rückerstattung in den neuen Bundesländern seit 1989, in “Arisierung” und Restitution: Die Rückerstattung jüdischen Eigentums in Deutschland und Österreich nach 1945 und 1989, at 276 (Constantin Goschler & Jürgen Lillteicher eds., 2002); Goschler, supra note 34, at 41.Google Scholar
153 Cf. Lillteicher, Jürgen, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Verfolgungserfahrung: “Arisierung” und fiskalische Ausplünderung vor Gericht, in “Arisierung” und Restitution: Die Rückerstattung jüdischen Eigentums in Deutschland und Österreich nach 1945 und 1989, at 156 (Constantin Goschler & Jürgen Lillteicher eds., 2002). See also Christian Pross, Paying for the Past: the struggle over reparations for surviving victims of the Nazi terror 165 et seq. (1998) (observing various health damages).Google Scholar
154 Cf. Spannuth, , supra note 56, at 58; Colonomos & Armstrong, supra note 6, at 410-11 (addressing the issue of compensation).Google Scholar
155 Hammerstein v. Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Ger., No. 100767/2007, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 8918 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 2, 2008).Google Scholar
156 Colonomos, & Armstrong, , supra note 6, at 408; Roy L. Brooks, A Reparations Success Story?, in When Sorry Isn't Enough: The Controversy over Apologies and Reparations for Human Injustice 17 (Roy Brooks ed., 1999). See also Buxbaum, supra note 2.Google Scholar
157 Fed. Ministry of Finance, supra note 146, at 29. This figure includes payments made under the Federal Compensation Act, the Federal Restitution Act, the Compensation Pension Act, the Nazi Compensation Act, the Luxemburg Agreement, and the comprehensive bilateral compensation agreements; it also includes compensation payments by the Länder made outside the Federal Compensation Act, the Hardship Compensation Fund, the Foundation for Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future as well as other payments. See Pierre D'Argent, Reparations after World War II, in 8 The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law 893–98 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2012) (giving a more comprehensive overview of the wider German reparations scheme).Google Scholar
158 Colonomos & Armstrong, supra note 6, at 409–410.Google Scholar
159 Skaar, Elin, Siri Gloppen & Astri Suhrke, Roads to Reconciliation 8 (Elin Skaar, Siri Gloppen & Astri Suhrke eds., 2005); Pablo de Greiff, Introduction to Repairing the Past: Compensation for Victims of Human Rights Violations, in The Handbook of Reparations, supra note 1, at 2; Pablo de Greiff, Justice and Reparations, in The Handbook of Reparations, supra note 1, at 469.Google Scholar
160 Colonomos & Armstrong, supra note 6, at 410–11.Google Scholar
161 Diner, Dan, Der Holocaust in den politischen Kulturen Europas: Erinnerung und Eigentum, in Auschwitz: Sechs Essays zu Geschehen und Vergegenwärtigung 68 (Klaus-Dietmar Henke ed., 2001).Google Scholar
162 Welzer, Harald, Sabine Moller & Karoline Tschuggnall, “Opa war kein Nazi”: Nationalsozialismus und Holocaust im Familiengedächtnis 248 (2002).Google Scholar
163 Zick, Andreas, Beate Küpper & Andreas Hövermann, Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination: A European Report (2011), http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/do/07908-20110311.pdf; Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess & Elmar Brähler, Die Mitte im Umbruch: Rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland 2012 (2012), http://www.fes-gegen-rechtsextremismus.de/pdf_12/mitte-im-umbruch_www.pdf.Google Scholar
You have
Access