Military Government Law No. 59

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Military Government Act No. 59 on the “Restitution of Identifiable Property to Victims of National Socialist Oppressive Measures” is available in two versions. After the Second World War, during the occupation in Germany, they formed the legal framework for restitution procedures for the American and later the British occupation zones . In the American occupation the "Military Government Act No. 59" was passed on November 10, 1947. Two years later, the British military administration followed suit and on May 12, 1949 also enacted a “Military Government Act No. 59”, which corresponded to this model in terms of content and put the practice already practiced within the British zone of occupation on a uniform legal basis.

In Berlin , the Western Allies issued the Berlin restitution order, which largely coincided with the American-British model. A different regulation was created for the French occupation zone in 1947, but the content did not fundamentally differ from it. Restitution claims were handled differently in the Soviet occupation zone .

prehistory

As early as 1943, the Allies had announced in a London declaration that after their victory they would reverse all illegal acts of expropriation by the National Socialists. As one of the first measures the Allied Control Council had seized the property of the NSDAP and its sub-organizations with the Control Council Act No. 2 and placed it under property control. With Directive No. 50 of April 29, 1947, the Allied Control Council ordered the return of these assets to the original owners, i.e. to church, charitable, trade union or political institutions or their successor organizations, for all four zones of occupation. This restitution was unproblematic, because the illegality and persecution of the acquisition did not have to be proven.

It became more complicated with individual reimbursement claims, especially when the new owners were private individuals or commercial companies. In 80 percent of cases it was "Aryanised" or by the state entzogenes assets of Jews .

draft

The American military government set the pace for restitution policy. In April 1946 she commissioned a "special committee for property control" of the Stuttgart state council to work out proposals on how businesses and real estate should be returned. German experts were involved. The proposals rejected as inadequate by the American side were based on the civil code ; these traditional legal instruments were found to be unsuitable by the military government. The proposals were also limited to assets that had been withdrawn by the Nazi state itself. However, criticism also came from German business circles who demanded protection for the “ purchaser in good faith ” (cf. Acquisition in good faith from the unauthorized person ), who only wanted to have the personally injured party or his immediate heirs recognized as beneficiaries and who agitated against “unrestrained compensation ”.

However, the German side had little influence in this matter. The American Jewish Committee gained greater influence over the US military governor Lucius D. Clay , who in particular made his wish for a supreme Allied authority for restitution jurisdiction his own. As a rule, claims to commercial assets and real estate could be negotiated with local reparation authorities, where the two parties should agree on a settlement of the claims. The American draft, which was later also incorporated into law, also provided for a deadline of September 15, 1935 (promulgation of the Nuremberg Laws ), after which any transaction of Jewish property could be challenged. Claims do not expire even if a third party buyer was never involved in such a transaction.

Finally, another point that Clay declared to be indispensable was so contentious among the Allies that there was no uniform regulation for all four zones of occupation. This concerned the claim of the Jewish organizations to have the property of all Jews - including those who converted to Christianity - transferred to them. Linked to this was the collective Jewish claim to let the stolen values benefit the revival of Jewish communities and their own state in Palestine .

Essential content

The American Military Government Act No. 59 comprises 95 articles and came into force on November 10, 1947 in what was then Bavaria (excluding the Rhine Palatinate ), Bremen, Hesse and Württemberg-Baden . The legal basis for this and for the following reimbursement laws and orders were no. 42 Letter B of the Control Council Proclamation No. 2 as well as Art, VIII No. 1 letter B of the Control Council Directive No. 50.

In Article 1, the purpose of the law is stated as “the restitution of identifiable property (objects, rights, summaries of objects and rights) to persons to whom they were given in the period from January 30, 1933 to May 8, 1945 for reasons of race or religion , Nationality, ideology or political opposition to National Socialism have been withdrawn ... “Such assets are to be returned to the original owner or his legal successor; conflicting regulations for the protection of bona fide buyers remain disregarded.

Article 2 lists characteristics of unlawful confiscation. These are legal transactions that offend morality or that have come about illegally or through threats. Likewise, the removal through state acts or misuse of a state act leads to a refund.

According to Article 3, the “presumption of withdrawal” can be refuted if a reasonable purchase price has been paid and the seller could freely dispose of this money. Article 4 sets September 15, 1935 (date of the Nuremberg Laws) as the key date, after which in principle all legal transactions can be challenged, as a predicament of the seller can be assumed. Legal transactions after this date are only considered valid if they would have been concluded without the rule of National Socialism or if the purchaser had safeguarded the interests of the seller in a special way - for example by transferring assets abroad.

In accordance with Article 19, movable objects that were acquired in the “normal course of business from a relevant company” are excluded from reimbursement. "Cult objects and objects of special artistic value" and the like that come from the private property of persecuted persons or from auctions that deal with the exploitation of confiscated assets are expressly excluded from this.

Article 10 regulates that heirless assets or rights of recidivism are not assigned to the state, but should benefit a successor organization to be determined by the military government. According to Article 11, they could file reimbursement claims and apply for security measures up to December 31, 1948.

Articles 55 to 65 make statements on the registration procedure, determination by the district reparation authorities, referral to a reparation chamber at the regional court, objection and enforceability. Article 66 states that one of the three judges of a reparation chamber should belong to the group of those persecuted under Article 1. Article 69 empowers a “Board of Review” to review and amend all decisions.

According to Article 74, acquirers of real estate and companies are obliged to inspect the land registers or land register files, shipping and commercial registers to see whether they are notifiable assets. According to Article 75, anyone who negligently or deliberately fails to comply with his duty to disclose or knowingly provides the reparation bodies with false information is punished with a fine or imprisonment of up to five years.

Other regulations

Military Law No. 59 (British Zone)

For the British government, the transfer of the heirless property to Jewish successor organizations appeared to be incompatible with the Palestinian policy pursued at the time . In their zone of occupation they proceeded with the restitution in accordance with a concise “General Order No. 10” of October 20, 1947, according to the standards set out in the American Military Government Act No. 59. However, it was not until 1949 that it also enacted a “Military Government Act No. 59”, which created a uniform legal basis.

Refund order Berlin 1949 (REAO)

On November 10, 1947, the French government issued “Ordinance No. 120” on the restitution of stolen property for its zone of occupation. It contained a favorable compensation clause for "loyal buyers" and did not provide for a foreign successor organization for assets without heirs - the assets were transferred to a special fund intended to compensate victims of National Socialism. This restriction was not changed until 1951. The cut-off date regulation was also cut differently: Here the previous owner had to prove the illegality if the purchaser had paid a reasonable price and the legal transaction had been concluded before June 14, 1938, the enactment of the 3rd ordinance on the Reich Citizenship Act .

In Berlin, the Western Allies issued the Berlin restitution order, which largely coincided with the American-British model. Art. 3 of this order (with the same content in American and British Acts No. 59) still applies today via Section 1 (6) of the Act for the Regulation of Unresolved Property Issues (VermG) for the reparation of property losses that occurred in the former GDR and East Berlin caused by Nazi persecution, as well as a guideline for the question of how to deal with Nazi-looted art in German museums .

The planned socialization of private property , which was incompatible with the restitution of department stores and production facilities, led to a fundamentally different approach in the Soviet occupation zone . Confiscated and heirless assets should also be used primarily to cover reparation claims . The request to donate the assets to Jewish organizations in America or Palestine was rejected.

validity

According to the wording, the “reparation by restitution” is not limited to confiscation cases that occurred in the area of ​​the US zone of occupation. However, the commentators point to a decree by the US Department of War and State, according to which the scope applies only to this area.

US Military Government Act No. 59 has been amended or supplemented several times (for example, by "Amendments Nos. 1 and 2", by Acts Nos. 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 21, 30 and 42 of the American High Commissioner and with implementing regulations). The third part of the transition agreement states in Article 2 with reference to the Military Government Act No. 59: “The Federal Republic hereby recognizes the necessity and assumes the obligation, the legal provisions mentioned in Article 1 of this part and the programs for the restitution and transfer provided for it to the full extent and accelerated with all available means. "The Military Government Act No. 59 as well as the comparable regulations of the two other Western occupying powers were adopted as" Legislation on the restitution of identifiable assets "in Section 11 of the Federal Restitution Act .

literature

  • Return of identifiable property in the American zone of occupation. Military Government Act No. 59 of November 10, 1947 with implementing regulations - explained by Reinhard and Hans Freiherr von Godin. Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin 1948 (Guttentagsche Collection of German Reich Laws No. 232)
  • Constantin Goschler: Guilt and Debt. The policy of reparation for victims of Nazi persecution since 1945. Göttingen 2005, ISBN 3-89244-868-X

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ On looted art cf. and restitution process .
  2. ↑ Reinhard von Godin: Restitution of identifiable property in the American zone of occupation - Military Government Act No. 59 of November 10, 1947. Berlin 1948, p. 1
  3. ↑ see Control Council Directive No. 50 (accessed March 31, 2009)
  4. ↑ Constantin Goschler: Debt and Debt. The policy of reparation for victims of Nazi persecution since 1945. Göttingen 2005, ISBN 3-89244-868-X , p. 100.
  5. ↑ Constantin Goschler: Debt and Debt ... p. 103.
  6. ↑ Constantin Goschler: Debt and Debt ... p. 104.
  7. ↑ Hans-Jörg Graf, Return of Assets to Victims of the National Socialist Regime in the Accession Area, in: Berliner Juristische Universitätsschriften, Fundamentals of Law, Volume 12. Verlag Arno Spitz GmbH, Berlin 1999, p. 11
  8. ↑ printed in the “Guttentagsche Sammlung Deutscher Reichsgesetze No. 232” listed under literature, pp. 301-302
  9. ^ Reinhard Freiherr von Godin / Hans Freiherr von Godin, restitution of identifiable property in the American and British occupation zones and in Berlin. Commentary, 2nd edition, Berlin 1950; for political development see Constantin Goschler, reparation. West Germany and the persecution of National Socialism (1945–1954), R. Oldenbourg Verlag Munich 1992, pp. 69, 91 ff.
  10. ↑ Constantin Goschler: Debt and Debt ... p. 108 with note 24 on: Journal Officiel. Official Journal of the French High Command in Germany, No. 119, November 14, 1947, p. 1219 / printed in the “Guttentagsche Collection of German Reich Laws No. 232” listed under literature, p. 295ff
  11. ↑ on the differences see for example: Hachenburg, The American and the French Restitution Act in Contrast, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1947/48, pp. 321–323 (321)
  12. ^ Order BK / O (49) 180 of July 26, 1949 (VOB. For Greater Berlin, 221), online: File: Rueckerstattungsanordnung Berlin 1949 (REAO) .pdf , also printed. in: Dieter Schröder (Ed.), 1, ed. 1990, The valid occupation law, p. 890 ff .; s. on this, for example, BVerwG, judgment of July 20, 2016 - 8 B 1.15 - (ECLI: DE: BVerwG: 2016: 200716B8B1.15.0); BVerwG, judgment of July 29, 2010 - 8 B 10/10 - (ECLI: DE: BVerwG: 2010: 290710B8B10.10.0)
  13. ↑ Handout for the implementation of the “Declaration of the Federal Government, the Länder and the Central Municipal Associations on the Finding and Returning of Cultural Property Stolen by National Socialist Persecution, especially from Jewish Property” from December 1999. Version from November 2007
  14. ↑ Constantin Goschler: Debt and Debt ... p. 108ff.
  15. ↑ Reinhard von Godin: restitution of identifiable assets ... , p. 4
  16. ↑ Transfer Agreement, Part III, Art. 1 & 2 (accessed on April 7, 2009)