Restitution (Austria)
The restitution (refund) of during the National Socialism in Austria expropriated and stolen or distress sale far below the value delivered assets to their rightful owners was in Austria addressed slowly and gradually. It has therefore not yet been completed.
overview
After the end of the Second World War , Austria declined any responsibility for the crimes of the Nazi regime, since the Republic of Austria, citing the Moscow Declaration of 1943, regarded itself as the first victim of the German Reich's policy of aggression .
Several restitution laws were passed up to 1949, but these provided for the return of expropriated property only in certain cases and were not designed to compensate as many victims as possible: the deadline for filing an application was kept very short, the potential applicants, mostly residing abroad , have not been advised of their rights. It was also not taken into account that in many cases the loss of assets could not simply be proven by documents for the victims, as the victims often had to leave all personal and professional records in Austria and could not afford private researchers familiar with Austria.
In the two big parties, ÖVP and SPÖ , there was latent anti-Semitism in the post-war period , which led to the practical goal of having to give as little back as possible to the “Jewish capitalists”. A request to speak from Interior Minister Oskar Helmer on the question of when confiscated Jewish property should be returned or compensated, proves this:
“What was stolen from the Jews cannot be brought onto the 'Greater German Reich' platform. A large part already falls back on some of our dear fellow citizens. […] I see only Jewish expansion everywhere […] Everything was taken away from the Nazis in 1945 too […] I would be in favor of dragging the matter out. [...] The Jews will understand that for themselves, since they are aware that many take a stand against them. "
It was not until 1991 that Federal Chancellor Vranitzky admitted Austria's complicity in the crimes of National Socialism; from 1995 onwards, all victims of National Socialism were granted compensation. The final questions were resolved in the Washington Agreement of 2003. To this day, however, there is no legal entitlement to compensation; From a legal point of view, these are voluntary services provided by the state.
history
Restitution in the post-war period: the restitution laws
The seven restitution laws did not have a consistent system, so that it was difficult for those affected to find out which law was applicable to their case and to which authority an application was to be submitted. They deal with the return of looted art , real estate, patent rights, etc. from the time of National Socialism in what is now Austria's federal territory.
Until 1946 there were no clear ideas whatsoever as to whether and how the property stolen by the National Socialists should be returned. The SPÖ and KPÖ proposed a “restitution fund”: only victims of National Socialism in need of help should have received payments, the original owners should therefore not have received anything back. These proposals also met with resistance from the Western Allies. Therefore, in the spring of 1946, it was decided to return seized assets to the damaged owners. However, since Austria, citing the Moscow Declaration , rejected any responsibility for the Nazi crimes, the restitution was limited to the return of property that was still present and found. In addition, compensation payments were only made after the State Treaty , again under pressure from the Western Allies.
First Restitution Act
The federal law of July 26, 1946 on the restitution of confiscated assets that are administered by the federal government or the federal states ( Federal Law Gazette 1946/156) dealt with assets that were deprived of their owners through government action (e.g. ordinances) was and now from a government agency, e.g. B. a financial directorate was administered.
The executing authority was the Finanzlandesdirektion, in whose catchment area the seized assets were located, most cases had to be dealt with by the Finanzlandesdirektion for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland.
Between 1946 and 1956, around 10,700 applications were submitted to the Financial Directorate for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland, of which around 77% ended positively for the applicants after mostly lengthy procedures, as Peter Böhmer found on behalf of the Historians' Commission .
Second Restitution Act
The federal law of February 6, 1947 on the restitution of seized assets that are owned by the Republic of Austria (Federal Law Gazette 1947/53) dealt with seized assets that had become the property of the Republic of Austria due to the National Socialist and War Crimes Act , that is the property that the National Socialists had previously acquired from victims of the Nazi regime and that had now fallen to the Austrian state due to the denazification regulations .
The executing authority was the Finanzlandesdirektion, in whose catchment area the seized assets were located, most cases had to be dealt with by the Finanzlandesdirektion for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland.
The number of applications was far below that under the First Restitution Act. At the Financial Directorate for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland it totaled 900, that is 53% of all applications submitted under the Second Restitution Act (again based on Peter Boehmer's research on behalf of the Historians' Commission). There were Nazi organizations all over Austria, so there was no concentration on the Vienna area.
Third Restitution Act
The federal law of February 6, 1947 on the nullity of asset seizures (BGBl. 1947/54) dealt with seized assets that were in the hands of individuals, companies or institutions.
The executive authorities in the first instance were the restitution commissions set up at the regional courts for civil law matters. These consisted of a chairman and his deputy, who all had to be judges, as well as lay assessors. The second instance was the higher restitution commissions set up at the higher regional courts, the third instance was the Supreme Restitution Commission at the Supreme Court .
The third was the most important of all restitution laws, as it affected the greatest number of seized property. Accordingly, it was fiercely fought politically by business circles and the Association of Independents , a reservoir of former National Socialists among others, journalistic and parliamentary. All attempts to change the law to the detriment of the injured owners failed due to resistance from the Western Allies. Figures are not available, as a large part of the files of the Restitution Commissions were destroyed in 1986 - presumably out of ignorance. At the request of the DÖW , this destruction of files was stopped in 1986, but only a small part of the files could be saved.
Fourth Restitution Act
The federal law of May 21, 1947, regarding company names changed or deleted under National Socialist coercion (Federal Law Gazette 1947/143) made it possible to take over the original name ( company ) under which a company was operated again after 1945 .
The executive authorities were registry courts; these are the courts that keep the commercial register .
Fifth Restitution Act
The federal law of June 22, 1949, on the restitution of confiscated assets of legal persons in business life who lost their legal personality under National Socialist coercion (Federal Law Gazette 1949/164) not only regulated the restitution claims of legal persons in business life, but also enabled their re-establishment. Legal entities in the business world are stock corporations , limited partnerships , limited liability companies , trade and business cooperatives and a few others.
The executive authorities were restitution commissions set up at the regional courts for civil law matters, which consisted of the chairman and his deputy, who all had to be judges, as well as lay assessors. The second instance was the higher restitution commissions set up at the higher regional courts, the third instance was the Supreme Restitution Commission at the Supreme Court.
As the Austrian Commission of Historians found, the number of proceedings may have been small, but due to the lack of files it cannot be specified precisely.
Sixth Restitution Act
The federal law of June 30, 1949 on the restoration of industrial property rights (Federal Law Gazette 1949/199) dealt with revoked trademark and design rights as well as patent rights , whereby the law covered both revoked rights and the obstruction of the use of such rights.
The executive authorities were restitution commissions set up at the regional courts for civil law matters, which consisted of the chairman and his deputies, who all had to be judges, as well as lay assessors. The second instance was the higher restitution commissions set up at the higher regional courts, the third instance was the Supreme Restitution Commission at the Supreme Court.
The contemporary literature gives the number of procedures up to 1952 as 25.
Seventh Restitution Act
The Federal Act of July 14, 1949 on the assertion of withdrawn or unfulfilled claims from employment relationships in the private sector (Federal Law Gazette 1949/207) dealt with unfulfilled claims in the course of job loss due to persecution, such as B. Severance payments , as well as the financial losses resulting from this loss; the actual damage was only compensated to a very limited extent by this law.
The executive authorities were labor courts.
There are almost no files on the implementation of this law, as the Austrian Commission of Historians found.
Analysis of post-war legislation and practice
In 1998–2003, on behalf of the Austrian Commission of Historians, research into the confiscation of property during the Nazi era as well as provisions and compensation since 1945, the history, mode of operation and problems of the restitution laws were analyzed in detail.
The judgment of the Austrian Commission of Historians on the provisions:
“The restitution system is a confusing, sometimes contradicting web of a multitude of laws and ordinances, of conflicting interests of political parties, business associations, victims' organizations and the allies. Numerous problems lay outside the restitution laws [...] To penetrate this thicket it took a financial and mental show of strength. For the victims of National Socialism who got away with their lives and who wanted their stolen belongings back in order to be able to survive at all, it was extremely difficult to orientate themselves. In the Federal Republic of Germany, where in principle two laws regulated restitution and compensation, access was easier. "
The most important limitation of the provisions resulted from the fact that they only related to existing and traceable goods. This means that real estate and medium-sized to larger companies remain the central asset categories in the restitution proceedings under the first three restitution laws . Properties were easy to identify based on the land register. Companies of a certain size and above had a certain probability of surviving the Nazi era. In contrast, the majority of small businesses were first expropriated and then dissolved ("liquidated") so that nothing was left that could have been put aside. The return of movable goods, such as household items, books and works of art, also proved difficult. Well-known collections, such as Arthur Schnitzler's library, were found and ultimately restituted. The innumerable confiscated objects or books from common people simply remained untraceable. It was only with the Art Restitution Act 1998 and the establishment of a provenance research commission at the Federal Monuments Office that the inspection of the holdings of the federal museums for items that were confiscated during the Nazi era and not returned to the rightful owners or their heirs began. Individual federal states such as Vienna, Upper Austria or Styria set up similar commissions for their area.
The restitution commissions interpreted individual provisions, especially the Third Restitution Act, to the detriment of the injured owner. In the event of a provision, the purchase price had to be returned to the current owner, provided that the robbed person had received it for “free disposal”. The restitution commissions often obliged the Nazi victims to reimburse those parts of the purchase price that the Nazi state had withheld to pay Reich flight tax or Jewish property tax. It was extremely difficult for the often destitute survivors of Nazi persecution to raise these sums.
The application deadlines of the restitution laws were often extended in a confusing way for different periods of time - by a year, a few months, then again half a year until they finally expired between 1952 and 1954.
There were no restitution laws for rental apartments, concessions and copyrights. Since almost all apartments were rented before 1938, this meant that returnees from concentration camps, prisons or exile had no opportunity to move into the apartments that had been confiscated from them. Until the 1950s, some returnees therefore lived in mass quarters.
Change in legal opinion
Difficulties that still arise in restitution today are based, among other things, on the change in legal perception, which in many cases still meets with incomprehension. Opponents of restitution - most recently by Rudolf Leopold - cite legally valid purchase contracts and express concerns about non-observance of the fundamental right to property in order to avoid provisions. Every legal owner can freely dispose of his property; the decision of the Austrian state to carry out provisions from state property cannot bind private owners. Property is to be defined exclusively according to legal criteria, moral claims outside of the law have no effect here.
If the traditional legal conception is based on formal rules (e.g. the principle of statute of limitations or the popularly known as what lies, the summarized principle not to intervene in properly concluded legal transactions), the more modern legal conception also places moral demands on the actions of individuals and the state . Formal correctness does not rule out moral injustice, so special rules must be created to protect the weaker party, the victim or the injured party, if there is no insight into the immorality of a process and a willingness to remedy the situation.
Restitution from 1995 until today
When Egon Schiele's portrait of Wally was confiscated at an exhibition in New York in 1998 , the restitution in Austria received international attention. The minister responsible at the time, Elisabeth Gehrer , appointed a commission for provenance research to systematically clarify the origins of the paintings in federal museums. Another consequence was the Art Restitution Act, which was intended to serve as the legal basis for the return of works of art that entered Austrian federal museums during or as a result of the Nazi era.
Art Restitution Act 1998
The federal law on the return of works of art from Austrian federal museums and collections (Federal Law Gazette I No. 181/1998), in short Return of works of art , officially short title Art Restitution Act , obliged the state to request the return of works of art that were withdrawn or undermined during the National Socialist era Pressures were sold to respond with less formalism and more fairness.
The law required the establishment of the Art Restitution Advisory Board, which has since advised the respective Minister for Art Affairs (currently Federal Minister for Education, Art and Culture ) and can make recommendations on restitution.
Persistent resistance
The case of Gustav Klimt : Adele Bloch-Bauer I was an example of the hesitant resistance that the Austrian side was able to take against the restitution . The famous painting dedicated to Adele Bloch-Bauer was withdrawn from her husband Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer , who had to flee from Austria, and was later requested back by Adele's niece Maria Altmann and her co-heirs. Only after a very long legal battle were Elisabeth Gehrer and the Austrian Gallery Belvedere forced to give the picture to Adele's heirs.
Private collections such as the Rudolf Leopold art collection , to which the portrait of Wally belonged and which was brought into the property of a state-sponsored private foundation in 1994, and the Klimt collection, which Ursula Ucicky inherited from her husband, presumably a son of Klimt, and in part moved to a new one in 2013 Foundation, were not taken into account in this law. The United States proceedings against Portrait Wally, a painting by Egon Schiele , were settled in July 2010. Since August 20, 2010 the painting has been exhibited again in Vienna's Leopold Museum. Ursula Ucicky sold a controversial Klimt painting in 2013 and shared the proceeds with the heirs of the owner until 1938.
In 2008, at an exhibition of Albin Egger-Lienz 's paintings at the Leopold Museum in Vienna , weaknesses in the restitution law were again revealed . At that time, 14 paintings were publicly suspected of being Nazi-looted art . The origin of some is proven through Nazi expropriation from Jewish property (not for example in the case of “Waldinneres”, taken from Georg and Erna Duschinsky by the Gestapo in 1939 and bought by a museum after a restitution comparison in 1948), but there are Paintings are now owned by a private foundation, the law does not apply. The case led to a great media coverage in 2008 after the collector Rudolf Leopold (1925-2010) denied any guilt and the Israelitische Kultusgemeinde (IKG) spoke of a mockery of the Nazi victims and - unsuccessfully - demanded the closure of the Leopold Museum . The Leopold Foundation approved the Ministry of Education's proposal to appoint two independent provenance researchers to the Leopold Museum. The results of these researchers suggest that the allegations made by the IKG in 2008 were exaggerated.
Active, passive and missing provenance research
Austrian institutions have been very committed to provenance research and the resulting restitutions in recent years. These include the Austrian National Library , the Vienna Museum , the Vienna Library in the City Hall , the Army History Museum and the Dorotheum . Some of the institutions wait until concrete demands are made. In some state museums, provenance research is only in the early stages. The volume of the Commission for Provenance Research published in 2008 provides an overview of the research that has been carried out in the federal museums since the “Art Restitution Act” was passed in 1998: “'... considerably more cases than assumed' 10 years Commission for Provenance Research”.
On November 9, 2008, the 70th day of remembrance of the November pogroms in 1938 , the IKG launched the campaign “Tatort looted art” in front of the Leopold Museum under the leadership of then President Ariel Muzicant . Muzicant and around 30 of his employees were police-like with uniform jackets and caps marked “Raubkunst Special Farce”, stuck large stickers with the words “Art Crime Scene” or “Tatort Raubkunst” on the facade of the museum and blocked access to the museum at short notice Ribbons labeled "Art Crime Scene". The campaign was accompanied by posters across the city, on which expropriated images could be seen, with headings such as “Girl kidnapped” (Bondi-Jaray case), “Who knows this man?” (Maylaender case) or “Five houses robbed, depending on the motif “(Steiner case). At the same time, a website was set up with information and documentation of the cases and public actions.
Mauerbach auction
Provenance researcher Sophie Lillie caused a stir at the end of 2008 . In 1996, as an employee of the Jewish Community in Vienna, she played a key role in the execution of the so-called Wall Auction . After years of research, she came to the conclusion that the works of art auctioned at the Mauerbach auction in 1996 were not "abandoned property", as the Republic of Austria had assured, but that their owners could in many cases be identified on the basis of inscriptions and stickers on the back of the paintings have been and are.
The so-called “Mauerbach inventory” comprises thousands of works of art that the US Army recovered in the course of the liberation of Austria and handed over to the Republic of Austria in the late 1940s and early 1950s. For decades the Charterhouse was the depot for a collection of Nazi-looted art , which was classified by the state as "ownerless" art. The Federal Monuments Office should have restituted these pictures, but limited its activity to the collection and listing of all works of art and the details known about them.
In 1969, at the pressure of Simon Wiesenthal , the Federal Monuments Office published a list of around 8,000 entries of “abandoned” art. As a result, 1,231 items were reclaimed, of which 72 were actually restituted. All the others became the property of the republic in the 1970s for an advance payment of five million shillings .
In 1984 this collection became known in the United States and was featured in ARTnews as the “Legacy of Shame”. The holdings were republished; as a result, 3,300 claims were made and 22 items returned. Due to public pressure, it was decided in 1995 to transfer the property to the Israelitische Kultusgemeinde. This should auction the items and donate the proceeds to needy Holocaust survivors.
The Israelitische Kultusgemeinde Wien was assured by the state that the owners of the works of art and objects could not be identified and that they were therefore "abandoned property". Provenance researcher Lillie received permission from the then president of the community, Paul Grosz , to photograph the back of the pictures when they were individually appraised and valued by the auction house Christie's . After the then Federal Minister for Education, Science and Culture Elisabeth Gehrer opened the archives for provenance research due to the scandal surrounding the "Portrait of Wally" in 1998 , Lillie was able to track down the origins and the former owners of around 50 of these images.
Art Restitution Act: Amendment 2009
The law passed in 1998 left various wishes unanswered, which the legislature sought to remedy with an amendment in 2009. Since then, the law has had the new long title Federal Law on the Return of Works of Art and Other Movable Cultural Assets from Austrian Federal Museums and Collections and from Other Federal Property . The short title Kunstrückgabegesetz and the abbreviation KRG remained unchanged. As before, the law only applies to state property, not to state foundations such as the Leopold Museum , nor to other private property such as that of Ursula Ucicky .
Restitution by the City of Vienna
From 2001 to 2008 Kurt Scholz was restitution officer in the Vienna city administration . He saw the balance of his term of office "mixed", since of the two "big chunks" specified in the agreement to regulate questions of compensation and restitution for victims of National Socialism , the return of the Hakoah sports field was successfully handled, but in terms of preservation Jewish cemeteries and graves during his tenure no solution could be found. To the best of his knowledge, the City of Vienna had restituted several thousand works of art by 2008. Visitors to Viennese art museums should n't have the feeling that the blood of the Holocaust is stuck to it. In his opinion, difficulties with restitution are due to the fact that one does not run against walls, but because of the frequently encountered attitude “Let's take a look” against rubber walls.
A federal law was passed in 2010 to preserve the Jewish cemeteries, which ensured federal contributions. The City of Vienna, which also made contributions to the restoration and maintenance of the cemetery, concluded an agreement with the religious community on October 1, 2013, with which the city-financed maintenance work can be significantly intensified; the city administration will provide 860,000 euros annually for two decades.
See also
literature
- Gabriele Anderlan, Christoph Bazil, Eva Blimlinger , Oliver Kühschelm, Monika Mayer, Anita Stelzl-Gallian, Leonhard Weidinger (eds.): ... significantly more cases than assumed. 10 years Commission for Provenance Research. (= Series of publications by the Commission for Provenance Research. Volume 1). Böhlau, Vienna / Cologne / Weimar 2009.
- Stefan Karner , Walter Iber (ed.): Heavy legacy and reparation . Restitution and compensation in Austria: the balance sheet of the Schüssel government . Studien Verlag, Innsbruck / Vienna / Bozen 2015, ISBN 978-3-7065-5343-8 .
- Robert Knight (Ed.): "I am in favor of dragging this out". Verbatim minutes of the Austrian Federal Government from 1945–1952 on the compensation of the Jews. Athenaeum, Frankfurt am Main 1988, ISBN 3-610-08499-5 .
- Walter Baumgartner, Robert Streibel : Jews in Lower Austria: 'Aryanizations' and provisions in the cities of Amstetten, Baden, Hollabrunn, Horn, Korneuburg, Krems, Neunkirchen, St. Pölten, Stockerau, Tulln, Waidhofen ad Thaya and Wiener Neustadt. (= Publications of the Austrian Commission of Historians. Volume 18). Vienna / Oldenburg 2004, ISBN 3-7029-0494-8 .
- Hubertus Czernin : The forgery. The Bloch-Bauer case. Volume 1, Czernin-Verlag, Vienna 1999.
- Hubertus Czernin: The forgery. The Bloch-Bauer case and the work of Gustav Klimt. Volume 2, Czernin-Verlag, Vienna 1999.
- Stuart E. Eizenstat : Imperfect Justice. The dispute over compensation for victims of forced labor and expropriation. C. Bertelsmann, Munich 2003. (Original edition: Imperfect Justice. Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II. Public Affairs, New York 2003)
- Hubert Steiner : The Files of the Nationalsocialistic Authority Dealing with Properties (Vermögensverkehrsstelle) within the Archive of Republic and the Records of Restitution. In: The Unifying Aspects of Cultures. TRANS studies on changing the world. Vienna 2004, ISBN 3-8258-7616-0 .
- Sophie Lillie : What once was. Handbook of the expropriated art collections of Vienna. Czernin Verlag, Vienna 2006, ISBN 3-7076-0049-1 .
- Thomas Trenkler : The Rothschild case: Chronicle of an expropriation . Czernin Verlag, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85485-026-3 .
Individual evidence
- ↑ Dossier on the provenance of Albin Egger-Lienz: The mountain mowers (1st version) on the BMUKK website ( Memento of the original from March 18, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ Der Standard : 'Pictures withdrawn during the Nazi era' , March 25, 2008, p. 2.
- ↑ Oliver Rathkolb: The paradoxical republic. Austria 1945 to 2005. Paul Zsolnay Verlag, Vienna 2005, p. 163.
- ↑ Request to speak at the 132nd Ministerial Council meeting, November 9, 1948, quoted from: Robert Knight (Ed.): I am in favor of dragging the matter out. Verbatim minutes of the Austrian Federal Government from 1945–1952 on the compensation of the Jews. Athenäum Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1988, p. 197.
- ↑ Federal Law on the Return of Works of Art 2002 as amended
- ↑ a b Neue Zürcher Zeitung : In good faith - Nazi looted art in the Vienna Leopold Museum? Paul Jandl, March 6, 2008, p. 45.
- ↑ cf. http://www.boehlau.at/978-3-205-78183-7.html
- ↑ cf. http://www.raubkunst.at/
- ↑ Birgit Kirchmayr: "It was more about personal value ..." The Nazi art theft in the context of cultural eradication policy. 2001 for eForum zeitGeschichte (see the proceedings of the 5th Austrian Contemporary History Day in Klagenfurt, held on October 6, 2001)
- ↑ Der Standard : The Shame of the Mauerbach Auction. Thomas Trenkler, December 1, 2008, p. 18.
- ↑ Federal Law Gazette I No. 117/2009
- ↑ The Standard : Maybe I should have screamed louder. Interview by Martina Stemmer with Kurt Scholz, December 2, 2008, section “Vienna” (edition “NÖ / W”), p. 9.
- ↑ Restoration of the oldest Jewish cemetery in Vienna , on the website of the Vienna City Administration, written in 2013
- ↑ Care of the Jewish cemeteries secured , on the website of the Vienna City Administration, October 1, 2013 ( Memento of the original from October 12, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
Web links
- Commission for Provenance Research
- CCP database of the DHM with 943 index cards of the Commission for Provenance Research, Vienna
- Documentation archive of the Austrian resistance
- Deprivation of property during the Nazi era as well as provisions and compensation since 1945 in Austria. Research report of the Historians' Commission of the Republic of Austria. Summaries and assessments. Final report. Vienna 2003
- Israelitische Kultusgemeinde Wien / Department for Restitution Matters
- National Fund for Victims of National Socialism & General Settlement Fund
- Art database of the National Fund for Victims of National Socialism
- Provenance research at the Technical Museum Vienna
