Facebook
TwitterA Piece of Belated Justice – Presentation of the Final Report of the Arbitration Panel
On 18 June 2025, the National Fund presented two new publications, the “Final Report of the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution” and Volume 8 of the “Decisions of the Arbitration Panel” at the Juridicum building of the University of Vienna in Vienna. The speeches held at the event are summarised below.
Welcome by Vice-Dean Christian Koller
The Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Vienna, Christian Koller, welcomed the participants to the event. The Members of the Arbitration Panel had not been mere subsumptive automatons of the law, he began, but had consciously cultivated a humanitarian approach to responsibility. He made particular mention of the role of the young staff members who had worked alongside the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution “with dedication, meticulousness and unmistakable empathy”.
The foreword to the Final Report also demonstrated remarkable self-reflection, for example in examining the concept of “extreme injustice” and its relationship to legal force, he continued. “We might also learn a thing or two” about how to deal with great injustice and legal force from this approach, he said.
On behalf of the faculty, he extended special thanks to Retired Ambassador and Honorary Professor Erich Kussbach, Professor August Reinisch and the Chairman of the Arbitration Panel, Professor Josef Aicher, for their exceptional work spanning decades.
Although the Arbitration Panel’s work has been completed, its publications would ensure that its work, spirit and methodological approach will live on. These were now accessible and subjectable to academic reflection and legal appraisal and could find their way into university teaching.
The faculty was honoured to host the event. The large number of attendees, “especially considering that it is the evening before a long weekend,” served to highlight the importance of the subject-matter. He closed by emphasising that the event was an opportunity to pay tribute to “what has been achieved, in the name of justice, in memory of the victims and in the spirit of perpetual responsibility.”
Introductory remarks by Hannah Lessing
In her introductory remarks, Hannah Lessing, Managing Director of the National Fund and former Secretary General of the General Settlement Fund, looked back on the work of the Arbitration Panel, which was dissolved in 2021, and thanked its members for their more than 20 years of voluntary service.
In her speech, Lessing provided a personal and reflective overview of the establishment and development of the General Settlement Fund and the Arbitration Panel: The starting point had been in 2001, when negotiations took place on the Washington Agreement between Austria and the United States – an agreement that created a new framework for providing compensation and restitution to victims of National Socialism.
According to Lessing, the negotiating team had been plagued by many questions and doubts: “Are we doing the right thing?” or “In the face of this extraordinary injustice – so much of which has not yet been dealt with – is justice, or something resembling it, at all possible?” As a result of the Agreement, the General Settlement Fund was established in the same year. At the time, it could not be foreseen that the tasks involved – especially those of the Arbitration Panel that was established with the Fund – would take on such proportions.
Some things she knew from personal experience: Her own father did not apply for restitution after returning from exile – too many other matters had been more pressing, and the procedures proved to be tedious. For many survivors abroad, the legal parameters had been almost impossible to understand. It had therefore been of utmost importance that the General Settlement Fund had not only assisted applicants with the restitution itself, but also with identifying the losses for which restitution could be claimed.
Lessing particularly praised the team working for the Arbitration Panel: In total, 34 employees had supported the Panel – committed, professionally competent young people, who had contributed to the implementation of the law with great idealism and resolve. Lessing also praised the interdisciplinary cooperation between lawyers and historians, who had worked together to develop creative work processes and viable solutions.
Looking back, Lessing emphasised that restitution was often not just about material possessions, but also about giving survivors back a piece of their family history. The applications covered a wide variety of objects, ranging from land and apartment buildings to special cases such as a cinema, a theatre and an alpine hut.
She particularly remembered a curious story from 2010: the heirs of a Viennese pharmacist who had fled to Australia applied for the restitution of several plots of land. One of these had since become a roundabout in Bad Vöslau. One of the heirs commented humorously on this in an Australian newspaper article: “What can you do with a share of a roundabout? It's not something you can build a villa on...” In this case, in rem restitution was not possible, which is why the Arbitration Panel recommended a compensation payment reflecting its the current market value.
Finally, Lessing referred to the book series “Decisions of the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution”, which, with the eighth volume being presented that evening, continued to reach an international specialist audience. The series was bilingual and could be found in many academic libraries worldwide – from the USA to Israel, Latin America and Australia.
Since the dissolution of the Arbitration Panel in 2021 and the General Settlement Fund in 2022, the series has been continued by the National Fund with the support of the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Final Report now being presented was the “opus magnum of this evening” – a work that documented 20 years of demanding work. The fact that this complex work could now be presented in a comprehensible and comprehensive form is due in particular to the colleagues who contributed to the preparation of the book.
Lessing concluded her remarks with express thanks to the editors of the Final Report and the Members of the arbitration panel. Under their wise and prudent leadership, she said, a demanding task had been accomplished with remarkable commitment. Lessing particularly emphasised that all decisions had been taken unanimously – something that could not be taken for granted given the voluntary nature of the work and the fact that it had been carried out over two decades. As a non-lawyer, she was particularly impressed by the clear, pragmatic and comprehensible approach taken by the Arbitration Panel. It had been a privilege to witness such a precise and humane way of working. Lessing emphasised that the task could have been handled in a more detached manner, but instead it was always clear that the parties involved were genuinely committed to the cause. The people involved were “people with their hearts in the right place”.
As a result, it was possible to achieve some measure of belated justice – for the victims, their heirs and for Austria. In the words of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: “Justice is nothing other than the charity of the wise.”
Introduction by Josef Aicher
Josef Aicher, Emeritus Professor of Corporate and Commercial Law at the University of Vienna, former Chairman of the Arbitration Panel and co-editor of the Final Report and the book series, reported in his introduction on the challenges and results of the Panel’s work, and presented the contents and contributions of the nearly 1,300-page Final Report.
Aicher began by taking stock of the 20 years of work carried out by the Panel, which was established in 2001 on the basis of the Washington Agreement and the General Settlement Fund Law. Upon the official acknowledgment of the Final Report by the Main Committee of the National Council on 29 June 2021, the Arbitration Board had officially been dissolved. The Final Report was now available in both print and e-book form and comprehensively documented the tasks, challenges and results of the Arbitration Panel’s work.
He continued: The Panel’s key task was to recommend restitution or compensation for property seized during the Nazi era, under the proviso it had been publicly owned on 17 January 2001. Cases that had already been settled under earlier restitution laws could only be re-examined under strict conditions, for example, if an “extreme injustice” had occurred.
Aicher then addressed the three main subject-areas covered in the Final Report:
- Legal basis and origins: This section traces the development of the Washington Agreement, the legal framework and the Rules of Procedure of the Arbitration Panel.
- Activities of the Arbitration Panel: These articles describe the legal and historical processing of the applications, the proceedings and the extensive taking of evidence.
- Results and contextualisation: These articles examine the activities of the Arbitration Panel in the historical context of earlier restitution measures, accompanied by a critical reflection on the achievement of objectives and public relations work. A detailed statistics chapter rounds off this section.
In total, the Arbitration Panel received 2,307 applications and issued 1,582 decisions. In 61 decisions, restitution in rem was recommended, covering a total area of around 88 hectares and with an estimated value of 48 million euros, including approximately 9.8 million euros in monetary compensation.
Aicher also presented Volume 8 of the book series “Decisions of the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution”, which documents 21 of its decisions from 2009 and 2010. A first in this volume is the publication of two decisions that have not been anonymised, thanks to the consent of the applicants involved.
In conclusion, the Chairman expressed his thanks to numerous contributors, including the editorial team, translators, the publisher Facultas and the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs as the funding body. He also thanked the management of the General Settlement Fund, in particular Hannah Lessing and Christine Schwab, for their many years of support.
“From Post-War Law to the Arbitration Panel” by Franz-Stefan Meissel
Franz-Stefan Meissel, University Professor of Roman Law and Head of the Institute for Roman Law and Ancient Legal History, gave a lecture entitled “From post-war law to the Arbitration Panel – comments on the restitution of property to victims of National Socialism”, in which he discussed earlier measures put in place to restitute confiscated real estate and other assets in Austria after 1945, spanning a historical arc to the work of the Arbitration Panel.
The lecture focused on the historical development of restitution practices in Austria – from the post-war years to the establishment of the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution in 2001. The main focus was on the legal framework, the role of the restitution commissions and the question of which gaps and deficiencies the Arbitration Panel should close.
Meissel began with look back at his personal encounters with the subject matter – from his work in the Historical Commission to providing legal support to applicants. With regard to the publication of the Final Report and Volume 8 of the Arbitration Panel series, he praised the “diligence with which the volumes containing selected decisions have been edited and published over the years” and stressed their importance for legal scholarship and contemporary history scholars, quoting Chief Justice Lord Hewart: “Justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done.”
The restitution of seized property began in Austria with the Nullity Act of 1946 and the Restitution Acts of 1947 to 1949. The Third Restitution Act had been particularly important, as it governed restitution between private individuals and stipulated that legal transactions from the Nazi era that disadvantaged politically persecuted persons were fundamentally “null and void”: “Any legal transaction concluded to the detriment of a politically persecuted person was considered a seizure of assets.”
The proceedings were conducted by restitution commissions at the provincial courts. Particular emphasis was placed on the role of Heinrich Klang, the first presiding judge of the Supreme Restitution Commission, who, as a victim of Nazi persecution himself, had contributed significantly to the initially victim-friendly jurisprudence: “Important decisions on how the Third Restitution Act was to be interpreted were made during the Klang era.”
According to Meissel, the restitution practice was not consistently hostile to restitution; in the early phase, many claims were recognised. Later, especially after the State Treaty of 1955 came into force, a shift occurred: “The application of the ‘exception law’ was restricted in favour of those potentially obligated to restitute.”
At the same time, Meissel rejected blanket criticism of the restitution practice – such as that expressed, for example, in Robert Knight’s book “Ich bin dafür, die Sache in die Länge zu ziehen” (I am in favour of dragging things out) – as overly simplistic: delays that occurred were often not the fault of the courts but due to complex circumstances or the claimants themselves.
An important aspect was the restitution claims that had not been asserted, for example due to the absence of legal successors or insufficient information. The Receiving Organisations Act of 1957 provided for the establishment of collection agencies to assert such claims. Nevertheless, some cases still slipped through the net.
Restitution in the form of settlements rather than restitution in rem had also been common. These had often made sense at the time, but “appear economically unfavourable from today's perspective” – an area in which the Arbitration Panel later became active: “This applies to many, but by no means all, settlements – and so the Arbitration Panel had considerable scope to recommend restitution in a number of individual cases, as the earlier settlement concluded at the time could be described as ‘extremely unjust’.”
A central problem was Austria’s stance after 1945 whereby it positioned itself as “the first victim of National Socialism” – which led to a widespread renunciation of state responsibility. The state merely provided the legal infrastructure, but offered no active support: “For those seeking restitution, however, this meant that they received no state support when enforcing their claims, but had to fight for their rights with their own resources.”
It was not until the Year of Remembrance 1988 that a shift in public awareness began to take place. With the establishment of the Historical Commission, the Art Restitution Law of 1998 and the General Settlement Fund Law of 2001, a paradigm shift took place – and the Arbitration Panel for In Rem Restitution was established. “From today’s perspective, this lack of assistance from the state is inadequate and shameful [...]. It was only with the abandonment of the victim paradigm [...] that the attitudinal shifts that shape our current perspective on these issues were completed.”
“In Rem Restitution in the Washington Agreement” by Ursula Kriebaum
Ursula Kriebaum, University Professor of International Law at the Institute for International Law at the University of Vienna, concluded her presentation “In Rem Restitution in the Washington Agreement – Insights from the Negotiating Team” on the genesis of the international agreement and the 2001 General Settlement Fund Law, which formed the basis for the in rem restitution of publicly-owned property and led to the establishment of the independent and internationally-staffed Arbitration Panel.
Kriebaum began by referring to the class action lawsuits in the United States, which were initially filed against Swiss banks, then against Germany and finally against Austria. These lawsuits led to negotiations on voluntary compensation payments. In the course of these talks, representatives of the victims increasingly pointed out the need to also address issues relating to the return of property confiscated during the Nazi era – the aim being to achieve a “comprehensive and final solution [...] in accordance with international legal standards”.
In May 2000, Austria agreed to negotiate on restitution issues at the Reconciliation Conference. Chancellor Schüssel appointed Ernst Sucharipa, then director of the Diplomatic Academy, as Special Envoy. He accepted the mandate and carried it out in an honorary capacity.
Kriebaum described how a structured and dialogue-oriented approach to finding a solution had been crucial. The negotiating team consisted of government representatives, NGOs and lawyers representing the victims. The contribution of the victims’ representatives had been crucial, as they had brought their perspectives on gaps and deficiencies in Austrian legislation to the table.
In her account of the negotiations, Kriebaum emphasised how important early talks with victim representatives had been when it came to structuring the restitution arrangements. As no complete reports from the Historical Commission were available at the outset, the team had relied heavily on the opinions of those who had been personally affected.
Kriebaum recalled that the need for “in rem restitution” had already been emphasised in May 2000 in talks with Ariel Muzicant. The Claims Conference also expressed this wish in a memorandum on 24 July 2000. Nevertheless, this point only gradually found its way into the negotiation documents. In rem restitution had not yet been included in earlier proposals.
A significant turning point was reached with the draft Framework Agreement in October 2000, which provided for the return of publicly-owned property and specifically Jewish communal property. A consensus soon developed among the negotiating partners that a just solution could not consist solely of lump-sum payments.
The creation of an arbitration panel was first included in a US proposal in December 2000. This was to consist of three members, one nominated by Austria and one by the US, with the third to be jointly determined.
A central element of the subsequent “Joint Statement” was that, under certain conditions, the Arbitration Panel could also recommend restitution in cases that had already been finally decided – for example, in cases of “extreme injustice”. Kriebaum explained that there were no precedents for this term in either Austrian or US law, but that it had been agreed upon because of its room for interpretation: “We didn’t know exactly where the problems would lie.”
In January 2001, the final details were finalised on in rem restitution. They related to real estate and of cultural or religious objects in public ownership that had previously belonged to Jews and had been confiscated between 1938 and 1945. The Republic of Austria undertook to encourage other regional administrative bodies to participate. This was later enshrined in Section 38 of the General Settlement Fund Law.
Kriebaum explained that only cases in which no final decision had yet been made were supposed to be examined by the Panel, with two exceptions: firstly, agreements that qualified as an extreme injustice, and secondly, in cases where claims had previously been denied due to lack of evidence, provided that such evidence had become available at a later date.
Kriebaum also mentioned the five main categories under which the Austrian obligations under the Washington Agreement could be subsumed:
- Lump-sum compensation for “Aryanised” apartments, household effects and valuables
- The General Settlement Fund
- The in rem restitution of public property
- Social welfare measures
- Supplementary agreements
Kriebaum concluded by pointing out that the wording of the General Settlement Fund Law was essentially the German translation of the Joint Statement: “We had about ten days to draft this law.”
The speakers were available to answer questions at a reception following the event.
Many thanks to all the speakers for their contributions and to the many guests for attending the event!
