¹ See inter alia: Depenheuer, O. Eigentum und Rechtsstaat Neue juristische Wochenschrift 53 (2000) 6, p. 385-390; Meixner, R. Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz Die öffentliche Verwaltung 55 (2002) 21, p. 900-908; K-A. Schwarz Wiedergutmachung und die “exceptio pecuniam non habendi” Die öffentliche Verwaltung 53 (2000) 17, p. 721-729; A. Jaekel Zur Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts zu den Überschuldungsfällen Zeitschrift für Vermögensund Investitionsrecht 6 (1996) 3, p. 113-117; T. Schweisfurth Von der Völkerrechtswidrigkeit der SBZ-Konfiskationen 1945-1949 zur Verfassungswidrigkeit des Restitutionsausschlusses 1990, Zeitschrift für Vermögens- und Investitionsrecht 10 (2000) 9, p. 505–521; and generally also Schweisfurth, T. SBZ-Konfiskationen privaten Eigentums 1945 bis 1949, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2000). P.E. Quint The Imperfect Union – Constitutional Structures of German Unification, Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, (1997) deals with the intricacies of the Re-unification in particular.Google Scholar

² Southern, M. Restitution or Compensation: The Land Question in East Germany 1993 Int. & Comp. L.Q 690 at 691.Google Scholar

³ Id.Google Scholar

⁴ Id.Google Scholar

⁵ The Wiedergutmachung initiative did not incorporated only a reparations program for dispossessed property. Instead, it constituted a full-blown attempt to induce social change in Germany, dealing with “denazification” and reform of the civil service over and above its attempts to restore property. It is outside the scope of this discussion to undertake an extensive discussion of this initiative, or even to list comprehensively the legislative and administrative measures applied to this initiative. For more detail, see esp. Goschler, C. Wiedergutmachung – Westdeutschland und die Verfolgten des Nationalsozialismus (1945-1954) Munich, Verlag, R. Oldenbourg (1992); and the case study of National-Socialist induced dispossession of Jewish property in the Rhineland-Palatinate between 1938 and 1953 as documented by Rummel, W. & Rath, J. “Dem Reich verfallen – den Berechtigten zurückzuerstatten“ Koblenz, Verlag der Landesarchivverwaltung Rheinland-Pfalz (2001). A commentary on the most important laws behind the Wiedergutmachung initiative, e.g. the Bundesgesetz zur Entschädigung für Opfer der nationalsozialistischen Verfolgung (Federal Act for Compensation of Victims of National-Socialism); Gesetze zur Regelung der Wiedergutmachung nationalsozialistischen Unrechts für Angehörige des öffentlichen Dienstes im Inland und im Ausland (Acts for the Regulation of the Reparation of National-Socialist Injustice for Foreign and Inner Civil Servants), and Gesetze zur Wiedergutmachung nationalisozialistischen Unrechts in der Kriegsopferversorgung für Berechtigte im Inland und im Ausland (Acts for the Reparation of National-Socialist Injustice in the Care of Entitled Victims of War), see Ehrig, H-G. & Wilden, H. (eds) Bundesentschädigungsgesetze Kommentar, Munich, Beck, C.H. (1960) and the references provided there.Google Scholar

⁶ BGHZ 52, 371 at 381.Google Scholar

⁷ Tappert, W. Die Wiedergutmachung von Staatsunrecht der SBZ / DDR durch die Bundesrepublik Deutschland nach der Wiedervereinigung, Berlin, Berlin-Verl. Spitz (1995) 19-71 gives a detailed analysis of the attempts at Wiedergutmachung that were undertaken.Google Scholar

⁸ Visser, D. & Roux, T. Giving back the Country: South Africa's Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 in Context in Rwelamira, R.W. & Werle, G. (eds) Confronting Past Injustices – Approaches to Amnesty, Punishment, Reparation and Restitution in South Africa and Germany, Durban, Butterworths, (1996) at 99.Google Scholar

⁹ Kimminich, O. Die Eigentumsgarantie im PROZEß der Wiedervereinigung – Zur Bestandskraft der agrarischen Bodenrechtsordnung der DDR, Frankfurt am Main, Landwirtschaftl. Rentenbank, (1990) at 80.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Who were mostly Jews who survived the holocaust, or their descendants, but also included relatives of the conspirators of 20 July (the day on which a failed assassination attempt on Hitler took place).Google Scholar

¹¹ Fieberg, G. Legislation and Judicial Practice in Germany: Landmarks and Central Issues in the Property Question in Rwelamira, M.R. & Werle, G. (eds) Confronting Past Injustices – Approaches to Amnesty, Punishment, Reparation and Restitution in South Africa and Germany, Durban, Butterworths, (1996) at 82.Google Scholar

¹² Gemeinsame Erklärung zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen, 15 June 1990, BGBl. 1990 II at 1273.Google Scholar

¹³ Kommers, D.P. The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany 2nd ed., Durham, Duke University Press, (1997) at 256.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Incorporated into the Unification Treaty as Exhibit III, the agreement covered seized businesses and real estate-nearly all the industrial and landed property in the German Democratic Republic.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Art. 41(1) of Vertrag zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik über die Herstellung der Einheit Deutschlands-Einigungsvertrag – 31 August 1990, BGBl. 1990 II at 889.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Fieberg, G. Legislation and Judicial Practice in Germany: Landmarks and Central Issues in the Property Question in Rwelamira, M.R. & Werle, G. (eds) Confronting Past Injustices – Approaches to Amnesty, Punishment, Reparation and Restitution in South Africa and Germany, Durban, Butterworths, (1996) at 83.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Diekmann, B. Das System der Rückerstattungstatbestände nach dem Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, (1992) at 43-55.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Gesetz zur Regelung von offener Vermögensfragen, BGBl. 1990 II at 1159.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The principle of natural restitution (Rückgabe vor Entschädigung) refers to the policy actually to return property to the original owners. Where restitution is not possible, compensation may be advanced in stead. The policy of natural restitution is laid down and simultaneously limited in articles 41(1) and (2) of the Unification Treaty. The chief mechanism for giving this principle practical implication, was the Property Act. Section 1 is the key provision. Subsections (1) to (7) enumerate the various categories of property which could be subject of restitution claims, while subsection (8) excludes restitution in a further number of categories. Restitution before compensation did not mean that rehabilitation in the economic sphere would necessarily be guided by present market values. It merely established the precedence of rehabilitation in kind over rehabilitation in money.Google Scholar

²⁰ E.g. the Act on Special Investments in the German Democratic Republic (Gesetz über besondere Investitionen in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, BGBl. 1990 II at 1157) – the “Investment Act” and its successors, the “Investment Acceleration Act” (Gesetz zur Beseitigung von Hemnissen bei der Privatisierung von Unternehmen und zur Förderung von Investitionen, BGBl 1991 I at 766) and the “Investment Priority Act” (Gesetz Über den Vorrang für Investitionen bei Rückübertragungsansprüchen nach dem Bermögensgesetz-Investitionsvorranggesetz-BGBl 1992 I at 1268) provided additional conditions to regulate the principle of natural restitution.Google Scholar

²¹ Restitution claims had to be registered in the local Property Office of the district where the claimant (or the deceased in the case of a claim by the descendants) last lived, but could also be directed to the office in the district where the property in question was situated. The victims of persecution under nationalsocialism and foreign residents had to register their claims at the Federal Ministry of Justice in Bonn.Google Scholar

²² Scollo-Lavizzari, C.E. Restitution of Land Rights in an Administrative Law Environment – The German and South African Prodedures ComparedLL M Research Dissertation, University of Cape Town, (1996) at 45.Google Scholar

²³ Sec. 3(3)1 and 15(2) of the Property Act.Google Scholar

²⁴ E.g. where an investment priority decision or investment certificate had been granted. In such cases, the right to restitution was overridden. C.E. Scollo-Lavizzari Restitution of Land Rights in an Administrative Law Environment – The German and South African Prodedures Compared, LL M Research Dissertation, University of Cape Town, (1996) at 45-50; M. Southern Restitution or Compensation: The Land Question in East Germany 1993 Int. & Comp. L.Q 690 at 695.Google Scholar

²⁵ § 30a of the Property Act.Google Scholar

²⁶ Gesetz zur Änderung des Vermögensgesetzes und anderer Vorschriften (2. Vermögensrechtsänderungsgesetz) 14 July 1992; 1992 BGBl. at 1257Google Scholar

²⁷ Southern, M. Restitution or Compensation: The Land Question in East Germany 1993 Int. & Comp. L.Q 690 at 696, citing the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 24 Jan 1992; Financial Times of 25/26 Jan 1992.Google Scholar

²⁸ Southern, M. Restitution or Compensation: The Land Question in East Germany 1993 Int. & Comp. L.Q 690 at 696.Google Scholar

²⁹ Scollo-Lavizzari, C.E. Restitution of Land Rights in an Administrative Law Environment – The German and South African Prodedures Compared, LL M Research Dissertation, University of Cape Town, (1996) at 50 ff.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid. 46 ff.Google Scholar

³¹ Fieberg, G. Legislation and Judicial Practice in Germany: Landmarks and Central Issues in the Property Question in Rwelamira, M.R. & Werle, G. (eds) Confronting Past Injustices – Approaches to Amnesty, Punishment, Reparation and Restitution in South Africa and Germany, Durban, Butterworths, (1996) at 85.Google Scholar

³² § 22-26 of the Property Act.Google Scholar

³³ Southern, M. Restitution or Compensation: The Land Question in East Germany 1993 Int. & Comp. L.Q 690 at 695.Google Scholar

³⁴ Southern, M. Restitution or Compensation: The Land Question in East Germany 1993 Int. & Comp. L.Q 690 at 696 provide interesting statistics as to the number of applications (said to have exceeded 1,1 million, of which 30 500 related to land and buildings, rather than businesses). In 1993, according to this source, only 8,5% of the land claims had been finalised, and it was speculated that the issue would take another 30 years to resolve.Google Scholar

³⁵ Fieberg, G. Legislation and Judicial Practice in Germany: Landmarks and Central Issues in the Property Question in Rwelamira, M.R. & Werle, G. (eds) Confronting Past Injustices – Approaches to Amnesty, Punishment, Reparation and Restitution in South Africa and Germany, Durban, Butterworths, (1996) at 88.Google Scholar

³⁶ Decision of 23 October 2003, BverwG 7 C 62.02; VG 31 A 371.99.Google Scholar

³⁷ A more detailed version of the background to the case is contained in par I of the decision (note 36 above).Google Scholar

³⁸ This included expropriation of land for the building of cities and development of belowstructure; for industrial settlements, energy management and for military purposes. Visser, D. & Roux, T. Giving back the Country: South Africa's Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 in Context in Rwelamira, R.W. & Werle, G. (eds) Confronting Past Injustices – Approaches to Amnesty, Punishment, Reparation and Restitution in South Africa and Germany, Durban, Butterworths, (1996) at 100.Google Scholar

³⁹ Quint, P.E. The Imperfect Union – Constitutional Structures of German Unification, Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, (1997) at 124.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Id.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Das, S. Pries Neubauerneigentum in der ehemaligen DDR, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, (1993) at 120-121.Google Scholar

⁴² Fieberg, G. Legislation and Judicial Practice in Germany: Landmarks and Central Issues in the Property Question in Rwelamira, M.R. & Werle, G. (eds) Confronting Past Injustices – Approaches to Amnesty, Punishment, Reparation and Restitution in South Africa and Germany, Durban, Butterworths, (1996) at 82.Google Scholar

⁴³ Visser, D. & Roux, T. Giving back the Country: South Africa's Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 in Context in Rwelamira, R.W. & Werle, G. (eds) Confronting Past Injustices – Approaches to Amnesty, Punishment, Reparation and Restitution in South Africa and Germany, Durban, Butterworths, (1996) at 99.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See in general Southern, M. Restitution or Compensation: The Land Question in East Germany 1993 Int. & Comp. L.Q 690 at 696 and the statistics provided by this source, mentioned in note 34 above.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For an overview of the situation, see M. Southern Restitution or Compensation: The Land Question in East Germany 1993 Int. & Comp. L.Q 690ff. and P.E. Quint The Imperfect Union – Constitutional Structures of German Unification, Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, (1997) at 124ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ § 2 (1) of the Property Act.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See the consideration of this aspect in par I of the Federal Administrative Court's decision (note 36 above).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Id.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The details of the decision of the Berlin Administrative Court of 27 September 2002, in as far as they are relevant to the present case, are contained in par I of the Federal Administrative Court's decision.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Id.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See par II of the Federal Administrative Court's decision (note 36 above).Google Scholar

⁵² Id.Google Scholar

⁵³ See par II (1) of the decision (note 36 above).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ These objectives are articulated by the Court in par II (1) (a) of the decision (note 36 above).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The court quotes the decisions of 24 June 1999 – BVerwG 7 C 20.98 and BVerwGE 109, 169 at 172 as authority.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See par II (1) (a) of the decision (note 36 above), and the authority quoted: Decision of 5 Oct. 2000 -BVerwG 7 C 8.00 – Buchholz 428 § 30 VermG No. 21.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ In essence, a joint reading of these provisions of the Property Act indicates the prerequisites for restitution in terms of the Act, providing for the type of claims to be considered and the cut-off date for lodging of such claims.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See par II (1) (a) of the decision (note 36 above).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Id.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See par II (2) (c) of the decision.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See the court's reliance on BVerfGE 78, 20 at 24; BVerwG decision of 18 May 1995 – BVerwG 7 C 19.94 – Buchholz 428 § 1 VermG No. 44 p. 117.Google Scholar

⁶² See par II (2) (c) of the decision.Google Scholar

⁶³ See par II (1) (a) of the decision.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ § 2 (1) (3) of the Property Act.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Par II (1) (b) of the decision (note 36 above).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Id.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See the court's reliance on the decision of 28 March 1996 – BVerwG 7 C 28.95 – BVerwGE 101, 39 at 43.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Here the court relies on its previous decision of 24 June 1999 – BVerwG 7 C 20.98 – BVerwGE 109, 169 at 172.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ The so-called “Anmeldung 3“. The Conference's claim was structured in three parts, the first two of which did not pass the scrutiny of the court, the first because of the very general nature in which it was phrased, and the second because of the element of chance in respect of its assumption of Jewish property which was built into the claim. See par I and II (2) (a) and (b) of the decision (note 36 above).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See par II (2) (c) of the decision (note 36 above).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Id.Google Scholar

⁷² Id.Google Scholar

⁷³ Id.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Id.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Par II (3) of the decision (note 36 above).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Id.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Id.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Id.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Id.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Id.Google Scholar