Subject: Re: Restitution Amalie Zuckerkandl
From: "E. Randol Schoenberg" <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandra Schwabl <[email-masked]>, Franz Michael <[email-masked]>
Cc: "E. Randol Schoenberg" <[email-masked]>, Hans Peter Huber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:47:16 -0700

Dear Dr. Franz,

Thank you so much for sending me the letter from Prof. Jabloner.
Unfortunately, I do not see any evidence that the Beirat (or you) have
considered the fact that the decisions in the Amalie Zuckerkandl case (by
the Beirat in 2005, the Schiedgericht in 2006, and the OGH in 2008) are
INCONSISTENT with the current practices of the Beirat and your Ministry!

As I have pointed out numerous times, the original 2006 Beirat decision
(http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Decisions/beirat.pdf) and the
decision of the Schiedsgericht (
http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Decisions/decision.pdf) were based
on the assumption that the 3. RückstellungsG and related decisions of the
restitution courts did not apply to the definition of "Entziehung" in the
NichtigkeitsG §1 (which is the only restitution law mentioned in the
RückgabeG).  The OGH (
http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Revision/OGH.pdf ) found that it
was plausible that the Parliament in 1998 intended NOT to apply the 3.
RückstellungsG when it mentioned only §1 of the NichtigkeitsG, and theref