Relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber in the cases of
von Maltzan and Others, von Zitzewitz and Others and Man Ferrostaal and Alfred Stiftung v. Germany

On Thursday 11 March 2004, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to which the cases of von Malztan and Others, von Zitzewitz and Others and Man Ferrostaal and Alfred Stiftung v. Germany (nos. 71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/01) had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, none of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Rule 72 of the Rules of Court).

The applications were submitted by 68 German nationals and two German legal persons. The first was submitted by Wolf-Ulrich Freiherr von Maltzan and 45 others, the second by Margarete von Zitzewitz and 21 others and the third by the Alfred Töpfer Foundation and the Man Ferrostaal corporation.

The applications concern one of the major issues to arise after the reunification of Germany: the compensation terms for those whose property was expropriated either after 1949 in the GDR or, as in the vast majority of cases, between 1945 and 1949 in the former Soviet Occupied Zone of Germany. The terms of compensation and just satisfaction are set out in the Compensation and Just Satisfaction Act (Entschädigungs und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz - EALG) of 27 September 1994.

On 29 June 1995 some of the applicants brought their case before the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing, among other things, that certain provisions of that Act were contrary to basic law, in that the prescribed compensation was generally less than the real market value of the property that had been expropriated. On 22 November 2000 the First Division (erster Senat) of the Federal Constitutional Court delivered a leading judgment dismissing the applicants’ claims. Those among the applicants who were not party to those proceedings nonetheless refer to this leading judgment.

The individuals among the applicants argue that the Compensation and Just Satisfaction Act of 1994 and the leading judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 2000 infringed their property right, protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, because the amount of compensation they received was far less than the real value of the property that had been illegally expropriated.

The applicants also submit that they were discriminated against contrary to Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, because, unlike other groups of people, they were unable to claim a right to the return of property which was illegally expropriated and for which they received only a negligible sum in compensation.

Lastly, those of the applicants who had brought their case before the Federal Constitutional Court submit that the length of the proceedings in that court (four years and 11 months in one case, and five years and four months in the other) exceeded a reasonable time, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.

The Alfred Töpfer Foundation and Man Ferrostaal raise the same complaints, pointing out that, under the Compensation and Just Satisfaction Act of 1994, they neither have a right to the return of their property nor a right to compensation.