31 Spring 2023 that the Holocaust survivor had to prove that he or she was healthy prior to the war, that he or she was medically examined during the persecutions and still found to be healthy, and that only in the aftermath of the persecutions did health-related damage become evident.14 BEG Schluss 1969: The Reasoning Behind the Legislation In light of the aforementioned difficulties, and primarily in order to create a cut-off date for the process of adjudicating Holocaust survivors’ personal claims, the German Federal government enacted the Bundesenstchaedigungsschlussgesetz (BEG-Schluss)15 (Federal Compensation Ending Law) (BEG-End), setting December 31, 1969 as a “cut-off” date for personal compensation claims. From an administrative perspective, it was only reasonable to establish a limit on the time allowed for Holocaust survivors to file claims. Legal Difficulties Caused by the BEG-Schluss and the Creation of the Special Relief Fund The inclusion of a final date in the legislation was initiated by the German Finance Ministry which sought to create a cap on compensations. Claims could not be submitted past this cut-off date, and so if legal issues arose, they would still only be relevant for claims that had already been submitted.16 An example of such a phenomenon was a decision by 12. Helmut Buschbom, “Die völkerrechtlichen und staatsrechtlichen Maßnahmen zur Beseitigung des im Namen des Deutschen Reiches verübten nationalsozialistischen Unrechts,” in DAS BUNDESRÜCKERSTATTUNGSGESETZ 1, 52 (Friedrich Biella et al. eds., 1981); Israel Foreign Office, ISRAEL’S CLAIMS AGAINST GERMANY: THE GERMAN ECONOMIC BACKGROUND (1951); Letter to Felix Eliezer Shinnar (Fall 1951) (on file with Israeli State Archives, Foreign Office, 2417/3) (presenting the position of the Israeli government). 13. José Brunner, Norbert Frei & Constantin Goschler, “Komplizierte Lernprozesse—Zur Geschichte und Aktualität der Wiedergutmachung,” in DIE PRAXIS DER WIEDERGUTMACHUNG: GESCHICHTE, ERFAHRUNG UND WIRKUNG IN DEUTSCHLAND UND ISRAEL 9, 16 (Norbert Frei, José Brunner & Constantin Goschler, eds., 2009). 14. Daniel Cohen, “Unfaire Prozeßführung,” 1965 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR RECHT UND RECHNUNGSWESEN [RWZ] 530. 15. Government of Germany, Second Federal Compensation Act BEG Final Law (Sept. 14, 1965), available at https:// www.gesetze-im-internet.de/begschlg/BEGSchlG.pdf the “Jewish issue”— the claim of the Jewish people visà-vis the government — was understood by the Germans as only creating a personal compensation measure initiated by the German government, and not reparations. The idea now was to implement parallel administrative law solutions as a means of addressing the issue — ensuring a speedy track for creating personal compensation programs.12 Shortly after the law was enacted, the Länder (Federal States) administrative branch began to adjudicate individual claims for atrocities which took place in occupied territories such as Poland, and not on the territory of the Third Reich. Most of these acts of atrocity were considered legal under the Nazi regime. This complication, especially when combined with the requirement for a high burden of proof set by the administrative law, created numerous issues. One such issue is that the law was highly complex and lacked clarity, and this compelled legal authorities to deal with its interpretation. The introduction of administrative demands alongside issues pertaining to procedural law was not conducive to the development of a successful method for dealing with the root problem. These first steps were subsequently defined as a “dialogue of the deaf,” two sides that did not understand each other and were unable to develop acceptable solutions. One example of this was the request that compensated Holocaust survivors would belong to the “German Cultural Circle” (Deutsche Kulturkreis). As such, they were to receive the support rendered to other persecuted groups, such as the postwar foreign Germans (Volksdeutsche) who were “repatriated,” deported from the formerly occupied countries in Eastern and East-Central Europe in which they had lived to the Federal Republic. They were now called “vertriebende,” that is, expelled, or displaced. Those who could not show an affiliation to the German nation had to prove that they had been in German Displaced Persons (DP) Camps as of January 1, 1947.13 Difficulties did not end with these administrative issues. The legislation’s territorial scope was also relevant: Which territories would this legislation include? Are we only limiting the scope of legal responsibility to German Reich territories, or German occupied territories, or perhaps also include satellite nations that received direct assistance and orders? Clarity was required on how to resolve the “Jewish issue.” Lastly, once the claimants were recognized as such, they had to prove the damage that the Nazis had inflicted upon them. This created one of the most complicated procedural law issues: “The burden of proof.” This meant
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=