Jews and other despoiled victims of Vichy legislation, who have been hopefully expecting the French government to act in restoring property taken from them, will face a long, hard and costly legal battle before they can enjoy repossession, if the government decides to proceed on the basis of the draft of an ordinance which legal experts are now studying, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency learned today.
The text of the proposed measure was drafted in the Finance Ministry, and it reverses the policy, with respect to restitution, enunciated in the past by the France Combatant movement and by the French National Committee. The declarations made at that time established the principal of restitution for the victims of Vichy, and refused to recognize any rights by those who had acquired property from the stripped victims of the collaborationist government. The acquirers of those properties were warned that their titles would be voided, and that they would be held responsible for the return of the properties.
But according to officials with whom the J.T.A. correspondent has talked, the draft now under study makes it necessary for each despoiled person to bring individual legal action to claim repossession of his property, The present draft, they state, seems to be as much concerned with the protection of those who acquired property under the Vichy discriminatory laws, or who served as provisional administrators, as with establishing any basis of restitution. As now worded, the draft gives tacit legality to the status of the Vichy acquirers of certain rights, and to their protection.
For example, they are entitled to keep the profits gained in the years that they held such property. The original owners, on regaining these properties, must repay the last owners for any improvements made. And their “acts of administration,” which may cover a multitude of financial and other changes in these various enterprises, remain valid. As one section of the draft now stands, it is quite possible that the present owners, upon return of the properties to the original holders, could claim damages incurred as a result of the workings of the ordinance.
When and if this draft ordinance is enacted, those who were despoiled “without their permission” by acts beyond common law, will be enabled to initiate legislation to have the sales voided and thus to secure the return of their properties. The draft specifies that these suits will be considered as priority cases on court dockets, but at present there is so much litigation with priority rating that any case is bound to drag a long time, specially if the defendant is trying to stall.
RECOVERY OF JEWISH PROPERTY WILL BE EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION
As a further concession, the usual stamp fees are waived, and court fees are halved. But the claimant will still have laywers’ fees and many other charges in connection with the case, so that in any event the recovery of his property will be an expensive proposition. It must be remembered that in most cases no great fortunes are involved, and that most of the enterprises are small businesses. The costs involved — which many won’t be able to raise — may bar many presently destitute Jews from recovering property that is rightfully theirs and which would enable them to reestablish themselves.
Those despoiled victims who gave their consent to acts of sale, or signed other authorizations will, according to this draft, be able to demand invalidation and return of their property only if they can prove, to the satisfaction of the courts that their consent was given under fear of the application to them of other Vichy laws or Nazi measures.
The draft does not specify the nature of the proof required and is presumably left to the courts, and will vary from case to case. There are thousands of cases where property transfers were arranged to forestall the greed of Vichy’s Commissariat of Jewish Affairs. Presumably, again, the victims in these cases will have no recourse, Here the text of the draft is in flagrant contradiction with the previous declarations of the government. The French National Committee signed the United Nations declaration of Jan. 5, 1943, which included as acts of pillage “transactions of apparent legality even when presented as having been effected with the consent of the victims.
DISAPPOINTMENT AWAITS JEWS, IF PROPOSED MEASURE IS NOT MODIFIED
One very substantial category of Vichy victims is excluded from the benefits of the proposed legislation — the owners of negotiable securities which were sold, after seizure, on the Bourse or through banks. The only exception is in cases where the securities were “titres nominatif” — that is, certificates bearing the names of the owners and not transferable without re-registration.
Another important category similarly excluded are the owners of property expropriated, requisitioned or acquired by the State under its rights of preemption or priority. The draft promises that the claimants in these two categories would receive indemnities to be fixed by a subsequent decree.
According to sources familiar with the details of the proposed legislation, as it stands today it is so far from what the government has promised to do in obtaining restitution for the victims of Vichy as to be almost a travesty. The measure, if enacted without considerable modification, will come as a deep disappointment to thousands of Jews and others who were penalized by Vichy for their patriotic activities and who have been waiting five months for the government to make good its promises.
The Justice Commission of the Consultative Assembly has requested the government to submit the proposed restitution legislation to the assembly before asking its enactment, In view of the interest in this question that is manifest in all quarters of the Assembly, the measure in its present form would have a difficult time, while the modifications which would be demanded would prolong the delay in its promulgation. Meanwhile, the amount of property which the original owners will be able to reclaim dwindles daily.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
