The case concerns property abandoned after World War II belonging to individuals of Jewish origin and whether long term state control could lead to ownership by prescription; the Supreme Court held that the State Treasury exercised only administrative management rather than owner like possession, as activities such as maintenance or securing the property were carried out on behalf of the original owners, and therefore the requirements for acquisitive prescription were not met.
Art. 172 § 1, 2, Art. 336, Art. 339 Civil Code
Art. 50 § 1, 2, Art. 296 § 1, Art.
297, Art. 298 Law of Property (1946)
Art. 1, Art. 7, Art. 15, Art. 19 Decree on Abandoned and Post-German Property (1946)
Art. 398*16 Code of Civil Procedure