"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (249 page)

127.
See part 1, section 1, V, 3 (“Labor Law”).

128.
Reich Labor Court, February 7, 1940,
DR
(1940) (A): 1326 f.; guiding principle: “For what is to be regarded as right and fair is decided by the sense of justice of the German people inspired by National Socialism, where the concept of race has priority over purely economic considerations. The judge must give weight to this on the foundation of the prevailing law” (sec. 242, German Civil Code).

129.
Reich Labor Court, February 7, 1940,
DR
(1940) (A): 1246 f.

130.
RGBl.
I 1580.

131.
Reich Labor Court (see note 129).

132.
Reich Supreme Court, July 12, 1939,
DJ
(1939): 1666 f.

133.
Erlaßsammlung des RMJ, Federal Ministry of Justice, Bonn.

134.
Hamburg Court of Appeal, November 27, 1935,
DJ
(1936): 775 f.

135.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, November 21, 1935,
JW
(1936): 333 f.

136.
Munich Court of Appeal, May 19, 1937, 2417 f.

137.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, August 29, 1935,
JW
(1935): 3164.

138.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, October 25, 1934,
JW
(1935): 436 ff., for the case of the company name Deutsche Lederindustrie.

139.
Berlin District Court, May 15, 1938,
DJ
(1938): 1195 f.

140.
Reich Supreme Court, February 9, 1942,
DR
(1942) (A): 1060 f.

141.
RGBl.
I 404.

142.
Reich Supreme Court, December 14, 1939, HRR 1940, 476.

143.
RGBl.
I 627; sec. 3: “A business is considered Jewish if it is de facto under the dominating influence of Jews.”

144.
Reich Supreme Court, April 7, 1941, HRR 1941, 1066.

145.
Reich Supreme Court, October 10, 1939, HRR 1940, 276; and May 23, 1939,
DJ
(1939): 1367 ff.

146.
RGBl.
I 1709.

147.
A limited company was regarded as a “Jewish firm” even if the Jewish associates were only trustees of an Aryan (Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, January 25, 1940, HRR 1940 677). The forced liquidation of Jewish businesses was facilitated by the fact that in the bankruptcy of the Jewish owner following compulsory sale, the claims of the liquidator were included in the costs of the administration of the estate, which had to be paid out of the estate in advance (secs. 57, 58, KO) (Berlin District Court, July 6, 1939,
DJ
[1940]: 487 f.). If, as a consequence of the liquidation of a Jewish company, the use of the property rented by it was not possible, the company continued to be responsible as tenant toward the landlord, since the liquidation (or, more precisely, the obstacle to its use) was attributed to grounds “residing in the person of the tenant” (sec. 552, German Civil Code), i.e., in this case the racial characteristic, even if the rented object was destroyed “as a result of the events of the night of November 9, 1938 (
Kristallnacht
)” (Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, October 29, 1940, HRR 1941, 192). Following the decision of the Prussian Supreme Court in Berlin, Jews who were obliged to sell their property under the decree of December 3, 1938, were refused a mortgage for the balance of the purchase (decision of March 16, 1939,
DR
[1939] [B]: 316 f.), or indeed any mortgage at all (sec. 7, par. 1), since Jews could not “acquire real title to German property” (decision of January 18, 1940, HRR 1940, 672). A conveyance registered in the name of a Jew could therefore be canceled on grounds of being “null and void” (sec. 84, Land Register Code) after the decree came into force (decision of February 8, 1940,
DR
[1940] [A]: 648), whereby the rightful owners lost all real safeguards, i.e., under land register law, to their claims.

148.
If a Jew permitted registration of a real right to his property, this did not initially require authorization in the view of the Prussian Supreme Court (KG Berlin, May 11, 1939, HRR 1939, 891). In 1943, however, the Supreme Court held that authorization or registration of such a disposition was necessary: the previous decision of May 11, 1939, tacitly supposed that the Jew would remain owner of the property until its subsequent sale; the property may well, however, have come into the hands of the Reich since promulgation of the Eleventh Regulation of November 25, 1941, to the Reich Citizenship Law (
RGBl.
I 722), which ordered the forfeiture of the property of Jews who had emigrated abroad. If by way of a notice in the land register reservation or an option to buy, the Jew favored a third party, registration of the transaction in the land register was ruled to have been in error. All dispositions requiring registration were now subject to official authorization (decision of November 11, 1943,
DR
[1944] [A]: 252).

149.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, February 13, 1941,
DR
(1941) (A): 1001 f. (Nießbrauch); February 22, 1940,
DR
(1940) (A): 820; November 9, 1939,
DJ
(1940): 36 f.

150.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, May 23, 1941,
DR
(1941) (A): 2132 f. (under sec. 868 ZPO the owner of the property acquired the judicial mortgage if the decision was annulled or its execution was declared inadmissible or an order for distraint was issued).

151.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, May 4, 1939, HRR 1939, 892.

Part Two. Section 1. B. III. Discriminatory Principles in Procedural Law

1.
Volkmar, “Die Neugestaltung des Zivilprozeßrechts” (1934), 1498 ff. For the development of civil procedural law under the Civil Code in the National Socialist period, see A. Schönke, “Einige Grundlinien der Entwicklung des Zivilprozessrechts seit 1933” (1943); in particular, Schönke emphasizes the increased influence of the “community” concept, the strengthened position of judges, and the increased obligation of the parties to accelerate the process in civil proceedings.

2.
Berlin District Court (
Landgericht
), decision of November 10, 1933,
JW
(1934): 442.

3.
Berlin District Court, 86th Civil Court Division, decision of February 23, 1934,
JW
(1934): 924.

4.
Hanover District Court, June 26, 1934,
JW
(1934): 1684.

5.
RGBl.
I 1524. Under the terms of the Second Decree, official acts taken after November 14, 1935, by those in an official post remained effective even when the official was de jure (i.e., on grounds of race law) no longer in office at that time. Reich Supreme Court, May 16, 1938 (IV 2/38),
JW
(1938): 2018 f.

6.
RGBl.
I 1403.

7.
Frankfurt Court of Appeal, May 24, 1934 (3 W 107/34),
JW
(1934): 1509.

8.
Hamm Court of Appeal, Seventh Civil Senate, March 23 1935 (7 W 44/35),
JW
(1935): 1446. Also Naumburg Court of Appeal, Fourth Civil Senate, decision of July 5, 1935 (4 W 195/35),
JW
(1935): 2216; Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal, decision of May 24, 1934 (3 W 107/34),
JW
(1934): 1509.

9.
Naumburg Court of Appeal, Fourth Civil Senate, decision of July 5, 1935 (4 W 194/35),
JW
(1935): 2216.

10.
Dresden District Court, Eighteenth Civil Court Division, decision of March 8, 1937 (18 T 250/37),
JW
(1937): 1650 f.

11.
Under sec. 157, ZPO, proxies and legal advisers professionally involved in foreign legal matters, with the exception of lawyers, were not permitted in oral hearings.

12.
Charlottenburg
Amtsgericht
(Municipal Court), decision of May 17, 1935 (48 C 682/35),
JW
(1935): 1729.

13.
Sec. 90, par. 1, ZPO: “Insofar as representation by lawyers is not required, a party may appear with any person as adviser who is legally entitled to appear in court.”

14.
Under the then valid version of sec. 91, par. 2, subpar. 2, ZPO, the fees of multiple lawyers were “refundable only insofar as they did not exceed the fees of a single lawyer, or if a change of lawyer was necessary.” Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, Twentieth Civil Senate, decision of November 18, 1933 (20 W 8932/33),
JW
(1933): 2778 f.

15.
Decision of February 27, 1933 (101 T 135/33),
DJ
(1933): 612.

16.
Decision of December 6, 1933 (101 T 208/33),
DJ
(1933): 30 f.

17.
Berlin Labor Court, June 20, 1933 (9 10 A C 527/33),
JW
(1933): 1794; Magdeburg Labor Court, August 1, 1936 (5 CA 170/36),
JW
(1937): 275 f.

18.
SD-Bericht zu Inlandsfragen,
November 1941 to December 1943, Bl. 215 ff.

19.
Reich Supreme Court decision, April 19, 1941 (VII A 75/40, VII 13/40),
DR
(1941) (A): 1994 f.

20.
Situation report of May 1, 1942, from the presiding judges of the Court of Appeal, Hamburg (“the courts of first instance refuse to grant legal aid to Jews. In one such case the district court reversed a decision”; quoted in Steiniger and Leszczy
ski,
Das Urteil im Juristenprozeβ
[1969], 238).

21.
In a speech to judges of the Hamburg Court of First Instance, the presiding judge of the court stated that legal aid for Jews should be limited as far as possible (minutes of meeting, Nuremburg doc. NG-632 [Ziff. 11]).

22.
Situation report of May 1, 1942, by the presiding judge of the Hamburg Court of Appeal (see note 20 above).

23.
Nuremburg doc. NG-589, 151.

24.
Speech, quoted without date in Steiniger and Leszczy
ski,
Das Urteil im Juristenprozeβ,
237.

25.
Minutes of meeting (BA R 22/4200); statements by
Ministerialrat
Grau, Reich Ministry of Justice.

26.
Berlin District Court, decision of May 10, 1939 (201 T 3531/33),
JW
(1933): 1275.

27.
RGBl.
I 302.

28.
Berlin District Court, March 15, 1940 (20 T 1556/40),
DJ
(1940): 656 f.

29.
RGBl.
I 1234.

30.
Schöneberg Municipal Court, decision of October 11, 1938 (61 M 3660/38),
JW
(1938): 3063.

31.
Altona District Court, decision of November 16, 1936 (7 T 5/36),
JW
(1936): 1393 f.

32.
Schöneberg Municipal Court, decision of March 22, 1938 (8 M 1885/38),
JW
(1938): 1917.

33.
Schöneberg Municipal Court, decision of September 3, 1938 (60 M 1075/38),
JW
(1938): 2910.

34.
SD-Bericht zu Inlandsfragen,
November 1941 to December 1943, Bl. 215 ff., referring to the alleged opinion of “national comrades” and “jurists” that a “general cleaning up of Jewish entries in the land register” was desirable “in order to simplify real estate transactions.”

Part Two. Section 2. Introduction

Nazi laws in the occupied territories often had no sections, only “numbers.” This was done on purpose, to show that these territories were of juridically minor status and not worthy of the “gift” of normal German rules, not even of the outfit. It is therefore important to show this disdain in the quoting of the regulations. Sections and paragraphs indicate normal leegal status; numbers indicate something much more inferior. The reader not familiar with details will see, in the manner of quoting the German original exactly, the trace of discriminatory law.

1.
RGBl.
I 2042.

2.
Figures compiled and published for official use only in
Das Deutsche Reich und das GG der besetzten polnischen Gebiete in statistischen Angaben
(Berlin: Publikationsstelle Berlin-Dahlem [government’s own imprint], 1940).