Belgium

Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah

Nazi Germany invaded Belgium in 1940 and occupied the country until 1944. More than 26,000 Jews were deported from Belgium during the Holocaust and less than 2,000 of them survived. Owing to unique aspects of Belgian law still in force during the occupation, less than 10 percent of Jewish real estate was sold by the German occupying power. Most private property that came under German administration was rented out and the proceeds put into blocked accounts for the benefit of the original property owners. After the war, there was no organized process for seeking payment of the rental account balances or for seeking restitution or compensation for real estate that had been sold by the German administration. In the late 1990s, the Belgian government’s Study Commission—established to examine the fate of Jewish property during the war—found it difficult to identify any remaining unrestituted immovable property because of the ad hoc manner of its return after the war. Notwithstanding this difficulty, an Indemnification Commission was established in 2001 to compensate individuals whose property (immovable and movable) had not been previously compensated/returned. Belgium endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah

Fascist Italy under Mussolini joined Germany as an Axis power in 1939, and passed numerous laws that restricted the rights of Italian Jews. After the establishment of the Nazi-controlled Italian Social Republic in northern Italy, a German Command ordered the arrest of all Jews and confiscation of their property for the benefit of those who lost property in enemy (Allied) air raids. The same government entity established to manage confiscated property during the war, the Office for the Management and Liquidation of Real Estate (EGELI), was entrusted to return the property after the war. A report issued in 2001 by a government commission (Anselmi Commission) found that private property was generally returned after the war. However, differences emerged regarding the ease of the restitution process in different regions, and restitution also varied depending on whether the property was in state or private hands. Italy endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.


Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah

Even prior to World War II and the Holocaust, many Jews emigrated to Palestine. In the late nineteenth century, waves of anti-Semitism swept through Europe, reviving the Zionists’ quest to re-establish a Jewish homeland. An Israeli state was eventually declared in 1948. Even though Israel had not been a sovereign state during World War II, and no property expropriation laws had been passed, in 2005, the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) convened a commission to investigate the issue of property restitution in Israel—movable and immovable—for victims of the Holocaust. In 2006, Israel passed a restitution law addressing private property located in Israel where the owner had disappeared or died during World War II. The law also addressed what would happen if the properties had become heirless. A commission, the Company for Location and Restitution of Holocaust Victims’ Assets (known as “Hashava” in Hebrew), was created in 2006 to return assets of the Holocaust located in Israel (including land). Hashava ceased operations at the end of 2017. Israel endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.


Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah

Yugoslavia (which included present-day Serbia) was invaded by the Axis powers in 1941. Nazi Germany established a brutal occupation. Other parts of modern-day Serbia were occupied by Hungary, Bulgaria and Italy. Roughly 85 percent of the Jews who lived in Serbia before World War II were murdered. Postwar war Yugoslavia enacted a short-lived property restitution law. As Yugoslavia fell under Communist rule, widespread nationalization resulted in a second wave of property confiscations. Restitution began in the 2000s. Serbia is the only country that has enacted private property restitution legislation since endorsing the Terezin Declaration in 2009. Serbia has also passed communal property legislation—albeit with key limitations whose effects have disproportionately negatively impacted the Jewish community. In February 2016, Serbia enacted heirless property restitution legislation and the first country to enact an heirless property law since the Terezin Declaration was drafted in 2009. Serbia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.


Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah

The Nazis and their cohorts stole mercilessly from the Jews of Europe. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, returning survivors had to navigate unclear and hostile legal paths to recover their stolen property from governments and neighbors who often had been complicit in their persecution and theft. While the return of Nazi-looted art and recent legal settlements involving dormant Swiss bank accounts, unpaid insurance policies and use of slave labor by German companies have been well-publicized, efforts by Holocaust survivors and heirs over the last 70 years to recover stolen land and buildings were forgotten. In 2009, 47 countries convened in Prague to deal with the lingering problem of restitution of prewar private, communal, and heirless property stolen during the Holocaust. The outcome was the Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues, aiming to “rectify the consequences” of the wrongful Nazi-era immovable property seizures. This book sets forth the legal history of Holocaust immovable property restitution in each of the Terezin Declaration signatory states. It also analyzes how each of the 47 countries has fulfilled the standards of the Guidelines and Best Practices of the Terezin Declaration. These standards were issued in 2010 in conjunction with the establishment of the European Shoah Legacy Institute (ESLI), a state-sponsored NGO created to monitor compliance. The book is based on the Holocaust (Shoah) Immovable Property Restitution Study commissioned by ESLI, written by the authors and issued in Brussels in 2017 before the European Parliament.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 2037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Brounen ◽  
Gianluca Marcato ◽  
Hans Op ’t Veld

By analyzing the adoption of the European Public Real Estate Association’s (EPRA) Sustainability Best Practices Recommendations (sBPR), we examine and discuss the application of transparent environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings and their interaction with public real estate performance across European markets. Due to increasing concerns about the environment and the impact of investment on society at large, public property companies have made significant progress in improving transparency and enhancing the protection of shareholder value by sharing and reporting ESG best practices. We explore and review the EPRA sBPR database, which is highly useful for investors who are already screening listed real estate companies. Hence, in this project, we carefully study the diffusion process of this new ESG metric as a tool to enhance informational transparency regarding public real estate investment management and assess the effects of this transparency and ESG performance for the real estate stock returns. We find evidence of a sustainability premium that investors are willing to pay to access companies with better sustainable ratings.


2021 ◽  
pp. 096977642199976
Author(s):  
Patrícia Canelas ◽  
Mike Raco

Writings on urban development and planning in Europe have been dominated by a combination of technical studies of the real estate sector and more structural political economy approaches on land expropriation and financialisation. In this paper we draw on the example of the London Landed Estates, to critically assess how land-owning real estate companies, that we call city-owners, perform their roles and what models and knowledge sources they draw upon in managing and carefully curating urban spaces and places. Data sources include interviews with estate managers, others involved in, or affected by, their management, and other corporate public information. Our theoretical framing draws on performativity theory that we see as a valuable addition to existing research approaches. We describe and analyse the ways these agencies construct narratives and practices of socially responsible and historically established forms of performance, that they label place stewardship, and the specific mechanisms they use to bring places into existence. Collectively, the discussion calls for an increased focus on how models abstracted from local context and politics can be ‘localised’, in the study of the governance of the built environment. Greater attention also needs to be paid to the work that place does in influencing the strategies, tactics and activities of property owners.


2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Gerwarth ◽  
Stephan Malinowski

Historians on both sides of the Atlantic are currently engaged in a controversy about the allegedly genocidal nature of western colonialism and its connections with the mass violence unleashed by Nazi Germany between 1939 and 1945. The debate touches upon some of the most “sensitive” issues of twentieth-century history: the violent “dark side” of modern western civilization, the impact of colonial massacres on the European societies that generated this violence and, perhaps most controversially, the origins and uniqueness of the Holocaust.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pernilla GLUCH ◽  
Mathias GUSTAFSSON ◽  
Henrikke BAUMANN ◽  
Göran LINDAHL

Real estate- and property owners’ rationales behind the adoption of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) respectively how LCC is actually used in renovation projects, is investigated through empirical data from a questionnaire survey sent to managers in Swedish real estate organisations. The study shows a positive attitude towards LCC. It is perceived to as a flexible and multi-functional tool with a familiar monetary format. Nevertheless, the study also reveals simplistic and undevel-oped views of how to use LCC. While much research has focused on developing sophisticated LCC tools, the findings indicate that practitioners’ interest in these refinements seems limited. The importance of understanding that LCC is used in a context of multiple and partly competing institutional logics of renovation is emphasised. The paper contributes to a more informed research in development of LCC tools as well as better informed LCC use among real estate and property owners.


Author(s):  
Myron Koster ◽  
Irene Schrotenboer

There are challenges surrounding circularity and the application of bio-based material in construction, but also potentials. This paper aims to identify success and fail factors for the initiation phase of construction projects and shows what is essential to realize affordable circular and bio-based. This was specifically investigated for initiators of construction projects, like real estate professionals, property owners and developers. Based on case studies, we describe what these actors should focus on and pursue before the actual construction starts. For the purpose of this paper, research was done and interviews were held with people involved in exemplary projects (case studies). The interviews focused on choices that were made during the initiation phase that were decisive for the degree of circularity and the extent to which bio-based materials were applied. Motivations and consequences were covered. We found that are five essentials for successful circular bio-based construction. These five essentials form the outline of this paper: 1. AFFORDABLE cost-effective & inclusive reuse; 2. FLEXIBLE prepare for future functions; 3. PASSIVE stay cool & healthy with bio-based materials; 4. INTEGRAL continuously reflect on circular bio-based benefits; 5. TRADITIONAL OWNERSHIP keep it, simple. In one case, all five essentials were put into practice, while in the other cases it was a combination of three or four essentials. The five essentials and cases in this paper can be used as inspiration for product and process and could help realize affordable and feasible circular bio-based constructions. By focusing on the essentials, initiators have guidance to prevent valuable resources (including energy) going to waste, today and in the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document