Consolidated Docket No: 2321/0498/JF/GD
Partial Award of a Claims Panel of the Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Accounts in Switzerland ("Tribunal"), constituted by Prof. William W. Park, as Chairperson, and Dr. Robert Briner and L. Yves Fortier, C.C., Q. C., as Co-Arbitrators
In the matter of
Claimant 1	("Claimant 1")
on her behalf and on behalf of her sister, Ms. A. C.
and
Claimant 2	("Claimant 2")
and
on his behalf and on behalf of his sister, Ms. S. A.
and
The Bank	("Bank")
Concerning the dormant bank account ("Account") of
[Name]	("Account Holder")
in the Ordinary Procedure, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure for the Claims Resolution Process ("Rules").

I.	CONSIDERATIONS
Background
On 29 August 1997 and on 30 March 1998, Claimant 2 and Claimant 1 submitted claims to the Account Holder's Account. The Bank holding the Account and the Claimants (together, "the Parties") each signed a Claims Resolution Agreement, thereby agreeing that the claim will be resolved by the Tribunal in accordance with the Rules. The Claims Panel was subsequently appointed to resolve the claim. This Partial Award is subsequent to the First Order of the Claims Panel, dated 29 June 1999 ("the First Order").
In the First Order, the Parties were requested to provide additional information and documentation to support their claim.
Third party invitations
In the First Order, the Claims Panel invited both of the Claimants' sisters to join the proceedings, and, if they so choose to authorise their respective siblings to act on their behalf.
On 22 July 1999, Ms. S. A., signed a Claims Resolution Agreement (CRA) and a power of attorney authorising her brother, Claimant 2, to represent her before the Tribunal. The Bank signed the CRA on 9 July 1999.
On 22 July 1999, Ms. A. C., signed a CRA and a power of attorney authorising her sister, Claimant 1, to represent her before the Tribunal. The Bank signed the CRA on 9 July 1999.
Responses to the Order
Claimant 2's first response By letter dated 19 July 1999, Claimant 2 responded to the First Order. Claimant 2 stated that he was unable to provide any additional documentation because his family had all perished in the Holocaust and that as he was "on the run" throughout the Second World War (the "War") it was impossible for him to have kept any personal documents.
Claimant 1's first response By letter dated 29 July 1999, Claimant 1 responded to the First Order. Claimant 1 stated that the B. and the P. families she refers to in her claim form were intermarried. She stated that because so many documents were destroyed in the War she was unable to establish the exact relationship between her paternal grandmother and the Account Holder's husband.
Claimant 1 further stated that Claimant 2's submission is based on incorrect information as the Account Holder's maiden name was [Name], and she only became a B. when she married G. B., and she therefore could not be his "paternal aunt". She also contended that the Account Holder was born in Hungary in 1862, and not, as submitted by Claimant 2, in Latvia in 1890.
On 3 August 1999, the Claimants were sent copies of each other's submissions and requested to submit their respective comments to each others submissions for comment.
Claimant 1's second response On 9 August 1999, Claimant 1 made additional comments/corrections concerning her claim. In her response, Claimant 1 acknowledged some inconsistencies between her father's death certificate and her parents' marriage certificate. Claimant 1 attributed these inconsistencies to the time in which these documents were generated and to the fact that a clerical error probably occurred as a result of the conversion of names from German to French.
Claimant 2's second response On 11 August 1999, Claimant 2 made additional submissions following receipt of Claimant 1's submissions. Claimant 2 contended the Claimant 1 is in no way related to the Account Holder. He further stated that in contrast to Claimant 1's submissions, his aunt, travelled to Germany and lived in the South of France when the Account was established. Claimant 2 re-iterated the reason for his lack of documentation.
On 31 August 1999, the Tribunal sent each of the Claimant's copies of each other's subsequent submissions in response to the First Order and requested that they make any additional comments they may have.
Claimant 2's third response On 9 September 1999, Claimant 2 responded to the Tribunal's request. He stated that he had no additional information to provide but that he truly believed that [the Account Holder] was his father's sister who lived before the War in France.
Claimant 1's third response On 9 September 1999, Claimant 1 also responded to the Tribunal's request. She stated that the Account Holder was born [Name] as can be seen in the death certificate she had submitted. Claimant 1 further stated that contrary to Claimant 2's submission she had never alleged that she was the Account Holder's relative but rather the relative of the Account Holder's husband, G. B. Finally, she stated that the information she had provided was not available to the general public, as contended by Claimant 2, and that the information they had received from the French authorities was obtained only after her sister satisfied the authorities that they were in fact related to the B. family.
Claimant 1 finally indicated that many of her father's family had perished in the Holocaust.
As of the date of this Partial Award, the Tribunal has not received any response to the Order from the Bank.
Summary of Claims
For a claim in the Ordinary Procedure to be approved, a Claimant must show that it is plausible in light of all the circumstances that he/she is entitled, in whole or in part, to the Account. In making this finding of plausibility, the Claims Panel must assess all information submitted by the Parties or otherwise available to it. The Claims Panel must also bear in mind the difficulties of proving a claim, given the destruction of the Second World War and the Holocaust and the length of time that has lapsed since the opening of the Account.
In this case, the Claims Panel faces two competing claims. It appears that the Claimants are referring to two different persons. Claimant 2 contends that the Account Holder was his aunt, and that he recalls his father telling him that he had a sister (Claimant 2's aunt) who was living in the south of France.
Claimant 1, on the other hand, claims that the Account Holder was a cousin once removed, i.e. the wife of her father's cousin. Claimant 1 provides the Tribunal with an address of her relative in France, and submits that the Account Holder's maiden name was [Name]..
Based upon the above, it is clear that the Claimants are not referring to the same person but rather to two separate people, [Name] in Claimant 2's case, and [Name], in Claimant 1's case.
The Claims Panel compared the information provided by both Claimant and concludes that it is plausible that the Account Holder is the same person referred to in Claimant 1's claim. The Claims Panel also determines that it is not plausible, in light of Article 22 of the Rules, that the Account Holder was Claimant 2's aunt. The Claims Panel bases its finding on the fact that the address provided by Claimant 1 is a perfect match to the address contained in the Bank records.
In light of these considerations, the Claims Panel determines that it is plausible in light of all the circumstances that Claimant 1 is entitled to the assets contained in the Account. In light of these considerations, the Claims Panel also determines that it is not plausible that Claimant 2 is entitled to the assets contained in the Account and his claim should therefore be denied.
The Claims Panel also notes there is no information before the Tribunal that might suggest that there are other persons with equal or better claims to the Account than Claimant 1. Finally, the Claims Panel must also have no reason to believe that the Account Holder may have acted as an intermediary for a victim of Nazi persecution, that the Claimant may have submitted a fraudulent claim, or that the assets in the Account may have been looted from victims of Nazi persecution. The Claims Panel is satisfied that all of these criteria are met in the present case.
II.	PARTIAL AWARD
Based on the submissions of the Parties and the above considerations, and in accordance with the Rules, the Claims Panel renders the following Partial Award:
1.	The Claims Panel recognises that Claimant 1 has a valid claim to the assets contained in the Account of the Account Holder and orders the Bank to pay to or at the direction of the Claimant 3,197.00 Swiss Francs, being the amount reported by the Bank on 29 April 1998. In making this payment, the Bank will not assess any fees.
2.	The Claims Panel will issue a Final Award, in which compensation for unpaid interest and bank fees previously deducted may be added on the basis of guidelines to be established by the Board of Trustees of the Independent Claims Resolution Foundation.
3.	The Claims Panel determines that Claimant 2 is not entitled to the Account Holder's account and that his claim to the Account be terminated and his file be archived with the Tribunal.
4.	This Partial Award will be sent to the Parties by registered mail against receipt.
27 January 2000
Chairperson Co-Arbitrator Co-Arbitrator      [signature]      [signature]      [signature] Prof. William W. Park Dr. Robert Briner L. Yves Fortier, C.C., Q.C.

BACK