English Translation

23 and the political activity of his son. It is therefore clear that he had to leave Prague at the outbreak of the Sudeten crisis in the autumn of l938 and therefore again had to proceed from the Czech side and in particular from the tax office in Prague II. From the statement of the Council of Ministers Bureau of 8.6. 194o (sheet 45-47) clearly shows that the sedentary event (preservation and auctioning of the applicant's assets) is a measure taken by authorities of the former Czechoslovak State, which in the main was only a consequence of the applicants' departure from Prague, which became necessary for political reasons.The fact that various violations of existing provisions of tax law have been undermined here must also be admitted in the above-mentioned statement.However, it appears particularly serious that,for the pursuit of the profession, the objects and other objects necessary under Section 25l of the E.Ö. the execution, were simply considered and treated by the tax authority as not being withdrawn from execution, because the applicant left Prague. On the other hand, it must be stated as a matter of course that the applicant must also be allowed to exercise his claim in another place, and therefore the attachment and auction of such objects withdrawn from execution remains inadmissible, which is also the case with the others according to § 25l E.O. These two groups of assets, however, constitute the main component of the assets brought to the auction.The initial presence of the spouse and the applicant's son at the start of the seizure cannot be attributed any decisive importance, since the decisive measures for the auction of the items were only carried out later at a time when, for political reasons, neither the applicant nor his family could be present in Prague. It follows from the above that the auction of the applicant's premises and other assets carried out by the tax office in Prague II in the autumn of l938 constitutes a measure by officials of the former Czechoslovak State within the meaning of Section 6(3)(a) of the Law of 20 October 1939 in conjunction with Section 2 of the Ordinance of 2 January 1969. As regards the extent of the damage suffered,is. First, on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses Maria ScHwAB (Bl.Nr-56) and Dr.Frahz POHL (BL.Nn.76) and the affidavit of the applicant (BI.Nm.78), it was established that all the items mentioned in his application were in his apartment on his departure from Prague in September l938 and that his wife and his wife were his sole property. In order to determine the height of the sight and thus the compensation to be paid, the values of the objects referred to by the applicant were first determined.In the evaluation of the equipment of the dental practitioner, the expert's opinion (Geo Poulson - Bl.7l .75-) was used, while the values for the other objects, in part, were determined.