THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The main issue for determination in this appeal is whether the Appellant has met his burden of proof as set out in the Appeal Guidelines (Annex E of the Agreement), section 17, which provides that to succeed in an appeal the Appellant must establish, based on the Relaxed Standards of Proof, that it is plausible:
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The Agreement concerning Holocaust Era Insurance Claims dated 16th October 2002 covers, according to its introductory language, “the settlement of individual claims on unpaid or confiscated and not otherwise compensated policies of German insurance companies in connection with National Socialist injustice”. Losses and deprivations not connected with National Socialist injustice and specifically the Holocaust are not covered by the Agreement. The sole issue for determination in this Appeal is whether either the policyholder or the Appellant was a Holocaust victim as defined in Section 14 of the Agreement.
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The first issue for determination is whether the appeal was filed, pursuant to section 4 (3) of the afore-mentioned Agreement (see paragraph 13) and its Annex E (the Appeal Guidelines), within 120 days as specified in the Appeal Guidelines. It is concluded that the Appellant did meet this timeline. Although the appeal form was sent on 17th January 2005 which is 131 days after the decisions were made (on 8th September 2004), it cannot be determined when the Appellant received the decision letters. In light of the uncertainty as to the date the Appellant was notified of the right to appeal and because the appeal document arrived close to the appeal deadline the appeal shall be deemed to have been filed in time.
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The Panel decided, pursuant to section 14.1 of the Appeal Guidelines (Annex E of the Agreement), to consolidate claim numbers [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. They were denied by the same decision letter based on similar considerations and are appealed with the same arguments. They are related appeals in that they have been submitted by the same Appellant ([REDACTED]), although relating to different life insurance policies, issued by the same company to the Appellant s grandfathers.
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. Since the existence of a policy and the entitlement of the Appellant to the proceeds of this policy as heir (one of three heirs) of his parents are not in question, the main issue for determination is whether the sum of US$ 3,864,80 offered by [REDACTED] is correctly calculated according to the Valuation Guidelines (Annex D). This will be set out under the caption Valuation below.
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The main issue for determination in this appeal is whether the Respondent has established a valid defence. There is no doubt that the Appellant’s father had an insurance policy with [REDACTED], that the Appellant as one of the heirs of his parents could be entitled to parts of the proceeds of these policies and that all family members were Holocaust victims. Therefore, the claim of the Appellant in general is within the scope of the Agreement. But, as far as this policy is concerned, the Respondent has succeeded in establishing a valid defence in accordance with the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 17.3 of the Appeal Guidelines the Appellant is not entitled to payment from Foundation funds if;
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The Panel decided, pursuant to section 14.1 of the Appeal Guidelines (Annex E of the Agreement), for the purpose of the appeals procedure to consolidate claim numbers [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. They were denied by the same decision letter and are appealed in one appeal form. They are related appeals submitted by the same claimant but relating to different policies, namely an insurance policy issued by [REDACTED] and an insurance policy issued by [REDACTED] .
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The first issue for determination is whether the Appeals Panel has jurisdiction in this case. Pursuant to section 4 (5) of the Agreement all claims decisions, including provisional claims decisions, taken by the German [REDACTED] companies prior to the signing of this Agreement will be eligible for the ICHEIC appeals process , whereas all claims decisions taken by all of the German companies after signing of this Agreement (that was signed on 16th October 2002) will be eligible for the appeals process specified in this Agreement (Annex E) . In the opinion of the Appeals Panel the letter of 17th May 2001 (see paragraph 18) did not represent a decision , provisional or otherwise, that could be appealed. This letter only contains an acknowledgement that the Appellant s claim had been forwarded to [REDACTED], that [REDACTED] had searched its archives and records and that based on the information you provided and our search, no supporting evidence of a contractual relationship with our company or any of our subsidiaries in Eastern Europe could be found . This letter does not contain any conclusion by [REDACTED] with respect to the information provided in this letter. The claim is neither denied nor accepted. The remark in the covering letter ( we have to ask you to regard as provisional the contents of the letter herewith attached ) does not suggest that the letter it is covering is a decision letter . For this reason the Appeals Panel concludes that there was no claims decision, including provisional claims decision, taken prior to the signing of (the) Agreement that would be eligible for the ICHEIC appeals process (which is the ICHEIC Tribunal Appeals Process) and that the appeal was appropriately taken from the decision of 2nd October 2003 (see paragraph 19).
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The issue for determination is whether the Appellant’s father had purchased insurance policy number [REDACTED] from [REDACTED] and whether the Appellant has met the burden of proof as set out in the Appeal Guidelines (Annex E of the Agreement), Section 17, which provides that to succeed in an appeal the Appellant must establish, based on the Relaxed Standards of Proof, that it is plausible:
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The first issue for determination is whether the Appellant filed her appeal pursuant to section 4 (3) of the Agreement that provides: “Any such appeal must be filed within 120 days of the receipt of the company’s decision”. The appeal is deemed to be filed within the 120 days time limit. The signed appeal form, which is not dated, was sent to a post box in the Netherlands where the dates of receipt of such appeal forms were not noted. 22nd January 2004 (the day when the appeal arrived at the Appeals Office) is the 169th day after the date of the issuing of the decision letter (which is 7th August 2003). However, as it is neither known when the decision letter arrived at the Appellant nor when the Appellant’s appeal arrived at the Dutch post box it must be assumed in favour of the Appellant that her appeal reached the Dutch post box within the timeline of 120 days, because a later arrival cannot be established in the absence of recording the dates of receipt (both the appealed decision letter and the appeal).
