THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 20. The first issue for determination in this appeal is whether the Appellant has met her 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. 19. 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. Therefore, the sole issue for determination in this Appeal is whether the policyholder and/or Appellant are a Holocaust victim in the sense of Section 14 of the Agreement.
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 18. 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. 20. The issue for determination in this case is whether Mr [XXXXXXXX]’s application for life insurance with [REDACTED] was declined on 23rd January 1933 for religious or political reasons. [REDACTED] has reviewed all the evidence and takes note of the Appellant’s arguments that his father enjoyed good health during his lifetime. Mr [REDACTED] apparently ran a successful business, played sport and had a high standard of living.
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 16. 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. 16. 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 are the subject of 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.
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 18. 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. 15. 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. 25. The only issue for determination is, whether the offer made by [REDACTED] is in line with the Valuation Guidelines (Annex D of the Agreement concerning Holocaust Era Insurance Claims dated 16th October 2002 made by and among the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future , the ICHEIC and the [REDACTED]). There is no doubt that the Appellant s father had insurance policies with [REDACTED] (policies number [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]), that the Appellant as named beneficiary is entitled to 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.
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 24. There is no doubt that the Appellant’s grandfather had an insurance policies with [REDACTED], that the Appellant as heir of her parents could be entitled to the proceeds of this policy and that all family members living at that time were Holocaust victims. Therefore, the claim of the Appellant in general is within the scope of the Agreement. But, as far as policy number [REDACTED] is concerned, the Respondent has succeeded in establishing a valid defence in accordance with the Agreement. According to Section 17.3 of the Appeal Guidelines the Appellant is not entitled to payment from Foundation funds if
