Art. 26 obligated Austria to carry out restitution proceedings, and to furnish compensation in those cases where return or restoration was impossible. As regards compensation, Austria took the official stand that Art. 26 was not directly applicable. Hence the filing of such claims for compensation was only possible if the necessary implementing legislation legislation was enacted. This legal position had important consequences for the whole question of restitution.

The implementation of Art. 26 was the subject of negotiations which went on for many years between the Austrian federal government, the powers underwriting the State Treaty and the various Jewish organisations, especially the Claims Conference, which acted as their umbrella organisation. Finally implementation was effected through the Comepensation Fund ("Abgeltungsfonds") for Bank Deposits, Securities and Discriminatory Imposts (1961) and the War and Persecution-Related Material Damage Act concerning the award of compensation for damage to household equipment or professional utensils incurred as a result of war or political persecution (1958). As regards the "Abgeltungsfonds", the following fact seems important: a lump sum of 6 million dollars was supposed to satisfy the following categories of claims: bank deposits, discriminatory imposts (Flight from the Reich Tax, Jewish Property Impost) and securities. It would be useful to compare this figure with official and private estimates and the scale on which assets were actually looted. On the basis of these two laws, lump sum compensation payments were effected for assets which could not be found, but these payments unlikely to have reached the actual value of the lost assets. The way in which the two laws were applied in practice is yet to be investigated. What remained unsolved in this context was the question of businesses "aryanised" in 1938 and later liquidated; for these no restitution was provided, and neither for jewellery, libraries and other valuables which could not be found.

For the purpose of implementing Art. 26 para.2, collecting points were set up, called A (for unclaimed property which belonged to persons "who were members of the Israelitic religious community on 31 December 1937") and B (for unclaimed property which belonged to persons "who were subjected to religious or other Nazi persecution"). The collecting points attempted as far as possible to register and realise the assets unclaimed by heirs. But as in the case of earlier restitutions, registration of these assets was essentially restricted to immovable property. The ratio of distribution of the assets realised by the collecting points was 80:20, i.e. 80% of the net profit went to Jewish victims (collecting point A), 20% to political victims (collecting point B). A question which will have to be examined is for what reasons and with what justification the ratio between the two collecting points was fixed at 80:20.