2013. the Report Was Adopted on 4 March 2013
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF RESTITUTION APPLICATIONS FOR ITEMS OF CULTURAL VALUE AND THE SECOND WORLD WAR
Report 2013 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF RESTITUTION APPLICATIONS FOR ITEMS OF CULTURAL VALUE AND THE SECOND WORLD WAR
Report 2013
Visiting address: Lange Voorhout 13 Postal address: P.O. Box 556 2501 CN The Hague, The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)70 376 5992 e-mail: [email protected] internet: www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en
Cover illustration Glazed pottery dish with polychromed decor of female bust, Deruta (NK 575) List of contents
Foreword 5
1. Introduction 7
2. The Restitutions Committee 8 2.1 History in brief 8 2.2 Terms of reference 9 2.3 Members and employees of the Restitutions Committee 10 2.4 Brief overview of activities in 2013 11
3. Quantitative overview 14 3.1 2002 - 2013 overview 14 3.2 Dutch National Art Collection cases 14 3.3 Revised recommendations 15 3.4 Cases relating to works not in the Dutch National Art Collection 16 3.5 Status at the end of 2013 16
4. Opinions and recommendations issued in 2013 18
Appendices 71
3 Foreword
WITH TWO PEALS OF THUNDER. That is how 2013 ended as far as looted art problems are concerned. One was on 29 October when the Netherlands Museums Association (NMV) presented the outcome of their provenance investigation of museum acquisitions since 1933. The results show that the provenance of 139 works of art and Jewish ritual items in Dutch public museums indicates looting, confiscation, forced sale or other suspicious circumstances between 1933 and 1945. And that is not the end of the story because not all museums have finished yet. For example the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam does not expect to finish researching the provenance of its collection until 2017. Although it was expected, it was nevertheless laudable that all 162 eligible museums cooperated loyally and actively. This first peal of thunder did not come out of a clear blue sky. There were already rumblings in November 2008 when the NMV decided to embark on the study. Implementing this decision took five years, during which a great deal of work was done by the museums and the supervisory committee set up by the NMV and chaired by Professor R.E.O. Ekkart. But for the Restitutions Committee this is just the beginning. Those who see reason in the investigation’s results to submit a claim for the return on an item that is not in the possession of the Dutch State can decide, together with the museum concerned or the owner of that item, to submit the claim to the Restitutions Committee for a binding opinion. The first of these cases has already been submitted and by now a number of others have been announced. It is worth noting that Amsterdam City Council has decided to do this with all the claims it receives. The Minister of Education, Culture and Science decided in 2001 to always pass claims to museum objects belonging to the Dutch National Art Collection to the Restitutions Committee. Disclaimer The second thunderclap came at the beginning of November in another country - Germany. Just as Haydn had intended with his surprise symphony, number 94 in This English version is a translation of the original Dutch report ‘Verslag 2013’, G major, the German authorities and public were shocked. The surprise was the in case of possible differences in translation we refer you to the Dutch report. announcement that in 2011 approximately 1,400 works of art that had something to do, one way or another, with the Nazi regime had been found in the modest flat in Munich’s Schwabing district of a strange old man called Gurlitt. The items included paintings by great names like Matisse, Picasso and Klee, as well as works dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. After this discovery one can ask whether anything like it could Frequently used abbreviations: happen in the Netherlands too. The answer has to be that while it cannot be ruled out, something of this size is not very likely. BHG Origins Unknown Agency More importantly, finding this hoard throws light on an ongoing problem that is also L&R Bankers’ office Lisser & Rosenkranz relevant in the Netherlands. Are there private, non-public collections and holdings that NBI Netherlands Property Administration Institute contain artworks with a contestable history and, if so, how many? Generally speaking that NK-collection Netherlands Art Property Collection will only emerge if a work of art is offered for sale through an auction house or a gallery, NMV Netherlands Museums Association OCW Education, Culture and Science RCE Cultural Heritage Agency RKD Netherlands Institute for Art History RMA Rijksmuseum Amsterdam SNK Netherlands Art Property Foundation
4 5 or on the internet. Another possibility is that the owner publishes a description of 1. Introduction his collection or has the provenance independently investigated. That only happens sporadically. The Dutch Royal House has led the way. Who will follow this example? The end of restitution problems will not appear on the horizon until, following the example This is the twelfth annual report of the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of of the Dutch National Art Collection and museums, this also becomes standard practice Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War (the on a reasonably large scale for private owners and there is constructive thinking about Restitutions Committee). The Restitutions Committee was established by the State solutions. Secretary for Education, Culture and Science (OCW) through a decree of 16 November 2001, and it gives opinions and recommendations about applications for the restitution of Nazi looted art.1 W.J.M. Davids Chairman This annual report is a follow-up to annual reports published previously, which describe in detail the Restitutions Committee’s history, policy framework and working methods. Please see these publications for more detailed information about these subjects.2 This report concentrates on the activities carried out in 2013. It has been decided to produce a brief report this year in connection with the planned publication of the book Fair and Just Solutions, based on the international symposium of the same name, which was organized by the Committee and held in November 2012.
Chapter 2 contains a brief description of the Restitutions Committee’s history, an overview of its terms of reference, and the composition of the Committee and the office of the Restitutions Committee. The chapter ends with a brief description of the activities carried out during the year under review. Chapter 3 contains a quantitative overview of the opinions and recommendations issued from 2002 to 2013 inclusive, and in chapter 4 there is the full text of the opinions and recommendations that the Committee issued in 2013.
1. Chairman of the Restitutions Committee, W.J.M. Davids
1 ‘Decree Establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War’, 16 November 2001. The Decree establishing the Restitutions Committee was amended by the State Secretary of OCW through a decree of 4 July 2012. Appendix 1 contains the 2001 Decree establishing the Restitutions Committee and the associated explanatory notes. The amending Decree of 4 July 2012 is in Appendix 2. See section 2.4 of the 2012 annual report for more information about the amendment of the Decree establishing the Restitutions Committee. 2 A detailed description of the history and policy framework of the Restitutions Committee is given in the 2002 and 2005 annual reports, and there is an overview of recent changes in the policy framework in the 2012 annual report. The 2011 annual report addresses the Committee’s working practices. All annual reports can be consulted in digital form on the website http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl (Dutch version) or http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en (English version). Please contact the office of the Restitutions Committee (the address can be found at the end of this report) to request printed copies of the annual report.
6 7 2. The Restitutions Committee
2.1 History in brief
During the Second World War the Nazis seized, stole or purchased art from private individuals and art galleries on a large scale. After the country was liberated, the allies found many of these items of cultural value, particularly in Germany, after which they were brought back to their country of origin. This recovery was accompanied by the instruction to national governments to manage the art being returned and to ensure it was returned to the rightful owners or their heirs. In the Netherlands, the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (SNK) was tasked with the recovery and restitution activities. Some of the items of cultural value that were not restituted after the war were auctioned off by the Dutch State during the nineteen-fifties. The remainder was incorporated in the Netherlands Art Property Collection (NK collection), as part of the Dutch National Art Collection.
Starting at the end of nineteen-nineties, renewed interest arose in the Netherlands and other countries in the return of art treasures that had been looted during the Second World War. There were calls for a flexible restitutions policy, for example in such international instruments as the Washington Principles on Nazi Confiscated Art (1998) and in a resolution on Looted Jewish Cultural Property (1999) adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Recommendations were made to opt 2. Dutch-owned art back from Germany for a form of alternative dispute settlement outside the standard judicial process. The actions taken in the Netherlands in response to these principles included establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of 2.2 Terms of reference Cultural Value and the Second World War (Restitutions Committee) in a decree dated 16 November 2001. The Origins Unknown Committee, also known as the Ekkart Today, works of art that were separated from their original owners as a consequence of the Committee, played an important role in its history.3 Under this committee’s supervision, Nazi regime may be in the possession of the Dutch State, a provincial or local authority, a between 1997 and 2004 the Origins Unknown Agency (BHG) investigated the provenance foundation or a private individual. A claim on such a work of art can be submitted to the of all objects in the NK collection. At around the same time, the government gave notice of Restitutions Committee for investigation and an opinion or recommendation. a more liberal restitutions policy based on recommendations made by Ekkart Committee in 2001, 2003 and 2004. Within the scope of this generous policy, since its establishment When it was established in 2001, the Restitutions Committee’s primary task was to advise the Restitutions Committee has been advising the Minister of OCW about decisions to be the Minister of OCW about claims to works of art in the Dutch National Art Collection, taken about individual applications for the restitution of items of cultural value stolen in the possession of the Dutch State.5 This was concerned exclusively with advice about during the Nazi regime. return of the claimed objects. The guidelines for evaluating these claims relating to the Dutch National Art Collection were specified in the generous restitution policy referred to Works have continued to be added to the NK collection since the nineteen-fifties, for above, which was based on the Ekkart Committee’s recommendations.6 example recently a few paintings that were found after the reunification of Germany in the collection of the Museum der Bildenden Kunste in Leipzig. The artworks concerned The second task described in the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee concerns were returned to the Netherlands on 4 March 2012 and in 2013 they played a part in the advice about restitution issues in which the Dutch State is not involved, such as claims to Goudstikker-Kummerlé case.4 works of art in the possession of lower tiers of government (provincial or municipal
5 Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee, 16 November 2001, article 2 paragraph 1. Appendix 1. 6 See Appendix 3 of this annual report for an overview of the documents on which the restitution policy is 3 The Origins Unknown Committee was chaired by Professor R.E.O. Ekkart. based. For a detailed description of national policy see Report 2002, Report 2005 and Report 2012, which can 4 See chapter 4, advice in the case of Goudstikker-Kummerlé (RC 1.134). be consulted on the Restitutions Committee’s website.
8 9 collections) and items from the collection of a foundation or private individual.7 The Ms E. Muller (researcher) and Mr O.M. van Vessem (legal assistant). more liberal restitutions policy does not apply as the assessment framework for claims In addition, Ms N. Dufais assisted the office for part of the year under review and in these categories. In 2001 the Committee was instructed to give due regard to the Mr H.D.O. Blauw and Ms S. Starrenburg had positions in the office on a project basis. ‘yardsticks of fairness and justice’.8 In these types of case the Committee has the scope The office of the Restitutions Committee is located at Lange Voorhout 13 in The Hague to weigh up the interests of the parties and is also entitled to make recommendations and it also has an office in the National Archives of the Netherlands in The Hague. other than the return of the claimed work of art. The Committee drew up regulations outlining the procedure based on article 4 paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee.9 Pursuant to the regulations, the Committee discharges this task by means of a ‘binding opinion in the sense of article 7:900 of the Dutch Civil Code (contract of settlement) or by means of promoting a settlement or the establishment of an agreement for mediation between the parties’.10 The regulations also give an overview of the considerations that the Committee may include in its opinions in these cases and the possible solutions it may recommend.
See the Committee’s website for more information about the procedures it employs in the opinion-related tasks referred to above.
2.3 Members and employees of the Restitutions Committee
In 2013 the Restitutions Committee comprised the following members:
Mr W.J.M. Davids (chairman) Professor I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair) Professor J.T.M. Bank
Mr R. Herrmann 3. Members and employees of the Restitutions Committee Mr P.J.N. van Os Dr E.J. van Straaten Ms H.M. Verrijn Stuart
In a decree dated 30 October 2013, the Minister of OCW reappointed the aforementioned 2.4 Brief overview of activities in 2013 people as members of the Restitutions Committee for a three-year period from 23 December 2013 until 23 December 2016.11 The Committee’s director is Ms E. Campfens. The Committee members met eight times in 2013. The Committee had 19 cases under consideration, issued 11 opinions and recommendations, and organized 4 hearings.12 The office of the Restitutions Committee, where the day-to-day activities are carried out, has a team headed by Ms E. Campfens containing Ms A. Marck (deputy director/ Symposiums and study days researcher), Ms T. Brandse (office manager), Ms I. El Achkar (management assistant), There is still plenty of national and international interest in restitution and restitution Ms A.M. Jolles-van Loo (archivist), Ms A.J. Kool (researcher), Mr F.M. Kunert (researcher), policy. This means that Committee members and employees attend various national and international symposiums and maintain contacts in the Netherlands and beyond.
For example, on 28 February 2013 Chairman Davids and Director Campfens gave a 7 Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee, 16 November 2001, article 2 paragraph 2. For more information see the explanatory notes to this Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee. Appendix 1. presentation in The Hague for the Directorate for Legislation of the Ministry of Public 8 Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee, 16 November 2001, article 2 paragraphs 4 and 5. Appendix 1. Safety and Justice about the Restitutions Committee’s work, in particular the private law 9 Article 4 paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee states that ‘The Committee is entitled to specify regulations concerning further working practices’. aspects of the restitution of plundered art. 10 ‘Regulations for opinion procedure under article 2, paragraph 2, and article 4, paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War.’ Appendix 4. 11 Netherlands Government Gazette, 7 November 2013, no. 31001. 12 The complete texts of the opinions and recommendations issued in 2013 are in chapter 4.
10 11 On 12 April 2013 there was an annual Utrecht University Legal Research Master Finally, on 5 and 6 December 2013 researcher Kunert attended two study days at a conference on the theme of Law and Art, the protection of art and its limits. Professor W.J. symposium organized by the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden entitled Forschungen Veraart and Ms Campfens conducted a workshop at this conference about how disputes zu Hans Posse about the work of this art historian. Between the end of the nineteen- relating to looted art can be handled. Two months later, on 5 June 2013, Chairman Davids thirties and his death in 1942, he was tasked with collecting works of art for the Führer and Deputy Director Marck presented the Committee’s work for the Magna Carta Legal Museum that was to be established in Linz. Society at Waardenburg Castle. On 16 September 2013 Ms Campfens took part in a round table discussion entitled Besides these organized meetings, during the year under review personal contacts were Art Trafficking and Restitution, which was organized in the Peace Palace by Walk of established and maintained. For example Chairman Davids and Director Campfens spoke Truth, an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization. with the United States’ Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues and talks were held with, During the Annual Museum Conference of the Netherlands Museums Association on among others, the Centraal Joods Overleg (an association of Dutch Jewish organizations) 3 October 2013 in Den Bosch Ms Campfens and Ms Marck conducted a workshop about and the Commission for Looted Art in Europe in London. questions and dilemmas relating to the assessment of claims to Nazi looted art. There was also a preliminary discussion with Amsterdam City Council’s legal advisor, Under the auspices of the Czech Minister of Culture and Minister of Foreign Affairs, in senior art and culture policy advisor and others. This was related to the decision by the Podĕbrady on 8 and 9 October 2013 the Prague-based Documentation Centre for Property Amsterdam City Council Executive to always submit an application for restitution of an Transfers of Cultural Assets of WW II Victims organized its fifth international conference artwork from the Amsterdam Collection to the Restitutions Committee.14 on Nazi looted art. During it Ms Campfens explained the Restitutions Committee’s procedure for alternative dispute resolution. Other Committee employees also attended Media coverage this conference. During the year under review the media paid a great deal of attention to looted art and Later that month, on 29 October 2013, Mr Davids and Ms Campfens, together with restitution. The causes included publication of the binding opinion in the Semmel15 case at other Committee members and employees, attended the Museum Acquisitions since the beginning of May, and the announcement that degenerate art and looted art had been 1933 symposium in the Rode Hoed meeting and event centre in Amsterdam. During this found in the possession of Cornelius Gurlitt in Munich in November. There were some symposium the Netherlands Museums Association presented its website radio and television interviews, with Mr Davids and Ms Marck among others, and an http://www.musealeverwervingen.nl/. This website has information about 139 artworks article by Ms Campfens in the NRC Handelsblad. in Dutch museum collections, the possession of which by former owners might have been involuntarily lost during the Nazi regime.13 It is to be expected in the near future that a Publication of symposium proceedings number of these works will be subjects of applications for restitution and that such claims During the year under review the activities of the office of the Restitutions Committee will be submitted to the Restitutions Committee. As this report was being prepared, it was included preparations for the book Fair and just solutions? based on the symposium of still not possible to make an estimate of that number in a responsible way. the same name that was held on 27 November 2012.16 The publication will appear in the In response to the museum acquisitions study, Ms Campfens and Ms Marck organized a course of 2014. number of information meetings about the Restitutions Committee’s procedure, including one for local authorities, provinces and museums on 28 November 2013 in The Hague. That same day Deputy Director Marck and Ms J.M. Mooren of the Netherlands Museums Association gave a guest lecture to art history students at VU University Amsterdam about investigating looted art. Earlier that month, on 14 November 2013, Committee member Van Os and Director Campfens gave a postgraduate course for the Foundation for the Advancement of Notarial Studies about the Restitutions Committee and restitution issues. Other presentations during the year under review included two lectures by Chairman Davids—one for the younger members of Sociëteit De Witte in The Hague and the other for the Probus Club in Nijmegen.
14 Decision of Amsterdam City Council Executive. 13 See Report 2011, section 4.3, for comprehensive information about the study of museum acquisitions since 15 See chapter 4. 1933. 16 Report 2012, p. 31.
12 13 3. Quantitative overview Dutch National Art Collection cases per year
Submitted to the RC Recommendations issued by the RC
3.1 2002 - 2013 overview 2002 12 2002 5 Between January 2002, when the Restitutions Committee took up its duties, and the 2003 4 2003 7 2004 9 2004 2 end of 2013, the Minister of OCW requested advice in over 141 cases. Items of cultural 2005 16 2005 7 value from the Dutch National Art Collection were the subjects of 129 of these cases. Of 2006 15 2006 12 these, 123 related to items of cultural value from the Dutch National Art Collection and 2007 35 2007 16 six concerned requests for revised advice (see below). The other twelve cases related to 2008 12 2008 15 works not in the possession of the Dutch State, but of provincial and local authorities, 2009 10 2009 16 foundations, private individuals etc. 2010 3 2010 9 2011 0 2011 13 The data presented in section 3.2 relate to the first category referred to above of 123 cases 2012 5 2012 7 concerning the Dutch National Art Collection. The revised advice cases are addressed 2013 2 2013 5 in section 3.3, and cases involving works not in the Dutch National Art Collection are discussed in section 3.4. Total 123 Total 114
3.2 Dutch National Art Collection cases
At the end of 2013 advice had been issued in 114 of the 123 Dutch National Art Collection 3.3 Revised recommendations cases submitted to the Committee.17,18 These recommendations related to about 1,380 claimed items of cultural value. Up to the end of 2013 the Committee issued five revised recommendations about works in A few of the cases that had been submitted were withdrawn before advice could be issued, the Dutch National Art Collection. These concerned cases about which the Committee had and in one instance cases were combined with a restitution request submitted later. The advised previously and in regard to which a request for revised advice had been submitted, Committee furthermore considered itself to be unauthorized to advise in two cases. for example because applicants had found new information that - in their opinion - put The scope of the cases ranged from one single work of art to claims calling for the return the case in a new light.19 The Committee issued two revised recommendations in the year of a few hundred items. under review.20 A recommendation will be made at a later stage about a revised advice case that was still being dealt with at the end of 2013. Of the 114 recommendations issued, 60 were fully in the applicants’ favour, 37 were to reject the claim in full and 17 were to partly grant and partly reject the claim. Revised recommendations per year
Submitted to the RC Recommendations issued by the RC
2010 3 2010 1 2011 2 2011 - 2012 - 2012 2 2013 1 2013 2
Total 6 Total 5
17 See section 3.3 for the revised advice cases. 18 During the handling of a few cases, the recommendation was split up into two parts, so there were partial recommendations. The recommendations issued by the Committee can be consulted on its website. See appendix 5 for an index by case number of all the recommendations made by the Committee during the 19 See Report 2012, section 2.5. 2002-2013 period. 20 See the revised recommendations RC 4.124 (Larssen II) and RC 4.123 (Koenigs) in chapter 4.
14 15 3.4 Cases relating to works not in the Dutch National Art Collection reject in full.23 At the beginning of 2014 a further five Dutch National Art Collection cases were being considered.24 As explained in chapter 2, when it was established the Restitutions Committee was assigned a second task in addition to assessing claims to works in the Dutch National The time taken to process a request for advice or an opinion varies substantially from Art Collection. This second task involves investigating and evaluating disputes about case to case. For example, the procedure takes longer if the historical investigation is works from collections other than the Dutch national one. These disputes are thus about time consuming. This can be due to the extent and the nature of the research, as well as looted art not involving the Dutch State, but provincial and local authorities, foundations, the fact that the Committee is dependent on third parties for gathering information, such private individuals etc. The Committee discharges this task by giving a binding opinion as archives in the Netherlands and other countries. In addition procedural reasons often in the sense of article 7:900 of the Dutch Civil Code and has drawn up regulations for the contribute to a longer turnaround time. In some cases, for instance, there are several purpose. claims relating to the same work of art, so a number of response stages are desirable and By the end of 2013 the Restitutions Committee had dealt with twelve requests for advice cases have to be kept open until investigation of the various claims has been completed. in the context of this task. The Committee published its first five binding opinions in 2008, Applicants also regularly request an extension of response times, for example so that they 2010 and 2012.21 can do some research themselves.
The Committee issued four binding opinions in the year under review.22 At the end of 2013 a further three cases about works from collections other than the Dutch national one were under consideration.
Binding opinions per year
Submitted to the RC Opinions issued by the RC
2006 2 2006 - 2007 1 2007 - 2008 1 2008 3 2009 - 2009 - 2010 - 2010 1 2011 5 2011 - 2012 1 2012 1 2013 2 2013 4
Total 12 Total 9
3.5 Status at the end of 2013
In 2013 the Minister of OCW submitted three Dutch National Art Collection cases to the Restitutions Committee. During the year under review the Committee issued seven recommendations about items 4. Philips Wouwerman, Two Men with a Horse on the Beach (NK 3749). in the Dutch National Art Collection, two of which were revised recommendations (see See advice Goudstikker-Kummerlé, RC 1.134. section 3.3). Of these seven recommendations, four were to grant in full and three were to
23 Recommended to grant: RC 1.137 (Hamburger), RC 1.133 (Oppenheimer III), RC 1.134 (Goudstikker– 21 See Report 2008, Report 2010 and Report 2012. Kummerlé) and RC 1.130 (Hamburger II). Recommended to reject: RC 4.124 (Larsen II), RC 1.98 (Koch) and 22 See the binding opinions RC 3.126 (Semmel/Groninger Museum), RC 3.127 (Semmel/Municipality of 4.123 (Koenigs II). Haarlem), RC 3.128 (Semmel/Museum De Fundatie) and RC 3.131 (Semmel/Centraal Museum) in chapter 4. 24 Including revised recommendation cases.
16 17 claimed objects are known to have been sold on to a German buyer by the Dienststelle Mühlmann because 4. Opinions and recommendations issued in 2013 post-war information, compiled for the purpose of recovering the work, shows that the German buyer in question declared that they had acquired the three objects at issue through Mühlmann from the ‘Slg. Hamburger’.
Below is the full text of the opinions and recommendations issued by the Restitutions The Committee concludes that it follows from the circumstances described above that loss of possession was involuntary as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi Regime. Committee in 2013. The opinions and recommendations are given in chronological order. The dates given for opinions and recommendations are based on when they were finalized.25 5. Even before the liberation, Gustaaf Hamburger contacted the Dutch government in exile from the US, providing information about his property, including his art collection, as it was when he was forced to leave it behind in the Netherlands on 10 May 1940. The currently claimed objects were recovered by the Allies after the liberation and returned to the Netherlands. Hamburger requested the return of several objects from his collection, among which was only one of the currently claimed objects, NK 575. Hamburger was 1. Recommendation regarding Hamburger evidently not aware that the two other currently claimed objects had been recovered. (case number RC 1.137) 6. It has not become clear why the application for restitution of NK 575 did not lead to its actual return after the war. The request appears to have been denied because the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (SNK) did not believe that Hamburger identified the dish conclusively enough. In 1950, Hamburger again asked In a letter dated 13 December 2012, the Minister for Education, Culture and Science (abbreviated to OCW in to be able to look at the object, which was permitted. No further correspondence about this dish was found, Dutch) requested the Restitutions Committee (hereafter referred to as: the Committee) for advice regarding however. the application of 19 November 2012 by XX of Y, Switzerland (hereafter referred as: the applicant) for the restitution of three ceramic dishes from the Netherlands Art Property Collection (NK collection). These objects The Committee believes that, particularly in light of the possibility of identifying the object on the basis are: of the currently available data, this post-war handling under the policy criteria does not preclude the admissibility of the applicant’s current claim. The Committee therefore considers the application admissible. - NK 223, Glazed pottery dish with polychromed decor of bust of a prophet and grotesques on the rim (Italy, 17th century); 7. In conclusion, in connection with any consideration received, the Committee has to address the question - NK 444, Glazed pottery dish with polychromed decor with rosette and arabesques (Spain, 16th century); of whether a payment obligation should be imposed in return for the restitution of the claimed objects. In - NK 575, Glazed pottery dish with polychromed decor of female bust (Italy, 16th century). accordance with current restitution policy, a payment obligation only applies if and insofar as the then seller or their heirs actually had free disposal of the proceeds. The Committee first considers in this regard that The procedure it is unknown whether or not a purchase price was paid for the objects. It can be concluded from post-war correspondence that the Dienststelle Mühlmann only paid a small proportion of the total value of the objects The applicant’s reason for the claim was a letter from the Origins Unknown Agency in 2007, informing the from Hamburger’s collection. applicant of the existence of the objects from her father’s collection and the possibility to submit a claim. In subsequent correspondence with the Origins Unknown Agency, the applicant stated that she would appreciate The Committee believes that under these circumstances imposing a payment obligation is not in order in the restitution of the objects in question. this case.
In a letter to the Minister dated 19 November 2012, the applicant repeated this, requesting a speedy handling Conclusion of the application. Given the applicant’s age and the delay of this case during the preliminary stage, the Committee has decided to accelerate this application and give priority to addressing this case over other The Restitutions Committee advises the Minister for Education, Culture and Science to return NK 223, NK 444 applications. In response to the Minister’s request for advice of 13 December 2012, the Committee instigated and NK 575 to the applicant. a fact-finding investigation, the results of which were included in a draft investigatory report of 19 February 2013, which was sent on the same date to the applicant for comment. The applicant commented on the Adopted at the meeting of 4 March 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chair), J.Th.M. Bank, Herrmann, P.J.N. van Os, content of this letter in an email dated 22 February 2013. The report was adopted on 4 March 2013. This E.J. van Straaten, H.M. Verrijn Stuart and I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair), and signed by the chair and the recommendation will confine itself to a summary of the facts as shown below. director.
Considerations (W.J.M. Davids, chair) (E. Campfens, director)
1. In her capacity as heir, the applicant requests the restitution of three ceramic objects from the former property of her father. The applicant is the daughter of Gustaaf Hamburger (1887-1977). She has stated that she is her father’s sole heir and the Committee sees no reason to doubt her status as such. 2. Recommendation regarding Larsen II 2. Gustaaf Hamburger was born in Utrecht in 1887. With others he established the bank Hamburger & Co.’s Bankierskantoor N.V. in Amsterdam in 1920. Hamburger lived in Laren, collecting art and ceramics. (case number RC 4.124) Gustaaf Hamburger managed to escape to the United States in 1939 or 1940, leaving most of his possessions behind in the Netherlands. His house in Laren, with part of his art collection, was confiscated by the Wehrmacht during the occupation. During the occupation, other parts of his art collection, which Hamburger had put in storage, were designated by the Nazi authorities as enemy property and subsequently confiscated In a letter dated 28 April 2011, the State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science (hereafter referred to and sold. as: the State Secretary, OCW) requested the Restitutions Committee (hereafter referred to as: the Committee) to issue a revised recommendation on a previously handled application for restitution regarding Larsen 3. Based on the investigation findings, the Committee considers it is very likely that the currently claimed (RC 1.70) concerning twelve paintings from the Netherlands Art Property Collection (hereafter referred to as: objects NK 223, NK 444 and NK 575 were originally owned by Gustaaf Hamburger and were part of his the NK collection). The works have the following inventory numbers: NK 1410, NK 1412, NK 1414, NK 1417, collection. The Committee infers this partly from two descriptions of goods from Hamburger’s collection on a NK 1420, NK 1424, NK 1428, NK 1441, NK 1447, NK 1451, NK 2243 and NK 2463. The previous application 1935 taxation list which are very similar to the current NK 223 and NK 575. for restitution of these twelve paintings was awarded by decree of the Minister for OCW on 1 September 2009 on condition of payment of EUR 325,000 by the applicants. This is what the Committee advised the Minister in 26 4. A large part of Hamburger’s art collection, probably including the currently claimed objects, was confiscated its recommendation on RC 1.70 dated 1 July 2009. during the occupation by the Dienststelle Mühlmann, a German looting organisation. The three currently The application for a revised recommendation concerns the repayment condition the Committee attached to its recommendation to return the paintings.
25 See appendix 5 for an index by case number of all the opinions and recommendations issued by the Committee during the 2002-2013 period. 26 See Report 2009.
18 19 The procedure c. English translation of a letter dated 29 August 1952 from DD to the Netherlands Property Administration Institute (NBI) [Memorandum Annex 5]; The reason for the request for a revised recommendation was a letter by AA of B, United States of America d. Copy of a copy of a petition to the ‘Raad van Advies en Herstelaangelegenheden’ in Amsterdam dated (hereafter referred to as: the applicant) dated 24 September 2009, and the subsequent substantiation dated June 1945 [Memorandum Annex 6]; 24 February 2011, to the Minister for OCW. In it, the applicant states that she is acting on behalf of the other e. Copy of an annotated auction catalogue of Van Marle & Bignell relating to an auction on 25 January entitled parties in case RC 1.70 and requests the Minister to reconsider the decision to impose a payment 1943, with the annotation ‘Exemplar Dr. Göpel’ [Memorandum Annex 11]; obligation to the amount of EUR 325,000 in return for the restitution, which the Committee recommended on f. Copy of a letter from EE to FF, 2 February 1972 [Memorandum Annex 14]; the previous occasion. g. Copy of a letter from bank Labouchere & Co. N.V. to the executors of the estate of H.L. Larsen, 22 June Further to that letter, the State Secretary for OCW sent the Committee a letter, dated 28 April 2011, with a 1948 [Memorandum Annex 16]; request for a revised recommendation. h. Copy of a cover page of a 1947 auction catalogue of Parke-Bernet Galleries Inc. in New York regarding On 27 July 2011, the Committee informed the applicant on the progress of the procedure and gave her the paintings and drawings from the estate of H.L. Larsen [Memorandum Annex 18]; opportunity to send in additional information. In a letter dated 6 October 2011, she indicated that she had no i. Copy of a copy ‘Note reg. credit for GG’, 23 January 1941, writer unknown, probably bank Van Mierlo & additional information to which she wanted to draw the Committee’s attention. In the Committee’s opinion, Zoon [Memorandum Annex 19]; then, the applicant’s explanation therefore comprises her input dated 24 February 2011, i.e. the letter itself, j. Copy of a copy of a letter dated 2 January 1942 to GG, writer unknown, probably bank Van Mierlo & plus the attached memorandum and the source materials annexed to the memorandum (hereafter jointly Zoon [Memorandum Annex 20]; referred to as: the explanation). k. Copy of a copy of a note ‘Conversation with GG’, writer unknown, probably bank Van Mierlo & Zoon, 30 October 1941 [Memorandum annex 21]; Considerations l. Transcription and translation of an agreement between GG and HH, 10 August 1942 [Memorandum Annex 22]; 1. The current revised recommendation concerns twelve paintings that were originally part of the collection m. Transcription of a letter or note dated 4 September 1944 [Memorandum Annex 23]; of the Jewish industrialist Hans Ludwig Larsen (hereafter referred to as: Larsen), who died in 1937 and n. Copy of a copy of a letter or draft to GG and HH, sender unknown, 29 August 1942 [Memorandum was the applicant’s grandfather. At the time of the loss of possession, which occurred during the German Annex 24]; occupation of the Netherlands and after Larsen’s death, the claimed works of art were part of Larsen’s o. Copy of a copy of a letter or draft to GG and HH, sender unknown, 18 August 1943 [Memorandum undivided estate. Annex 25]; In its recommendation RC 1.70, the Committee judged that the loss of possession of the works of art is to be p. Copy of a copy of a letter from GG and HH to II, 25 August 1942 [Memorandum Annex 26]; qualified as involuntary due to circumstances related to the Nazi regime. This is not in dispute. q. Copy of a copy of a letter or draft to GG and HH, not dated [Memorandum Annex 27]; The Committee also judged that the applicants’ request was admissible and that the written statement r. Copy of a note ‘FAO Mr. x’, 29 April 1948, writer unknown [Memorandum Annex 28]; regarding the Larsen estate from the executors (hereafter referred to as: ‘the executors’) dated 23 July 1947 s. Copy of a copy of a letter or draft to GG, 2 October 1944, writer unknown [Memorandum Annex 30]; in which they waived the possibility of restoration of rights cannot be invoked against the heirs themselves, t. Translation of a list of works of art of GG’s heirs [Memorandum Annex 31a]; who were in the United States at the time. u. Transcription and translation of a letter from JJ to HH, 2 September 1944 [Memorandum Annex 31b]; However, in its previous recommendation, the Committee was of the opinion that the sales proceeds received v. Copy of a list of goods in the estate of H.L. Larsen’s mother, 27 January 1938 [Memorandum Annex 32]; for the twelve currently claimed works of art during the war were in fact received by the executors after w. Copy of a letter from JJ to the NBI, 28 November 1946 [Memorandum Annex 33]; the war and that, as appointed by Larsen in his will dated 16 March 1937, they were entitled to receive x. Copy of a carbon copy of a letter from the NBI to KK, 18 June 1948 [Memorandum Annex 34]; the same. The Committee concluded that the owners obtained the free disposal of the money received for y. Copy of a copy of a letter from the NBI to LL, 12 July 1948 [Memorandum Annex 35]; the sale of the works and that, pursuant to the guidelines applied by the Committee, this money has to be z. Copy of a letter or note from the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (SNK), 2 July 1946 repaid in the event of restitution of the works of art. On 1 July 2009, the Committee therefore recommended [Memorandum Annex 36]. to return the twelve works of art in exchange for the obligation to pay an amount of EUR 325,000, which is based on the indexation of the payment received for these twelve works of art. This is what the Minister 6. In her explanation, the applicant puts forward various objections to the repayment obligation. In the current decided. recommendation, these will be summarised and discussed as part of the various main items.
2. In her explanation, the applicant objects to this obligation to pay. She puts forward new information on 7. Larsen was co-founder and shareholder of a business dealing in chemicals, known by the name of Wijnhoff, the basis of which she - in brief - contends that there is reason to doubt whether the purchase price of the Van Gulpen & Larsen N.V. During the occupation, the Verwalter appointed by the Nazi regime to manage claimed works of art was actually paid during the war to the Verwalter who the Germans had appointed to Larsen’s estate sold Larsen’s shares in the business. A significant portion of the documents specified above manage Larsen’s estate and whether he actually received that. She also contends that had that been the in consideration 5 is related to these events and the related restoration of rights after the war, namely the case, there is doubt as to whether this amount was then put to the free disposal of Larsen’s heirs. Based on documents listed under c, g, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, w, x and y. this, she states that the repayment obligation should be waived. As regards these data, the Committee considers that, while they do give an idea of the damage to the company resulting from war-time events, they do not offer any relevant information that sheds a different 3. The Committee assesses this request for a revised recommendation by applying two review criteria, namely light on the assessment of the application for restitution of the works of art. The Committee has found no whether, in the explanation provided by the applicant, there are evidence that there is a clear link between the aryanisation or the sales of the shares in the company and a. any new facts, which, had they been known when the recommendation on RC 1.70 was made, would the claimed paintings. More specifically, the Committee has found no evidence of a relevant connection have led to a different conclusion, and/or between the events described in these documents and the extent to which the proceeds from the sales of b. any errors were made during the procedure in case RC 1.70 as a result of which the applicant’s these works eventually accrued to the Larsen estate. fundamental interests were harmed. Seeing as the applicant’s explanation does not involve procedural objections but is based on the invocation of 8. The applicant argues that it is not certain whether, after the war, the Larsen heirs themselves had free new facts, the current recommendation is confined to a review of criterion a. disposal of the money paid in exchange for the paintings. This argument was already presented during the procedure for RC 1.70, in which it was stated in a letter dated 25 April 2008 that the proceeds from the sold 4. The Committee inventoried and studied the explanation with a view to new facts invoked by the applicant. works of art supposedly never reached the family in the United States. After reconsidering the matter, the The Committee first of all considers that some of the information provided by the applicant in the current Committee is still of the opinion that what occurred after the war in relation to settlement of Larsen’s estate procedure was already known and formed part of the file on RC 1.70. The documents in question were also in the internal relationship between the executors and the individual heirs is something that goes beyond used as a basis for the summary of the facts as presented in the RC 1.70 investigatory report of 1 July the Committee’s policy framework. The question whether, after the war, Larsen’s heirs eventually received 2009 and are, where relevant for assessing the application for restitution, described and considered in the the part of the sales proceeds of the works of art to which they were entitled from the executors appointed recommendation on RC 1.70. thereto by Larsen in his last will and testament, made of his own volition, should be considered an internal (family) matter in which the Committee cannot and does not wish to be involved. As the Committee deems 5. The following documents now submitted by the applicant can be regarded as new: the transfer and receipt of the proceeds from the sales of the paintings to the executors appointed by Larsen a. Provenance details on some of the paintings [Memorandum, tab b]. These are works of art regarding in his will a proven fact, the sales proceeds became part of the heirs’ assets and the conclusion therefore is which the applicant states that they were part of the Larsen collection and which were sold to the Dutch that the entitled parties had free disposal of the sales proceeds. State after the war; b. Copy of a copy or draft of a letter dated 13 February 1943 to the N.V. Hollandsche Buitenland-Bank in 9. However, the Committee does see the relevance in the question of whether the new information referred to The Hague, probably written by CC [Memorandum Annex 2]; above raises doubts as to the conclusion in the previous recommendation concerning Larsen’s estate that
20 21 after the liberation, the executors actually received the consideration for the (involuntary) sale of the twelve d.) as claimed by the applicant, the paintings were auctioned by the Dutch State in or around 1951, which currently claimed works of art for the benefit of the estate they managed. In its previous recommendation, the Committee deems plausible. the Committee was of the opinion that this was the case, based on the following indications: - administrative data that suggest payment by (German) buyers; The Committee assumes that the amount to be repaid in the event of restitution equals the indexed sales - a post-war statement from the Verwalter appointed for Larsen’s estate that the amounts and been proceeds the entitled parties received at the time for twelve works of art to be returned. Given what is received and were retained; stated below, the Committee sees no reason to deduct the value of other works of art from this amount. - a statement from the executors dated 28 December 1946 that the sales proceeds from the works of art The Committee is of the opinion that it cannot be held against the Dutch State that, in 1951, after the claimed at the time were retained, with a specification of the amounts received. executors had repeatedly indicated that they wished to waive restoration of rights, it believed it had free disposal of the works of art form the Larsen collection that had been returned. After studying the new information submitted as part of this new request for advice, the Committee answers Moreover, the argument that the heirs had suffered financial losses to the amount of the value of the three the question as to whether doubt has arisen on the matter of whether, after the war, the entitled parties works of art because of the 1951 auction is invalid. Given what is stated under b and in considerations 9-11, had free disposal of the consideration in the negative, partly in view of the following. the executors, i.e. the legal representatives of the entitled parties, had free disposal of the consideration for the sales of the three works during the war. At the time, they renounced restitution and opted to keep this 10. The Committee first of all understands from the applicant’s explanation that she is of the opinion that consideration instead. a decisive factor for the Committee was the question whether the Verwalter intended throughout the occupation to manage Larsen’s property on behalf of the heirs. That interpretation is incorrect. 13. Finally, in the explanation the applicant argues that the Dutch State has been able to enjoy the twelve The only decisive factor to assess the question whether repayment of a consideration must be a condition paintings to be returned for 65 years without paying any consideration. This cannot be considered a new for restitution is the observation that the money that was managed was retained until after the war and fact. After all, the Committee was already aware of this when it drew up its recommendation in case RC was put at the free disposal of the entitled parties. After all, the basis for the repayment obligation in 1.70. This was no reason to reduce the amount to be repaid. After all, the basis for the repayment obligation the Committee’s policy is preventing double compensation in the form of both the consideration paid for in its policy, as considered under 10 above, is to prevent double compensation. forced sale during the war years of which the owners had free disposal and the sold work itself in case of Finally, the Committee notes that the 2001 recommendations and final recommendations 7 and 8 from the restitution. For this, the Committee refers to section 5 of the recommendations issued in 2001 by the Ekkart Ekkart Committee state that, in the event a compensation is reclaimed, restitution policy dictates that the Committee and to the explanation to final recommendation 8 from 2004. amounts in question will be divided among Jewish cultural causes. In this context, the Verwalter’s intention, which the applicant refers to in her explanation, is not relevant for the Committee’s opinion on (the amount of) a repayment obligation to be imposed in the event of restitution. 14. Based on the above, the Committee concludes that the applicant has not presented any new relevant facts that could constitute a reason to reconsider the repayment obligation advised in the case of the application 11. The applicant argued that there are no bank statements or other documentary evidence that the amounts in for restitution RC 1.70. question were actually received by the Verwalter or the executors, that the executors were not aware of what actually happened during the occupation as the Verwalter did not involve them in their management, and Conclusion that the executors used incorrect information, as a result of which they erroneously reported having received the amounts. The Restitutions Committee advises the Minister for Education, Culture and Science to uphold the repayment The Committee does not agree with the applicant. The fact that the executors were aware of what happened obligation as condition for the return of the twelve works of art listed above. (including payments) can be deduced from the fact that they were in contact with the SNK about Larsen’s art collection at least from August 1945 onwards and that they were able to present specific information, Adopted at the meeting of 22 March 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chair), J.Th.M. Bank, R. Herrmann, P.J.N. van Os, such as sales amounts, at an early stage. As outlined in the previous recommendation, this contact resulted E.J. van Straaten, H.M. Verrijn Stuart, I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair) and signed by the chair and the director. in a request for restitution by the executors. This request was accompanied by the offer ‘to recompense the rightful person for all that the paintings from this estate have accrued’ and concerned 14 paintings from the (W.J.M. Davids, chair) (E. Campfens, director) Larsen collection, among which 11 from the 12 works to be returned in this case. As already referred to in the recommendation on RC 1.70, the executors wrote a letter to the SNK dated 28 December 1946 saying that the proceeds from these works of art had been ‘saved’:
De desbetreffende gelden zijn door een toevallige omstandigheid gered, zoodat wij in dit geval niet behoeven te volstaan met een cessie van vorderingen op het een of andere roofinstituut der Duitsche bezetting. [The relevant moneys were opportunely saved, so that, in this case, we do not need to limit ourselves to an assignment of claims against some German looting body.]
The Dutch authorities were willing to honour this application for restitution, but the executors abandoned their application in a letter dated 23 July 1947 following valuation of the paintings. They confirmed this point of view in a letter by referring to their previous decision when, in 1949, the Dutch authorities again drew their attention to the presence of recovered art from the Larsen collection. After studying the information sent in as part of this new request for advice, the Committee concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that the executors were misled or had insufficient reliable information in this respect. Likewise, the Committee has found no indications to suggest that the executors, who corresponded with the SNK at least until 1949, at any point in time reconsidered their position that the relevant amounts had been received. The Committee is of the opinion, therefore, that, in light of the available evidence, it can be assumed that the executors’ statement is correct and that they were able to take on the management of the proceeds received for the works that were lost during the war. The new data sent in as part of this new application do not justify any conclusion to the contrary on this point either.
12. The applicant also contends that the repayment obligation should be waived because three works of art that were lost from the Larsen collection during the war were auctioned by the Dutch State after recovery. As regards the said three paintings, the Committee observes the following facts:
a) the works were part of the Larsen collection and, like the 12 paintings to be returned in this case, were recovered after the liberation and placed under SNK management; b) the works were part of the executors’ application for restitution dated 28 December 1946 as described in more detail in consideration 11; c) in a letter dated 23 July 1947, the executors stated that they waived restoration of rights, also to these paintings, which they repeated in 1949; 5. Hilly landscape with shepherds, sheep and cows by N.P. Berchem (NK 1447)
22 23 3. Recommendation regarding Oppenheimer III Due to these developments, the shares in the Margraf Group were never made out in their names. Following Loeske’s death, the shares had been pledged to the Tiergarten tax office as security for payment (case number RC 1.133) of inheritance tax on Loeske’s estate. After this tax debt had been paid in 1937, the Nazi authorities were only prepared to release the shares on condition that they were transferred to a Jewish woman, Rosa Beer, who, forced by the authorities, acquiesced. She was heir to Loeske’s other assets and still lived in Germany. This measure enabled the Nazis to keep control of these assets. Jakob Oppenheimer died in France in 1941. In a letter dated 4 June 2012, the State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science (hereafter referred to Rosa Oppenheimer-Silberstein was deported by the Nazis and perished in Auschwitz in 1943. Their three as: OCW) asked the Restitutions Committee (hereafter also referred to as: the Committee) for advice on the children survived the war. decision to be taken on the application for restitution dated 12 March 2012 from the heirs of Rosa and Jacob Oppenheimer (hereafter referred to as: the applicants) for the tapestry ‘Chastity with two putti’. The applicants According to a decision taken by the Landgericht Berlin [Berlin District Court] on 2 December 1933, Jakob claim that the tapestry comes from one of companies of the Margraf Group in Berlin, shares in which the Oppenheimer was forbidden to perform any legal acts for the various companies of the Margraf Group. founder had bequeathed to Jewish art dealers Rosa and Jakob Oppenheimer. Following an acquisition in 1955 Bolko Freiherr von Richthofen, a good acquaintance of Hermann Göring, was appointed administrator of by the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (hereafter referred to as: RMA), the claimed tapestry is now part of the the group. As of 1938, Von Richthofen acted as liquidator for these companies. With a view to the winding- Dutch national collection (inventory number BK-1955-98) and can currently be found in the RMA. up of the Margraf Group, the subsidiaries’ stocks were capitalised at eight or more sales under execution. According to the applicants, these were forced sales, known at the time as Judenauktionen. Assessment framework 4. The claimed object, a fragment of a tapestry depicting Chastity with two putti, used to be part of a larger In the decision of 4 July 2012, the State Secretary for OCW revised the terms of reference of the Restitutions image. The tapestry is shown in an edition of the magazine Pantheon from 1928 as part of an advertisement Committee in article 2 of the Decree establishing the Restitutions Committee. This change was published in for the ‘Abteilung Antiquitäten’ of the Margraf Group. The tapestry is also shown in an edition of Weltkunst the Government Gazette on 18 July 2012 and came into effect on 19 July 2012. According to article II of this of 5 October 1930 with the caption: ‘In the possession of Margraf & Co., Berlin’. Finally, the tapestry was revision, applications submitted before 19 July 2012 under article 2, paragraph 1, as is the case with this also listed in an auction catalogue entitled ‘Die Bestände der Berliner Firmen / Galerie Van Diemen & Co / application, should be dealt with in accordance with the Decree establishing the Restitutions Committee as it GMBH / Altkunst / Antiquitäten / GMBH / Dr. Otto Burchard & Co / GMBH / sämtlich in Liquidation’. [The read before 19 July 2012. inventory of the Berlin companies Galerie Van Diemen & Co/ GmbH / Altkunst/Antiquitäten/ GmbH / Dr. Given that the currently claimed object belongs to the group of works of art affected by the above revision, Otto Burchard & Co/ GmbH, all in liquidation]. According to this catalogue, the currently claimed tapestry i.e. Netherlands Art Property Collection artworks that are not in the national collection but were submitted was part of the trading stock of the above-mentioned companies that was auctioned at Paul Graupe auction before the effective date of the revision (21 March 2012), the Committee’s recommendation is based on article house in Berlin on 25 and 26 January 1935. The tapestry is listed as lot number 513 with an illustration 2, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Decree establishing the Restitutions Committee as it read before 19 July 2012. and a detailed description. Whether the tapestry was sold at the auction is uncertain. The identity of the As a result, the Committee’s recommendation should consider the wider restitution policy based on the buyer, if any, is unknown, as is the fate of the tapestry between 1935 and 1955. Information received from recommendations of the Ekkart Committee. the RMA shows that the museum bought the claimed tapestry on 23 March 1955 together with another object from ‘the art dealer G. Choulet of Brussels’ for a total of NLG 5,539.97. The object has been part of the The procedure Dutch National Art Collection ever since.
Following the request for a recommendation by the State Secretary, the Committee instigated a fact-finding 5. During the Committee’s investigation, no evidence was found of post-war correspondence between the Dutch investigation, using the data and investigation results from the Oppenheimer case (RC 1.67), following which, authorities/the RMA and the Oppenheimer heirs and/or (a subsidiary of) the Margraf Group concerning on 4 February 2008, the Committee issued a recommendation to return two paintings, and the Oppenheimer II the currently claimed tapestry. There are no indications that the parties concerned were aware at the time case (RC 1.120), following which, on 7 June 2011, the Committee issued a recommendation to return a bronze of the fact that the claimed object had been part of the Dutch national art collection since 1955. However, statue. documentation from the German Entschädigungsamt does show that a claim for damages to the amount of The results of the investigation were included in a draft report dated 28 January 2013. This draft report was RM 500,000 was filed in 1956 on behalf of Firma Galerie Van Diemen & Co. GmbH (in liquidation) because sent to the applicants for comment in a letter dated 4 February 2013, and to the State Secretary for OCW and of financial losses due to selling of paintings at knock-down prices. On 13 June 1957 this firm was awarded the RMA with a request for more factual information in letters of the same date. The applicants responded to damages of DM 75,000 (the maximum amount) for financial losses. the draft report in a letter dated 7 February 2013, the Minister advised on 18 February 2013 that they had no more factual information to bring to the Committee’s attention, and the RMA sent no comments. The report Assessment of the claim: was adopted on 8 April 2013. For the facts of the case, the Committee refers to the report in question. During the proceedings before the Committee, the applicants were represented by E. Sterzing, lawyer in 6. Given the considerations above under ‘Assessment framework’ and pursuant to current national policy Boulogne Billancourt. in respect of the restitution of items of cultural value from the national collection, restitution can only be recommended if the title to the item can be proven with a high degree of probability and loss of possession of Considerations: the claimed item was involuntary as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime.
1. The applicants seek restitution of a 16th-century tapestry depicting Chastity with two putti. The tapestry is 7. The investigation of the title to the currently claimed tapestry has shown that the object was part of the part of the Netherlands national collection under inventory number BK-1955-98. The applicants claim that trading stock of one of the companies Galerie Van Diemen & Co GmbH, Altkunst Antiquitäten GmbH and they are the heirs of Rosa and Jakob Oppenheimer, who were said to have been bequeathed shares in the Dr. Otto Burchard & Co GmbH, all in liquidation, whose trading stocks were all auctioned at Paul Graupe German Margraf Group by Albert Loeske, the founder of the group. In this regard, the Committee has taken auction house in Berlin on 25 and 26 January 1935. The Committee then tried to establish whether this cognisance of legal inheritance documents sent by the applicants, based on which the Committee sees no work of art was part of the old trading stock (acquired by the owner) or the new trading stock (acquired reason to doubt the applicants’ status as Rosa and Jakob Oppenheimer’s heirs. by Von Richthofen). No acquisition date was found during the investigation, but given the 1928 listing in Pantheon and the 1930 listing in Weltkunst as referred to in consideration 5, the Committee thinks it is 2. The pertinent facts are outlined in the adopted investigatory report. The following is a summary. In 1912, highly probable that the tapestry was part of the old trading stock. Albert Loeske set up the company Margraf & Co. GmbH in Berlin, a company concentrating on the trade in jewellery and gold. In the following years, Loeske expanded the Margraf Group with various subsidiary 8. The Committee then investigated whether there are indications to prove to a high degree of probability that companies including the art dealerships Van Diemen & Co. GmbH, Dr. Benedict & Co. GmbH, Dr. Burchard loss of possession in this case was involuntary, as referred to in the Recommendations for Art Dealerships & Co. GmbH, as well as the antiques business Altkunst & Co. GmbH. These companies were managed on 4 and 6 by the Ekkart Committee. The required high degree of probability can be assumed if the applicants behalf of Loeske by Jakob Oppenheimer, a Jewish art dealer, and his wife Rosa Oppenheimer-Silberstein. have proof of theft, confiscation or forced sale. According to the Committee, the applicants provided By the time of Loeske’s death in 1929, the said dealerships had grown into reputable businesses. Loeske sufficient proof that the tapestry was contributed to an auction enforced by the Nazi authorities to apply left his shares in the companies to the Oppenheimers. However, settlement of Loeske’s estate was delayed anti-Jewish measures. The Committee deems it highly probable that the art dealership lost possession of the because of a lengthy legal battle that was not decided until just before the Nazis seized power in 1933. tapestry at this auction or on a subsequent occasion and that this loss was involuntary due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. 3. Early on in the Nazi regime in 1933, the Nazi authorities started targeting the Margraf Group, which they considered an exponent of the ‘international Jewish jewellery and art trade’. On 1 April 1933, the Nazi 9. The Committee then investigated the question of whether the Oppenheimer couple received the proceeds authorities tried to intern Jakob and Rosa Oppenheimer, but the couple avoided this fate by fleeing to from the sales under execution. The investigation did not reveal any evidence that they did. Given the France. nature and purpose of this auction and considering all the circumstances mentioned above, particularly the
24 25 Oppenheimers’ escape in 1933, the Committee deems it highly unlikely that the couple ever received any the parties of his request for advice to the Committee, in which he underlined that his intermediation was for auction proceeds. The Committee therefore believes that the sales proceeds from the sale under execution practical reasons, and that at no time would the State become party to the dispute. need not be considered. The parties declared in writing that they would defer to the ‘Regulations (established by the Committee) on 11. As regards the compensation for losses paid by the German authorities in 1957 (consideration 6), the the binding opinion procedure pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 2, and Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Decree Committee considers the following. Even if it were possible to ascertain which part of the damages paid establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural relates to the currently claimed tapestry, any payment of this amount is a matter between the Oppenheimer Value and the Second World War’ (hereafter referred to as: the Regulations’), and that they would consider heirs and the German state. the Committee’s recommendation to be binding, which the applicants did in a letter dated 6 October 2011 and the Museum did in a letter dated 21 October 2011. The Committee has verified the identities of the parties. Conclusion The Museum has submitted a power of attorney showing that the director is authorised to act on behalf of the Stichting Kunstbezit en Oudheden Groninger Museum in this procedure. The applicants have submitted three The Restitutions Committee advises the Minister for Education, Culture and Science to return the tapestry notarial certificates of inheritance showing that they are the heirs to Richard Semmel’s estate. ‘Chastity with two putti’ from the Dutch National Art Collection (inventory number BK 1955-98) to the heirs of Rosa and Jakob Oppenheimer. The Committee has taken cognisance of all documents submitted by the parties and has conducted its own further investigation. The findings of the investigation, by both the parties and the Committee, have been Adopted at the meeting of 8 April 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chair), J.Th.M. Bank, R. Herrmann, P.J.N. van Os, documented in a draft investigatory report sent to the parties for comment on 27 April 2012. The applicants E.J. van Straaten, H.M. Verrijn Stuart, I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair) and signed by the chair and the director. responded to this in a letter dated 1 June 2012, submitting further documents. The Museum responded to the draft report in a letter dated 6 June 2012. The Committee subsequently conducted further research, the results of which were sent to the applicants and the Museum in a letter dated 25 February 2013. This binding opinion (W.J.M. Davids, chair) (E. Campfens, director) includes the relevant information from the investigation and the parties’ replies.
Article 9 of the Regulations stipulates that the parties must immediately send the other party a copy of all documents they submit to the Committee in this procedure. However, the parties did not comply with this during this procedure. Consequently, in letters dated 8 March 2013 and 11 March 2013, the Committee sent the applicants and the Museum the documents that were missing at that point. 4. Binding opinion in the dispute on restitution of the painting The Landing Stage by van Maarten Fransz. van der Hulst from the estate of Richard Semmel, currently On 7 February 2013, a video call was held with the chair and the director of the Committee and the applicants in Cape Town (South Africa) and lawyer Ossmann (Switzerland) with a telephone connection. During this call, owned by Stichting Kunstbezit en Oudheden Groninger Museum E.E., the husband of applicant A.A., read out a statement and spoke on behalf of the applicants. (Case number: RC 3.126) The case was discussed in a hearing on 5 March 2013. The applicants were represented by their lawyer Olaf Ossmann, accompanied by historian Beate Schreiber of the historical investigation bureau Facts & Files of Berlin. The Museum was represented by Caspar Martens (head of collections). At the hearing, a DVD of the Date of binding opinion: 25 April 2013 conversation with the applicants on 7 February 2013 was shown.
Binding opinion 3. The facts in the dispute between: In this procedure, the Committee assumes the following facts: A.A. and B.B., of C. and D. (South Africa), respectively 3.1. Richard Semmel was born in Zobten am Berge, located in Germany at the time but currently Sobótka represented by lawyer Olaf S. Ossmann in Poland, on 15 September 1875. He was a wealthy German entrepreneur and art collector of Jewish of Winterthur (Switzerland) descent. When the Nazis assumed power in Germany in 1933, he owned the textile plant Arthur Samulon (hereafter also referred to as: the applicants), in Berlin and was living in a villa in this city with his wife, Clara Cäcilie Brück, where he had amassed a sizeable art collection. The couple did not have any children. The applicants stated that, while they were and: living in Berlin, their grandparents were close friends of the Semmels, and that this friendship dated back to the period during which the two families were still living in Zobten am Berge. On 27 June 2002, F.F., Stichting Kunstbezit en Oudheden Groninger Museum, the applicants’ mother, gave evidence in the context of restoration of rights procedures regarding Semmel’s represented by Andreas Blühm, director Stichting Groninger Museum voor stad en lande in Groningen property in which she stated that, as a child, she often visited Semmel’s villa in Berlin. (hereafter also referred to as: the Museum), 3.2. Shortly after the Nazi’s coup d’etat in 1933, Semmel experienced the consequences of the anti-Jewish issued by the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value climate in Germany. According to the applicants, he came under such severe pressure from the Nazis that and the Second World War in The Hague (the Restitutions Committee), also called: the Committee. he fled the country in April 1933. In a post-war statement about his persecution during the Nazi regime, Semmel said the following about this: 1. The dispute ‘Im Anschluß hieran will ich noch sagen, daß der Inhalt der Schreiben von Peck u. Gross nur zum kleine The Stichting Kunstbezit en Oudheden Groninger Museum has, since 1948, owned a painting entitled The Teil zeigen, was ich durch den Beginn der Hitler-Zeit zu leiden hatte. Ich wurde buchstäblich Tag und Landing Stage by the artist Maerten Fransz. van der Hulst (previously attributed to Jan Josefsz. van Goyen). Nacht mit Drohungen telefonisch und schriftlich bombardiert, unflätige Zettel kamen täglich in meine This work of art is currently in the collection of the Groninger Museum. The applicants state that Jewish Wohnung, es war eine von der Nazipartei organisierte Hetze mit Hilfe der aufgepeitschten Angestellten. entrepreneur Richard Semmel (1875-1950, hereafter also referred to as: Semmel) of Berlin owned the painting Obgleich ich immer Demokrat war, hat man behauptet, ich konspiriere mit Severing u. Braun, weil until November 1933. The applicants state that they are “the heirs of Richard Semmel” and claim restitution Severing mal in meinem Kontor war und um Beisteuerung für einen Jugendbund bat, dessen Name mir of the artwork on account of what they adduce was involuntarily lost possession due to circumstances directly entfallen ist. Man behauptete, ich hätte nicht nur mein Haus, auch Waren vom Geschäft ins Ausland related to the Nazi regime. The parties have submitted a joint request to the State Secretary for Education, verschoben. Ich war gerade geschäftlich in St. Gallen, als die Hitler-Katastrophe hereinbrach, sofort kam Culture and Science (hereafter also referred to as: the State Secretary) to submit the applicants’ claim to the ich zurück, wurde schon auf dem Bahnhof bei der Ankunft gewarnt, in meine Wohnung zu gehen, so daß Committee for binding opinion. ich ein Zimmer in dem Hotel in der Fasanenstr. nahm. Wie richtig diese Maßnahme war, sollte sich bald zeigen, denn im Geschäft spielten sich die Vertrauensleute der Nazis als Herren auf und es kam so weit, 2. The procedure daß ich, wie schon gesagt, im letzten Moment nach Holland entkam.’
In a letter dated 31 August 2011, the State Secretary asked the Committee to advise the parties in accordance According to the applicants, Semmel’s persecution at this early stage of the Nazi regime was because of with the procedure laid down in Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee of his involvement in the Deutsche Demokratische Partei, but above all because he was a Jewish owner of 16 November 2001 (hereafter referred to as: the Decree). In letters of the same date, the State Secretary advised a large textile plant in Berlin. The Nazi authorities’ attempts to control and aryanise the textile industry
26 27 would have made Semmel, a leading figure in the industry, a key target. The applicants claimed that Semmel had incurred losses as a result of the economic crisis of the 1930s and that he had financial and other obligations going back to the period before the Nazi regime. However, according to the applicants, his business was sound enough to deal with this, had there been no anti-Jewish measures by the national socialists. The applicants state that the boycott of Jewish shops and business organised on 1 April 1933, the intervention in the company by the Treuhänder der Arbeit appointed by the Nazi authorities, and the financial measures taken by Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank under the influence of the Nazi regime ultimately led to Semmel losing his company and his capital.
After fleeing Germany in 1933, Semmel settled in the Netherlands. In 1939, he left the Netherlands again, to eventually settle in New York in 1941. Various sources suggest that Semmel had to pay Reichsfluchtsteuer when fleeing Germany. The applicants have stated that Semmel also paid the Nazi authorities Judenvermögensabgabe.
Semmel put up part of his art collection for auction by the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. in Amsterdam on 21 November 1933. One of the works of art put up for auction is the currently claimed painting. Documentation drawn up as part of a restoration of rights procedure by F.F. in Germany in the 1990s suggests that Semmel used the proceeds of the sales of these works of art to pay his costs of living, to continue to meet various financial obligations in Germany dating from before the Nazi regime, and in attempts to retain his capital in Germany. There is no further information on the time at which and way in which the works of art from the Semmel collection came to the Netherlands.
3.3. In her statement referred to above under 3.1, F.F. said that she emigrated to South-Africa in 1937, while her mother, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt (the applicants’ grandmother) fled to Cuba in 1939, and settled in New York two years later. In New York, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt renewed acquaintances with the Semmels, who were living there in destitute circumstances. Grete Gross-Eisenstädt is said to have cared for Semmel, who was in very poor health, on a daily basis after his wife’s death in 1945. F.F. stated that her mother was named sole heir as thanks for looking after him. The Committee’s file contains a certificate of inheritance dated 16 September 1997 as proof of this. Semmel died in New York on 2 December 1950. Grete Gross-Eisenstädt died in New York on 22 January 1958.
3.4. The painting in question has long been considered a work by painter Jan van Goyen, but in 1972 art historian Hans-Ulrich Beck, who specialises in Van Goyen’s work, attributed it to the painter Maerten Fransz. van der Hulst. Publications by Beck and other sources consulted show that it was put up for auction on 5 May 1906 by auction house J. Fievez in Brussels. In July and August 1925, the work of art 6. The Landing Stage by Maerten Fransz. Van der Hulst was part of the exhibition ‘Gemälde alter Meister aus Berliner Besitz’ in the Akademie der Künste in Berlin. In the accompanying exhibition catalogue, ‘R. S.’ is given as ‘Besitzer’ of the work of art. Photo cards of the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD) and other art historical sources suggest that ‘R. S.’ is Richard Semmel of Berlin. In 1930, P. Wescher published an article on the paintings from the Semmel collection in the art magazine Pantheon. A passage about ‘holländischen Landschaften’ from this collection includes a reference to a ‘Goyen’, possibly the painting in question. works of art from the Semmel collection, including objects that had been surrendered to the German looting organisation Lippmann, Rosenthal & Co. of Sarphatistraat in Amsterdam during the occupation of The painting was put up for auction on 21-24 November 1933 by the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. in the Netherlands (1940-1945) and for which Semmel sought restoration of rights after the war. Amsterdam. According to information from the RKD, the firm drafted two catalogues and two supplement catalogues for this auction. The work of art in question is mentioned in a catalogue of old paintings 4. The applicants’ position ‘provenant de diverses collections privées’ that were auctioned off on 21 November 1933 (lot number and illustration 16). No provenance name is given for the painting, only a reference to the above-mentioned 4.1. The applicants claim that Semmel put up the painting in question, The Landing Stage, for auction at 1925 Berlin exhibition. The cover and title page of a copy of this catalogue from the RKD has the following the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. on 21 November 1933. In this context, they referred to two sources hand-written annotation below ‘provenant de diverses collections privées’: ‘(including R. Semmel from listed in the overview of the facts (see 3.4), viz. the 1925 exhibition catalogue ‘Gemälde alter Meister aus Berlin)’. It is not known to which of the individual paintings mentioned in this catalogue the annotation Berliner Besitz’, in which ‘R. S.’ is listed as ‘Besitzer’ of the work of art, and the article by P. Wescher on refers. Notes in copies of the auction catalogue of Frederik Muller & Cie. at the Rijksmuseum and the the paintings from the Semmel collection in the art magazine Pantheon from 1930, in which a ‘Goyen’ is Amsterdam University Library suggest that the currently claimed painting was probably sold at auction mentioned in a passage on ‘holländischen Landschaften’. for NLG 1,100. It is not known who the buyer of the art work was. An investigation by the Committee of the back of the currently claimed painting has not yielded any further provenance data. 4.2. The applicants also state that all 71 paintings (69 lot numbers) from the catalogue of the auction on 21 November 1933 at the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. came from Semmel. According to the applicants, 3.5. The Museum acquired the painting at hand in 1948 through a bequest from Geziena Wilhelmina the auction house could not publicise this provenance name, one of the reasons being that Semmel had Slingenberg (1879-1948). She was the widow of former psychiatry and neurology professor Klaas Herman transferred the paintings from Nazi Germany to the Netherlands without an export permit. To explain Bouman (1874-1947). A Museum report for the 1944-1948 period shows that the bequest comprised a large the fact that the title of the auction catalogue refers to multiple parties (‘provenant de diverses collections number of artworks, from which the Museum made a selection. The bequest was acquired ‘encumbered privées’), the applicants argue that this reference relates to other works of art that were auctioned off with inheritance tax and on condition that the provenance is given as “Bouman-Slingenberg Bequest”’. It is at the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. from 21 to 24 November 1933, particularly paintings mentioned in a not known when and from whom the Bouman-Slingenbergs obtained the currently claimed painting. When supplement catalogue of the auction house: ‘The plural refers to the supplement catalogue’. asked, the Museum stated that they did not have an archive for the couple and that the Museum’s archive does not contain any explanation as to the conditions of the bequest. 4.3. The applicants have argued that Semmel lost possession of the currently claimed work of art involuntarily as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. They state that the economic difficulties 3.6. An investigation by the Committee did not yield any evidence that Semmel or the parties entitled to Semmel was having as a result of increasing pressure from the Nazi regime prompted him to sell part his inheritance tried to regain possession of the currently claimed painting after the war, or to obtain of his collection, including the painting in question. According to the applicants, Semmel was forced to compensation for the loss of possession. The current painting is not mentioned in the archive of lawyer sell works of art at auctions in Amsterdam because he needed funds to save his business in Germany: Benno J. Stokvis, who successively represented Semmel and Grete Gross-Eisenstädt in the Netherlands, ‘The actions of the National Socialists against Richard Semmel resulted in the enormous damage of his which can be found in the Amsterdam City Archives. This archive does, however, refer to various other businesses. The “trustee of work” (Treuhänder der Arbeit) was demanding no staff reduction; the options
28 29 for selling the products were limited due to the boycott of Jewish businesses and increasing demands by 6. The Committee’s task the banks. Therefore assets were needed. As there were no other assets left and accessible to him, Richard Semmel started to sell his art collection. The auctions in Amsterdam were caused by the political and 6.1. On the grounds of article 2 paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee, the “racial” persecution of Richard Semmel by the Nazis in early 1933. In consequence they should be regarded Committee is tasked at the request of the parties to issue an opinion about disputes relating to the return as forced sales’. The applicants also said the following about the proceeds from the auction: ‘Proceeds of the of items of cultural value between the owner who, as a result of circumstances directly linked to the Nazi auction have been used to pay discriminating debts of the Third Reich’. regime, involuntarily lost possession, or his or her heirs, and the current owner, not being the State of the Netherlands. In accordance with article 2 paragraph 5 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions 4.4. Concerning the extent of the efforts made to have the painting returned after the war, the applicants Committee, the Committee gives opinions on the basis of the yardsticks of justice and fairness. This stated that, at the time, Semmel did not have any information on the whereabouts of the paintings that opinion is a binding opinion within the meaning of article 7:900 of the Dutch Civil Code. had been auctioned off in and after 1933. He was very ill and, according to the applicants, tried to claim property for which documentation was available. The applicants do not know whether Semmel asked the 6.2. First the Committee states that, in accordance with article 3 of the Regulations, during the considerations firm Frederik Muller & Cie. about the paintings that had been put up for auction, and the company’s when preparing its opinion it can in any event take account of the circumstances in which possession of archive has not been preserved. According to the applicants, attempts by their own family to trace the work was lost, the degree to which the parties requesting restitution have made efforts to recover documentation on the paintings from the Semmel collection initially came to nothing. The search for what the work, as well as the timing and the circumstances of the acquisition of the possession by the current happened to the Semmel collection was given new impetus when in the 1990s their mother, F.F., instigated owner and the investigation conducted by him before the acquisition. It can in addition take account in its a procedure in Germany to obtain compensation in relation to the Semmel property. considerations of the importance of the work to both parties and of public art treasures. Nationally and internationally accepted principles, such as the Washington Principles and the government’s guidelines 4.5. The applicants have described their interest in the current painting as ‘Getting family history back’. In concerning the restitution of looted art, can be incorporated in the considerations in so far as they, in the the call with the Committee on 7 February 2013, E.E., A.A.’s husband, stated on behalf of the applicants Committee’s opinion, are correspondingly applicable in the specific case. that, to them, the paintings from the Semmel collection are interwoven with the histories of persecution and flight of their own family and Semmel’s. In this context, the applicants stated that their grandmother, 7. Assessment of the dispute Grete Gross-Eisenstädt, and her husband were close friends of Semmel in Berlin and that, after their flight from Germany and their lives falling apart, that friendship between the two families was continued in New 7.1. The Committee has ascertained that the dispute between the applicants and the Museum has not already York, where Grete Gross-Eisenstädt cared for the sick and destitute Semmel until his death. According to been definitively settled. In this case, the Committee has found no evidence of legal proceedings or a the applicants, F.F., who had fled to South Africa and never saw her mother again, remembered how, as a legal ruling in relation to the current dispute. Nor have the applicants at any point in the past explicitly young girl, she had admired the paintings in Semmel’s home. The many conversations with her about the relinquished their rights to the painting. As such, the Committee considers both parties’ cases admissible. magnificence of the Semmel collection and what happened to it supposedly brought home to the applicants how their own family was connected with this collection: ‘Over the years our mother often talked to us about 7.2. The applicants have no family ties with the original owner Semmel and argue that they are entitled to Mr Semmel’s art collection, telling us what a grand collection it was. And we began to understand just how Richard Semmel’s estate because their grandmother, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt, was appointed Semmel’s sole important the collection was to Mr Semmel and how our family was emotionally tied to it. Our mother could heir in his will. never get over that. She used to say how terrible it was that these paintings were stolen from him [...]’. In During the procedure it was discovered that, in the 1990s, a family member of the Semmel couple tried this context the applicants claimed that, as Semmel’s heirs, they consider it justified to have returned to to challenge the claims of F.F., the applicants’ mother, to Semmel’s estate. In that light, the Committee them what is rightfully theirs. The applicants also stated that they have never seen the paintings from the asked the applicants further questions. The applicants provided adequate answers to these questions Semmel collection themselves and that, in general, their mother did not remember any details about the by submitting three certificates of inheritance to the estates of Richard Semmel (dated 16 September paintings she had seen in Semmel’s home as a child. 1997), Grete Gross-Eisenstädt (dated 1 June 1993) and F.F. (dated 13 January 2011), respectively. The Committee concludes that the applicants are currently the only parties entitled to Richard Semmel’s 4.6. During the video call the applicants stated that, at this point in time, they cannot yet say what they will estate. do with any paintings from the Semmel collection that will be returned. According to the applicants, the family was forced to sell a different painting from the Semmel collection that belonged to the Netherlands 7.3. As regards the issue of ownership, the Committee concludes that there is a high degree of probability Art Property Collection until 2009 and that had been returned in case RC 1.75 at the recommendation of that the painting The Landing Stage was owned by Richard Semmel who put it up for auction at Frederik the Committee in order to pay the high costs of the lengthy investigation. Muller & Cie. on 21 November 1933. For this conclusion the Committee refers to: - the listing of the work in the 1925 auction catalogue ‘Gemälde alter Meister aus Berliner Besitz’, in which 4.7. The applicants also said that if the Committee were to advise returning the currently claimed painting to ‘R. S.’, identified as Richard Semmel, is mentioned as owner of the work of art (see 3.4); them, they would be open to an arrangement under which the painting could remain in the Museum, but - the Pantheon article from 1930 by P. Wescher on paintings from the Semmel collection, in which the only upon payment of the painting’s ‘fair market value’. Committee finds indications that the current work is listed as a ‘Goyen’ in a passage on ‘holländischen Landschaften’ (see 3.4); 5. The Museum’s position - the catalogue of the auction on 21 November 1933 as described in 3.4, in which the work of art is included under lot number and illustration 16. While the title of this auction catalogue refers to 5.1. The Museum has stated that no provenance investigation was conducted prior to acquisition of the multiple parties (‘provenant de diverses collections privées’), the annotation ‘incl. R. Semmel from Berlin’ current painting in a bequest from 1948. The Museum has also stated that ‘there is no evidence to show on an annotated version of the catalogue, combined with the provenance investigation conducted by the that the Groninger Museum or Bouwman-Slingenberg, from whom the museum acquired this work, knew Committee (see below), suggests that Semmel at least put up a significant part of the works of art in about the painting’s background.’ In general, the Museum is said not to have a very strong tradition of this auction. performing (provenance) research into 17th century paintings, as it is not considered one of the Museum’s core collections. In this context, the Museum also declared that they are not specialised in 17th century The Committee considers the following in respect of this final point. The applicants state that it can paintings and that they do not have a curator with specific knowledge of art from this period. be assumed that all 71 works referred to in the auction catalogue of 21 November 1933 were owned by Semmel (see 4.2). Further to this, the Committee performed a random check in the RKD of five paintings 5.2. The Museum considers this painting a ‘depot piece’ that is not a ‘stronghold’ in the collection. No from this catalogue that are not part of the current claim. These are works of art whose quality would lead indications were found in the Museum’s administration that the painting had been exhibited for the past one to believe that further provenance details will be available. During this investigation, indications were 20 to 25 years or had been loaned to other museums during that period. As far as could be ascertained, the found for three of the five works of art that they were part of the Semmel collection at one time or another. Museum never restored the painting. The painting is covered by the Museum’s collection insurance and For the other two paintings, no such indications were found, but neither were indications found as to who has not been separately insured or valued. There are no current plans to include the painting in future owned them. Based on this, the Committee concludes that a significant number, yet not all, of the works presentations. certainly have Semmel provenance. This, then, does not demonstrate the correctness of the applicants’ claim. Nevertheless, the results of the investigation conducted into this may provide positive support for 5.3. During the hearing, the Museum stated that it would not attempt to retain the painting for the collection. the degree of probability of ownership by Semmel, given that other sources suggest such probability. In the Museum’s view, it is up to the Restitutions Committee to rule on this matter. 7.4. With regard to the nature of the loss of possession, the Committee considers the following. The investigation has shown that Semmel was persecuted at a very early stage of the Nazi regime. The applicants have argued that this had to do with Semmel’s involvement in the Deutsche Demokratische Partei, but particularly also the fact that he was a Jewish owner of a large textile plant in Berlin. The
30 31 Committee considers it plausible that the Nazi authorities’ attempts to control and aryanise the textile 5. Binding opinion in the dispute on restitution of the painting Stag Hunt in the Dunes industry made Semmel a key target and that the related pressure from the Nazi regime on Semmel by Gerrit Claesz. Bleker, with a claimed provenance of Richard Semmel, currently himself and on his business eventually resulted in him losing his company and his capital. In the light of these complex facts, the Committee also considers it plausible that Semmel was forced to capitalise his owned by the Municipality of Haarlem art collection because he needed funds immediately. Semmel had to keep his business alive and support (Case number: RC 3.127) himself, his family and other dependents. The Committee therefore concludes that the sale of his paintings at the auction at Frederik Muller & Cie. in 1933, while at first sight prompted by economic factors, cannot be seen separately from Semmel’s persecution by the Nazi regime in Germany. The Committee therefore concludes that this sale must be considered to have been involuntary. Date of binding opinion: 25 April 2013
7.5. Under Dutch law, it has to be assumed that the Stichting Kunstbezit en Oudheden Groninger Museum is Binding opinion the current owner of the painting The Landing Stage. The Museum acquired the painting in 1948 as part in the dispute between: of a sizeable bequest from G.W. Bouman-Slingenberg (see 3.5). The Committee has found no indication whatsoever that the Museum acted without due care upon acquiring the painting. Even if the Museum had A.A. and B.B., known about the pre-war provenance history, the Committee believes that an acquisition at an auction in of C. and D. (South Africa), respectively Amsterdam in November 1933, seven years before the Germans invaded the Netherlands, would not have represented by lawyer Olaf S. Ossmann raised any questions. of Winterthur (Switzerland) (hereafter also referred to as: the applicants), 7.6. The Committee has now come to consider the parties’ interests in having the painting returned or retaining it. In considering this, pursuant to the standards of reasonableness and fairness, the Museum’s and: ownership rights do not carry enough weight to decide on the dispute in favour of the Museum. The Committee has taken into account the fact that the Museum has not put forward any art-historical or Stichting Frans Hals Museum | De Hallen Haarlem, other interest in retaining the painting. The Museum’s circumstances and statements outlined above acting on behalf of the Municipality of Haarlem, suggest that the Museum has repeatedly indicated that it does not specialise in 17th century art, and represented by Karel Schampers, director Stichting Frans Hals Museum | De Hallen Haarlem has little or no interest in the painting, probably because it does not fit in with its collection. This is also in Haarlem apparent from the fact that the painting has been in storage for a long time and has not been exhibited (hereafter also referred to as: the Museum), or given on loan for the past few decades. Moreover, the Museum acquired the painting for free and there are no indications that the Museum incurred any costs to restore the painting, have any (art-historical) issued by the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value investigation conducted into it or have it insured separately. All of this shows that the Museum has little and the Second World War in The Hague (the Restitutions Committee), also called: the Committee. interest in the painting, while the applicants have stated that they have an emotional and moral interest in having the painting returned, which the Committee therefore considers to outweigh the Museum’s 1. The dispute interest in retaining the painting. The Museum has stated that the painting Stag Hunt in the Dunes by the artist Gerrit Claesz. Bleker, which 7.7. As the Museum acquired the painting as part of a bequest and no evidence has been found during is part of its collection, is owned by the Municipality of Haarlem, and has been in the Museum’s custody since this procedure that it has incurred any (restoration) costs, the Committee sees no reason to oblige the 1934. The applicants state that Jewish entrepreneur Richard Semmel (1875-1950, hereafter also referred to applicants to pay the Museum for the return of the painting. as: Semmel) of Berlin owned the painting until November 1933. The applicants state that they are “the heirs of Richard Semmel” and claim restitution of the artwork on account of what they adduce was involuntarily lost 7.8. On the basis of the above-mentioned information, the Committee issues the following binding opinion. possession due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. The parties have submitted a joint request to the State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science (hereafter also referred to as: the State Secretary) to BINDING OPINION submit the applicants’ claim to the Committee for binding opinion.
The Committee advises the Museum to return the painting The Landing Stage by Maerten Fransz. van der 2. The procedure Hulst (previously attributed to Jan Josefsz. van Goyen) to the applicants. In a letter dated 31 August 2011, the State Secretary asked the Committee to advise the parties in accordance This binding opinion was given on 25 April 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chair), J.Th.M. Bank, P.J.N. van Os, with the procedure laid down in Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee of E.J. van Straaten, R. Herrmann, I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair), and signed by the chair and the director. 16 November 2001 (hereafter referred to as: the Decree). In letters of the same date, the State Secretary advised the parties of his request for advice to the Committee, in which he underlined that his intermediation was for (W.J.M. Davids, chair) (E. Campfens, director) practical reasons, and that at no time would the State become party to the dispute.
The parties declared in writing that they would defer to the ‘Regulations (established by the Committee) on the binding opinion procedure pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 2, and Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Decree establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War’ (hereafter referred to as: the Regulations’), and that they would consider the Committee’s recommendation to be binding, which the applicants did in a letter dated 6 October 2011 and the Museum did in a letter dated 7 November 2011. The Committee has verified the identities of the parties. The Museum has submitted its by-laws showing that the director is authorised to act on behalf of the Municipality of Haarlem in this procedure. The applicants have submitted three notarial certificates of inheritance showing that they are the heirs to Richard Semmel’s estate.
The Committee has taken cognisance of all documents submitted by the parties and has conducted its own further investigation. The findings of the investigation, by both the parties and the Committee, have been documented in a draft investigatory report sent to the parties for comment on 27 April 2012. After an agreed deferral, the applicants responded to this in letters dated 25 October 2012 and 31 October 2012, submitting further documents. The Museum responded to the draft report, after an agreed deferral, in a letter dated 17 January 2013. The Committee subsequently conducted further research, the results of which were sent to the applicants and the Museum in a letter dated 25 February 2013. This binding opinion includes the relevant information from the investigation and the parties’ replies.
Article 9 of the Regulations stipulates that the parties must immediately send the other party a copy of all documents they submit to the Committee in this procedure. However, the parties did not comply with this
32 33 3.3. In her statement referred to above under 3.1, F.F. said that she emigrated to South-Africa in 1937, while during this procedure. Consequently, in letters dated 8 March 2013 and 11 March 2013, the Committee sent the her mother, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt (the applicants’ grandmother) fled to Cuba in 1939, and settled applicants and the Museum the documents that were missing at that point. in New York two years later. In New York, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt renewed acquaintances with the Semmels, who were living there in destitute circumstances. Grete Gross-Eisenstädt is said to have cared On 7 February 2013, a video call was held with the chair and the director of the Committee and the applicants for Semmel, who was in very poor health, on a daily basis after his wife’s death in 1945. F.F. stated in Cape Town (South Africa) and lawyer Ossmann (Switzerland) with a telephone connection. During this call, that her mother was named sole heir as thanks for looking after him. The Committee’s file contains E.E., the husband of applicant A.A., read out a statement and spoke on behalf of the applicants. a certificate of inheritance dated 16 September 1997 as proof of this. Semmel died in New York on 2 December 1950. Grete Gross-Eisenstädt died in New York on 22 January 1958. The case was discussed in a hearing on 5 March 2013. The applicants were represented by their lawyer Olaf Ossmann, accompanied by historian Beate Schreiber of the historical investigation bureau Facts & Files of 3.4. Since 1925, the current painting, Stag Hunt in the Dunes, has often been attributed to the painters Gerrit Berlin. The Museum was represented by Karel Schampers (director) and Joke van Haaren (collections project Claesz. Bleker (1595-1656) and Willem Cornelisz. Duyster (1599-1635) together. It was also assumed that assistant). At the hearing, a DVD of the conversation with the applicants on 7 February 2013 was shown. Duyster had painted the figures in the landscape. The 2006 stock catalogue Painting in Haarlem 1500- 1850. The collection of the Frans Hals Museum notes that this point of view, which was adopted in, for 3. The facts example, the Museum’s 1969 catalogue, had in fact already been dismissed in 1950 by art historian S.J. Gudlaugsson. The 2006 catalogue also notes that the figures in this painting are very similar to those in In this procedure, the Committee assumes the following facts: other Bleker paintings. The art work is signed and dated ‘BLE[…] 162[.]F’.
3.1. Richard Semmel was born in Zobten am Berge, located in Germany at the time but currently Sobótka The currently claimed painting was put up for auction as an artwork by Bleker at the firm Frederik in Poland, on 15 September 1875. He was a wealthy German entrepreneur and art collector of Jewish Muller & Cie. in Amsterdam on 19 June 1913. This auction concerned ‘Tableaux anciens formant la descent. When the Nazis assumed power in Germany in 1933, he owned the textile plant Arthur Samulon collection Petit’ and ‘Tableaux anciens de diverses provenances’. The above-mentioned 2006 Museum in Berlin and was living in a villa in this city with his wife, Clara Cäcilie Brück, where he had amassed a catalogue states the following about the auction proceeds and the buyer of the artwork: ‘(for 2150 sizeable art collection. The couple did not have any children. The applicants stated that, while they were guilders to Van Gelder)’. The currently claimed painting was put up for auction again at Frederik Muller living in Berlin, their grandparents were close friends of the Semmels, and that this friendship dated & Cie. on 17 June 1925, this time as a work by Bleker and Duyster. The auction concerned ‘Tableaux back to the period during which the two families were still living in Zobten am Berge. On 27 June 2002, anciens / provenant des successions: / Madlle W. Bringenberg, Bunnik / M. J..... a Rotterdam / D’un F.F., the applicants’ mother, gave evidence in the context of restoration of rights procedures regarding amateur a Vienne, e.a.’. Annotations in copies of the catalogue in question from the RKD suggest that the Semmel’s property in which she stated that, as a child, she often visited Semmel’s villa in Berlin. painting fetched NLG 2,100 at this auction. It is not known who bought the artwork at the auction. The applicants have claimed that Semmel was probably the buyer, but the Committee’s investigation found no 3.2. Shortly after the Nazi’s coup d’etat in 1933, Semmel experienced the consequences of the anti-Jewish documentation to that effect. The current painting was once again put up for auction at Frederik Muller climate in Germany. According to the applicants, he came under such severe pressure from the Nazis that & Cie. between 21 and 24 November 1933. According to information from the RKD, the firm drafted two he fled the country in April 1933. In a post-war statement about his persecution during the Nazi regime, catalogues and two supplement catalogues for this auction. The work of art in question is mentioned Semmel said the following about this: in a catalogue of old paintings ‘provenant de diverses collections privées’ that were auctioned off on 21 November 1933 (lot number and illustration 1, as ‘Gerrit Claesz. Bleker et W. C. Duyster’). The catalogue ‘Im Anschluß hieran will ich noch sagen, daß der Inhalt der Schreiben von Peck u. Gross nur zum kleine does not give any provenance name for the claimed painting. The cover and title page of a copy of the Teil zeigen, was ich durch den Beginn der Hitler-Zeit zu leiden hatte. Ich wurde buchstäblich Tag und catalogue from the RKD does, however, include the following hand-written annotation below ‘provenant de Nacht mit Drohungen telefonisch und schriftlich bombardiert, unflätige Zettel kamen täglich in meine diverses collections privées’: ‘(including R. Semmel from Berlin)’. It is not known to which of the individual Wohnung, es war eine von der Nazipartei organisierte Hetze mit Hilfe der aufgepeitschten Angestellten. paintings mentioned in this catalogue the annotation refers. Copies of the 21 November 1933 auction Obgleich ich immer Demokrat war, hat man behauptet, ich konspiriere mit Severing u. Braun, weil catalogue of Frederik Muller & Cie. that the Committee consulted include the following annotation ‘fl. Severing mal in meinem Kontor war und um Beisteuerung für einen Jugendbund bat, dessen Name mir 2400.-’ and ‘Haerlem M.’ alongside the current painting (see also 3.5). An investigation by the Committee entfallen ist. Man behauptete, ich hätte nicht nur mein Haus, auch Waren vom Geschäft ins Ausland into the back of the currently claimed painting has not yielded any further provenance data. verschoben. Ich war gerade geschäftlich in St. Gallen, als die Hitler-Katastrophe hereinbrach, sofort kam ich zurück, wurde schon auf dem Bahnhof bei der Ankunft gewarnt, in meine Wohnung zu gehen, so daß ich ein Zimmer in dem Hotel in der Fasanenstr. nahm. Wie richtig diese Maßnahme war, sollte sich bald zeigen, denn im Geschäft spielten sich die Vertrauensleute der Nazis als Herren auf und es kam so weit, daß ich, wie schon gesagt, im letzten Moment nach Holland entkam.’
According to the applicants, Semmel’s persecution at this early stage of the Nazi regime was because of his involvement in the Deutsche Demokratische Partei, but above all because he was a Jewish owner of a large textile plant in Berlin. The Nazi authorities’ attempts to control and aryanise the textile industry would have made Semmel, a leading figure in the industry, a key target. The applicants claimed that Semmel had incurred losses as a result of the economic crisis of the 1930s and that he had financial and other obligations going back to the period before the Nazi regime. However, according to the applicants, his business was sound enough to deal with this, had there been no anti-Jewish measures by the national socialists. The applicants state that the boycott of Jewish shops and business organised on 1 April 1933, the intervention in the company by the Treuhänder der Arbeit appointed by the Nazi authorities, and the financial measures taken by Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank under the influence of the Nazi regime ultimately led to Semmel losing his company and his capital.
After fleeing Germany in 1933, Semmel settled in the Netherlands. In 1939, he left the Netherlands again, to eventually settle in New York in 1941. Various sources suggest that Semmel had to pay Reichsfluchtsteuer when fleeing Germany. The applicants have stated that Semmel also paid the Nazi authorities Judenvermögensabgabe.
Semmel put up part of his art collection for auction by the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. in Amsterdam on 21 November 1933. One of the works of art put up for auction is the currently claimed painting. Documentation drawn up as part of a restoration of rights procedure by F.F. in Germany in the 1990s suggests that Semmel used the proceeds of the sales of these works of art to pay his costs of living, to continue to meet various financial obligations in Germany dating from before the Nazi regime, and in attempts to retain his capital in Germany. There is no further information on the time at which and way in which the works of art from the Semmel collection came to the Netherlands. 7. Stag Hunt in the Dunes by Gerrit Claesz. Bleker
34 35 3.5. Documentation from the Museum’s archive suggests that the artwork was probably sold for NLG 2,640 4.5. The applicants have described their interest in the current painting as ‘Getting family history back’. In at the auction at Frederik Muller & Cie. on 21 November 1933 to the Vereeniging tot uitbreiding der the call with the Committee on 7 February 2013, E.E., A.A.’s husband, stated on behalf of the applicants verzameling van kunst en oudheden (VUVKO), on behalf of the Museum, with a financial contribution that, to them, the paintings from the Semmel collection are interwoven with the histories of persecution of NLG 431 from art dealership D. Katz in Dieren. The information in question can be deduced from the and flight of their own family and Semmel’s. In this context, the applicants stated that their grandmother, VUVKO’s minutes and cashbook for the period October –December 1933, from a letter from the director Grete Gross-Eisenstädt, and her husband were close friends of Semmel in Berlin and that, after their flight of the Museum to the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. dated 22 November 1933, and from the Museum’s 1934 from Germany and their lives falling apart, that friendship between the two families was continued in New annual report. Based on the provenance information in the Museum’s above-mentioned 2006 catalogue, York, where Grete Gross-Eisenstädt cared for the sick and destitute Semmel until his death. According to the applicants have claimed that art dealership D. Katz in Dieren acquired the current painting at the the applicants, F.F., who had fled to South Africa and never saw her mother again, remembered how, as a 1933 auction at Frederik Muller & Cie. This is not consistent with the information found in the other young girl, she had admired the paintings in Semmel’s home. The many conversations with her about the documentation the Committee consulted. magnificence of the Semmel collection and what happened to it supposedly brought home to the applicants how their own family was connected with this collection: ‘Over the years our mother often talked to us about In 1934, the painting came to be owned by the Municipality of Haarlem when the VUVKO donated it to the Mr Semmel’s art collection, telling us what a grand collection it was. And we began to understand just how municipal Frans Hals Museum (as it was then and is now). The statement of the director and the by-laws important the collection was to Mr Semmel and how our family was emotionally tied to it. Our mother could of the Stichting Frans Hals Museum | De Hallen show that the municipality transferred the custody and never get over that. She used to say how terrible it was that these paintings were stolen from him [...]’. In the authority to dispose of the artwork to the Museum. this context the applicants claimed that, as Semmel’s heirs, they consider it justified to have returned to them what is rightfully theirs. The applicants also stated that they have never seen the paintings from the 3.6. An investigation by the Committee did not yield any evidence that Semmel or the parties entitled to Semmel collection themselves and that, in general, their mother did not remember any details about the his inheritance tried to regain possession of the currently claimed painting after the war, or to obtain paintings she had seen in Semmel’s home as a child. compensation for the loss of possession. The current painting is not mentioned in the archive of lawyer Benno J. Stokvis, who successively represented Semmel and Grete Gross-Eisenstädt in the Netherlands, 4.6. During the video call the applicants stated that, they cannot yet say what they will do with any paintings which can be found in the Amsterdam City Archives. This archive does, however, refer to various other from the Semmel collection that will be returned. According to the applicants, the family was forced to sell works of art from the Semmel collection, including objects that had been surrendered to the German a different painting from the Semmel collection that belonged to the Netherlands Art Property Collection looting organisation Lippmann, Rosenthal & Co. of Sarphatistraat in Amsterdam during the occupation of in 2009 and that had been returned in case RC 1.75 at the recommendation of the Committee in order to the Netherlands (1940-1945) and for which Semmel sought restoration of rights after the war. pay the high costs of the lengthy investigation.
4. The applicants’ position 4.7. The applicants also said that if the Committee were to advise returning the currently claimed painting to them, they would be open to an arrangement under which the painting could remain in the Museum, but 4.1. The applicants claim that Richard Semmel was the party who put up the painting in question, Stag only upon payment of the painting’s ‘fair market value’. Hunt in the Dunes, for auction at the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. on 21 November 1933. In this context, they referred to an article by P. Wescher on the paintings from the Semmel collection in the 5. The Museum’s position art magazine Pantheon from 1930, in which the artist Duyster is mentioned in the following passage: ‘Was die holländischen Landschaften betrifft, so ist neben Goyen und Salomon von Ruysdael eine 1650 5.1. The Museum notes that it does not question the nature of the Semmel’s loss of possession, but that it does datierte mittelgroβe Dünenlandschaft am Fluβ von Jacob Ruysdael bemerkenswert. Aus der Gruppe der not share the applicants’ point of view regarding the provenance of the painting. The Museum claims that Wachtstuben- und Gesellschaftsmaler wie Duyster ist ferner Simon Kick und Dirk Hals vertreten’. According the current painting is not from the Semmel collection, stating: to the applicants, this reference suggests that the currently claimed artwork was part of the Semmel - that there is no evidence that Semmel acquired the currently claimed painting at the auction in 1925; collection. - that there is no evidence that Semmel put up for auction the currently claimed painting at the auction concerned in 1933 or that he owned the painting at any point; 4.2. The applicants have also stated that Semmel put up for auction all 71 paintings (69 lot numbers) in the - that the Pantheon article on the Semmel collection states the name Duyster, while the current work above-mentioned catalogue of the Frederik Muller & Cie. auction. According to the applicants, the auction was painted by Bleker. In this context, the Museum notes that the painting was signed and dated house could not publicise this provenance name, one of the reasons being that Semmel had transferred ‘BLE[…] 162[.]F’ (see 3.4), where ‘F’ stands for ‘fecit’ [was made by, RC], which, according to the the paintings from Nazi Germany to the Netherlands without an export permit. To explain the fact that Museum, indicates that Bleker created the work on his own, without the help of any other painters; the title of the auction catalogue refers to multiple parties (‘provenant de diverses collections privées’), - that research has shown that the figures in this painting were not painted by Duyster, contrary to what the applicants argue that this reference relates to other works of art that were auctioned off at the was previously assumed. firm Frederik Muller & Cie. between 21 and 24 November 1933, particularly paintings mentioned in a supplement catalogue of the auction house: ‘The plural refers to the supplement catalogue’. 5.2. The Museum also refers to the fact that the current painting was not purchased by art dealership Katz at the auction of November 1933, as the applicants claim, but by the VUVKO, with a contribution from Katz, 4.3. The applicants have argued that Semmel lost possession of the currently claimed work of art involuntarily on behalf of the Museum. as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. They state that the economic difficulties Semmel was having as a result of increasing pressure from the Nazi regime prompted him to sell part 5.3. The Museum also states that the current painting is an important piece in its collection. The Museum of his collection, including the painting in question. According to the applicants, Semmel was forced to refers to the fact that Bleker was a Haarlem painter and that his work is typical of the new genre of sell works of art at auctions in Amsterdam because he needed funds to save his business in Germany: landscape painting that was being produced in Haarlem in the early seventeenth century. According to the ‘The actions of the National Socialists against Richard Semmel resulted in the enormous damage of his Museum, the landscape in the painting depicts a scene in the Haarlem area. The painting was restored by businesses. The “trustee of work” (Treuhänder der Arbeit) was demanding no staff reduction; the options the Museum in 1976 and it is part of its permanent exhibition. for selling the products were limited due to the boycott of Jewish businesses and increasing demands by the banks. Therefore assets were needed. As there were no other assets left and accessible to him, Richard 6. The Committee’s task Semmel started to sell his art collection. The auctions in Amsterdam were caused by the political and “racial” persecution of Richard Semmel by the Nazis in early 1933. In consequence they should be regarded 6.1. On the grounds of article 2 paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee, the as forced sales’. The applicants also said the following about the proceeds from the auction: ‘Proceeds of the Committee is tasked at the request of the parties to issue an opinion about disputes relating to the return auction have been used to pay discriminating debts of the Third Reich’. of items of cultural value between the owner who, as a result of circumstances directly linked to the Nazi regime, involuntarily lost possession, or his or her heirs, and the current owner, not being the State of 4.4. Concerning the extent of the efforts made to have the painting returned after the war, the applicants the Netherlands. In accordance with article 2 paragraph 5 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions stated that, at the time, Semmel did not have any information on the whereabouts of the paintings that Committee, the Committee gives opinions on the basis of the yardsticks of justice and fairness. This had been auctioned off in and after 1933. He was very ill and, according to the applicants, tried to claim opinion is a binding opinion within the meaning of article 7:900 of the Dutch Civil Code. property for which documentation was available. The applicants do not know whether Semmel asked the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. about the paintings that had been put up for auction, and the company’s 6.2. First the Committee states that, in accordance with article 3 of the Regulations, during the considerations archive has not been preserved. According to the applicants, attempts by their own family to trace when preparing its opinion it can in any event take account of the circumstances in which possession of documentation on the paintings from the Semmel collection initially came to nothing. The search for what the work was lost, the degree to which the parties requesting restitution have made efforts to recover happened to the Semmel collection was given new impetus when in the 1990s their mother, F.F., instigated the work, as well as the timing and the circumstances of the acquisition of the possession by the current a procedure in Germany to obtain compensation in relation to the Semmel property.
36 37 owner and the investigation conducted by him before the acquisition. It can in addition take account in its considerations of the importance of the work to both parties and of public art treasures. Nationally and 7.6. As regards the second point mentioned under 7.4, the Committee considers the following. The applicants internationally accepted principles, such as the Washington Principles and the government’s guidelines claim that the work, which was auctioned as ‘Gerrit Claesz. Bleker et W. C. Duyster’ at Frederik Muller & concerning the restitution of looted art, can be incorporated in the considerations in so far as they, in the Cie. in November 1933, was Semmel’s property and that this can also be ascertained from P. Wescher’s Committee’s opinion, are correspondingly applicable in the specific case. 1930 article in Pantheon about Semmel’s collection. This article mentions the artist Duyster: ‘Aus der Gruppe der Wachtstuben- und Gesellschaftsmaler wie Duyster ist ferner Simon Kick und Dirk Hals 7. Assessment of the dispute vertreten’ (see 4.1). The Committee conducted a further investigation following this claim by the applicants. According to 7.1. The Committee has ascertained that the dispute between the applicants and the Museum has not already information from the RKD, Duyster was an Amsterdam artist who applied himself to ‘genre/ candle- been definitively settled. In this case, the Committee has found no evidence of legal proceedings or a or lamplight pieces / portraits/ still lifes / military pieces’. He mainly made his name with scenes of legal ruling in relation to the current dispute. Nor have the applicants at any point in the past explicitly gatherings in closed spaces, like soldiers in guardrooms. This ties in with the Wescher article, in which relinquished their rights to the painting. As such, the Committee considers both parties’ cases admissible. Duyster is placed in the ‘Gruppe der Wachtstuben- und Gesellschaftsmaler’. The Committee finds that the currently claimed painting actually depicts a different genre, namely landscape. The Wescher article 7.2. The applicants have no family ties with the original owner Semmel and argue that they are entitled to does not mention Duyster and Bleker as representatives of the ‘holländischen Landschaften’ in Semmel’s Richard Semmel’s estate because their grandmother, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt, was appointed Semmel’s sole collection. The painter Bleker is not mentioned anywhere in connection with Semmel’s collection either, heir in his will. although the current painting is signed by Bleker (at least with ‘BLE[…] 162[.]F’, see 3.4). During the procedure it was discovered that, in the 1990s, a family member of the Semmel couple tried to challenge the claims of F.F., the applicants’ mother, to Semmel’s estate. In that light, the Committee Unlike the applicants, the Committee does not regard the reference to the artist Duyster in the Pantheon asked the applicants further questions. The applicants provided adequate answers to these questions article as an indication that the currently claimed painting was part of the Semmel collection. After by submitting three certificates of inheritance to the estates of Richard Semmel (dated 16 September all, a work such as the currently claimed work, depicting a stage hunt in a dune landscape and signed 1997), Grete Gross-Eisenstädt (dated 1 June 1993) and F.F. (dated 13 January 2011), respectively. The by Bleker (at least with ‘BLE[…] 162[.]F’, see 3.4), would not readily be regarded as an example of the Committee concludes that the applicants are currently the only parties entitled to Richard Semmel’s genre of interior scenes or as being a ‘Duyster’ in an article which goes into the works in great detail. The estate. Committee also notes that there is no reference to Bleker and/or Duyster in the passage in the article on the Dutch landscapes represented in Semmel’s collection. In terms of the applicants’ second argument 7.3. The first issue that needs to be addressed is the likelihood that the current painting was once Semmel’s mentioned under 7.4, the Committee finds that the Pantheon article from 1930 cannot be regarded as property and was put up for auction by him in 1933. This matter needs to be satisfactorily resolved, before grounds for identifying the currently claimed painting as a painting from Semmel’s collection. the circumstances stated under consideration 6.2 can be addressed. 7.7. All things considered, the Committee finds that it has not been sufficiently proven that the currently 7.4. The applicants claim that in 1933 the painting was Semmel’s property, and base this claim on: claimed painting is from Richard Semmel’s property, given: 1) the statement that all 71 paintings (69 lot numbers) in the catalogue of the auction at Frederik Muller & Cie. of 21 November 1933 were Semmel’s property; - that the name Semmel does not appear in the provenance information of this painting from before the 2) the reference to the artist Duyster in an article by P. Wescher on the Semmel collection in the art auction at Frederik Muller & Cie. on 21 November 1933; journal Pantheon from 1930. - that it has not been proven that Semmel was the only party to put up paintings for auction at the auction in question; 7.5. As regards the applicants’ first point, the Committee considers the following. - that the Wescher article cannot be deemed to contain evidence to suggest that the currently claimed The painting Stag Hunt in the Dunes is mentioned in the catalogue of the auction at Frederik Muller & painting was part of the Semmel collection. Cie. on 21 November 1933 stated under 3.4. The title of this catalogue refers to multiple parties (‘provenant de diverses collections privées’) and this is confirmed by the annotation ‘incl. R. Semmel from Berlin’ on 7.8. Therefore, there is no longer any basis for the applicants’ claim, and as such the Committee issues the an annotated version of the catalogue. The applicants claim that all of the paintings mentioned in the following binding opinion. catalogue originally came from Semmel and that the auction house could not publicise the provenance name Semmel at the time, one of the reasons being that Semmel had transferred the paintings from BINDING OPINION Nazi Germany to the Netherlands without an export permit. The Committee does not concur with the applicants’ point of view in this case. The Committee refers to the fact that the phrase ‘provenant de The Museum is not obliged to return the painting Stag Hunt in the Dunes by Gerrit Claesz. Bleker to the diverses collections privées’ in the title of the auction catalogue is not open to interpretation and that applicants, nor does it have any other obligations. Semmel’s anonymity would also have been guaranteed with a reference to a single anonymous collector (‘collection privée’). The annotation ‘incl. R. Semmel from Berlin’ on an annotated version of the catalogue This binding opinion was given on 25 April 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chair), J.Th.M. Bank, P.J.N. van Os, in questions confirms this view. E.J. van Straaten, R. Herrmann, I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair), and signed by the chair and the director.
To explain the plural form in the title of the auction catalogue (‘provenant de diverses collections privées’), (W.J.M. Davids, chair) (E. Campfens, director) the applicants then claim that this refers to the provenance of many other paintings, including artworks mentioned in a supplement catalogue, that were also put up for auction at Frederik Muller & Cie. in November 1933. The Committee also rejects this claim. A more detailed study of the auction catalogue, in which the current painting is mentioned, and the supplement catalogue, has revealed no evidence to support this claim. The supplement catalogue was published after the catalogue in which the currently claimed painting is mentioned because the supplement catalogue concerned art objects found later which supplemented the various parts of the auction at Frederik Muller on 21-24 November 1933. As such, the plural form (‘provenant de diverses collections privées’) on the catalogue in which the current painting is mentioned cannot refer to the supplement catalogue because it had not even been published when the first catalogue went to press.
Finally, the Committee also notes with regard to the first point mentioned under 7.4 that it performed a random check in the RKD. This check concerned five paintings that are not part of the current claim that are included in the auction catalogue in question. These are works of art whose quality would lead one to believe that further provenance details will be available. During this investigation, indications were found for three of the five works of art that they were part of the Semmel collection at one time or another. For the other two paintings, no such indications were found, but neither were indications found as to who owned them. As such, the accuracy of the applicants’ claim has not been proven. The Committee must, therefore, conclude that a considerable number, but not all of the works mentioned in the catalogue of the auction of 21 November 1933 are definitely of Semmel provenance. The Committee deems it likely that other people also put up works for sale at the auction in question.
38 39 Article 9 of the Regulations stipulates that the parties must immediately send the other party a copy of all 6. Binding opinion in the dispute on restitution of the painting entitled Christ and documents they submit to the Committee in this procedure. However, the parties did not comply with this the Samaritan Woman at the Well by Bernardo Strozzi from the estate of Richard during this procedure. Consequently, in letters dated 8 March 2013 and 11 March 2013 respectively, the Committee sent the applicants and the Museum the documents that were missing at that point. Semmel, currently owned by Museum de Fundatie (Case number: RC 3.128) On 7 February 2013, a video call was held with the chair and the director of the Committee and the applicants in Cape Town (South Africa) and lawyer Ossmann (Switzerland) with a telephone connection. During this call, E.E., the husband of applicant A.A., read out a statement and spoke on behalf of the applicants.
Date of binding opinion: 25 April 2013 The case was discussed in a hearing on 5 March 2013. The applicants were represented by their lawyer Olaf Ossmann, accompanied by historian Beate Schreiber of the historical investigation bureau Facts & Files of Binding opinion Berlin. The Museum was represented by Ralph Keuning, director, and Kristian Garssen, collections coordinator. in the dispute between: At the hearing, a DVD of the conversation with the applicants on 7 February 2013 was shown.
A.A. and B.B., 3. The facts of C. and D. (South Africa), respectively represented by lawyer Olaf S. Ossmann In this procedure, the Committee assumes the following facts: of Winterthur (Switzerland) (hereafter also referred to as: the applicants), 3.1. Richard Semmel was born in Zobten am Berge, located in Germany at the time but currently Sobótka in Poland, on 15 September 1875. He was a wealthy German entrepreneur and art collector of Jewish and: descent. When the Nazis assumed power in Germany in 1933, he owned the textile plant Arthur Samulon in Berlin and was living in a villa in this city with his wife, Clara Cäcilie Brück, where he had amassed a Stichting Hannema - de Stuers Fundatie (Museum de Fundatie), sizeable art collection. The couple did not have any children. The applicants stated that, while they were represented by Ralph Keuning, director of Stichting Hannema - de Stuers Fundatie (Museum de Fundatie) living in Berlin, their grandparents were close friends of the Semmels, and that this friendship dated back in Heino/Wijhe to the period during which the two families were still living in Zobten am Berge. On 27 June 2002, F.F., (hereafter also referred to as: the Museum), the applicants’ mother, gave evidence in the context of restoration of rights procedures regarding Semmel’s property in which she stated that, as a child, she often visited Semmel’s villa in Berlin. issued by the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War in The Hague (the Restitutions Committee), also called: the Committee. 3.2. Shortly after the Nazi’s coup d’etat in 1933, Semmel experienced the consequences of the anti-Jewish climate in Germany. According to the applicants, he came under such severe pressure from the Nazis that he fled the country in April 1933. In a post-war statement about his persecution during the Nazi regime, 1. The dispute Semmel said the following about this:
The painting Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well by Italian painter Bernardo Strozzi has been part of ‘Im Anschluß hieran will ich noch sagen, daß der Inhalt der Schreiben von Peck u. Gross nur zum kleine the collection of the Museum in Heino/Wijhe since 1964. The Museum claims that Dirk Hannema, the founder Teil zeigen, was ich durch den Beginn der Hitler-Zeit zu leiden hatte. Ich wurde buchstäblich Tag und of the Museum, acquired the painting for his mother in 1933, then inherited it from her and finally donated it to Nacht mit Drohungen telefonisch und schriftlich bombardiert, unflätige Zettel kamen täglich in meine the Stichting Hannema - de Stuers Fundatie in 1964 with the rest of his art collection. Wohnung, es war eine von der Nazipartei organisierte Hetze mit Hilfe der aufgepeitschten Angestellten. Obgleich ich immer Demokrat war, hat man behauptet, ich konspiriere mit Severing u. Braun, weil The applicants state that Jewish entrepreneur Richard Semmel (1875-1950, hereafter also referred to as: Severing mal in meinem Kontor war und um Beisteuerung für einen Jugendbund bat, dessen Name mir Semmel) of Berlin owned the painting until November 1933. entfallen ist. Man behauptete, ich hätte nicht nur mein Haus, auch Waren vom Geschäft ins Ausland They state that they are “the heirs of Richard Semmel” and claim restitution of the artwork on account of what verschoben. Ich war gerade geschäftlich in St. Gallen, als die Hitler-Katastrophe hereinbrach, sofort kam they adduce was involuntarily lost possession due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. The ich zurück, wurde schon auf dem Bahnhof bei der Ankunft gewarnt, in meine Wohnung zu gehen, so daß parties have submitted a joint request to the State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science (hereafter also ich ein Zimmer in dem Hotel in der Fasanenstr. nahm. Wie richtig diese Maßnahme war, sollte sich bald referred to as: the State Secretary) to submit the applicants’ claim to the Committee for binding opinion. zeigen, denn im Geschäft spielten sich die Vertrauensleute der Nazis als Herren auf und es kam so weit, daß ich, wie schon gesagt, im letzten Moment nach Holland entkam.’ 2. The procedure According to the applicants, Semmel’s persecution at this early stage of the Nazi regime was because of In a letter dated 31 August 2011, the State Secretary asked the Committee to advise the parties in accordance his involvement in the Deutsche Demokratische Partei, but above all because he was a Jewish owner of with the procedure laid down in Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee of a large textile plant in Berlin. The Nazi authorities’ attempts to control and aryanise the textile industry 16 November 2001 (hereafter referred to as: the Decree). In letters of the same date, the State Secretary advised would have made Semmel, a leading figure in the industry, a key target. The applicants claimed that the parties of his request for advice to the Committee, in which he underlined that his intermediation was for Semmel had incurred losses as a result of the economic crisis of the 1930s and that he had financial and practical reasons, and that at no time would the State become party to the dispute. other obligations going back to the period before the Nazi regime. However, according to the applicants, his business was sound enough to deal with this, had there been no anti-Jewish measures by the national The parties declared in writing that they would defer to the ‘Regulations (established by the Committee) on socialists. The applicants state that the boycott of Jewish shops and business organised on 1 April 1933, the binding opinion procedure pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 2, and Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Decree the intervention in the company by the Treuhänder der Arbeit appointed by the Nazi authorities, and the establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural financial measures taken by Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank under the influence of the Nazi regime Value and the Second World War’ (hereafter referred to as: the Regulations’), and that they would consider ultimately led to Semmel losing his company and his capital. the Committee’s recommendation to be binding, which the applicants did in a letter dated 6 October 2011 and the Museum did in a letter dated 18 October 2011. The Committee has verified the identities of the parties. After fleeing Germany in 1933, Semmel settled in the Netherlands. In 1939, he left the Netherlands Museum de Fundatie has submitted its by-laws showing that the director is authorised to act on behalf of the again, to eventually settle in New York in 1941. Various sources suggest that Semmel had to pay Museum in this procedure. The applicants have submitted three notarial certificates of inheritance showing Reichsfluchtsteuer when fleeing Germany. The applicants have stated that Semmel also paid the Nazi that they are the heirs to Richard Semmel’s estate. authorities Judenvermögensabgabe.
The Committee has taken cognisance of all documents submitted by the parties and has conducted its own Semmel put up part of his art collection for auction by the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. in Amsterdam further investigation. The findings of the investigation, by both the parties and the Committee, have been on 21 November 1933. One of the works of art put up for auction is the currently claimed painting. documented in a draft investigatory report sent to the parties for comment on 1 August 2012. The applicants Documentation drawn up as part of a restoration of rights procedure by F.F. in Germany in the 1990s responded to this in a letter dated 30 August 2012, submitting further documents. The Museum responded to suggests that Semmel used the proceeds of the sales of these works of art to pay his costs of living, to the draft report in a letter dated 6 September 2012. The Committee subsequently conducted further research, continue to meet various financial obligations in Germany dating from before the Nazi regime, and in the results of which were sent to the applicants and the Museum in a letter dated 25 February 2013. This attempts to retain his capital in Germany. There is no further information on the time at which and way binding opinion includes the relevant information from the investigation and the parties’ replies. in which the works of art from the Semmel collection came to the Netherlands.
40 41 3.3. In her statement referred to above under 3.1, F.F. said that she emigrated to South-Africa in 1937, while 3.5. The painting in question was acquired at the Frederik Muller & Cie. Auction of 21 November 1933 by Dirk her mother, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt (the applicants’ grandmother) fled to Cuba in 1939, and settled in New Hannema, the then director of the Museum Boymans in Rotterdam, on behalf of his mother Lady Hermine York two years later. In New York, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt renewed acquaintances with the Semmels, who Elise de Stuers. The Museum submitted a copy of the receipt for this acquisition that it had in its archive. were living there in destitute circumstances. Grete Gross-Eisenstädt is said to have cared for Semmel, who Hannema’s auction house receipt is dated 2 February 1934. This receipt thanks Hannema for his payment was in very poor health, on a daily basis after his wife’s death in 1945. F.F. stated that her mother was of NLG 1078 ‘for our bill for the B. Strozzi painting purchased by you at our auction of 21 November this named sole heir as thanks for looking after him. The Committee’s file contains a certificate of inheritance year’. After his mother died on 29 March 1940, Hannema inherited the currently claimed painting. On 12 dated 16 September 1997 as proof of this. Semmel died in New York on 2 December 1950. Grete Gross- November 1957, he set up the Stichting Hannema - de Stuers Fundatie, and then donated his entire art Eisenstädt died in New York on 22 January 1958. collection including the painting in question on 21 January 1964.
3.4. The painting in question was put up for auction on 17-20 November 1925 at the firm Frederik Muller 3.6. An investigation by the Committee did not yield any evidence that Semmel or the parties entitled to & Cie. in Amsterdam (lot number and illustration 24). This auction concerned the auction catalogue his inheritance tried to regain possession of the currently claimed painting after the war, or to obtain ‘Collections Camillo Castiglioni de Vienne’. ‘Collection du comte de Spinola de Gênes’ is given as the compensation for the loss of possession. The current painting is not mentioned in the archive of lawyer provenance of this painting. Copies of the auction catalogue in the Netherlands Institute for Art History Benno J. Stokvis, who successively represented Semmel and Grete Gross-Eisenstädt in the Netherlands, (RKD) include the handwritten annotations ‘2000’, ‘3700’ and ‘Douwes’ alongside the painting. ‘Douwes’ which can be found in the Amsterdam City Archives. This archive does, however, refer to various other probably refers to art dealership Gebroeders Douwes of Amsterdam. In 1930, P. Wescher published an works of art from the Semmel collection, including objects that had been surrendered to the German article on the paintings from the Semmel collection in the art magazine Pantheon. In this, the author looting organisation Lippmann, Rosenthal & Co. of Sarphatistraat in Amsterdam during the occupation of notes that in the collection in question ‘Nur einige wenige Bilder, die aus der Castiglionisammlung the Netherlands (1940-1945) and for which Semmel sought restoration of rights after the war. stammen’ were of Italian origin, and mentions such paintings as a ‘Halbfigurendarstellung, Jesus und die Samariterin am Brunnen, von Bernardo Strozzi’. This is probably the currently claimed painting, especially 4. The applicants’ position considering the fact that Strozzi painted a number of paintings depicting Christ and the Samaritan woman at the well, and that, as far as is known, only the currently claimed painting belonged to the Castiglioni 4.1. The applicants claim that Semmel put up the painting in question, Christ and the Samaritan Woman collection. at the Well, for auction at the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. on 21 November 1933. In this context, they referred to the two sources mentioned under 3.4, viz. the catalogue of the auction of the Collections Camillo The painting was put up for auction on 21-24 November 1933 by the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. Castiglioni de Vienne’ on 17-20 November 1925 at the firm Frederik Muller & Cie., in which the painting in Amsterdam. According to information from the RKD, the firm drafted two catalogues and two in question is mentioned, and the article by P. Wescher on the paintings from the Semmel collection in supplement catalogues for this auction. The work of art in question is mentioned in a catalogue of old the art magazine Pantheon from 1930, in which a ‘Halbfigurendarstellung, Jesus und die Samariterin am paintings ‘provenant de diverses collections privées’ that were auctioned off on 21 November (lot number Brunnen, von Bernardo Strozzi’ is mentioned in a passage on ‘Bilder, die aus der Castiglionisammlung and illustration 60). The provenance name given is ‘Collection du comte de Spinola, Gênes / Collection stammen’. The applicants also refer to the auction on 21 November 1933 at Frederik Muller & Cie., which Castiglioni, Vienne, vendue par notre maison en 1925’. The cover and title page of a copy of this catalogue the current painting was part of, and the annotation ‘(including R. Semmel from Berlin)’ on the cover and from the RKD has the following hand-written annotation below ‘provenant de diverses collections privées’: title page of a copy of this catalogue from the RKD. ‘(including R. Semmel from Berlin)’. It is not known to which of the individual paintings mentioned in this catalogue the annotation refers. Photo documentation from the RKD and copies of the catalogue from the 4.2. The applicants also state that all 71 paintings (69 lot numbers) from the catalogue of the auction at the Amsterdam University Library state NLG 975 and ‘Hannema’ / ‘Hannema voor Boymans’ (for this name, firm Frederik Muller & Cie. came from Semmel. According to the applicants, the auction house could see also 3.5) alongside the painting in question. An investigation by the Committee of the back of the not publicise this provenance name, one of the reasons being that Semmel had transferred the paintings currently claimed painting has not yielded any further provenance data. from Nazi Germany to the Netherlands without an export permit. To explain the fact that the title of the auction catalogue refers to multiple parties (‘provenant de diverses collections privées’), the applicants argue that this reference relates to other works of art that were auctioned off at the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. between 21 and 24 November 1933, particularly paintings mentioned in a supplement catalogue of the auction house: ‘The plural refers to the supplement catalogue’.
4.3. The applicants have argued that Semmel lost possession of the currently claimed work of art involuntarily as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. They state that the economic difficulties Semmel was having as a result of increasing pressure from the Nazi regime prompted him to sell part of his collection, including the painting in question. According to the applicants, Semmel was forced to sell works of art at auctions in Amsterdam because he needed funds to save his business in Germany: ‘The actions of the National Socialists against Richard Semmel resulted in the enormous damage of his businesses. The “trustee of work” (Treuhänder der Arbeit) was demanding no staff reduction; the options for selling the products were limited due to the boycott of Jewish businesses and increasing demands by the banks. Therefore assets were needed. As there were no other assets left and accessible to him, Richard Semmel started to sell his art collection. The auctions in Amsterdam were caused by the political and “racial” persecution of Richard Semmel by the Nazis in early 1933. In consequence they should be regarded as forced sales’. The applicants also said the following about the proceeds from the auction: ‘Proceeds of the auction have been used to pay discriminating debts of the Third Reich’.
4.4. Concerning the extent of the efforts made to have the painting returned after the war, the applicants stated that, at the time, Semmel did not have any information on the whereabouts of the paintings that had been auctioned off in and after 1933. He was very ill and, according to the applicants, tried to claim property for which documentation was available. The applicants do not know whether Semmel asked the firm Frederik Muller & Cie. about the paintings that had been put up for auction, and the company’s archive has not been preserved. According to the applicants, attempts by their own family to trace documentation on the paintings from the Semmel collection initially came to nothing. The search for what happened to the Semmel collection was given new impetus when in the 1990s their mother, F.F., instigated a procedure in Germany to obtain compensation in relation to the Semmel property.
4.5. The applicants have described their interest in the current painting as ‘Getting family history back’. In the call with the Committee on 7 February 2013, E.E., A.A.’s husband, stated on behalf of the applicants that, to them, the paintings from the Semmel collection are interwoven with the histories of persecution and flight of their own family and Semmel’s. In this context, the applicants stated that their grandmother, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt, and her husband were close friends of Semmel in Berlin and that, after their flight 8. Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well by Bernardo Strozzi from Germany and their lives falling apart, that friendship between the two families was continued in New
42 43 York, where Grete Gross-Eisenstädt cared for the sick and destitute Semmel until his death. According to internationally accepted principles, such as the Washington Principles and the government’s guidelines the applicants, F.F., who had fled to South Africa and never saw her mother again, remembered how, as a concerning the restitution of looted art, can be incorporated in the considerations in so far as they, in the young girl, she had admired the paintings in Semmel’s home. The many conversations with her about the Committee’s opinion, are correspondingly applicable in the specific case. magnificence of the Semmel collection and what happened to it supposedly brought home to the applicants how their own family was connected with this collection: ‘Over the years our mother often talked to us about 7. Assessment of the dispute Mr Semmel’s art collection, telling us what a grand collection it was. And we began to understand just how important the collection was to Mr Semmel and how our family was emotionally tied to it. Our mother could 7.1. The Committee has ascertained that the dispute between the applicants and the Museum has not already never get over that. She used to say how terrible it was that these paintings were stolen from him [...]’. In been definitively settled. In this case, the Committee has found no evidence of legal proceedings or a this context the applicants claimed that, as Semmel’s heirs, they consider it justified to have returned to legal ruling in relation to the current dispute. Nor have the applicants at any point in the past explicitly them what is rightfully theirs. The applicants also stated that they have never seen the paintings from the relinquished their rights to the painting. As such, the Committee considers both parties’ cases admissible. Semmel collection themselves and that, in general, their mother did not remember any details about the paintings she had seen in Semmel’s home as a child. 7.2. The applicants have no family ties with the original owner Semmel and argue that they are entitled to Richard Semmel’s estate because their grandmother, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt, was appointed Semmel’s sole 4.6. During the video call the applicants stated that they cannot yet say what they will do with any paintings heir in his will. from the Semmel collection that will be returned. According to the applicants, the family was forced to sell During the procedure it was discovered that, in the 1990s, a family member of the Semmel couple tried a different painting from the Semmel collection that belonged to the Netherlands Art Property Collection to challenge the claims of F.F., the applicants’ mother, to Semmel’s estate. In that light, the Committee in 2009 and that had been returned in case RC 1.75 at the recommendation of the Committee in order to asked the applicants further questions. The applicants provided adequate answers to these questions pay the high costs of the lengthy investigation. by submitting three certificates of inheritance to the estates of Richard Semmel (dated 16 September 1997), Grete Gross-Eisenstädt (dated 1 June 1993) and F.F. (dated 13 January 2011), respectively. The 4.7. The applicants also said that if the Committee were to advise returning the currently claimed painting to Committee concludes that the applicants are currently the only parties entitled to Richard Semmel’s them, they would be open to an arrangement under which the painting could remain in the Museum, but estate. only upon payment of the painting’s ‘fair market value’. 7.3. As regards the matter of whether the painting Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well can be 5. The Museum’s position regarded as Semmel’s property, the Committee finds that it has been sufficiently shown that in all likelihood Semmel must have acquired this work between 1925 and 1930 and put it up for auction on 5.1. As regards the provenance of the painting, the Museum finds that there is a gap in the provenance history 21 November 1933. For this conclusion, the Committee first and foremost refers to the catalogue of between 1930 and 1933. The Museum claims that it is very likely that Semmel owned this work in 1930, the auction of 21 November 1933 as described in 3.4, in which the work of art is included under lot but that it cannot be precluded that he may have already sold the painting in question in the period number and illustration 60. While the title of the auction catalogue refers to multiple anonymous parties between 1930 and 1933. In this regard, the Museum notes that it was unusual for collectors to sell works. (‘provenant de diverses collections privées’), the annotation ‘incl. R. Semmel from Berlin’ on an annotated version of the catalogue and the provenance investigation conducted by the Committee (see below), suggest 5.2. The Museum states that its founder, Dirk Hannema, purchased the painting for his mother and therefore that Semmel at least put up a significant part of the works of art at this auction. Based on the following, it is closely linked with the Museum’s history. The Museum also states that Hannema bought in an the Committee also finds that the painting in question came from his collection. In the above-mentioned intuitive manner and felt a personal connection with the works he collected. This resulted in a unique auction catalogue of 21 November 1933, the following is stated as provenance for the Strozzi painting: collection of approximately 3,500 objects with a number of international highlights. The Museum has ‘Collection du comte de Spinola, Gênes / Collection Castiglioni, Vienne, vendue par notre maison en 1925’. 20 crucial works in its collection which are denoted as ‘diamonds’ which collectively provide an overview This provenance reference ties in with the fact that the painting is mentioned in the catalogue ‘Collections of 500 years of art history. The Museum also states that the current painting by Strozzi is an important Camillo Castiglioni de Vienne’, which was held at Frederik Muller & Cie. on 17-20 November 1925. As piece in this selection. In the Museum, the painting is displayed as a companion piece to Dead Swan by far as the Committee is concerned, the reference to the Castiglionisammlung in relation to the painting of 17th-centruy Dutch painter Jan Baptist Weenix, and together they form the highlight of the Museum’s ‘eine Halbfigurendarstellung, Jesus und die Samariterin am Brunnen, von Bernardo Strozzi’ in the 1930 17th-century presentation. The Museum states that the above-mentioned two works depict two worlds: Pantheon article on paintings in Semmel’s collection mentioned under 3.4, confirms that the currently the Protestant Republic and the Reformation on the one hand and the Catholic Italy and the Counter- claimed painting was owned by Semmel. Reformation on the other. In this context, the Museum states that the two paintings belong together and that they represent the old part of the Museum. If the Museum were to lose the currently claimed painting, Further to the applicants’ claim that all 71 paintings at the auction of 21 November came from Semmel it would lose that which distinguishes it from other major Dutch 17th-century art collections, namely its (see 4.2), the Committee finds the following. Further to this claim, the Committee performed a random international dimension. The Museum also states that the painting is very popular among visitors. check in the RKD of five paintings from this catalogue that are not part of the current claim. These are works of art whose quality would lead one to believe that further provenance details will be available. 5.3. The Museum has stated that it is not very clear for how much the painting was purchased in 1933. During this investigation, indications were found for three of the five works of art that they were part According to the Museum, Hannema probably paid in instalments, seeing as this was what he normally of the Semmel collection at one time or another. For the other two paintings, no such indications were did for large purchases and seeing as the receipt (see 3.5) found in the Museum’s archive is dated a few found, but neither were indications found as to who owned them. Based on this, the Committee concludes months after the auction itself. The Museum also states that the Museum was not aware of the painting’s that a significant number, yet not all, of the works certainly have Semmel provenance. This, then, does Semmel provenance. not demonstrate the correctness of the applicants’ claim. Nevertheless, the results of the investigation conducted into this may provide positive support for the degree of probability of ownership by Semmel, 5.4. And finally, the Museum has also stated that ever since it has been owned by the Hannema family, the given that other sources suggest such probability. painting has been restored a number of times. Given the indications that the work did belong to Semmel’s collection in 1930 and in 1933, the Committee 6. The Committee’s task finds that the likelihood that Semmel would have sold the work in the interim period – which likelihood the Museum has alluded to – is negligible. 6.1. On the grounds of article 2 paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee, the Committee is tasked at the request of the parties to issue an opinion about disputes relating to the return 7.4. With regard to the nature of the loss of possession, the Committee considers the following. The of items of cultural value between the owner who, as a result of circumstances directly linked to the Nazi investigation has shown that Semmel was persecuted at a very early stage of the Nazi regime. The regime, involuntarily lost possession, or his or her heirs, and the current owner, not being the State of applicants have argued that this had to do with Semmel’s involvement in the Deutsche Demokratische the Netherlands. In accordance with article 2 paragraph 5 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Partei, but particularly also the fact that he was a Jewish owner of a large textile plant in Berlin. The Committee, the Committee gives opinions on the basis of the yardsticks of justice and fairness. This Committee considers it plausible that the Nazi authorities’ attempts to control and aryanise the textile opinion is a binding opinion within the meaning of article 7:900 of the Dutch Civil Code. industry made Semmel a key target and that the related pressure from the Nazi regime on Semmel himself and on his business eventually resulted in him losing his company and his capital. In the light of 6.2. First the Committee states that, in accordance with article 3 of the Regulations, during the considerations these complex facts, the Committee also considers it plausible that Semmel was forced to capitalise his when preparing its opinion it can in any event take account of the circumstances in which possession of art collection because he needed funds immediately. Semmel had to keep his business alive and support the work was lost, the degree to which the parties requesting restitution have made efforts to recover himself, his family and other dependents. The Committee therefore concludes that the sale of his paintings the work, as well as the timing and the circumstances of the acquisition of the possession by the current at the auction at Frederik Muller & Cie. in 1933, while at first sight prompted by economic factors, cannot owner and the investigation conducted by him before the acquisition. It can in addition take account in its be seen separately from Semmel’s persecution by the Nazi regime in Germany. The Committee therefore considerations of the importance of the work to both parties and of public art treasures. Nationally and concludes that this sale must be considered to have been involuntary.
44 45 7. Binding opinion regarding the dispute about the return of the painting Madonna 7.5. The Committee then comes to the Museum’s position. Under Dutch law, it has to be assumed that the and Child with Wild Roses by Jan van Scorel from the collection of Richard Semmel, Museum has owned the painting Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well since 1964, when the Museum’s founder Hannema donated the work to the Museum as part of his complete collection. Hannema currently in the possession of Utrecht City Council purchased the artwork in 1933 at the auction in Amsterdam for the collection of his mother Hermine Elise (Case number: RC 3.131) de Stuers. The Committee has found no indication whatsoever that the Museum acted without due care upon acquiring the painting. As far as the Committee is concerned, the same applies to Hannema when he purchased the work in 1933. An acquisition at an auction in Amsterdam in November 1933, seven years before the Germans invaded the Netherlands, would not have raised any questions. The Museum was not Date of binding opinion: 25 April 2013 aware of the Semmel provenance of this painting. Binding opinion 7.6. The Committee has now come to consider the parties’ interests in having the painting returned or in the dispute between: retaining it. As regards this point, the Committee considers the following. The applicants’ interest in having the painting in question returned is a matter of ‘getting family history back’, and the applicants A.A. and B.B., have shown the close friendship between their grandmother Grete Gross-Eisenstädt and the Semmel respectively of C. and D. (South Africa) couple. Given the interwoven histories of persecution and flight of their own family and Semmel’s, the represented by the lawyer Olaf S. Ossmann painting is connected to them. As Semmel’s heirs, the applicants deem it only just that they get back what of Winterthur, Switzerland belongs to them. (hereinafter also referred to as the Applicants),
The Museum’s interest, on the other hand, is evident from the fact that the Strozzi painting has a and: prominent place in the collection and history of the Museum. It is an international highlight of the 17th-century presentation in the Museum’s permanent exhibition, and has proven very popular among Utrecht City Council, visitors. In the words of the director of the Museum, losing the painting would mean losing a major represented by Edwin Jacobs, Director of Utrecht’s Centraal Museum international piece and simultaneously losing that which distinguishes the Museum’s collection from other (hereinafter also referred to as the Museum), Dutch collections. Hannema purchased the painting for his mother at the auction of 21 November 1933, and as such the painting is closely tied to the (family) history of the Museum. issued by the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War in The Hague (the Restitutions Committee), hereinafter referred to as the 7.7. In considering this pursuant to the standards of reasonableness and fairness, the Committee concludes Committee. that, despite the involuntary nature of the loss of possession by Semmel in 1933, the interest the applicants have expressed in having the claimed painting returned does not outweigh the Museum’s 1. The dispute ownership rights to this work. The applicants are not related to Richard Semmel, never knew him and have no memories of the painting. The Museum declared that the painting Madonna and Child with Wild Roses (c.1530) by the artist Jan van Semmel’s undoubtedly major interest in the collection and the applicant’s interest in the work are two Scorel, which is part of its collection, is the property of Utrecht City Council and has been in the custody of separate matters, given that, as far as the Committee is concerned, neither Semmel’s art collection nor this the Museum since 1958. The Applicants contend that the Jewish businessman Richard Semmel (1875-1950, work embodied the special relationship between Semmel and the applicants’ grandmother Grete Gross- hereinafter also referred to as Semmel) of Berlin owned the painting until November 1933. They declare they Eisenstädt. There is also the matter of Semmel’s relatively brief ownership of the work (acquired between are the heirs of Richard Semmel and they claim the restitution of the work of art on the grounds of their 1925 and 1930 and auctioned off in 1933, see 3.4) and the fact that there is no evidence that Semmel or his contention that there was involuntary loss of possession as a result of circumstances directly associated with the heirs tried to retrieve the painting at an earlier stage. Nazi regime. The parties submitted a joint request to the State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science (hereinafter also referred to as the State Secretary) in order to submit the applicants’ claim to the Committee On the other hand, the Committee concludes that the Museum has convincingly demonstrated that for a binding opinion. retaining the painting is of major importance for the Museum’s collection and to the Museum’s visitors. The painting has been part of the collection since the Museum was founded – and hence of the founder’s 2. The procedure family collection – and so plays a central role in that collection. In a letter dated 28 November 2011, the State Secretary requested the Committee to issue an opinion to the Considering the above, the Committee concludes that the painting Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the parties under the terms of article 2 paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee of 16 Well does not have to be returned to the applicants. November 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee). The State Secretary notified the parties in letters of the same date of his request for an opinion from the Committee. In 7.8. As part of this binding opinion, the Committee recommends that the Museum highlight the history of the these letters he stressed that his intervention was prompted for pragmatic reasons, and that the State will not former owner Richard Semmel by some means, e.g. in a caption alongside the painting, in a publication or be a party in the procedure at any moment whatsoever. in an exhibition. The Committee leaves it up to the Museum how it wants to do this. The parties declared in writing (the Applicants in a letter dated 26 February 2012 and the Museum in a letter BINDING OPINION dated 6 March 2012) that they would submit to the regulations for the binding opinion procedure specified by the Committee in accordance with article 2, second paragraph, and article 4, second paragraph, of the Decree The Museum is not obliged to return the painting Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well by Bernardo Establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Strozzi to the applicants or to pay them any compensation. Value and the Second World War (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) and would accept the Committee’s opinion as binding. The Committee satisfied itself of the identity of the parties. The Director of the Centraal This binding opinion was given on 25 April 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chair), J.Th.M. Bank, P.J.N. van Os, Museum stated that he represented the owner (Utrecht City Council) in the present procedure. The Applicants E.J. van Straaten, R. Herrmann, I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair), and signed by the chair and the director. submitted three certificates of inheritance, from which it emerged that they are entitled to the inheritance of Richard Semmel. (W.J.M. Davids, chair) (E. Campfens, director) The Committee took note of all the documents submitted by the parties and also conducted additional independent research. The findings of the research carried out by both the parties and the Committee have been recorded in a draft research report, which was sent to the parties for comments accompanied by letters dated 8 January 2013. The Applicants responded in a letter dated 18 February 2013 and submitted additional information. The Museum responded to the draft report in a letter dated 22 February 2013. Afterwards the Committee conducted some further research and sent the results to the Applicants and the Museum by letter of 25 February 2013. The relevant information from the research and from the responses of the parties has been incorporated in this opinion.
46 47 Article 9 of the Regulations stipulates that the parties send each other copies immediately of all the documents Germany in the nineteen-nineties that Semmel used the proceeds from the auctioned works of art to live they submit to the Committee in this procedure. Unfortunately during this procedure the parties did not comply on, to continue to fulfil various financial commitments in Germany pre-dating the Nazi regime, and to try with this stipulation. As a result the Committee subsequently sent the Applicants and the Museum copies of the to retain his assets in Germany. There is no detailed information about when and how these works of art documents they did not have, accompanied by letters dated 8 March 2013 and 11 March 2013. from the Semmel collection were brought to the Netherlands.
On 7 February 2013 the Committee’s Chairman and Director conducted a video conference with the Applicants 3.3. In her evidence referred to above in 3.1, F.F. stated that she emigrated to South Africa in 1937, while her in Cape Town in South Africa and their lawyer Ossmann in Winterthur in Switzerland with a telephone mother Grete Gross-Eisenstädt (the Applicants’ grandmother) fled to Cuba in 1939, and settled in New connection. During this conference E.E., husband of the applicant A.A., read out a statement and spoke on York two years later. When in New York, Grete Gross-Eisenstädt re-established contact with Mr and behalf of the Applicants. Mrs Semmel, who were living there in destitute circumstances. Grete Gross-Eisenstädt was said to have looked after Semmel, who was in extremely bad health, on a daily basis after the death of his wife in 1945. The case was heard on 5 March 2013. The Applicants were represented by their lawyer Olaf Ossmann, who According to F.F., Semmel made her mother his only heir out of gratitude for the way she had cared for was accompanied by the historian Beate Schreiber from the historical research agency Facts & Files in Berlin. him. As evidence for this there is a certificate of inheritance dated 16 September 1997 in the Committee’s Edwin Jacobs (Director) and Liesbeth Helmus (Curator of Old Master paintings) were present on behalf of the file. Semmel died in New York on 2 December 1950. Grete Gross-Eisenstädt died in New York on 22 Museum. During the hearing a DVD was shown of the conference with the Applicants on 7 February 2013. January 1958.
3. The facts 3.4. The collection catalogue De verzamelingen van het Centraal Museum Utrecht. 5. Schilderkunst tot 1850 by L.M. Helmus published in 1999 has an overview of the provenance of the work of art now being In this procedure the Committee has based its considerations on the following facts. claimed. The information in this overview includes the following owners: Art trade, New York (1921) / The Erich Collections gallery, New York (1925) / H. Wendland collection, Lugano (1925) / P. de Boer gallery, 3.1. Richard Semmel was born on 15 September 1875 in Zobten am Berge. It was part of Germany at the time Amsterdam (1926) / R. Semmel collection, Berlin (1926-1933). The fact that the painting was part of the and it is currently called Sobótka and is in Poland. He was a wealthy Jewish German businessman and Semmel collection is also reported in various other art history sources. An example is an article by the art collector. When the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, he was the owner of the textiles factory Dutch art historian G.J. Hoogewerff in the art magazine Oud-Holland in 1929. The picture is depicted Arthur Samulon in Berlin and he lived with his wife Clara Cäcilie Brück in that city in a big house, which with the caption ‘R. Semmel collection in Berlin’ and there is a comment that the work ‘Was purchased contained the substantial art collection he had built up. The couple was childless. The Applicants contended some time ago…by Mr R. Semmel of Berlin through the...P. de Boer gallery in Amsterdam.’ In a study by that their grandparents in Berlin were close friends of the Semmels and that this friendship went back to Hoogewerff dating from 1941-1942, entitled De Noord-Nederlandsche Schilderkunst, it was reported that the period when both families were still living in Zobten am Berge. On 27 June 2002, F.F. —the Applicants’ ‘After attracting attention at the P. de Boer gallery in Amsterdam in 1927…this painting consequently mother— gave evidence as a witness in the context of restoration of rights procedures in regard to became part of the collection of R. Semmel in Berlin….’ In a catalogue published by the Museum about Semmel’s wealth. In it she stated that as a child she had often gone with her parents to visit Semmel in his a Van Scorel retrospective in 1955, the provenance includes ‘P. de Boer, Amsterdam, 1926; R. Semmel, big house in Berlin. Berlin’. It is stated in a 1996 letter from the Museum to a relative of the Semmels who had approached the Museum in connection with the Semmel provenance that ‘the Peter de Boer Foundation Amsterdam... 3.2. Semmel was subjected to the consequences of the anti-Jewish climate in Germany shortly after the Nazis told us, among other things, that this painting was sold in 1926 by the former art dealer P. de Boer to seized power in 1933. According to the Applicants he was immediately put under such great pressure by R. Semmel in Berlin.’ In 1929 the painting was on view in an exhibition of Old Master paintings in the the Nazis that he fled the country in April 1933. Semmel wrote the following in a post-war statement about Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. The catalogue identified ‘P. de Boer, Amsterdam’ as the painting’s exhibitor his persecution during the Nazi regime. and ‘R. Semmel, Berlin’ as the owner. The catalogue stated that the work was not for sale. In 1930 P. Wescher published an article in the art magazine Pantheon about the paintings in the Semmel collection. ‘Im Anschluß hieran will ich noch sagen, daß der Inhalt der Schreiben von Peck u. Gross nur zum kleinen Among the items in the Semmel collection that were referred to was a ‘Halbfigurenmadonna von Scorel’ Teil zeigen, was ich durch den Beginn der Hitler-Zeit zu leiden hatte. Ich wurde buchstäblich Tag und (without illustration). As emerges from the detailed description of the work concerned, in all probability Nacht mit Drohungen telefonisch und schriftlich bombardiert, unflätige Zettel kamen täglich in meine this is the painting currently being claimed. A description of the painting Maria mit dem Kind by Jan Wohnung, es war eine von der Nazipartei organisierte Hetze mit Hilfe der aufgepeitschten Angestellten. van Scorel in a collection catalogue published by the Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum in Berlin in 1931 refers to Obgleich ich immer Demokrat war, hat man behauptet, ich konspiriere mit Severing u. Braun, weil ‘Wiederholungen unseres Bildes’, including ‘in der Slg. Semmel, Berlin’. Severing mal in meinem Kontor war und u. um Beisteuerung für einen Jugendbund bat, dessen Name mir entfallen ist. Man behauptete, ich hätte nicht nur mein Haus, auch Waren vom Geschäft ins Ausland The present painting was put in a sale that took place between 21 and 24 November 1933 at Frederik verschoben. Ich war gerade geschäftlich in St. Gallen, als die Hitler-Katastrophe hereinbrach, sofort kam Muller & Cie. in Amsterdam. According to information from the RKD (Netherlands Institute for Art ich zurück, wurde schon auf dem Bahnhof bei der Ankunft gewarnt, in meine Wohnung zu gehen, so daß History), two catalogues and two supplement catalogues were produced for this sale. The work is referred ich ein Zimmer in dem Hotel in der Fasanenstr. nahm. Wie richtig diese Maßnahme war, sollte sich bald to in a catalogue of Old Master paintings ‘provenant de diverses collections privées’, which went under zeigen, denn im Geschäft spielten sich die Vertrauensleute der Nazis als Herren auf und es kam so weit, the hammer on 21 November (lot number and illustration 57). There is a reference in the painting’s entry daß ich, wie schon gesagt, im letzten Moment nach Holland entkam’. in the catalogue to the 1929 Rijksmuseum exhibition. Below the entry ‘provenant de diverses collections privées’ there is a handwritten note ‘(including R. Semmel of Berlin)’ on the cover and the title page of a According to the Applicants, Semmel’s persecution during this early stage of the Nazi regime was related copy of the sale catalogue in the RKD. It is not known which of the individual paintings referred to in the to his involvement with the Deutsche Demokratische Partei (German Democratic Party), but above all catalogue this comment relates to. The present picture probably fetched a price of 3,100 guilders in the because he was a Jewish owner of a large textiles factory in Berlin. The intention of the Nazi authorities auction. This can be deduced from an article in the 24 December 1933 issue of the art magazine Weltkunst to control and aryanize the textiles industry would have made Semmel, who was a leading figure in this and from notes in the copies of the catalogue in the Amsterdam University Library and the Rijksmuseum sector, an important target. The Applicants stated that Semmel had sustained losses during the economic in Amsterdam. It is not known who bought the work. crisis of the nineteen-thirties and his commitments included financial obligations that pre-dated the Nazi regime. Yet according to the Applicants his enterprise was sufficiently healthy to survive these difficulties The 1999 Helmus collection catalogue lists the following owners in its overview of the provenance of the were it not for the anti-Jewish economic policies of the National Socialists. The Applicants stated that the present painting during the period from the sale concerned to the acquisition by the Museum: ‘Schaeffer boycott of Jewish shops and businesses organized on 1 April 1933, the interference in the business by a Galleries, New York (1937-1938) / E. Schwartz collection, New York (1944-1955) / Newhouse gallery, Treuhänder der Arbeit (Trustee of Labour) appointed by the Nazi authorities, and the financial measures New York (1958) / P. de Boer gallery, Amsterdam (1958)….’ In response to a request by the Committee taken by the Deutsche Bank and the Dresdner Bank under the influence of the Nazi regime ultimately for information, the P. de Boer gallery said that it has an inventory card about the painting on which, resulted in Semmel losing his company and his wealth. among other things, the following is written: ‘October 1958 on consignment Newhouse NY....’ The RKD has a postcard of the present painting with the name ‘F. Mont gallery, New York, no. 16128’ and the note Semmel moved to the Netherlands after his flight from Germany in 1933. He subsequently left the ‘photograph received from the gallery 1960’. It is not known whether and when the claimed painting was Netherlands in 1939 and finally settled in New York in 1941. It can be deduced from various sources that present in the gallery concerned because it is not stated in the work’s provenance given in the 1999 Helmus Semmel had to pay Reichsfluchtsteuer (Reich Flight Tax) in order to get out of Germany. The Applicants catalogue. reported that Semmel also paid Judenvermögensabgabe—a tax on registered Jewish assets—to the Nazi authorities. The Committee did research on the back of the claimed painting but found no further provenance information. Semmel put part of his art collection in a sale that was held on 21 November 1933 at Frederik Muller & Cie. in Amsterdam. The painting that is now being claimed was one of the works of art in that sale. It can 3.5. Utrecht City Council purchased the claimed painting in 1958 with support from the Vereniging Rembrandt be deduced from documentation that was prepared in regard to a restoration of rights procedure of F.F. in for 92,000 guilders from the P. de Boer gallery for the Centraal Museum. According to information from
48 49 the Director of the Centraal Museum, this institution has looked after the work since then, initially as a 9. Madonna and Child municipal museum and since 1 January 2013 as a foundation. According to a statement by the Museum, with Wild Roses by the acquisition was financed by means of a sum from the Museum’s own budget of 22,000 guilders, an Jan van Scorel interest free advance from the Vereniging Rembrandt of 50,000 guilders and, in part exchange, the painting Portrait of a woman with her son and daughter (1635) by the artist Thomas de Keyser. This information is consistent with the communication from the P. de Boer gallery to the Committee that the notes on the 1958 inventory card of the claimed painting include ‘December 1958 Utrecht 72,000 guilders + Thomas de Keyser’.
3.6. No indications were found during the Committee’s investigation that Semmel or the people entitled to his inheritance made efforts after the war to regain possession of the work of art now being claimed or to obtain compensation for the loss of its possession. There is no reference to the present painting in the archive of the lawyer Benno J. Stokvis, the representative of Semmel and then Grete Gross-Eisenstädt in the Netherlands. This archive is in the Amsterdam City Archives. This archive does, though, contain references to a number of other works of art from the Semmel collection. These works include items that were surrendered during the occupation of the Netherlands (1940-1945) to the German ‘robber bank’ Lippmann, Rosenthal & Co., Sarphatistraat, Amsterdam, for which Semmel sought restitution of rights after the war.
4. The Applicants’ point of view
4.1. The Applicants stated that Semmel put the painting Madonna and Child with Wild Roses into the sale at Frederik Muller & Cie. of 21 November 1933. In regard to this, in addition to a reference to the Museum’s 1999 collection catalogue, they have identified further sources. Four of these were mentioned in section 3.4, namely the catalogue of an exhibition of Old Master paintings in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam in 1929, in which ‘R. Semmel, Berlin’ was mentioned as the owner of the present painting, an article by the art historian G.J. Hoogewerff in the art magazine Oud-Holland in 1929, in which the picture is depicted with the caption ‘R. Semmel collection in Berlin’ and there is a comment that the work ‘Was purchased some time ago…by Mr R. Semmel of Berlin through the...P. de Boer gallery in Amsterdam’, the 1941-1942 study by Hoogewerff entitled De Noord-Nederlandsche Schilderkunst, in which it was reported that ‘After attracting attention at the P. de Boer gallery in Amsterdam in 1927 … this painting consequently became part of the collection of R. Semmel in Berlin…’, and the article in 1930 by P. Wescher in the art magazine Pantheon about the paintings in the Semmel collection, in which a ‘Halbfigurenmadonna von Scorel’ from the Semmel collection is described. In this context the Applicants also refer to the inclusion of the present painting in the catalogue of the sale at Frederik Muller & Cie. of 21 November 1933 and to the note ‘(including R. Semmel of Berlin)’ on the cover and the title page of a copy of the sale catalogue in the RKD.
4.2. The Applicants furthermore contended that all 71 paintings (69 lot numbers) in the catalogue of the sale collection was given a new impulse when their mother, F.F., started to conduct a compensation procedure at Frederik Muller & Cie. originated from Semmel. According to the Applicants the auctioneers could not in the nineteen-nineties in Germany concerning Semmel’s assets. disclose the name of the owner. One of the reasons for this was that Semmel had the paintings taken from Nazi Germany to the Netherlands without an export licence. As an explanation for the fact that the title 4.5. The Applicants described their interest in the present painting as ‘Getting family history back’. During of the sale catalogue referred to several owners (‘provenant de diverses collections privées’), the Applicants the conference with the Committee on 7 February 2013 E.E., the husband of A.A., stated on behalf of the assert that this refers to other works of art that went under the hammer between 21 and 24 November Applicants that as far as they are concerned the paintings from the Semmel collection are linked to the 1933 at Frederik Muller & Cie., in particular to paintings listed in a supplement catalogue from the mutually interwoven histories of their own family and Semmel’s family, which were shaped by persecution auctioneers. ‘The plural refers to the supplement catalogue.’ and flight. In this context the Applicants declared that in Berlin their grandmother Grete Gross-Eisenstädt and her husband were close friends of Semmel and, after their flight from Germany and the disintegration 4.3. The Applicants contended that Semmel involuntarily lost possession of the work of art currently being of their lives, the relationship between the families continued in New York, where Grete Gross-Eisenstädt claimed as a result of circumstances directly connected with the Nazi regime. They declared how the cared for the sick and destitute Semmel until his death. According to the Applicants, F.F., who fled to financial problems that Semmel had as a consequence of the increasing pressure applied by the Nazi South Africa and never saw her mother again, recalled how—as a child—she had admired the paintings in regime resulted in the sale of part of his collection, including the present painting. According to the Semmel’s home. The many discussions with her about the grandeur and the fate of the Semmel collection Applicants, Semmel felt obliged to sell works of art at sales in Amsterdam because he needed liquid are said to have convinced the Applicants of the ties between their own family and this collection. ‘Over the resources for his attempts to save his company in Germany. ‘The actions of the National Socialists against years our mother often talked to us about Mr. Semmels art collection, telling us what a grand collection Richard Semmel resulted in the enormous damage of his businesses. The “trustee of work” (Treuhänder it was. And we began to understand just how important the collection was to Mr. Semmel and how our der Arbeit) was demanding no staff reduction; the options for selling the products were limited due to family was emotionally tied to it. Our mother could never get over that. She used to say how terrible it was the boycott of Jewish businesses and increasing demands by the banks. Therefore assets were needed. As that these paintings were stolen from him....’ In this context the Applicants have asserted that they, as there were no other assets left and accessible to him, Richard Semmel started to sell his art collection. The Semmel’s heirs, consider it just that they receive what belongs to them by law. The Applicants also declared auctions in Amsterdam were caused by the political and “racial” persecution of Richard Semmel by the they have never seen the paintings from the Semmel collection themselves and generally speaking their Nazis in early 1933. In consequence they should be regarded as forced sales’. The Applicants furthermore mother cannot remember any details about the pictures she saw as a child in Semmel’s home. asserted the following about proceeds from the sale. ‘Proceeds of the auction have been used to pay discriminating debts of the Third Reich.’ 4.6. During the video conference the Applicants stated they are not yet able to decide what they would do with any paintings from the Semmel collection that are restituted. Another painting from the Semmel collection, 4.4. As regards the extent of the efforts to retrieve the present painting after the war, the Applicants stated which was in the Netherlands Art Property Collection until 2009, was restituted after a recommendation that Semmel had no information at that time about the whereabouts of the paintings that were put up for by the Committee in the case RC 1.75. According to the Applicants, the family had to sell it to pay the high sale in and after 1933. He was seriously ill, and according to the Applicants he tried to claim items of his cost of the prolonged investigation. property about which documentation was available. The Applicants do not know whether Semmel asked Frederik Muller & Cie. for information about the auctioned paintings. The archives of the firm concerned 4.7. The Applicants furthermore stated that, in the event the Committee recommends restitution of the have not survived. According to the Applicants, attempts by their own family to recover documentation currently claimed painting, they might be prepared to come to an arrangement under which the painting about paintings from the Semmel collection initially came to nothing. The quest for the fate of the Semmel could remain in the Museum, but only if the ‘fair market value’ was paid for it.
50 51 5. The Museum’s point of view the submission of three certificates of inheritance relating to the estates of Richard Semmel (dated 16 September 1997), Grete Gross-Eisenstädt (dated 1 June1993) and F.F. (dated 13 January 2011). The 5.1. The Museum stated that it leaves the assessment of the nature of the loss of possession by Semmel to the Committee concludes that the Applicants are now the only ones entitled to Richard Semmel’s estate. Committee and does not want to take a position on it. The Museum contended it purchased the claimed painting in 1958 in good faith from a reputable gallery and since then this work of art has been treated 7.3. With regard to the issue of identifying the work as the former property of Semmel, the Committee finds with the greatest care. For instance, the Museum had the painting restored, and analyses and research that the painting Madonna and Child with Wild Roses was the property of Richard Semmel during the were done on its materials. There have also been many publications about this work. In this regard the period from 1926/1927 to 1933. In regard to this the Committee refers to the following indications (see Museum stressed that it has always been open about the painting’s provenance, and the name of Semmel also 3.4): has frequently been referred to as one of the owners. The Museum also pointed out that the investigations, the publications and the exhibitions that have put the spotlight on the work of Van Scorel have contributed - the Museum’s collection catalogue, entitled De verzamelingen van het Centraal Museum Utrecht. 5. to the increase in the value of the present painting. Schilderkunst tot 1850, dating from 1999, in which the provenance information about the painting currently being claimed includes the following: ‘P. de Boer gallery, Amsterdam (1926) / R. Semmel 5.2. The Museum submitted documentation showing that the painter Jan van Scorel (1495, Schoorl-1562, collection, Berlin (1926-1933)’; Utrecht) is an important figure in the history of Dutch art. His work was of great significance to the - a letter sent by the Museum in 1996 to a relative of the Semmels in which it was stated that ‘the Peter development of the Utrecht school. Van Scorel was apprenticed in Amsterdam, after which he settled de Boer Foundation Amsterdam...told us, among other things, that this painting was sold in 1926 by the in Utrecht in 1517. In 1523 in Rome he was appointed by Pope Adrian VI, who was also from Utrecht, former art dealer P. de Boer to R. Semmel in Berlin’; as curator of the Vatican’s art treasures. While in Rome, Van Scorel learned about the art of the Italian - the catalogue of the exhibition of Old Master paintings in the Rijksmuseum (1929), in which the owner Renaissance, which had a lasting effect on his work. After he returned home in 1524, Van Scorel of the painting is named as ‘R. Semmel, Berlin’; disseminated the Renaissance style throughout the Northern Netherlands. He died in 1562. Since then - an article by the art historian G.J. Hoogewerff in the art magazine Oud-Holland in 1929, in which the there has been ongoing interest in him as a person and in his work. This is particularly so in Utrecht. In picture is depicted with the caption ‘R. Semmel collection in Berlin’ and there is a comment that the this context the Museum pointed out that it is the custodian of the largest number of paintings by Van work ‘Was purchased some time ago…by Mr R. Semmel of Berlin through the...P. de Boer gallery in Scorel in the world and so far it has staged four exhibitions—in 1955, 1977, 2000 and 2009—devoted Amsterdam’; exclusively to the artist. - the study by Hoogewerff dating from 1941-1942, entitled De Noord-Nederlandsche Schilderkunst, in which it was reported that ‘After attracting attention at the P. de Boer gallery in Amsterdam in 1927 … 5.3. The Museum also declared that the painting Madonna and Child with Wild Roses is of great importance this painting consequently became part of the collection of R. Semmel in Berlin…’; to its collection. Since its foundation the Museum has concentrated on bringing together as complete an - the article by P. Wescher in Pantheon in 1930 about ‘Die Gemälde der Sammlung Semmel, Berlin’, in overview as possible of Utrecht painting, particularly from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The which ‘Halbfigurenmadonna von Scorel’ (without illustration) was referred to. As emerges from the painting currently being claimed was selected in the 1999 collection catalogue Schilderkunst tot 1850 as one detailed description of the work concerned, in all probability this is the painting currently being claimed; of the Museum’s masterpieces. The picture is part of the Museum’s permanent exhibition and is a defining - the collection catalogue of the Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum in Berlin published in 1931, in which there element in the collection of Old Master paintings. According to the Director, handing back this work of art was a reference, by way of comparison to the painting Maria mit dem Kind by Jan van Scorel in the would represent a great loss to the Museum and the City of Utrecht. museum, to ‘Wiederholungen unseres Bildes’, including in ‘der Slg. Semmel, Berlin’, and - the catalogue of the sale on 21 November 1933 at Frederik Muller & Cie., in which the work of art 5.4. The Museum furthermore declared that, if the claim were to be allowed, it would like to establish contact is listed as lot number and illustration 57. The title of this sale catalogue refers to several owners with the Applicants in order to investigate whether it is possible to keep the work for the Museum, and (‘provenant de diverses collections privées’), but the note ‘including R. Semmel of Berlin’ on an annotated that the Museum has an open mind in regard to alternative suggestions. version of the catalogue, in combination with the provenance research by the Committee (see below), indicates that in any event Semmel owned a substantial number of the works of art in this sale. 6. The Committee’s task The Applicants contended with regard to this last indication that it can be assumed on the basis of this 6.1. On the grounds of article 2 paragraph 2 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee, the source that all 71 works referred to in the sale catalogue concerned of 21 November 1933 were Semmel’s Committee is tasked at the request of the parties to issue an opinion about disputes relating to the return property (see 4.2). As a result of this the Committee conducted further research in the RKD on the basis of items of cultural value between the owner who, as a result of circumstances directly linked to the Nazi of random sampling into five paintings from this catalogue that are not connected to the current claim. regime, involuntarily lost possession, or his or her heirs, and the current owner, not being the State of These were works of art about which, based on their quality, detailed provenance information was expected the Netherlands. In accordance with article 2 paragraph 5 of the Decree Establishing the Restitutions to be found. During the investigation indications were unearthed for three of these works that they were Committee, the Committee gives opinions on the basis of the yardsticks of justice and fairness. This opinion part of the Semmel collection at one time or another. No indications were found in regard to the other is a binding opinion within the meaning of article 7:900 of the Dutch Civil Code. two, but neither was anything discovered about their ownership at that time. On the basis of this the Committee concludes that a substantial number but not all of the works came from Semmel. Consequently 6.2. First the Committee states that, in accordance with article 3 of the Regulations, during the considerations the correctness of the Applicants’ assertion has not been demonstrated. Nevertheless, the results of when preparing its opinion it can in any event take account of the circumstances in which possession of the research conducted in this regard can give positive support to the degree of probability of Semmel’s the work was lost, the degree to which the parties requesting restitution have made efforts to recover ownership, now that this probability can be deduced from other sources. the work, as well as the timing and the circumstances of the acquisition of the possession by the current owner and the investigation conducted by him before the acquisition. It can in addition take account in its 7.4. The Committee’s reasoning with regard to the nature of the loss of possession is as follows. It emerged from considerations of the importance of the work to both parties and of public art treasures. Nationally and the research that Semmel’s persecution started at a very early stage of the Nazi regime. The Applicants internationally accepted principles, such as the Washington Principles and the government’s guidelines argued that this was connected with Semmel’s involvement in the German Democratic Party, but above concerning the restitution of looted art, can be incorporated in the considerations in so far as they, in the all also with the fact that he was a Jewish owner of a large textiles factory in Berlin. The Committee Committee’s opinion, are correspondingly applicable in the specific case. considers it plausible that the aim of the Nazi authorities to control and aryanize the textiles industry made Semmel an important target, and that the pressure that was put on Semmel personally and on his 7. Assessment of the dispute company by the Nazi regime in connection with this ultimately resulted in the loss of his business and his wealth. In view of the complex of facts, the Committee also considers it plausible that Semmel felt he was 7.1. The Committee has satisfied itself that the dispute between the Applicants and the Museum has not compelled to sell his art collection because he was in desperate need of liquid assets. Semmel had to keep previously been definitively dealt with. The Committee has not found a legal procedure or a judicial ruling his business going, and he also had to have money for him, his family and others who were dependent on relating to the current dispute. Neither have the Applicants previously expressly relinquished their rights him to live on. The Committee therefore concludes that the sale of his paintings at the Frederik Muller & to the painting. The Committee considers the parties and their request to be admissible. Cie. auction in 1933, although apparently driven by economic factors, cannot be considered in isolation from Semmel’s persecution by the Nazi regime in Germany. The Committee therefore finds that this sale has to 7.2. The Applicants have no family ties with Semmel, the original owner, and contend they are entitled to be designated as involuntary. Richard Semmel’s inheritance as a consequence of the fact that their grandmother Grete Gross-Eisenstädt was named by Semmel in a will as sole heir. 7.5. The Committee finds that under Dutch law, Utrecht City Council became the owner of the painting It emerged during the procedure that in the nineteen-nineties a relative of Mr and Mrs Semmel tried to Madonna and Child with Wild Roses in 1958 as a consequence of the purchase for the Centraal Museum contest the claims of F.F., the Applicants’ mother, to Semmel’s inheritance. The Committee asked the (see 3.5). The Committee has no indication whatsoever that the acquisition of this work was handled Applicants a number of questions as a result of this. These questions were satisfactorily answered by negligently.
52 53 7.6. The Committee now comes to consideration of the interests of the parties in regard to the return or The procedure retention of the painting. The Committee finds with respect to this point as follows. The interest of the Applicants in the return of the present painting, on the one hand, is ‘getting family The claim was prompted by a letter from the Origins Unknown Agency (BHG) of 21 May 2007, in which the history back’, in regard to which the Applicants have referred to the close friendship between their Applicant was told of the presence of the painting in the NK collection and the possibility of submitting a claim. grandmother Grete Gross-Eisenstädt and Mr and Mrs Semmel. The work is linked to them because of the Subsequent to the request for advice from the Minister, the Committee wrote a letter to the Applicant on 5 mutually interwoven histories of their own family and the Semmel’s, as shaped by persecution and flight. February 2009 in which a few questions were asked. Despite repeatedly sending reminders, the Committee got As Semmel’s heirs, the Applicants consider it furthermore to be just to get back what belongs to them. no response for a long time. In February 2011 the Committee learned that the Applicant had gone bankrupt and was no longer living at the address known to the Committee. The Committee thereupon contacted On the other hand the Museum has argued that the present painting is very important to the collection and the Applicant’s receiver. The receiver stated in a letter dated 29 July 2011 that the bankruptcy would be is a defining element in it. In that context the Museum has pointed out the following: discharged, and that from then on the Committee could approach the Applicant directly. - since its foundation the Museum has concentrated on bringing together as complete an overview as On 24 October 2011 the Committee once again asked the Applicant some questions in a letter, and a response possible of Utrecht painting, for which the oeuvre of the Utrecht painter Van Scorel is crucial; was received on 8 November 2011. In a letter of 12 March 2012 the Committee put some further questions - the Museum is the custodian of the largest number of paintings by Van Scorel in the world and so far it to the Applicant with regard to entitlement to the former assets of the art gallery, to which the Applicant has staged four exhibitions devoted exclusively to this artist; responded in a letter dated 21 May 2012. - the specific importance of this work arises from the fact that the currently claimed painting is one of the The Committee instigated an investigation into the facts and described the results in a draft investigation key works in the permanent collection. The work has been described extensively in publications; report. It was sent for comment with a letter dated 25 July 2012 to the Applicant, who replied in a letter of 7 - the Museum has had the present work of art restored twice and has conducted frequent research into it. August 2012. Together with a letter of 25 July 2012, the draft report was also sent to the Minister for additional information. On 21 August 2012 the Minister advised that there was no additional information. The report was Basing its considerations on the yardsticks of justice and fairness, the Committee comes to the conclusion finalized on 3 June 2013. that the interest put forward by the Applicants in regard to the return of the claimed painting does not Op 25 July 2012 the Committee invited the Applicant for a discussion with a delegation from the Committee carry sufficient weight to brush aside the Museum’s property rights to this work. The Applicants are not because of ambiguity about the Applicant’s entitlement to the assets of the Koch gallery. During this discussion, relatives of Richard Semmel, they never knew him, and they have no recollections of the painting. The fact which took place on 12 November 2012, the Committee pointed out to the Applicant the importance to the that the art collection has to have been very important to Richard Semmel is separate from the interest of investigation of the wills of the former owner of the Koch gallery, CC, and his widow, DD. In the context of this the work to the Applicants, while in the Committee’s opinion the special friendship between Semmel and investigation, on 21 January 2013 the Committee sent the Applicant an authorization for requesting the said their grandmother Grete Gross-Eisenstädt is not embodied in Semmel’s art collection. What is more, there wills. The Applicant responded in a letter dated 28 February 2013 without returning the authorization. In a are no indications that Semmel or his heir made any efforts at an earlier stage to get the painting back. letter of 12 March 2013 the Committee once again offered the opportunity to send the authorization, to which On the other hand the Committee finds that the Museum has convincingly demonstrated that retention of the Applicant replied in a letter dated 29 March 2013, but once again without complying with the Committee’s the painting is of great importance to the Museum’s collection and museum-going members of the public. request to sign the authorization.
In view of the above, the Committee finds that the interest of the Applicants, despite the accepted Considerations involuntary nature of Semmel’s loss of possession as a direct result of the Nazi regime in Germany, does not outweigh the interest of the Museum. It will advise the parties that the Museum does not have to 1. The Applicant requests the restitution of the painting NK 2943 from the Dutch National Art Collection. return the painting Madonna and Child with Wild Roses to the Applicants. According to information from the research organization BHG, this work was in the possession of the Koch Gallery and came into German hands during the occupation of the Netherlands. 7.7. The Committee links a recommendation to this opinion to the effect that the Museum should draw Information from the commercial register in Amsterdam (dossier 6866) shows that this gallery was run as attention to the history of the former owner Richard Semmel and the fate of his collection by means of a a one-man business from 1930 to 1959 by the great uncle of the Applicant, CC (1887-1959). The commercial caption to the painting, a publication, an exhibition or in some other way. The Committee leaves it to the register’s dossier furthermore reveals that after the death of CC on 30 May 1959, the operation of the Koch Museum to decide in what way to comply with this recommendation. gallery was continued by his widow DD. She was consequently the last owner of the art gallery. The Koch gallery went out of business after her death on 25 September 1963. The Applicant is not related by blood to DD. BINDING OPINION 2. The Applicant considers himself to be the legal successor of the Koch gallery and as the ‘last living heir The Museum is not obliged to return the painting Madonna and Child with Wild Roses (c.1530) by Jan van and blood relative’ of his great uncle CC. The Applicant also states that he is acting on behalf of the BB Scorel to the Applicants nor to pay any compensation. Foundation, which he formed in 1974. One of the aims of this trust is ‘to assure the continued existence of the Koch Brothers gallery anno 1850’. The Applicant is the chairman of this trust and wants to put the This binding opinion was issued on 25 April 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chairman), J.T.M. Bank, P.J.N. van Os, painting in it. E.J. van Straaten, R. Herrmann and I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair), and signed by the chairman and the director. 3. The Committee considers that the Applicant could possibly derive rights in regard to a work of art that (W.J.M. Davids, chairman) (E. Campfens, director) was part of the trading stock of the Koch gallery from the stipulations in the wills of DD or CC. In that context the Committee therefore asked for information about these wills and, as described above under ‘The procedure’, it proposed that the Applicant should give the Committee authorization to request the wills. The Applicant has not provided this information or given authorization.
4. The information that is currently available provides insufficient basis for assuming that the Applicant 8. Recommendation regarding Koch belongs to the circle of people who are entitled to the assets of the Koch gallery run by the late CC as owner (and thus to the painting concerned). The Committee therefore declares the Applicant’s application to be (case number RC 1.98) inadmissible.
Conclusion
On 17 October 2008 the Minister of Education, Culture and Science (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) The Restitutions Committee advises the Minister of Education, Culture and Science to reject the present asked the Restitutions Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) for advice about the application application. for restitution of 15 August 2007 from AA (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant), also known as the BB Foundation, for the restitution of the painting Landscape with Farmhouse on the Water by E.J. Ligtelijn. Adopted at the meeting of 3 June 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chairman), J.T.M. Bank, R. Herrmann, According to the Applicant it had been in the possession of the Koch gallery in Amsterdam (hereinafter P.J.N. van Os, E.J. van Straaten, H.M. Verrijn Stuart and I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair), signed by the referred to as the Koch gallery). The work is part of the Netherlands Art Property Collection of the Dutch state chairman and the director. (hereinafter referred to as the NK collection). Its inventory number is NK 2943. (W.J.M. Davids, chairman) (E. Campfens, director)
54 55 9. Recommendation regarding Goudstikker-Kummerlé the Goudstikker gallery, represented by Ten Broek, and Miedl and Göring: (case number RC 1.134) - for a sum of NLG 550,000 Miedl acquired co-ownership of the Goudstikker gallery in so-called meta- paintings, the right to the trading name J. Goudstikker, and the gallery’s immovable property; - for a sum NLG 2,000,000 Göring acquired the rights to all the works of art in so far as they were the property of the Goudstikker gallery on 26 June 1940 and were in the Netherlands. Göring acquired a In a letter dated 21 June 2012, the State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science (hereinafter referred preferential right with regard to the meta-paintings. to as OCW) asked the Restitutions Committee for advice about the application of 30 May 2012 from Marei von Saher-Langenbein of New York, United States, (hereinafter also referred to as the applicant) for the restitution Désirée Goudstikker, the heir of Jacques Goudstikker, who represented 334 of the 600 shares, some on of the following three paintings from the Netherlands Art Property Collection (hereinafter referred to as the NK behalf of her underage son, refused to give Ten Broek the permission he requested for the sales. The collection): gallery’s staff received commission of NLG 400,000 from Miedl for bringing about the sales. Furthermore, upon entering into the agreement an undertaking would be made that Mrs Goudstikker-Sellisberger, NK 3749 – Philips Wouwerman, Two Men with a Horse on the Beach; Jacques Goudstikker’s mother, who had remained behind in Amsterdam, could count on protection NK 3750 – Dominicus van Tol, Boy with a Dog; from Miedl or Göring. On 14 September 1940 Alois Miedl founded the company Kunsthandel voorheen NK 3751 – Hendrik Gerritsz. Pot, A Man with a Glass of Wine. J. Goudstikker NV and on 2 October 1940 it was decided to dissolve the original gallery, as a result of which it went into liquidation. This liquidation of the Goudstikker gallery was cancelled retroactively on 26 These works of art were returned from Germany to the Netherlands on 4 March 2012, after which they became February 1947. Of the purchase price of NLG 2,550,000 that was entailed in the sales to Miedl and Göring, part of the NK collection. a sum of NLG 1,363,752.33 remained for the Goudstikker gallery after the war.
The procedure 4. The Committee acquired insight into the execution of the agreements referred to above between the Goudstikker gallery and Miedl and Göring thanks to a report with inventories, found during the The Committee investigated the facts as a result of the request for advice. This included making use of the investigation, that was compiled on Miedl’s instructions by the accountant J. Elte (hereinafter referred to as information and results of the investigation in the Goudstikker case (RC 1.15), in which the State Secretary for the Elte report). It emerges from the Elte report that Göring was not interested in all the works of art that OCW decided on 6 February 2006 to restitute 202 works of art. he had bought in accordance with the purchase agreement of 13 July 1940. Göring left many objects behind The results of the investigation are recorded in a draft investigation report dated 3 June 2013. The draft report, in Amsterdam, which were therefore actually delivered to Miedl. together with a letter dated 13 June 2013, was sent for comment to the applicant and, together with a letter of
the same date, to the Minister of OCW for additional information. Both the applicant and the Minister let it be The Committee observes that only a few hundred paintings out of the inventoried 1,113 works of art in the known in writing that they had no comments on the draft report. The draft report was subsequently adopted on trading stock of the Goudstikker gallery were actually delivered to Göring (hereinafter referred to as the 2 September 2013. The Committee refers to the report concerned for the facts in this case. Göring transaction). What is more, after the initial delivery Göring and Miedl exchanged paintings that The applicant appointed the lawyer Lawrence M. Kaye of New York, United States, to represent her during the originally came from the Goudstikker gallery’s trading stock with each other. procedure before the Committee. 5. It emerges from the Committee’s investigation that the three paintings now being claimed were part of the Göring transaction—the batch of works of art that were sold and delivered to Göring in 1940. Afterwards Considerations: Miedl bought the three present paintings from Göring. During the 1940-1942 period Miedl sold and auctioned the three works, as a result of which they ended up in the possession of the German art collector 1. The applicant is the widow of Eduard von Saher, the only son of the Jewish art dealer Jacques Goudstikker Kummerlé. At some point thereafter the paintings became part of the Museum der Bildenden Künste (1897-1940). When the Second World War started, the latter was the major shareholder and managing collection in Leipzig. After claims to the works by the State of the Netherlands, they were subsequently director of the Amsterdam gallery J. Goudstikker NV (hereinafter referred to as the Goudstikker gallery). handed over to the State of the Netherlands by Germany on 4 March 2012. After the war the name of the gallery concerned was changed to the Amsterdamse Negotiatie Compagnie NV (hereinafter referred to as the ANC). The initial liquidation of the ANC, which was dissolved as of 6. During the 2004-2006 period, the paintings from the Goudstikker gallery’s trading stock that were part of 14 December 1955, was terminated on 28 February 1960 and then reopened on 31 March 1998 by order of the Göring transaction in 1940 and that were returned in the years immediately after the war were part of the district court in Amsterdam. The liquidation of the ANC was completed on 3 July 2007. The applicant an earlier application for restitution with regard to Goudstikker (RC 1.15). In that case the State Secretary stated that she was the only registered shareholder in the company at that moment. On the grounds of for OCW decided on 6 February 2006 to grant the application for the restitution of the works in the Göring documents that have come to the attention of the Committee in this regard, the Committee concludes that transaction. In a letter to the Lower House of the same date, the State Secretary explained the reasons the applicant is entitled to any subsequent assets of the ANC. behind her decision. The State Secretary stated that she deemed grounds to be present ‘in this special case’
to decide to restitute. ‘The most important consideration concerns the facts and circumstances surrounding 2. The applicant requests the restitution of three paintings that were returned to the Netherlands from the involuntary loss of possession and the handling of this case in the early nineteen-fifties, as brought up Germany on 4 March 2012 and since then have been part of the NK Collection in the custody of the Dutch by the Committee in its extensive investigation.’ government under inventory numbers NK 3749, NK 3750 and NK 3751. The applicant stated that the paintings concerned ‘were looted from Jacques Goudstikker’s collection by Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring 7. The Committee concludes that the works NK 3749, NK 3750 and NK 3751 that are now being claimed through an involuntary sale in 1940’. She also stated that ‘the Paintings were recently returned to the were part of the same Göring transaction in 1940, but they had not yet become part of the NK collection Netherlands from Germany and, thus, not included in my prior applications to the Restitutions Committee. during the 2004-2006 period, as a result of which they could not be included in the earlier application for All three were part of a group of paintings delivered to Göring and, pursuant to the State Secretary’s restitution with regard to Goudstikker (RC 1.15) and therefore were not restituted at the time. Since the February 6, 2006 decision (...), should be restituted to me.’ three claimed works of art became part of the NK collection on 4 March 2012 and were claimed by the applicant thereafter, the Committee advises the Minister to restitute them. In this regard the Committee 3. The Committee refers to the investigation report for a description of the fate of the Goudstikker gallery refers to the decision of the State Secretary for OCW of 6 February 2006 quoted under consideration 6. during and after the Second World War. The following summary is sufficient here. Jacques Goudstikker, together with his family, fled the Netherlands by ship on 14 May 1940. During this Conclusion journey he died in an accident. His wife Désirée and son Eduard reached the United States. The gallery in Amsterdam was left behind unmanaged because at the beginning of May 1940 Jacques Goudstikker’s With reference to the decision of the State Secretary for OCW of 6 February 2006, the Restitutions Committee authorized representative also died suddenly. Two of Goudstikker’s staff, A.A. ten Broek and J. Dik Sr, advises the Minister to grant the application for restitution of the paintings NK 3749, NK 3750 and NK 3751. took over the management of the gallery, after which Ten Broek was appointed managing director of the company during an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders on 4 June 1940. Virtually immediately Adopted at the meeting of 2 September 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chair), J.T.M. Bank, R. Herrmann, after the capitulation of the Netherlands, Alois Miedl, a German banker and businessman living in the P.J.N. van Os, E.J. van Straaten, I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair), and signed by the chairman and Netherlands, joined the gallery and took over the actual management. Under an agreement dated 1 July the director. 1940, Miedl purchased all the assets of the Goudstikker gallery, including the firm’s trading name. Shortly afterwards this agreement was amended in connection with the simultaneous interest of Field Marshal (W.J.M. Davids, chairman) (E. Campfens, director) Hermann Göring in the gallery. Then, on 13 July 1940, two purchase agreements were entered into between
56 57 10. Recommendation in the case of Koenigs about the facts designated by the applicant as ‘nova’ (new facts) in the context of her request to revise RC 1.6. On 18 January 2011 the Committee informed the applicant and the Minister that it would put (case number RC 4.123) this request for advice in a separate file with the number RC 4.123. The Committee also advised the applicant that it would resume the procedure relating to RC 1.35. At the same time the applicant was given the opportunity to provide all the information relevant to the assessment of the request. Initially the applicant requested a postponement, but in a letter dated 11 April 2011 she asked the Committee to The present revised recommendation relates to an earlier application for restitution from C.F. Koenigs of defer RC 1.35 until the present advice about RC 4.123 was issued. On 4 May 2011 the Committee once Amsterdam (hereinafter referred to as the applicant). In it she requested the return of 34 paintings and 37 again deferred the active handling of RC 1.35. works on paper (hereinafter also referred to as the drawings) that are said to have been in the possession of her grandfather, the banker and art collector Franz Wilhelm Koenigs (hereinafter referred to as Koenigs). In letters II.4. In a letter of 19 October 2011 the Committee advised the applicant that it interpreted the letter from dated 3 May 2002 and 26 November 2002, the State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science (hereinafter the State Secretary of 13 December 2010 as a request for revised advice about RC 1.6 and gave her referred to as the State Secretary) submitted the application to the Restitutions Committee (hereinafter detailed information about the procedure. When handling a request for revised advice, the Committee referred to as the Committee) with a request for advice. The Committee issued its advice to the State Secretary asks applicants to explain the background of the request in the light of the criteria referred to under (RC 1.6)27 on 3 November 2003. On 10 December 2003 the State Secretary decided to reject the application, in I. In this context the Committee requested the applicant to provide the documents relevant to the accordance with the advice. Since then the applicant has voiced objections to the content of the advice and the assessment of the current request as a whole. Upon request, to that end an extra long period of over five way it was generated. She also asserts that new facts put the case in a different light. Op 13 December 2010 months was specified, until 30 March 2012. The applicant subsequently asked twice for deferment of the the State Secretary asked the Committee to issue revised advice on the basis of the information designated by deadline for responding. The Committee granted deferment, initially until 1 September 2012 and later the applicant as new facts. We refer to the advice about case number RC 1.6 for the inventory numbers of the to 19 November 2012, so the applicant was given 13 months. The applicant submitted the documents claimed works. In the current procedure the applicant is also acting on behalf of a number of members of the supporting her request on the latter date. On 7 December 2012 she delivered new copies to replace the family, namely Mr AA, Ms BB, Ms CC, Ms DD and Ms EE. files of documents submitted on 19 November 2012 plus a few additional documents.
I - Assessment framework II.5. In a letter of 21 March 2013 the applicant sent the Committee an exchange of letters with the request to add them to the earlier file. In response the Committee advised the applicant that it would add these If a decision has been taken in regard to a request for advice about restituting works of art from the letters to its file, and it also pointed out that it was no longer possible to submit new documents. In a Netherlands Art Property Collection (hereinafter referred to as the NK collection) or other parts of the Dutch letter of 6 May 2013 the applicant objected to this and argued that the Committee had not specified a National Art Collection, in principle the handling of the application is definitively terminated. The restitution clear deadline for submitting documents. She also asked the Committee to permit her to submit within policy does not provide for the option to ‘repeat’ the handling of a case, or to appeal so to speak. However, in a period of three and a half months the results of completed and ongoing investigations in regard to six 2010 the Committee did create the option, in consultation with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, subjects specified in detail. The Committee granted this request subject to the condition that subsequent to submit ‘requests for revised advice’. The intent of this procedure is limited. The handling of requests for submissions would really be limited to the six said subjects and also that they would jointly not exceed revised advice does not involve facts that were already known and are submitted once again to support different 50 pages. On 3 July 2013 the applicant objected to this and asked for these conditions to be dropped. The arguments, but new facts that are relevant to the content of the advice. In addition, account is taken of the Committee rejected this request on 12 July 2013. possibility of errors of a procedural nature. Summarizing, when handling a request for revised advice, the Committee evaluates a case on the basis of two criteria, which are: II.6. On 23 August 2013 the applicant provided the additional information, which comprised a letter with two a) there are new facts that, had they been known at the time the earlier advice was formulated, would have enclosures ‘Addition T4’ and ‘Addition T5’ relating to two of the six subjects referred to above, a report led to a different conclusion, and/or entitled ‘Recherchebericht zum Tod von Franz Koenigs’ about the circumstances Franz Koenigs’s death, b) there were errors during the earlier procedure that resulted in harm to the applicants’ fundamental and five powers of attorney. In her letter the applicant stated that in her opinion the requirements for interests. a proper procedure had not been complied with because both sides had not been listened to, unjustified restrictions had been specified in regard to the material to be submitted, no draft report had been II - The procedure written, and no hearing had been organized. And, as she had also done in her letter of 6 May 2013, she requested the Committee to prepare a draft report and organize a hearing. II.1. The immediate reason for the present procedure is the request from the State Secretary of 13 December 2010, which in turn was based in part on the report of the National Ombudsman dated 8 November II.7. First the Committee states that comprehensive advice about the present case was issued on 3 November 2010 (report number 2010/315). 2003. An investigation report was written and a hearing was organized to that end. A request for revised advice, such as the current request, has a limited purpose (see I – Assessment framework). Organizing II.2. The Committee points out the following by way of background. Subsequent to the request for restitution another hearing and writing a new draft report are not set parts of how such a request is handled. The RC 1.6 in 2002, on 23 May 2005 the applicant requested the return of 139 drawings and three etchings Committee has not seen any reasons for these activities on the grounds of the specific circumstances of that had been sent on 9 July 2004 from Kiev, Ukraine, back to the Netherlands and that are currently the case (see also below under II.9). part of the NK collection. In a letter of 13 July 2005 the State Secretary asked the Committee for advice about this request, which was registered by the Committee under number RC 1.35. During the procedure II.8. In order to enable the Committee to study and evaluate the documents supporting the request in relating to RC 1.35 the applicant then requested both the Committee and Ministry of Education, Culture conjunction with each other, the applicant was expressly asked to provide her input as a whole (II.4). and Science to revise the earlier advice and the 2003 decision about RC 1.6. In connection with this, A period of thirteen months was granted to that end, and after that a further opportunity was given in a letter of 24 April 2007 the Minister of Education, Culture and Science (hereinafter referred to as to submit documents within certain generous limits (see II.5). The Committee is responsible for the the Minister) asked the Committee to include the material described by the applicant as new facts in execution of a proper procedure, which means among other things that limitations can be specified for its advice about RC 1.35. The results of the investigation of the facts relating to RC 1.35, including the provision of further documents. In view of what the applicant had already submitted, the Committee documents that were new in respect of RC 1.6, were then recorded in a draft investigation report dated 3 thinks a restriction to 50 pages is not unreasonable. March 2008, which was sent to the applicant on 13 March 2008. The applicant responded to the content of the report on 3 July 2008. There was a hearing on 6 October 2008, on the basis of which the applicant II.9. The Committee considers the documents of 7 December 2012, 21 March 2013 and 23 August 2013 to submitted a further response on 25 November 2008. It emerged afterwards that the applicant had already jointly be the basis for the request for revised advice (see also ‘explanation’ below). The explanation submitted a complaint about the Minister to the National Ombudsman on 16 July 2008. Subsequent to contains a response to the earlier hearing and reporting about RC 1.6, as well as a comprehensive this she requested the Committee to defer advising about RC 1.35 until the National Ombudsman issued description of the applicant’s opinion about other subjects, including the procedure, the hearing and the a report. In a letter of 16 December 2008 the Committee told the applicant that it would put the case on draft report concerning RC 1.35. This latter case has been submitted for advice and is currently still hold during the National Ombudsman’s handling of the complaint. awaiting consideration, and a significant part of it relates to the same complex of facts as the present advice (see also II.2 and III). In view of the above, the Committee cannot concur with the applicant’s II.3. On 8 November 2010 the National Ombudsman issued a report in regard to the complaint submitted by assertion that both sides have not been heard. The Committee takes the view that the applicant has the applicant. On the basis of the National Ombudsman’s recommendations, in a letter of 13 December been given every opportunity to bring the matters that she considers important to the Committee’s 2010 the State Secretary withdrew the request submitted to the Committee in a letter dated 24 April attention and to explain her position with regard to them. 2007 to include new facts in RC 1.35. Instead the State Secretary requested the Committee to advise II.10. On 7 October 2013 the applicant, also on behalf of the family members represented by her, summoned the State of the Netherlands to appear in preliminary relief proceedings in the preliminary injunction court in The Hague in regard to the claim that the Committee, or the State, should be ordered to see to 27 See Report 2003.
58 59 it that in this case – to put it briefly – a hearing is organized and that a draft report or draft advice is sent to them so that they can comment on it. In response to this the Committee postponed issuing the present advice until the preliminary injunction court made a ruling. In its judgment dated 12 November 2013, the preliminary injunction court rejected the claims. After this the Committee resumed the preparation of its advice.
II.11. The Committee understands that the applicant intends to submit an application to the court in Rotterdam for a provisional experts’ statement to be issued. With reference to point II.9, last sentence, the Committee sees no reason to suspend the handling of the present request for advice again. Furthermore, as emerges from articles 202 to 207 inclusive of the Code of Civil Procedure, such a statement serves as evidence in legal proceedings that have yet to be or have been instituted, and that is not relevant in the present advice to the Minister.
III - The applicant’s explanation
III.1. In part B of the explanation, which concerns the criterion described above in point I under b), the applicant argues that during the procedure relating to RC 1.6 there were serious procedural errors, on the grounds of which she asks the Committee to once again investigate and evaluate Koenigs’s loss of possession. The Committee has determined that a substantial proportion of part B of her explanation is outside the scope of the present procedure because it concerns actions by parties other than the Committee or relates to matters other than the procedure relevant here in the context of request for advice RC 1.6. In view of what follows, the Committee will now turn to the requested investigation and reassessment. The objections expressed in part B of the explanation, which the Committee considers to be purely an issue for the applicant, will not be discussed further.
III.2. Part A of the explanation and the enclosed appendices relate to the criterion described above in point I under a). The applicant argues that new facts have become known since the formulation of the advice regarding RC 1.6 that put the ownership situation and the circumstances surrounding the loss of possession of the claimed objects in a new light. The Committee has inventoried part A of the explanation and states first and foremost that it contains as arguments documentation that is already known, new documentary evidence, and opinions of experts asked to act for the applicant. The Committee agrees that new facts have come to light since the advice about RC 1.6 was issued that are relevant to the loss of possession sustained by Koenigs, both during the procedure relating to RC 1.35 and in the context of the present request. A specific summary of this information will be omitted here, but the Committee attaches particular importance to the following documents:
- A legal instrument dated 1 June 1935; - Minutes of meetings of the Museum Boymans Foundation; - Two legal instruments of 2 April 1940.
III.3. In the present case the existing documentation and the new documentary evidence are closely interwoven. The Committee has therefore investigated all of part A of the explanation in detail in 10. The three fates spinning the thread of life by Albrecht Dürer (NK 3554) conjunction with the RC 1.6 report and advice - and the documentation underlying them - in order to establish whether there is any basis for revision. The Committee’s findings in this regard are as follows. in 2008 by Koenigs’s son FF as part of the RC 1.35 procedure. It states that Koenigs acknowledged IV - The facts borrowing a sum of NLG 1,375,000 and GBP 17,000 at an interest rate of 4% for a term of 5 years. Under the agreement, Koenigs transferred ownership of his drawing and painting collection, as specified IV.1. Koenigs was born in Kierberg, Germany, on 3 September 1881. In 1920 he founded N.V. Rhodius on a list accompanying the legal instrument, to L&R. The list, which according to the text must Koenigs Handelmaatschappij together with a nephew. The business was established in Amsterdam. originally have been appended to the legal instrument of 1 June 1935, is currently missing, but it is A few years later Koenigs and his wife Anna Countess of Kalckreuth (hereinafter referred to as Anna clear from the text of the agreement that the paintings and drawings concerned had been lent shortly Koenigs) and their children moved permanently to the Netherlands. Neither of them was of Jewish beforehand to Museum Boymans in Rotterdam and the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. Koenigs and L&R descent. Koenigs was granted Dutch citizenship in 1939. furthermore agreed that Koenigs was entitled to repay part or all of the loan at any time, while L&R would be entitled to sell the collection publicly or privately and to recover the proceeds upon expiry of IV.2. During the nineteen-twenties Koenigs started what was to become a large collection of drawings the term (31 May 1940) or upon the liquidation of L&R. and paintings. The collection of drawings, also known as the Koenigs collection, was of art historical importance. IV.5. Starting in 1939, close to the expiry of the agreed term and under the growing threat of war, Koenigs and the L&R bank, through the mediation of art dealer Jacques Goudstikker, conducted negotiations IV.3. It can be deduced from a declaration that Koenigs wrote by hand and signed on 9 September 1931 that with Dirk Hannema, director of Museum Boymans. It can be deduced from the correspondence that he entered into an agreement with the Amsterdam bank N.V. Bankierskantoor Lisser & Rosenkranz apparently Koenigs’s objective was to house the drawing collection as one entity, under his name, (hereinafter referred to as L&R). He was friends with S. Kramarsky, the Jewish managing director. In permanently in Museum Boymans. The wealthy Rotterdam businessmen D.G. van Beuningen and W. the declaration Koenigs wrote to L&R: ‘Sie haben mir namens einer Gruppe zugesagt an der Capital van der Vorm were involved in the discussions as financiers. Koenigs kept other interested parties at erhöhung von Rhodius Koenigs Handel Mij im Ausmass von fl. 1.500.000,- mitzuwirken’. He also wrote arm’s length. It can be concluded from a letter drafted by Jacques Goudstikker in around February that he was transferring ownership of his drawing collection, as present in his home in Haarlem, to L&R 1940 and intended for Hannema that Koenigs was prepared to make far-reaching concessions in order as security for repayment. The agreement between Koenigs and L&R was probably formalized a few to ensure that the collection continued to be retained for the museum. But the negotiations broke down. weeks later by, among other things, a legal instrument dated 2 October 1931, the contents of which are Meanwhile Koenigs and L&R made plans to transport the collection abroad. not known to the Committee. IV.6. L&R was liquidated on 2 April 1940. The intention was to safeguard the bank, which had a mainly IV.4. A new agreement between Koenigs and L&R was recorded in a registered private legal instrument dated Jewish board, from German interference in the event of a German attack. Koenigs, who was present as a 1 June 1935, in which it was expressly stated that the old agreements lapsed. This document was not fellow shareholder at the meeting of shareholders in which it was decided by acclamation to do so, would available to the Committee when the advice with regard to RC 1.6 was formulated. It was submitted have been closely involved in the development and further implementation of the plans.
60 61 IV.7. It is stated in two registered private legal instruments of 2 April 1940, which were co-signed by Koenigs, IV.15. At the beginning of December 1940 Van Beuningen sold some 528 drawings to Posse for NLG 1.4 that as of 2 April 1940 Koenigs had a debit balance in the current account relationship entered into million. On 9 December 1940 Hannema told a member of the board of trustees of the Museum Boymans between him and L&R, including interest, of NLG 1,662,915.14 in addition to GBP 20,559.13s.7d. These Foundation about this sale, namely that, ‘Mr van Beuningen had had a plan to sell for a certain sum two instruments were also not available to the Committee during its formulation of advice for RC 1.6. of money a part of the Koenigs collection, which he had acquired before the war. This transaction has They were handed over by FF in 2008 in connection with RC 1.35. already taken place’. Some 37 of these drawings were recovered after the war and at the end of the nineteen-eighties they were sent back, primarily from the former German Democratic Republic, after IV.8. It is stated in the first instrument, which is a further agreement about the main part of the debt and which they became part of the NK collection. These 37 drawings are subjects of the current advice. Van the drawing collection, that the ‘parties have been consulting each other about partial settlement of Beuningen donated the other drawings, numbering approximately 2,000, and eight paintings to the Koenigs’s debt to Lisser & Rosenkranz’ and that the parties have agreed the following in this regard: Museum Boymans Foundation. ‘As partial settlement of his said debt in the amount of NLG 1,250,000.-, Koenigs gives Lisser & Rosenkranz as payment, and the latter herewith accepts as payment, the collection of drawings that IV.16. The paintings that were not part of the agreement of 9 April 1940 between L&R and Van Beuningen has been lent by Koenigs to Museum Boymans in Rotterdam, as accurately specified on the list attached were removed from Museum Boymans by Goudstikker. It is uncertain where these works were taken. to the aforementioned instrument of 1 June 1935 and authenticated by both parties. Koenigs therefore It is also not clear whether further agreements about these works were made between Koenigs and herewith transfers the full and unencumbered ownership of the said drawings to Lisser & Rosenkranz, L&R after 2 April 1940 and, if so, what their import was. In a letter dated 10 December 1946, that and Lisser & Rosenkranz accepts this transfer of ownership, in return for which it discharges Koenigs was handed over by the applicant in regard to the current request, L&R wrote that on 1 May 1940 from NLG 1,250,000.- of his said debt.’ it had 35 paintings in its possession for Koenigs, while Koenigs owed the bank NLG 706,088.47 plus GBP 20,559.13s.7d, adding up to a total of NLG 844,557.87. This letter then summarizes the works IV.9. It is stated in the second instrument, which is a further agreement relating to the paintings, that the concerned. Number 14 is Cadmus Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth by P.P. Rubens, the work currently ‘parties have been consulting each other about the settlement of Koenigs’s remaining debt to Lisser & being claimed. It is stated in the letter that this painting was handed over on the instructions of Mr F. Rosenkranz’ and that the parties have agreed the following in this regard: ‘As settlement of his residual Koenigs for NLG 11,600. It emerges from surviving documentation that Cadmus Sowing the Dragon’s said debt in the amount of NLG 412,915.14 and GBP 20,559.13s.7d, Koenigs gives Lisser & Rosenkranz Teeth was then sold at the end of April or beginning of May 1940 to a Dutch couple, Mr and Mrs De as payment, and the latter herewith accepts as payment, the paintings as accurately specified on the Bruijn, through the J. Goudstikker gallery. Goudstikker gave the proceeds to L&R. This work of art was list attached to the aforementioned instrument of 1 June 1935 and authenticated by both parties. bequeathed to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam in 1961, thus becoming part of the Dutch National Art Koenigs therefore herewith transfers the full and unencumbered ownership of the said paintings to Collection. Lisser & Rosenkranz, and Lisser & Rosenkranz accepts this transfer of ownership, in return for which it discharges Koenigs from the aforementioned residual of his said debt.’ IV.17. In its letter of 10 December 1946 L&R also stated that 31 paintings were handed over for NLG 800,000. On an unknown date, probably in June 1940, they were purchased by the German banker Alois Miedl. IV.10. It emerges from surviving correspondence that L&R and Koenigs each separately informed Museum Twenty-seven of these 31 paintings are subjects of the current advice. A report written in 1952 by the Boymans that same day that the drawing collection had become the property of the L&R bank. Koenigs lawyer A.E.D. von Saher entitled ‘N.V. Kunsthandel J. Goudstikker: overview of events during the also wrote that, in view of the absence of a response from the museum, it had been necessary for him to period from 31 December 1939 to April 1952’ says about this sale that, ‘In June 1940 Miedl bought use the drawings as payment, as a result of which the drawings had become the ‘full and unencumbered Koenigs’s Rubens collection from him for NLG 800,000’. A post-war report about the Miedl hearings property’ of L&R, and that he had made the drawings completely available to L&R ‘in so far as states the following. ‘The sale took place in the garden of the Lisser Rosencranz Bank in the presence of necessary by terminating the loan of them to you’. L&R advised the museum that it intended to have the Florsheim, the deputy director in the absence of Kramarsky who had left for America...Koenigs at first drawings removed that same week by the forwarding agent. asked 800.000 and finally accepted 700.000. Miedl admits that this was very cheap but says Koenigs was no Jew and was eager to sell to clear himself of his financial obligations because the banks in Holland IV.11. There was further consultation after 2 April 1940 between L&R ( represented by Jacques Goudstikker), would not take pictures as security...Koenigs was actually paid 800.000 gulden by Miedl, and Flörsheim Museum Boymans ( represented by its director Dirk Hannema) and D.G. van Beuningen. A surviving supplied the difference.’ letter of 9 April 1940 from Hannema to L&R reveals that Koenigs was also present at these discussions. L&R continued to take Koenigs’s wishes into account after 2 April 1940, as can be seen from a IV.18. After this there were various further business contacts between Koenigs and Miedl. On 14 September letter to Goudstikker from L&R dated 8 April 1940: ‘Please bear in mind that we want to make the 1940, in the presence of the notary A. van den Bergh in Amsterdam, the firm of ‘Kunsthandel voorheen greatest possible concession to Museum Boymans as regards the price on the grounds of both national J. Goudstikker N.V.’ was founded. Alois Miedl traded art during the war through this company. Koenigs considerations and our desire to respect the wishes of the previous owner [Koenigs, RC].’ was one of the founders besides Miedl. He participated in the issued capital by purchasing five of the 600 shares. Miedl’s bank, N.V. Buitenlandsche Bankvereniging (BBV), also acquired a substantial num- IV.12. On 9 April 1940 L&R sent written confirmation to Van Beuningen that it had sold him the drawing ber of L&R shares in the course of 1940. Op 13 December 1945 H.H.F. Herrndorf, one of L&R’s liquida- collection as well as 12 paintings for NLG 1 million. In the letter L&R wrote: ‘We have noted with tors, said the following about this matter. ‘As a very good friend, Mr Koenigs felt obliged to champion thanks your promise that the aforementioned collections of drawings and paintings will continue to the interests of L&R and to actually protect it. The relationship with and the friendly feelings for L&R. bear the existing name of the “F. Koenigs Collection” for as long as they remain exhibited in Museum resulted in Rhodius Koenigs buying 540 shares from Mr F [Flörsheim, RC] on 9-9-’40 at 75 %. By then Boymans.’ it was clear to Mr Koenigs that his position was not strong enough to protect L&R properly. The upshot of these considerations, together the general situation, was the acquisition of the shares by BBV...As a IV.13. This was followed by congratulations all round. The board of L&R expressed its satisfaction about the consequence of the steps that had already been taken, it seemed necessary to Mr Koenigs that the 687 fact it had been able to contribute to ‘the retention of this important collection for the Netherlands shares of Mr S. Kramarsky should also change hands. He was convinced that this would be the best way and Museum Boymans’. The undertaking by Van Beuningen to keep the name of Koenigs linked to to serve the interests of his friend Kramarsky, and the consequence was that BBV took over L&R.’ the collection ‘also fulfilled the wish of Mr Koenigs’, added L&R. On 12 April 1940 Hannema assured Koenigs ‘that the collection, with which your name will always be associated, will also be looked after IV.19. Koenigs died on 6 May 1941 at a railway station in Cologne, Germany. with the greatest care in the future’. On 17 April 1940 Koenigs wrote to Hannema saying that: ‘We are also pleased that the collection has remained in Holland and naturally we prefer to see it in Museum IV.20. In May 1942, a year after Koenigs’s sudden death, his widow Anna Koenigs wrote to Hannema saying, Boymans’. As an expression of his feelings, Koenigs donated two drawings by Carpaccio to the museum ‘I’m glad about everything that stayed in Museum Boymans and in the Netherlands, because it was to supplement the collection. On 19 April 1940 Hannema wrote to L&R saying he was happy that ‘the always my husband’s wish that his collection should remain in our country.’ In response to a declaration entire Koenigs collection...is staying in Museum Boymans’ and he thanked the L&R bank’s board for the obligation announced by the authorities, after the war Anna Koenigs filled in 31 SNK (Netherlands Art cooperation. Property Foundation) declaration forms, in which she reported the sale of 31 paintings by Koenigs to A. Miedl in the ‘summer of 1940’. There was a pre-printed line for declaring the nature of the loss of IV.14. In his biography of D.G. van Beuningen, Harry van Wijnen (p 317) writes that on 28 April 1940 - a possession: ‘As a result of confiscation / theft / forced/voluntary sale, it came into the possession of’. She few weeks after the transaction between L&R and Van Beuningen on 9 April 1940, but still before the crossed out the first three options, and in so going declared that according to her it was a voluntary sale. German invasion - there was an exploratory meeting in The Hague between Van Beuningen’s son-in- law, Lucas Peterich, and the German Dr Hans Posse, who purchased art on behalf of Adolf Hitler for the IV.21. A few years after the war one or more of Koenigs’s heirs apparently had an investigation carried out Führer Museum that was to be established in Linz. On 5 August 1940 Peterich reminded Posse of this in order to establish whether Van Beuningen could be called to account for reselling works from the discussion in a letter. In it he stated that at the time he assumed that his father-in-law did not want to collection to Posse. At the time the idea was dropped because of negative legal advice to the effect sell anything, but ‘so glaube ich heute, daβ er jetzt vielleicht doch dazu bereit sein würde, wenn Sie ein that ‘the agreement concerned [between L&R in liquidation and Van Beuningen, RC] created legal gutes Angebot auf die Zeichnungen der Sammlung Königs machen könnten’. During the course of the relationships between Mr van Beuningen and the aforementioned N.V. only, and a possible promise following months Peterich negotiated with Posse on behalf of Van Beuningen about the purchase of part to preserve the Koenigs collection and to continue the loan to Boymans Museum does not have the of the drawing collection.
62 63 character of a third-party clause, the fulfilment of which could be enforced at law by the heirs’ (letter response to this recommendation, the government extended the reference to private Jewish individuals from the lawyer Max Meijer to FF of 19 August 1953). to include other victims of persecution, such as Roma and Sinti. The government’s response also refers to ‘other specific groups of victims of persecution’ (Lower House, 2001-2002, 25 839, no. 27). The above V - Assessment applies to loss of possession that occurred in the Netherlands on and after 10 May 1940, the day on which the Nazis invaded the Netherlands. Prior to this date, loss of possession in the Netherlands is V.1. In her extensive explanation, the applicant brings forward new and existing material to support the assumed to be voluntary, even in the case of private individuals in a persecuted population group, unless assertion that the transfer of the collection came about under pressure from an impending German the facts indicate that the contrary is highly probable. After all, before 10 May 1940 the Nazis were invasion. She gives three factors that would have led to revised insight into the whole case, namely: not able to use coercion to reinforce their influence in the Netherlands. The transfer of ownership by Koenigs took place 2 April 1940, in other words before 10 May 1940, and for this reason alone there can 1) ‘The board of trustees of the museum knew as early as 26 October 1939 that the be no reversal of the burden of proof in this case. collection would leave the following year, and that Jews were involved here’; 2) ‘When Van Beuningen and Hannema bought the F. Koenigs collection, in their vision this was also V.6. The Committee furthermore takes the view that Koenigs cannot be regarded as a member of the purchased from Jews; this was minuted as such in the meeting of the board of trustees on 18 April resistance or a victim of persecution as referred to in the restitution policy. The Dutch government 1940’; does not recognize Koenigs as a resistance fighter. It has become plausible that Koenigs was detained 3) ‘The third and most important fact is that in December 1946 Lisser & Rosenkranz confirmed that and interrogated by the SD for a period in December 1940, but there are no indications that the it had the 35 paintings of Franz Koenigs in its possession on 1 May 1940.’ interrogation was connected to resistance activities or the sold works of art. In the Committee’s opinion this detention and interrogation do not justify the conclusion that Koenigs should be considered as The applicant concludes that, ‘Franz Koenigs was the valid owner, and that giving them in payment, a victim of persecution. It has also not become plausible that Koenigs was murdered in 1941. When which according to article 1200 of the old Dutch Civil Code was null and void, was effectively a sham considered in conjunction, it furthermore does not emerge from the other material that has been raised transaction in order to protect the collection.’ that Koenigs’s attitude and activities were such that they resulted in measures being taken by the Nazi What the applicant apparently intends here, read in conjunction with her whole line of reasoning, is to regime aimed at him personally, on the grounds of which he can be regarded as a victim of persecution. prove that Koenigs’s loss of possession of the drawing and painting collection was involuntary as a result On the contrary, as stated earlier in the advice about case RC 1.6, the Committee believes that Koenigs of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. This argument can be summarized as follows. was ‘an influential businessman who - certainly in comparison with the Jewish part of the population - was able to move about freely’. V.2. Prior to the German invasion Van Beuningen agreed to deliver the collection to Hitler’s representative, Dr Hans Posse. In that context Van Beuningen and Hannema conspired to prevent Koenigs, who found V.7. On the grounds of the above it is therefore up to the applicant to make it plausible that Koenigs lost himself in a vulnerable position in regard to the Nazi regime, from exporting his collection. They then possession of the artworks currently being claimed involuntarily as a result of circumstances directly tricked him out of his collection under pressure from an imminent German invasion. The liquidation connected with the Nazi regime. In the case of loss of possession by private individuals who did not of the L&R bank on 2 April 1940 was a sham transaction in order to keep it out of German hands. belong to a persecuted population group, this is only the case if a direct link exists between specific There was also a bogus transfer of the collection, which was prompted by the desire to keep it from threats or coercion from the Nazi regime and the loss of possession concerned (see also the advice about being confiscated by the Nazi regime. The fact that on 2 April 1940 Koenigs was satisfied with only a Weijers, RC 1.68, consideration 14 and Aldenburg-Bentinck, RC 1.102, consideration 7). fraction of the real value of the collection (according to the applicant NLG 4.5 million) and subsequently remained involved in the negotiations indicates this. In this connection the applicant also asserts that Civil law arguments neither Koenigs nor his business Rhodius Koenigs was in financial difficulty, so the transfer of the collection to L&R cannot be explained from a business perspective. The transfer of the collection to L&R V.8. The following applies to the civil law grounds that are said to mean that the transfer to L&R and the on 2 April 1940 and the subsequent transfers to Van Beuningen and Posse are furthermore null and subsequent transfers to Van Beuningen and Posse are null and void or contestable. The Committee is void under civil law, or at least are contestable. Koenigs therefore remained the owner of the collection. responsible for advising the Minister at the Minister’s request about decisions to be taken concerning applications for the restitution of items of cultural value of which the original owners involuntarily Reversal of the burden of proof lost possession due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime, and to carry out this advisory task giving due regard to the restitution policy (article 2 paragraph 4 of the Decree Establishing the V.3. The applicant says that Koenigs was an active political opponent of the Nazi regime and consequently Restitutions Committee). In regard to the civil law objections raised by the applicant and the supporting should be regarded as a victim of persecution. In this regard she argues that Koenigs should be treated experts’ statements that were handed over - including violation of the appropriation prohibition as the same way as private individuals who were persecuted by the Nazi regime because of their origins, referred to in article 1200 of the old Dutch Civil Code and carrying out ‘sham transactions’ - it is such as Jews, and that involuntary loss of possession should be assumed. She thus invokes a reversal argued that the private legal instruments of 2 April 1940 relating to the present items of cultural value of the burden of proof, as contained in the recommendations of the Ekkart Committee concerning the transferred to L&R were in violation of rules of a civil law nature. It follows from the starting point restitution of private art property (April 2001). As support for this position she refers, among other above that this is outside the scope of the restitution policy and consequently outside the Committee’s things, to a letter from the Nederlandse Beheersinstituut (Netherlands Property Administration terms of reference for the Committee to give its opinion on the question about whether there were civil Institute) in which Koenigs is described as an ‘avowed opponent of the Nazi regime’; various statements law grounds for making the transfers on 2 and 9 April as well as in or around June 1940 or any other by witnesses that were made during the years after the war and that bear witness to Koenigs’s political point in time null and void or contestable and, if so, what the consequences should be with respect to reliability; documents from which it can be deduced that Koenigs supplied information to the British the present request for restitution. In this regard the request does not come within the Committee’s secret service and others; information about Koenigs’s business and personal dealings with Jews after mandate. It comes within the scope of ordinary legal rules as referred to in the explanatory notes to 1933, including indications that he supported and gave emergency help to Jewish contacts in several article 2 of the Decree Establishing the Advisory Committee. The Committee will therefore not consider ways, and intelligence about relatives who were actively involved in the resistance to the Nazi regime the said objections further in its deliberations. in Germany. The applicant furthermore contends that the sale of the collection can be linked to the liquidation of the (‘Jewish’) L&R bank. She also states that in December 1940 Koenigs was held by the Transfer of the drawing collection SD for over two weeks in the detention centre in Kleine Gartmanplantsoen in Amsterdam and was interrogated daily in Euterpestraat. Koenigs was eliminated on 6 May 1941 in Cologne. V.9. It is no longer possible to establish exactly which considerations lay behind the transfer by Koenigs of the ownership of his collection of drawings and paintings to L&R on 2 April 1940, as specified in V.4. The Committee states first that the applicant had already argued in regard to RC 1.6 that Koenigs was the agreement of 1 June 1935, in return for being discharged from his debt to L&R, as well as the opposed to the Nazi regime, made efforts on behalf of Jewish contacts and had dealings with British ultimate sale on 9 April 1940 by L&R of the drawing collection and twelve paintings to Van Beuningen. intelligence. In that context the Committee points out that it described Koenigs in its advice about case It is clear, however, that these transactions took place before 10 May 1940. At that point the Nazi number RC 1.6 as ‘a marked opponent of the Nazi regime’. The question to be addressed is therefore regime was not established in the Netherlands, and this makes a connection between the transfer of whether the new facts supplied in regard to the present revised advice give reason to reconsider the the collection and Koenigs being specifically threatened or coerced by the Nazi regime insufficiently opinion as contained in consideration 17 in the advice about case number RC 1.6. The Committee plausible. The Committee considers the applicant’s argument that the non-Jewish Koenigs wanted to answers this question in the negative, and is of the opinion that in this case reversal of the burden of protect his collection from confiscation by the Nazis through its transfer to a Jewish bank to be highly proof is not relevant. improbable. On the other hand, the Committee believes - on the grounds of statements in surviving correspondence - it is likely (see also considerations IV.11, IV.12, IV.13 and IV.20) that since 1939 V.5. Pursuant to the Ekkart Committee’s third recommendation concerning private art ownership, which Koenigs and L&R jointly made efforts to have Museum Boymans permanently house the collection in its was adopted by the government, the sale of artworks by private Jewish individuals in the Netherlands entirety. The fact the Koenigs donated a further two drawings, by Carpaccio, to the museum on 17 April from 10 May 1940 onwards is considered to be involuntary, unless the facts expressly show otherwise. In 1940 as a gesture demonstrates that Koenigs was pleased that, as he was then assuming, the collection
64 65 would remain intact and that Van Beuningen was also expected to leave it in Museum Boymans under collection and to continue the loan to Boymans Museum’ as a consequence of the resale of part of the the name Koenigs, as a donation or a loan. The comments by the board of L&R also reveal satisfaction collection to Posse. with the transaction and the conditions under which they assumed it had been executed. This all indicates it was not involuntary loss of possession as referred to in consideration V.7. VI - Twelve specific arguments put forward by the applicant
V.10. Nevertheless the applicant contends that Hannema and Van Beuningen conspired to swindle Koenigs VI.1. In her explanation, the applicant specified at length her objections as referred to above in the form of out of his collection and used the threat of a German invasion as a means of coercion. In this connection twelve points under the heading ‘new facts’. In the interests of precise and complete handling of her the applicant argues that the museum’s board of trustees would have known as early as 1939 that the request, the Committee deems it desirable to go through these twelve points. collection would leave the following year, that ‘Jews are involved here’ (consideration V.1, point 1), and that in the opinion of financier Van Beuningen and Hannema, director of Boymans, it was being VI.2. The first point the applicant raises is that it follows from article 1 of the Constitution and the principle ‘purchased from Jews’ (consideration V.1, point 2). The applicant also asserts that Van Beuningen made of equality it contains that the reversal of the burden of proof, as referred to in the policy framework, an agreement with Hitler’s representative, Dr Hans Posse, to make the collection safe for Hitler and to should also apply to ‘population groups persecuted by the Nazis’ other than Jews, Sinti and Roma. obstruct Koenigs from exporting it. Not all of the facts that have been put forward in this respect have She comments here as follows: ‘Making a distinction between different groups is comparable to what been made sufficiently plausible. Even if the accuracy of this line of reasoning were to be accepted, it happened under the Nazi regime, namely the population was divided into groups and received “special would not lead to restitution. According to the applicant all this should lead to the conclusion that there treatment” on the grounds of where their group was in that ranking.’ As a second point she adds that was involuntary loss of possession due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. Contrary Koenigs was a political opponent of the Nazi regime and for that reason should be considered as a victim to what the applicant apparently assumes, the mere fact that these events are said to have taken place of persecution. The applicant deduces from this that the burden of proof of the involuntary nature of at a time when a German invasion threatened does not justify the conclusion that a direct link existed the loss of possession should be reversed in favour of Koenigs. The Committee does not agree with between a specific threat or coercion from the Nazi regime and the loss of possession by Koenigs (cf. this conclusion because she has not been able to qualify Koenigs as a victim of persecution as referred consideration V.7). to in the policy framework as adopted by the Dutch government and parliament. In this regard the Committee refers to what it has considered under numbers V.3 to V.7 inclusive. There is, incidentally, V.11. The Committee deems it plausible that Koenigs and L&R intended to support Museum Boymans no conflict with the Constitution and the principle of equality since the reversal of the burden of proof and the nation’s art collection and were prepared to accept a relatively modest consideration for the has been accepted for a limited group of people as compensation for the fact that in many cases they collection (see considerations IV.5 and IV.11). It must have been clear to everyone involved that Koenigs have lost items of evidence. There is thus not a discriminatory criterion, but a precautionary measure to was assuming the drawing collection would remain intact and that Van Beuningen was also expected compensate for a disadvantage. to leave it in Museum Boymans under the name of the Koenigs Collection, as a donation or a loan. The Committee considers it likely that the resale by Van Beuningen for the benefit of Hitler’s art collection VI.3. The third point the applicant raises is that the Koenigs collection should be designated as a ‘Jewish was extremely profitable for Van Beuningen personally, thanks in part to the concessions made by collection’ and that the transfer to Van Beuningen for NLG 1,000,000 should not be considered as a Koenigs and L&R. The Committee also thinks it is reasonable to assume that this resale was contrary normal transaction. A key issue in the assessment of the present request is whether Koenigs lost his to Koenigs’s cherished cohesion of the collection that he had built up with such care, and was at the collection involuntarily as a result of a specific threat or coercion from the Nazi regime. Van Beuningen expense of Museum Boymans and Dutch national art treasures. All such was contrary to Koenigs’s acquired the collection from L&R, and so it is not possible to accept the assertion that the facts and wishes and the hopes that were raised in him. Yet this course of events does not lead to the conclusion circumstances relating to this transaction can have implications in respect of Koenigs. The Committee that there was involuntary loss of possession as referred to in consideration V.7. refers here to what was considered above under V.9 to V.11 inclusive.
Paintings VI.4. In her fourth point, the applicant argues that the Committee did not base its advice of 3 November 2003 about case RC 1.6 on objective valuations. The Committee takes the view that exact data about objective V.12. As regards the ownership situation of six of the 34 currently claimed paintings, the Committee finds valuations, in so far as it is possible to reconstruct them, are not necessary for the present request for (with reference to the advice about RC 1.6, consideration 5) that no new facts have been brought advice. forward to indicate that Koenigs was the owner of the works NK 1915, NK 2075, NK 1848, NK 3577, NK 3387 and NK 2071. The ownership situation relating to the other 28 paintings also remains unclear VI.5. The applicant’s fifth point is an objection to consideration 15 in the advice of 3 November 2003 about because there is insufficient insight into the agreements between L&R and Koenigs after 2 April 1940 case RC 1.6 on the grounds that the loan Koenigs was given in 1931 was not granted for purely economic to establish the exact course of events (see considerations IV.9, IV.16 and IV.17). Consequently it is reasons. The Committee passes over this objection because it is not crucial to the assessment of the also not possible to determine the timing and the nature of the transaction as a result of which Koenigs present request for advice to know why Koenigs borrowed money from L&R in 1931 since the debt finally lost possession of the paintings. Ownership is thus not highly probable, which is a primary position has to be designated as an established fact, thanks in part to the newly submitted documents. requirement for restitution. VI.6. In her sixth and seventh points, the applicant contends that the liquidation of L&R and Koenigs V.13. Even if we were assume as a starting point that the works were Koenigs’s property after 2 April 1940, subsequently giving his collection in payment were ‘sham transactions’ and that giving the collection there is no evidence of involuntary loss of possession as referred to in consideration V.7. The painting in payment violated article 1200 of the old Dutch Civil Code. The Committee has not addressed this Cadmus Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth was in all probability sold by Jacques Goudstikker to a Dutch contention because an opinion about it and the possible implications for the present request are outside purchaser before the German invasion. In view of these circumstances, the Committee considers it the scope of its powers, as explained in consideration V.8. extremely improbable that there was a direct link between Koenigs being subjected to a specific threat or coercion from the Nazi regime and the transaction concerned. There is also no evidence that Koenigs VI.7. The applicant’s eighth point is that the actions of Van Beuningen, Hannema and Posse served to was pressurized by Miedl in regard to the purchase of twenty-seven of the currently claimed paintings obstruct Koenigs’s intended export of the collection, and in this way to keep the collection available by the latter. The business contacts between Koenigs and Miedl after the transaction concerned, to sell to Hitler. Whatever the case may be, it does not follow from this that there was a direct link including Koenigs’s involvement in the establishment of Miedl’s gallery (see also consideration IV.18), between an express threat or coercion from the Nazi regime and the loss of possession by Koenigs . make this unlikely too. VI.8. The applicant’s ninth point furthermore describes giving Koenigs’s collection in payment as a sham V.14. In addition, after the war Anna Koenigs made a declaration to the SNK that the sale of the works transaction ‘as a result of crafty teamwork by Van Beuningen, Hannema and Posse’. The Committee to Miedl was voluntary (see IV.20). The applicant had already asserted in the context of RC 1.6 that understands this contention to mean that the aim of this ‘crafty teamwork’ was that L&R would sell the this obligatory declaration should be considered as a claim to the works, and has repeated it now. Koenigs collection at a very low price to Van Beuningen (and not to Museum Boymans), after which Van The arguments put forward by the applicant to support this stance and the contention that the Beuningen could sell and supply part of it to Posse/Hitler at a price that was higher than what he paid descendants submitted a claim do not hold water, however, because she assumes that compliance with for the entire collection. Whatever the case may be, it has not become plausible that the said people were the declaration obligation issued by the authorities has to be considered as a submission of a claim involved in Koenings giving his collection in payment to L&R. As regards the rest, the Committee refers for restitution. The documentation that has been submitted, such as correspondence with various to considerations V.9 and V.10 for the alleged ‘sham transaction’. restitution and recovery authorities, likewise provides inadequate support for the assertions. There is no evidence that Koenigs’s descendants actually submitted an application for restitution after the war VI.9. In her tenth point the applicant asserts that the submission of declaration forms by Mrs Anna Koenigs on with regard to all or parts of the drawing and painting collection discussed here. In this context the 21 September 1945 concerning 35 paintings is to be considered as the expression of a claim to those paint- Committee considers it significant that the legal advice that was sought after the war, as referred to in ings. She reproaches the SNK for not doing anything about it. This reproach is not right. The Committee consideration IV.21, was not concerned with restitution of the collection to Koenigs’s heirs but clearly refers to the fact established in consideration IV.20 that Mrs Anna Koenigs stated in the 31 declaration with the desire to hold Van Beuningen to account for failing to fulfil his ‘promise to preserve the Koenigs forms she submitted that they were voluntary sales and also to the points addressed under V.14.
66 67 VI.10. The applicant’s eleventh point concerns the contention that the sale of the currently claimed paintings 11. Recommendation regarding Hamburger II (at the end of April 1940 and around June 1940) took place ‘under pressure that arose from the compulsory sale of 9 April 1940, a sale by Jews who had been put under pressure’. A reversal of (Case number RC 1.130) the burden of proof should therefore apply in favour of Koenigs. The Committee does not accept the contention. It refers in this regard in the first place to what is stated in consideration VI.3 and in the second instance to considerations V.3 to V.7 inclusive, which also apply correspondingly to the sale of the paintings. The ownership situation concerning these paintings is furthermore extremely uncertain, as On 6 October 2013 the Minister of Education, Culture and Science (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) explained above in consideration V.12. asked the Restitutions Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) for advice about the application of 20 March 2013 from XX of YY, Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as applicant) for the restitution of a painting VI.11. Finally, in her twelfth point, the applicant condemns the attitude of Museum Boymans both then and that is claimed to have formerly belonged to Gustaaf Hamburger. It concerns Landscape with Beggars and now. According to her the museum should demonstrate that its acquisition of the remaining part of Two Horsemen by a Ruin by the artist J.J. van Goyen (former attributions E. van de Velde; S.J. van Ruysdael), the Koenigs collection through a donation from Van Beuningen was in good faith. The Committee does which is currently a part of the Netherlands Art Property Collection (hereinafter referred to as the NK not understand how what is being brought up here could lead to allowing the present request. The collection) in the custody of the State under inventory number NK 2782. The painting is presently on loan to the works currently being claimed do not belong to the part of the collection donated by Van Beuningen. Limburgs Museum in Venlo. Furthermore, the issue here is not the acquisition by Van Beuningen or the Museum Boymans Foundation, but the loss of possession by Koenigs to L&R. In so far as the applicant is aiming to assert The procedure that the actions of Hannema should be attributed to Museum Boymans, she is apparently making a link to the eighth and ninth points, which the Committee has already considered under numbers VI.7 and The Committee investigated the facts in the context of the request for advice from the Minister. The results of VI.8. the investigation are recorded in a draft investigation report dated 11 November 2013. The Committee sent this draft report, together with a letter dated 15 November 2013, to the applicant for comment. She responded on
27 November 2013. The Committee also sent the draft report, together with a letter dated 15 November 2013, VII - Conclusion to the Minister for additional information. The Minister informed the Committee on 21 November 2013 that she did not wish to bring any additional information to the Committee’s attention. The investigation report was On 3 November 2003 the Restitutions Committee advised that the application for the restitution of 34 paintings subsequently adopted on 9 December 2013. The Committee refers to the investigation report for the facts in this and 37 works on paper - under number RC 1.6 - should be rejected. The Committee advises the Minister of case. The following summary is sufficient here. Education, Culture and Science to let this rejection stand. The applicant appointed the lawyer Nancy Parke-Taylor of Canada to represent her during the procedure before the Committee. Adopted on 12 November 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chairman), J.T.M. Bank, R. Herrmann, P.J.N. van Os, On 4 March 2013 in case RC 1.137 the Committee recommended the return to the applicant of three pottery E.J. van Straaten, H.M. Verrijn Stuart and I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair), and signed by the chairman and dishes in the NK collection that had formerly belonged to Gustaaf Hamburger (NK 223, NK 444 and NK 575). the director.
(W.J.M. Davids, chairman) (E. Campfens, director) Considerations 1. The applicant requests the restitution of a painting that formerly belonged to her father Gustaaf Hamburger (1887-1977). She also declared that she is her father’s sole heir. The committee has taken note of a certificate of inheritance, executed on 19 August 2013 before M.R. Meijer, notary of Amsterdam, in which it is declared that the applicant is the sole heir of Gustaaf Hamburger. The Committee considers this to demonstrate the position of the applicant as the person entitled to her father’s assets.
2. Gustaaf Hamburger (hereinafter also referred to as Hamburger) was born in Utrecht in 1887. In 1920, together with others, he founded the bank Hamburger & Co’s Bankierskantoor N.V. in Amsterdam. Hamburger lived in Laren and collected art. In 1940 Hamburger escaped to the United States with his wife, leaving a large proportion of his possessions in the Netherlands. During the occupation, his home in Laren— which contained some of his art—was confiscated by the Wehrmacht. Other parts of his art collection, which Hamburger had given to others for safekeeping, were designated by the Nazi authorities during the occupation as enemy property, and were confiscated and sold. During its investigation the Committee found lists referring, among others, to the German looting organization Dienststelle Mühlmann and auctioneers Dorotheum of Vienna as purchasers of items belonging to Hamburger and others that were sold during the war.
3. Based on documentation from the files of the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (SNK), the Committee considers it highly probable that the painting currently being claimed (NK 2782) belonged to Gustaaf Hamburger’s collection and was his property. The Committee deduces this from, among other things, a 1935 list of valuations of items in Hamburger’a collection that includes the description ‘J. van Goyen / Horsemen and peasants by a ruin’. A further source on which the Committee bases its view is an SNK registration form that Gustaaf Hamburger filled in on 31 October 1945. The form related to a painting by or attributed to J. van Goyen, entitled Horsemen and Peasants by a Ruin near Water (panel, 36.1 x 33.8 cm), and on the form Hamburger declared that he was the owner of this work. Together with the registration form he submitted a photograph, which was found in a different SNK file during the Committee’s investigation and which concerns the current NK 2782.
4. Hamburger declared on the SNK registration form that the painting came into the possession of Dorotheum in Vienna as a result of a forced sale. It is stated in other SNK documentation that Hamburger’s painting was seized by Dienststelle Mühlmann and sold to Dorotheum in Vienna. The committee concludes that in all probability the current NK 2782 was confiscated when Hamburger and his wife fled the Netherlands, and that he stopped having it in his possession involuntarily as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime.
5. The painting currently being claimed was not recovered from Vienna and returned to the Netherlands until 1951, which was relatively late. Hamburger had several items from his collection returned to him, but not the current NK 2782. Apparently he was not aware that the painting had been returned. In all likelihood
68 69 the reason for this was that the SNK kept the item that had been returned to the Netherlands, together with a painting by the artist E. van de Velde, which according to its information had been sold involuntarily Appendices by the De Boer gallery in Amsterdam. In 1949, however, De Boer stated that it could not find any records about it. The SNK assumed that Hamburger’s missing painting by or attributed to Van Goyen had not been returned to the Netherlands. Yet it emerges from the documentation referred to in consideration 3, in particular the registration form filled in by Hamburger and its accompanying photograph, that the 1. Decree Establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of 72 returned work had indeed originally been Hamburger’s property. The Committee deems the application to be admissible. Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War, 16 November 2001 (text valid until 18 July 2012). 6. Finally there needs to be an answer to the question of whether a payment obligation should be imposed in exchange for restitution of the claimed painting in connection with any consideration that was received. Under the present restitution policy, a repayment obligation is only addressed if and in so far as the former 2. Decree Establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of 78 vendor or his or her heirs actually had free control of the proceeds. In this regard the Committee finds that it is not known whether any purchase price was paid for the painting. It can be deduced from post- Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second war correspondence that the Dienststelle Mühlmann only paid a part of the overall value of the artworks World War (text valid with effect from 19 July 2012). obtained from Hamburger. The Committee believes that in these circumstances a payment obligation can be omitted in this case. 3. Overview of the documents from which the policy framework of the 81 Conclusion Restitutions Committee arises. The Restitutions Committee advises the Minister of Education, Culture and Science to restitute NK 2782 to the applicant. 4. Regulations for opinion procedure under article 2, paragraph 2, and 82 Adopted at the meeting of 9 December 2013 by W.J.M. Davids (chairman), J.T.M. Bank, R. Herrmann, article 4, paragraph 2, of the Decree Establishing the Advisory Committee P.J.N. van Os, E.J. van Straaten and H.M. Verrijn Stuart and signed by the chairman and the director. on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value (W.J.M. Davids, chairman) (E. Campfens, director) and the Second World War (text valid with effect from 3 March 2014).
5. Index by case number of the recommendations made by the Restitutions 86 Committee (2002 to 2013 inclusive).
11. Landscape with Beggars and Two Horsemen by a Ruin by J.J. van Goyen
70 71 Decree issued by the State Secretary for Education, 3. The Committee shall include at least one member whose expertise on matters concerning Culture and Science, F. van der Ploeg, establishing a World War II constitutes a substantial contribution to the work of the Committee. committee to advise the government on the restitution 4. The Committee shall include at least one member whose expertise on matters concerning art of items of cultural value of which the original owners Reference history and museology constitutes a substantial contribution to the work of the Committee. involuntarily lost possession due to circumstances directly WJZ/2001/45374(8123) 5. The Minister shall appoint the chairman, the deputy chairman and the other members for a related to the Nazi regime and which are currently in the period not exceeding three years. They shall not form part of the Ministry or work in any other possession of the State of the Netherlands (Decree Zoetermeer capacity under the responsibility of the Minister. establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of 16 November 2001 6. The chairman, the deputy chairman and the other members may be reappointed once at Restitution Applications) most.
Article 4 The State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science, F. van der Ploeg, 1. Each request for advice shall be considered by a group of at least three Committee members, to be selected by the chairman, with the proviso that at least the chairman or the Acting in accordance with the views of the Council of Ministers; deputy chairman shall be involved in the consideration of the request. 2. The Committee may issue further regulations pertaining to the method to be adopted. Having regard to Article 15, third paragraph, of the 1995 Public Records Act;
Herewith decrees as follows: Article 5 1. The Minister shall provide the Committee with a Committee Secretariat. 2. The Secretariat shall be headed by the Committee Secretary, who shall be a qualified lawyer Article 1 (meester in de rechten). For the purposes of this Decree, the terms below shall be defined as follows: 3. The Secretary shall be accountable only to the Committee for the work performed for the a. the Minister: the Minister for Education, Culture and Science; Committee. b. the Ministry: the Ministry for Education, Culture and Science; c. the Committee: the Committee as referred to in Article 2 of this Decree. Article 6 1. If required for the execution of its task, the Committee may, at a meeting, hear the person Article 2 that has submitted a restitution application as referred to in Article 2, first paragraph and a 1. There shall be a Committee whose task is to advise the Minister, at his request, on decisions Ministry representative or, as the case may be, the parties whose dispute, as referred to in to be taken concerning applications for the restitution of items of cultural value of which the Article 2, second paragraph, has been submitted to the Committee for advice. original owners involuntarily lost possession due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi 2. If required for the execution of its task, the Committee may directly approach any third parties regime and which are currently in the possession of the State of the Netherlands. in order to obtain information, and may invite such third parties to a meeting so as to learn 2. A further task of the Committee shall be to issue an opinion, on the Minister’s request, on their views. disputes concerning the restitution of items of cultural value between the original owner who, 3. The Minister shall ensure that all documents that the Committee needs in order to execute its due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime, involuntarily lost possession of such task and that are in the Ministry’s files are made available to the Committee in time and in full. an item, or the owner’s heirs, and the current possessor which is not the State of the 4. Each and every officer of the Ministry shall comply with a summons or a request issued by Netherlands. the Committee. 3. The Minister shall only submit a request for an opinion as referred to in the second paragraph 5. The restrictions relevant to the public accessibility of records as referred to in Section 1, to the Committee if and when the original owner or his heirs and the current possessor of the subsection c, under 1 and 2 of the 1995 Public Records Act that the Committee needs for the item in question have jointly asked the Minister to do so. execution of its task and are filed in State Archives shall not be applicable to the Committee. 4. The Committee shall carry out its advisory role as referred to in the first paragraph in accordance with the relevant government policy. 5. The Committee shall carry out its advisory role as referred to in the second paragraph in Article 7 accordance with the requirements of reasonableness and fairness. 1. Every year the Committee shall report to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science on the current situation regarding the tasks referred to in Article 2. 2. The first report shall be submitted in January 2003. Article 3 1. The Committee shall comprise no more than 7 members, including the chairman and the deputy chairman. Article 8 2. Both the chairman and the deputy chairman shall be qualified lawyers (meester in de The members of the Committee shall receive a fee plus reimbursement for travel and subsistence rechten). expenses in accordance with the relevant government schemes.
72 Appendix 1, p.1 – Decree establishing the Advisory Committee 72 Appendix 1, p.2 – Decree establishing the Advisory Committee 73
Article 9 Explanatory notes The Committee’s records shall be transferred to the archives of the Ministry’s Cultural Heritage Department after dissolution of the Committee or at such earlier time as may be dictated by General circumstances. The Ekkart Committee is one of the committees established in the Netherlands since 1997 to carry out research in the extensive field of post-World War II restitutions. The Committee Article 10 supervises research into the origins of the ‘NK collection’, i.e. the collection of art objects that From the date that this Decree takes effect, the following persons shall be appointed for a period were recovered from Germany after World War II and have been held by the State of the of three years: Netherlands since then. Given the size of the NK collection, which comprises some 4000 objects, a. J.M. Polak of Ede, chairman and the nature of the research, which involves tracing transactions that took place more than fifty b. B.J Asscher of Baarn, deputy chairman years ago and of which, in many cases, very few documents have survived, the Ekkart c. Prof. J. Leyten of Nijmegen Committee will not be able to finalise its research until the end of 2002. d. E. van Straaten of Beekbergen e. Prof. J.Th.M. Bank of Amsterdam In addition to supervising the research into the origins of collection items, the Committee is f. H.M. Verrijn-Stuart of Amsterdam charged with issuing recommendations to the Minister of Education, Culture and Science on the government’s restitution policy. The Committee submitted its interim recommendations to me on 26 April 2001. As stated in the accompanying letter, the Committee decided to draw up interim Article 11 recommendations because in its view the urgency of policy adaptations is such, considering, This Decree shall come into effect on the second day after the date of the Government Gazette in among other things, the advanced age of some of the interested parties, that they should be which it is published. implemented before the overall research project has been completed. In formulating its recommendations, the Committee aims to create scope for a more generous restitution policy. In its view, the strictly legal approach as laid down in the government’s policy paper of 14 July 2000 Article 12 is no longer acceptable. This Decree shall be cited as the Decree establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications. I sent the Cabinet’s response to these recommendations to the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament on 29 June 2001, and a supplementary reaction of the government by letter of 16 November 2001. In its reaction to the Ekkart Committee recommendations, the government has This Decree and the associated explanatory notes will be published in the Government Gazette. not opted for a purely legal approach to the restitution issue, but rather for a more policy-oriented approach, also in the light of international developments in these matters, in which priority is given to moral rather than strictly legal arguments. This view was expressed, for example, in the outcome of the conference held in Washington in 1998 for a global discussion of World War II The State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science assets (known as the ‘Washington Principles’). One of these principles is the establishment of “alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership issues.” Countries like France and the United Kingdom have implemented this principle and have established committees charged with judging individual applications for restitution. [signed] The establishment of an Advisory Committee in the Netherlands to consider individual F. van der Ploeg applications for restitution is consistent both with the Ekkart Committee recommendations and with the international developments outlined above. The main reason for setting up an Advisory Committee was the need for the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science to decide on applications for restitution in as objective a manner as possible. Since the Minister of Education, Culture and Science, being the possessor/administrator of the NK collection, is directly concerned in the matter, the existence of an advisory committee will enhance the independence of the decision process. By letter of 7 June 2001 the parliamentary Education, Culture and Science Committee expressed its preference for an independent committee.
Based on its own experience, the Ekkart Committee currently expects that the Advisory Committee will be asked to consider 30 to 50 cases relating to objects currently held by the State. There are no indications as yet about the number of applications that might be submitted to the Advisory Committee by private individuals, nor is it clear how many years the Committee is going to need to fulfil its tasks. The figures mentioned seem to point to a term of 3 to 5 years.
74 Appendix 1, p.3 – Decree establishing the Advisory Committee Appendix 1, p.4 – Decree establishing the Advisory Committee 75
Explanatory notes on each article Articles 3 and 4 The decisions about the Advisory Committee’s size, composition and working method were taken Article 2 with due regard to the need to balance the requirement of expertise against the requirement of The main task of the Committee is to advise the Minister of Education, Culture and Science, at efficiency in the formulation of Committee opinions. his request, on individual applications for restitution of items that form part of the NK collection. In addition, the Minister may also ask for advice on restitution applications that relate to items in the The Advisory Committee is composed in such a way that at least the legal, historical and art state collection that do not form part of the NK collection but nevertheless came into the history expertise required for the assessment of a restitution application is represented. The possession of the State due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. requirement that the chairman and deputy chairman be legal experts stems from the fact that in spite of the choice for a moral policy-oriented approach, legal expertise obviously remains Following the example of similar committees abroad and at the express request of the Lower indispensable in the assessment of the laws and regulations involved in applications for House of Parliament, the Minister may also refer to the Committee disputes between private restitution. The availability of legal expertise is ensured in all cases, given that no opinion is individuals, provided that the parties involved have made a request to that effect and provided formulated without he involvement of either the chairman or the deputy chairman. that the dispute concerns an object of which the original owner lost possession involuntarily due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. The intention is for the Advisory Committee to comprise seven members from the time of its inception. It is up to the chairman to decide which particular members, in a specific case, should The Minister will ask the Committee to give an opinion if and when he receives an application for contribute to the formulation of an opinion. The involvement of a member in a particular restitution that complies with the relevant framework conditions. The Minister himself will only application for restitution may influence this decision. The number of members to be involved in directly deal with applications that evidently fall outside the Committee’s remit, for example the opinion on a particular application will depend on the complexity of the case. As a minimum because they do not relate to the restitution of items of cultural value that were transferred within requirement, each application must be considered by the chairman or the deputy chairman and at the context of World War II. It has been decided to present the applications to the Committee via least two other committee members. the Minister so as to avoid overburdening the Committee with requests that fall outside its mandate. Article 5 The Committee’s advisory framework corresponds with the relevant outlines of government The Minister will provide a Committee Secretariat that is able to give the advisory committee the policy; first and foremost, the general government policy on World War II assets as laid down in required level of support. The Committee Secretary must be a qualified lawyer (meester in de the letter issued by the government on 21 March 2000. In addition, the government has issued rechten). In addition, the Secretariat should be able to offer research capacity as well as the rules that more specifically concern the restitution of items of cultural value. These rules form part required level of administrative and organisational support. The size of the Secretariat will be of the policy the government announced to the Lower House of Parliament in its policy paper of variable and geared to the Advisory Committee’s workload. 14 July 2000. However, the Ekkart Committee recommendations and the government’s response to them have led to major amendments to that policy. The government’s letters continue to be effective and, together with the Ekkart Committee recommendations and the government’s Article 6 response to these recommendations, constitute the policy framework within which the Advisory It is of the utmost importance that the Advisory Committee has access to all the relevant Committee is to operate. It goes without saying that any further recommendations from the Ekkart information in drawing up its recommendations: both information from claimants and information Committee in the future may cause the government to make adaptations to this policy framework. provided by the Ministry or third parties.
The Advisory Committee will judge any application for restitution in the light of this policy I have lifted the restrictions on the public accessibility of records filed in State Archives by virtue framework. It may then conclude that: of Article 15, fifth paragraph of the 1995 Public Archives Act so as to enable the Advisory - the application, while being covered by the regular legal rules, falls beyond the Advisory Committee to gather all the information it needs in the shortest possible time. This obviously only Committee’s mandate. If so, the Advisory Committee will incorporate this in its opinion to the concerns those records that are relevant to the execution of the Advisory Committee’s task. The Minister. fact that the Committee is allowed to inspect restricted documents does not automatically open - the application falls within the Advisory Committee’s mandate and therefore qualifies for an up those documents to others as well, given that the members of the Advisory Committee opinion. themselves are bound to observe secrecy under Article 2:5 of the General Administrative Law Act regarding information that comes to their knowledge and the confidential nature of which is The government also wishes to make available a facility for the settlement of disputes between evident. private individuals concerning an object of which the original owner lost possession involuntarily due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. In its assessment of such applications from private individuals the Advisory Committee will be guided by the principles of Article 10 reasonableness and fairness. By the time this Decree establishing the Advisory Committee was signed, the six persons referred to in this Article had already expressed their willingness to become members of the committee. The intervention by the Minister – since it is the Minister who refers disputes between private This is why I have provided for their appointment in this Decree. One more member will be individuals to the Advisory Committee – is the result of pragmatic considerations. As it is the appointed (separately) as soon as possible. Minister who is responsible for ensuring that the Advisory Committee receives the support it needs, the Minister must be aware of the number of opinions the Advisory Committee is expected to issue. The State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science,
[signed]
(F. van der Ploeg)
76 Appendix 1, p.5 – Decree establishing the Advisory Committee Appendix 1, p.6 – Decree establishing the Advisory Committee 77 Unofficial English translation Unofficial English translation
Decree Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Article 3 Cultural Value and the Second World War (text valid as from 19-07-2012) 1. The Committee shall comprise no more than 7 members, including the chairman and the deputy chairman. Decree Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value 2. Both the chairman and the deputy chairman shall be qualified lawyers (meester in de rechten). and the Second World War 3. The Committee shall include at least one member whose expertise on matters concerning World War II constitutes a substantial contribution to the work of the Committee. The State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science, Dr. F. van der Ploeg; 4. The Committee shall include at least one member whose expertise on matters concerning art history and museology constitutes a substantial contribution to the work of the Committee. Acting in accordance with the views of the Council of Ministers; 5. The Minister shall appoint the chairman, the deputy chairman and the other members for a period not exceeding three years. They shall not form part of the Ministry or work in any other capacity Having regard to Article 15, third paragraph, of the 1995 Public Records Act, under the responsibility of the Minister. 6. The chairman, the deputy chairman and the other members may be reappointed. Herewith decrees as follows:
Article 4 Article 1 1. Each request for advice shall be considered by a group of at least three Committee members, to For the purposes of this Decree, the terms below shall be defined as follows: be selected by the chairman, with the proviso that at least the chairman or the deputy chairman a. the Minister: the Minister for Education, Culture and Science; shall be involved in the consideration of the request. b. the Ministry: the Ministry for Education, Culture and Science; 2. The Committee may issue further regulations pertaining to the method to be adopted. c. the Committee: the Committee as referred to in Article 2 of this Decree; d. NK-collection: collection of recuperated cultural objects that are presently in the possession of the State of the Netherlands and which are registered with the National Service for Cultural Heritage Article 5 in the NK-inventory section. 1. The Minister shall provide the Committee with a Committee Secretariat. 2. The Secretariat shall be headed by the Committee Secretary, who shall be a qualified lawyer (meester in de rechten). Article 2 3. The Secretary shall be accountable only to the Committee for the work performed for the 1. There shall be a Committee whose task is to advise the Minister, at his request, on decisions to be Committee. taken concerning applications for the restitution of items of cultural value of which the original owners involuntarily lost possession due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime and which: Article 6 a. are part of the NK-collection; or 1. If required for the execution of its task, the Committee may, at a meeting, hear the person that has b. belong to the other possessions of the State of the Netherlands. submitted a restitution application as referred to in Article 2, first paragraph and a Ministry 2. A further task of the Committee shall be to issue an opinion, on the Minister’s request, on disputes representative or, as the case may be, the parties whose dispute, as referred to in Article 2, concerning the restitution of items of cultural value between the original owner who, due to second paragraph, has been submitted to the Committee for advice. circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime, involuntarily lost possession of such an item, or 2. If required for the execution of its task, the Committee may directly approach any third parties in the owner’s heirs, and the current possessor which is not the State of the Netherlands. order to obtain information, and may invite such third parties to a meeting so as to learn their 3. The Minister shall only submit a request for an opinion as referred to in the second paragraph to views. the Committee if and when the original owner or his heirs and the current possessor of the item in 3. The Minister shall ensure that all documents that the Committee needs in order to execute its task question have jointly asked the Minister to do so. and that are in the Ministry’s files are made available to the Committee in time and in full. 4. The Committee gives advice about applications within the meaning of the first paragraph, under a, 4. Each and every officer of the Ministry shall comply with a summons or a request issued by the submitted with the Minister before 30 June 2015, with due observance of the relevant government Committee. policy. Applications within the meaning of the first paragraph, under a, submitted on or after 30 5. The restrictions relevant to the public accessibility of records as referred to in Section 1, June 2015 are handled by the Committee in accordance with the fifth paragraph. subsection c, under 1 and 2 of the 1995 Public Records Act that the Committee needs for the 5. The Committee gives advice about applications within the meaning of the first paragraph, under b execution of its task and are filed in State Archives shall not be applicable to the Committee. and the second paragraph based on the principles of reasonableness and fairness. 6. In its advisory role, referred to in the first paragraph, the committee attaches great importance to the circumstances of the acquisition by the possessor and the possibility of knowledge of the Article 7 suspicious origin at the time of the acquisition of the cultural object in question. 1. Every year the Committee shall report to the Minister on the current situation regarding the tasks referred to in Article 2. 2. The first report shall be submitted in January 2003.
78 Appendix 2, p.1 – Decree (text valid as from 19-07-2012) Appendix 2, p.2 – Decree (text valid as from 19-07-2012) 79 Policy framework of the Restitutions Committee Unofficial English translation
The Decree establishing the Restitutions Committee stipulates that to the extent that the applications Article 8 The members of the Committee shall receive a fee plus reimbursement for travel and subsistence for restitution concern objects in the National Art Collection, the Committee shall conduct its advisory expenses in accordance with the relevant government schemes. task with due regard for relevant national policy. Below is an overview of the documents from which the policy framework emanates. Some of this documentation can be found in the appendices to previous
annual reports of the Committee. Article 9 The Committee’s records shall be transferred to the archives of the Ministry’s Cultural Heritage Department after dissolution of the Committee or at such earlier time as may be dictated by circumstances. Date Description
April 1998 Recommendations of the Origins Unknown Supervisory Committee Article 10 From the date that this Decree takes effect, the following persons shall be appointed for a period of 20 May 1998 State Secretary’s response to the recommendations of the Origins Unknown three years: Supervisory Committee a. mr. J.M. Polak in Ede, chairman; b. mr. B.J. Asscher of Baarn, deputy chairman; 21 March 2000 Letter to the Dutch Lower House concerning the government’s overall c. Prof. mr. J. Leyten of Nijmegen; position on WWII Assets d. Dr. E. van Straaten of Beekbergen; e. Prof. J.Th.M. Bank of Amsterdam; 14 July 2000 Letter to the Dutch Lower House concerning the government’s position on f. mr. H.M. Verrijn-Stuart of Amsterdam. restitution and recuperation of items of cultural value
26 April 2001 Recommendations by the Ekkart Committee regarding the restitution of works Article 11 of art This Decree shall come into effect on the second day after the date of the Government Gazette in which it is published. 29 June 2001 Government response to the Ekkart Committee’s recommendations
16 November 2001 Additional government response to the Ekkart Committee’s recommendations Article 12 This Decree shall be cited as: Decree Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. 28 January 2003 Ekkart Committee’s recommendations regarding the restitution of works of art belonging to art dealers This Decree and the associated explanatory notes will be published in the Government Gazette. 5 December 2003 Government response to the Ekkart Committee’s recommendations regarding The State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science, the art trade
F. van der Ploeg 14 December 2004 Ekkart Committee’s final recommendations
8 March 2005 Government response to the Ekkart Committee’s final recommendations
22 June 2012 Letter from the State Secretary of OCW to the Lower House with his response to the advice of the Council for Culture about the restitution policy in regard to items of cultural value. Appendix to this letter: Advice of the Council for Culture about the policy for restituting items of cultural value, 25 January 2012.
4 July 2012 Decree regarding an amendment of the Decree Establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War, in connection with evaluation of the restitution policy.
80 Appendix 2, p.3 – Decree (text valid as from 19-07-2012) Appendix 3 – Policy framework of the Restitutions Committee 81 N.B. These new regulations were published on 3 March 2014, and have applied since then. See Appendix 4 of Report 2012 or the website (http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en/publications.html) for a copy of the old regulations, which applied until 3 March 2014.
Please note this is an unauthorised translation of the original Dutch text “Reglement inzake adviesprocedure in b. this is a dispute on the substance of which a court has already given a decision, or het kader van artikel 2, tweede lid, en artikel 4, tweede lid, Besluit adviescommissie restitutieverzoeken c. the applicant has previously explicitly relinquished his or her rights to the work at issue, cultuurgoederen en Tweede Wereldoorlog” or d. it emerges that the applicant does not represent all those entitled to the assets of the Regulations for opinion procedure under Article 2, paragraph 2, and Article 4, supposed original owner. paragraph 2 of the Decree establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. The hearing of disputes
Definition Article 5 1. The application is submitted to the Minister and may be addressed to the Committee. Article 1 2. Both parties request the Minister to submit their dispute to the Committee in accordance The terms used in these regulations are defined as follows: with Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Decree. a. the Committee: the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications 3. After the Minister has presented the dispute to the Committee, it will hear the dispute for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War pursuant to the Decree after the parties have stated in writing that they accept these regulations and that they establishing the advisory committee on the assessment of restitution applications accept the opinion to be issued by the committee as binding. (hereinafter the Decree); 4. If the parties, after a request to that effect, have not complied with the stipulation referred b. the Secretariat: the Secretariat as referred to in Article 5 of the Decree; to in paragraph 3 within four weeks, the dispute will not be heard. c. the Minister: the Minister of Education, Culture and Science; 5. The Committee may extend the terms. d. the Ministry: the Ministry of Ministry of Education, Culture and Science; 6. The chairman decides which Committee members will issue the binding opinion. e. the work: the item or items of cultural value, as referred to in Article 2, paragraph 2 of the
Decree, that is or are the subject matter of the dispute; Article 6 f. the applicant: the person applying for restitution of the work; 1. The Committee sends both parties these regulations and notifies them in writing that it g. the owner: the current owner, other than the State of the Netherlands; has received the request for an opinion from the Minister. h. the parties: the applicant and the owner. 2. The Committee gives the parties the opportunity to provide an explanation concerning
their viewpoint within six weeks and to provide the Committee with further information.
Task 3. In their explanation, each of the parties can express the wish that:
a. the Committee conducts further investigation, if required, of specified items, and Article 2 b. there is a hearing. 1. At the request of the Minister, the Committee has the task of giving an opinion to the 4. The Committee may decide at any point during the handling that: parties about disputes concerning the return of the work. a. there will be a hearing; 2. The Committee does this by issuing a binding opinion within the meaning of Article 7:900 b. the Committee will obtain information and/or conduct further investigation itself; of the Dutch Civil Code (contract of settlement) or by promoting a settlement between c. the parties will be given the opportunity to respond subject to a term of six weeks the parties. and/or
d. the applicant and/or the owner will provide further documents or information, such as Article 3 a certificate of inheritance, subject to a term to be set by the Committee. The Committee issues an opinion on the basis of reasonableness and fairness and may, in 5. The Committee may extend the terms. any event, take the following into consideration:
a. internationally and nationally accepted principles such as the Washington Principles and Article 7 the government’s policy guidelines concerning the restitution of looted art in so far as 1. Should the Committee decide that it will carry out further investigation itself, it will record they are applicable; its findings in an overview of the facts. b. the circumstances in which possession of the work was lost; 2. The Committee sends the overview of the facts to the parties. The parties may respond c. the extent to which the applicant has endeavoured to recover the work; to it in writing within a term of six weeks. d. the circumstances in which the owner acquired the work and the inquiries the owner 3. At the request of the parties, the Committee will arrange for an (unauthorised) English made prior to acquiring it; translation of the overview of the facts. e. the significance of the work to the applicant; 4. Should further investigation be limited to hearing witnesses or experts or having f. the significance of the work to the owner; research conducted by one or more experts it designates, it will then suffice for the g. the significance of the work to public art collections. Committee to send the report concerned to the parties, to which they may respond within
a term of two weeks.
Admissibility 5. The Committee may extend the terms.
Article 4 Article 8 The Committee can declare an application inadmissible if: 1. Should the Committee decide that a hearing is to take place, it sets the place, day and a. it concerns a dispute regarding which one of the parties has already instituted time and informs the parties accordingly. proceedings before a court, or
1 2
82 Appendix 4, p.1 – Regulations on binding opinion procedure Appendix 4, p.2 – Regulations on binding opinion procedure 83
2. The Committee may allow the parties to bring witnesses or experts and have them Article 15 heard. The names and addresses of such persons are to be given to the Committee at 1. One or both parties may object to a member of the Committee on the basis of facts or least two weeks before the hearing. circumstances that might make the formation of an impartial opinion difficult. 3. In regard to the planned hearing, the parties may send documents to the Committee at 2. Having regard to the provisions in Article 4 of the Decree, the chairman decides about least four weeks beforehand. allowing an objection. If the objection concerns the chairman, the vice-chair decides. 3. A member of the Committee may claim exemption in respect of a dispute on the basis of Article 9 facts or circumstances as referred to in the first paragraph. The member is obliged to do The Committee sends copies of the documents it receives from a party to the other party. so if the Committee's chairman is of the opinion that the said facts and circumstances do indeed exist in his or her case. Article 10 4. The parties are informed of the decision as referred to in the second paragraph. If the parties reach a settlement, the Committee will record its contents in the form of a binding opinion. Publication
Opinion Article 16 The Committee may publicize its opinion, if necessary by anonymizing personal details, Article 11 unless one of the parties has compelling reasons why that should not be done.. Among other things the Committee may recommend that: a. the work be handed over to the applicant; Liability b. the work be handed over to an impartial third party on behalf of all those entitled to the assets of the former owner, if necessary subject to the provisions of an arrangement Article 17 about the associated costs; The chairman, vice-chairman, members, director and other Committee staff are not liable for c. the work be handed over for a consideration, to be specified, to be paid by the applicant any actions or omissions with regard to a dispute the parties have submitted to the to the owner; Committee. d. the work be handed over to the applicant subject to further provisions; e. rejection of the request for restitution; Reversal f. rejection of the request for restitution, subject to the obligation on the owner to exhibit the work stating the provenance and the original owner; Article 18 g. rejection of the request for restitution, subject to the specification of a consideration to be 1. The Dutch courts are exclusively competent to rule on disputes about the binding force paid by the owner to the applicant; on the parties of a binding opinion issued by the Committee. h. rejection of the request for restitution subject to further provisions. 2. The Committee’s binding opinion may only be reversed if it has been submitted to the ordinary court for review within two months after the opinion was sent to the parties. This Article 12 relates exclusively to review as referred to in Title 15 of Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code. 1. The Committee's chairman or vice-chair and the director sign the opinion, which is sent The opinion becomes irreversible if the decision is not submitted to the ordinary court to the parties with a copy to the Minister. within the said term. 2. The Committee's Chairman may correct evident errors and/or evident calculation or writing errors in the opinion, either on his or her own accord or in response to a written Unforeseen request from one of the parties submitted no later than two weeks after the opinion was sent. Article 19 3. The parties are informed in writing of any changes or corrections. The Committee decides in all cases not provided for in these regulations on the basis of the yardsticks of reasonableness and fairness. Article 13 1. The handing over takes place where the work is located, unless the Committee decides Transitional and final provisions otherwise. 2. Any costs incurred by the parties themselves with regard to the handling of the dispute Article 20 and the implementation of the opinion are to be borne by the parties, unless the 1. These regulations will be published on the Committee’s website. Committee decides otherwise. 2. The regulations will take effect as soon as they have been published. 3. The regulations as sent to the parties will apply to any cases being considered at the Confidentiality, objection and exemption time the regulations take effect.
Article 14 Article 21 Without prejudice to the provisions in articles 9, 12 and 16, the Committee is obliged to treat These regulations were adopted at the Committee meeting on 3 December 2007 and as confidential all information relating to the parties of which it has become cognizant during amended at the meetings on 12 January 2009, 19 September 2011 and 27 January 2014. the handling of the dispute.
3 4
84 Appendix 4, p.3 – Regulations on binding opinion procedure Appendix 4, p.4 – Regulations on binding opinion procedure 85 Index recommendations Restitutions Committee by case number (2002 to 2013) RC case no. Recommendation Date regarding: recommendation RC case no. Recommendation Date regarding: recommendation 1.51 Art dealership Mossel 7 January 2008 1.52 An eighteenth-century commode in the style of Louis XVI 12 February 2007 1.1 Paschal Lamb by J. Beuckelaer 25 March 2002 1.53 Van Brabant 4 February 2008 1.2 The Gutmann collection 25 March 2002 1.54 Unloading the hay wagon by Isaac van Ostade 1 October 2007 1.3 Venus in Vulcan's Smithy after F. Boucher 22 April 2002 1.55 Reclining Nude by J.C.B. Sluijters 11 June 2007 1.4 Portrait of a man with a greyhound by Thomas de Keyser and 1.56 A bamboo quiver and an oak three-door milk cupboard 12 March 2007 The sleeping innkeeper after Nicolaas Maes 7 April 2003 1.57 Van Messel 4 February 2008 1.5 Portrait of a woman with a little dog and 1.58 An eighteenth-century Savonnerie carpet 16 April 2007 View of Binnen-Amstel and the Blauwbrug 23 September 2002 1.59 Letowski 6 August 2007 1.6 The Koenigs collection 3 November 2003 1.60 A bronze statue Stonemason by C.E. Meunier 13 April 2011 1.7 Portrait of Don Luis de Requessens y Zuñiga 28 October 2002 1.61-A Arnhold (A) 21 November 2011 1.8 Still life with kippers, oysters and smokers' accessories 1.61-B Arnhold (B) 17 December 2012 by Floris van Schooten 24 April 2003 1.62 Art dealership Staal 7 April 2008 1.9 Still life with fish on trestle table by Van Beyeren 18 September 2003 1.63 China 'Famille Rose' plate with flower vase decor 7 January 2008 1.10 Art dealership J. Stodel 18 April 2005 1.64 Art dealership Rubens 6 May 2008 1.11 The Rhine near Coblenz by Gerard Battem 18 September 2003 1.65 Nardus 6 April 2009 1.12 18th century Frankfurts cupboard 18 September 2003 1.66 Lachmann 3 March 2008 1.13 Herri met de Bles 29 June 2005* 1.67 Oppenheimer 4 February 2008 1.14 Three paintings by Troost and Van der Mijn owned abroad 7 February 2005 1.68 Weijers 1 December 2008 1.15 Goudstikker 19 December 2005 1.69 A tin Maccabee lamp 3 December 2007 1.16 Elegant company making music on a terrace by Dirk Hals 15 December 2003 1.70 Larsen 1 July 2009 1.17 Fisherman on horseback by Jozef Israëls 22 March 2004 1.71 Behrens 3 July 2008 1.18 Four nineteenth-century landscapes 18 May 2004 1.72 Dotsch 3 July 2008 1.19 Art dealership Vecht 30 March 2005 1.73 Von Podwinetz 2 June 2008 1.20 Three paintings by Troost and Van der Mijn owned abroad 7 February 2005 1.75 Semmel 1 July 2009 1.22 Family portrait by J.M. Quinckhard 6 March 2006 1.76 May 10 November 2008 1.24 Venus and Adonis with Amor by J.A. Uytewael 7 September 2005 1.77 Proehl 9 February 2009 1.25 Landscape with river and windmills by J.M. Graadt van Roggen 27 June 2005 1.78 Bachstitz 14 September 2009 1.26 Charles, Prince de Rohan Soubise by J.F. Voet and 1.79 Heppner 9 March 2009 four 18th-century Louis XV armchairs 3 July 2006 1.80 Von Pannwitz 6 April 2009 1.27 A saucer and the painting Woman and child at a cradle 1.81 Schönemann 12 October 2009 by J.S.H. Kever 12 March 2007 1.82-A Rosenbaum (A) 31 January 2011 1.28 Poultry by M. d'Hondecoeter and Saint Peter repentant by G. Reni 24 April 2006 1.82-B Rosenbaum (B) 19 December 2011 1.29 Three men in a boat on turbulent water by A.H. Lier and 1.84 Cassirer 6 April 2009 Mountain landscape with castle by T. le Feubure 12 June 2006 1.86 Wassermann 1 December 2008 1.30 A ceremonial Kiddush cup 3 April 2006 1.87 Art dealership Van Lier 6 April 2009 1.31 Wooded landscape with shepherd and cattle by B.C. Koekkoek 3 July 2006 1.88 Bachstitz (II) 12 January 2009 1.32 Drawing by Hendrick Goltzius on the back of a playing card 15 May 2006 1.89-A Mautner (A) 12 October 2009 1.33 A girl in a pastoral dress holding a basket by J. van Noordt 12 March 2007 1.89-B Mautner (B) 17 December 2012 1.34 Still life with fruit and dead fowl by J. Fyt 14 May 2007 1.90-A Art dealership Katz (A) 1 July 2009 1.36 Portrait of a man by N. de Largillière 31 July 2006 1.90-B Art dealership Katz (B) 17 December 2012 1.37 Art dealership Mozes Mogrobi 12 February 2007 1.91 Adelsberger 9 March 2009 1.38 Estate of Anne Frank 24 April 2006 1.96 Stern 3 May 2010 1.39 Von Marx-May 25 June 2007 1.98 Art dealership Koch 3 June 2013 1.41 Wooded landscape with herd near a pond by J.S. van Ruysdael 27 November 2006 1.97 Hollander 12 October 2009 1.42 Hakker/Anholt 12 March 2007 1.99 Glaser 4 October 2010 1.43 Couple in an Interior after A. van Ostade 14 May 2007 1.100 Zadick 3 May 2010 1.44 The circumcision, anonymous, previously attributed to 1.101 Wolf 9 November 2009 Meester van Kappenburg 18 December 2006 1.102 Van Aldenburg Bentinck 6 September 2010 1.46 Kaufmann 18 December 2006 1.103 S. van Leeuwen 2 April 2012 1.47 Four gilded silver chalices and a fiftheenth-century silver crosier 14 May 2007 1.104 A persian medallion carpet (Wolf/Van den Bergh) 29 March 2010 1.49 Art dealership Stodel (II) 7 April 2008 1.105 Rosenberg 3 May 2010 1.50 Marcus de Vries 3 December 2007 1.106 De Haan 13 October 2011 1.107 Morpurgo (II) 5 March 2012
* no substantive advice
86 Appendix 5, p.1 – Index recommendations by case number Appendix 5, p.2 – Index recommendations by case number 87 RC case no. Recommendation Date regarding: recommendation
1.108 Mathiason 31 January 2011 1.109 Joseph Stodel 7 June 2010 1.110 Von Goldschmidt-Rothschild 6 December 2012 1.111 Mayer 7 March 2011 1.112 May (II) 19 September 2011 1.113 Gutmann (II) 29 June 2010 1.114-A Gutmann (III) 6 December 2010 1.114-B A sculpture in Fritz Gutmann's collection 11 April 2011 1.115-A Gutmann (IV-A) 19 December 2011 1.115-B A Gubbio dish from the Gutmann collection (Gutmann IV-B) 21 June 2012 1.116 Hiegentlich 14 November 2011 1.117 Jonas 19 December 2011 4.118 Weijers (II) 6 September 2010 4.119 De Vries (II) 6 September 2012 1.120 A bronze sculpture Hercules (Oppenheimer II) 7 June 2011 4.123 Koenigs (II) 12 November 2013 4.124 Larsen (II) 22 March 2013 4.125 Van Aldenburg Bentinck II 5 March 2012 Publication of: The Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution 1.130 Hamburger (II) 9 December 2013 Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War 1.133 Tapestry Chastity with two putti (Oppenheimer III) 8 April 2013 1.134 Goudstikker - Kummerlé collection 2 September 2013 1.137 Hamburger 4 March 2013 Visiting address: Lange Voorhout 13 Postal address: P.O. Box 556
RC case no. Binding opinion Date 2501 CN The Hague, The Netherlands regarding: binding opinion tel: +31 (0)70 376 59 92 e-mail: [email protected] 3.45 A Prayer Before Supper by Jan Toorop (Flersheim I) 7 April 2008 internet: www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en 3.48 Thames at London by Jan Toorop (Flersheim II) 3 March 2008 3.93 The Marriage of Tobias and Sarah by Jan Steen (Von Saher/The Hague Municipal Council) 6 October 2008 Text and production: The office of the Restitutions Committee 3.95 Road to Calvary, Brunswijker monogrammist 3 May 2010 3.126 The Landing Stage by M.F. van der Hulst 25 April 2013 (Semmel/Groninger Museum) Translated by: Lynne & Paul Richards, Seaford, England 3.127 Stag Hunt in the Dunes by Gerrit Claesz. Bleker (Semmel/ 25 April 2013 Language Unlimited Municipality of Haarlem) 3.128 Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well by B. Strozzi 25 April 2013 (Semmel/De Fundatie) Lay-out: Studio Eric Dietz BNO, Leiden 3.129 Allegory of autumn by Jacob de Wit (Gutmann/Province 3 September 2012 of Drenthe) Illustration credits: Cover Keramiekmuseum Princessehof 3.131 Madonna and Child with Wild Roses by Jan van Scorel 25 April 2013 (Semmel/Centraal Museum) Fig. 1, 3 Fred Ernst Fig. 2 National Archives of the Netherlands / Spaarnestad Photo / Anefo Fig. 4, 5 RCE Fig. 6 Groninger Museum Fig. 7 Tom Haartsen Fig. 8 Museum De Fundatie Fig. 9 Centraal Museum Utrecht Fig. 10 Studio Tromp, Rotterdam Fig. 11 Limburgs Museum
Published: May 2014
88 Appendix 5, p.3 – Index recommendations by case number