Legal Opinion regarding the question of whether, in the period between 1923 and 1948, the Republic of Austria acquired a claim to or ownership of the paintings Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, Apple Tree I, Beech Forest (Birch Forest), and Houses in Unterach am Attersee, and whether, pursuant to § 1 of Austria's Federal Act Regarding the Restitution of Artworks from Austrian Federal Museums and Collections dated 4th December 1998, authority exists to restitute the paintings without remuneration to the heirs of Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer. Professor Rudolf Welser Professor of Civil Law and Chairman of the Institute of Civil Law, University of Vienna and Assistant Professor Christian Rabl Assistant Professor at the Institute of Civil Law, University of Vienna Table of Contents BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS................................................5 FACTS OF THE CASE AND QUESTION PRESENTED ...........................................8 A. FACTS OF THE CASE ...............................................................................................8 B. QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................................................................27 LEGAL ANALYSIS........................................................................................................28 A. THE LEGAL NATURE OF ADELE BLOCH-BAUER'S "REQUEST": NON-BINDING WISH OR BINDING INSTRUCTION? .......................................................................28 I. CLARIFYING THE MATTER BY INTERPRETING THE WILL ............................................28 II. PRINCIPLES FOR INTERPRETING WILLS ......................................................................28 III. APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES TO THE PRESENT CASE ..................................................30 1. Ordinary Use of Language and Specialist Legal Language.................................30 2. The Significance of the "Legacy" to the Vienna People's and Workers' Library..32 3. Further Evidence that the Request is Non-binding ...............................................33 4. The Interpretation Rule Pursuant to § 614 of the General Civil Code Applies By Way of Analogy......................................................................................................................34 IV. SUMMARY................................................................................................................35 B. ADELE BLOCH-BAUER'S "REQUEST" AS A BINDING ORDER..................36 I. A LEGACY OF THE TESTATRIX, OR A TESTAMENTARY ORDER DIRECTED AT THE HEIR?36 II. PROPERTY OF ADELE BLOCH-BAUER ........................................................................38 III. PROPERTY OF FERDINAND BLOCH-BAUER ...............................................................39 1. The Finanzprokurator's Arguments ......................................................................40 2. Response................................................................................................................40 a) Bequest of an Item of Property of Another Party Pursuant to § 662 of the General Civil Code ......................................................................................................................40 b) Bequest of an Item of the Heir's Property Due Upon the Heir's Death ............42 IV. INDICATIONS IN ADELE BLOCH-BAUER'S WILL REGARDING OWNERSHIP; LEGAL PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF FERDINAND BLOCH BAUER'S OWNERSHIP .........................48 1. Indications in Adele Bloch-Bauer's Will Regarding Ownership...........................48 2. Legal Presumption in Favor of Ferdinand Bloch Bauer's Ownership .................49 a) § 1237 Section 2 Old Version and § 1247 of the General Civil Code..............49 b) Application to the Present Case ........................................................................52 V. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................54 C. FERDINAND BLOCH-BAUER'S DECLARATION TO THE PROBATE COURT ...........................................................................................................................................56 I. QUESTION PRESENTED................................................................................................56 2 II. INTERPRETATION .......................................................................................................57 1. The Finanzprokurator's Arguments ......................................................................57 2. Response................................................................................................................57 a) Acknowledgement.............................................................................................57 b) Promise to Donate.............................................................................................63 III. INTER VIVOS GIFT AND AGREEMENT REGARDING CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AS ACTUAL SURRENDER AS DEFINED IN § 943 OF THE GENERAL CIVIL CODE ..................................65 1. The Finanzprokurator's Arguments ......................................................................65 2. Response................................................................................................................66 IV. SUMMARY................................................................................................................71 D. DR. FÜHRER'S TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN 1938 AND 1945 ........................73 I. DR. FÜHRER'S ACTIONS ..............................................................................................73 II. THE FINANZPROKURATOR'S ARGUMENTS..................................................................74 III. RESPONSE ................................................................................................................75 IV. SUMMARY................................................................................................................76 E. APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL ACT REGARDING THE RESTITUTION OF ARTWORKS FROM AUSTRIAN FEDERAL MUSEUMS AND COLLECTIONS DATED 4TH DECEMBER 1998, FEDERAL LEGAL GAZETTE I 1998/181.........................77 I. THE FEDERAL LAW OF 4TH DECEMBER 1998, FEDERAL LEGAL GAZETTE I 1998/18177 1. Basic Principles.....................................................................................................77 2. The Intentions of the Legislator ............................................................................78 II. APPLICABILITY OF § 1 PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE RESTITUTION ACT 1998......................80 III. APPLICABILITY OF § 1 PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE RESTITUTION ACT 1998 ....................80 1. Analysis of the Legal Elements..............................................................................80 2. Application to the Present Case............................................................................81 IV. APPLICABILITY OF § 1 PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE RESTITUTION ACT 1998....................84 1. Legal Elements ......................................................................................................84 2. The Finanzprokurator's Arguments ......................................................................85 3. Application of § 1 Paragraph 1 of the Restitution Act 1998 to the Present Case.86 a) Subject of a Restitution .....................................................................................86 b) Transfer of Ownership to the Federal Government after 8th May 1945 Without Remuneration in the Course of Export Ban Proceedings Arising from the Restitution ...............................................................................................................................91 c) Property of the Republic ...................................................................................96 d) Result ................................................................................................................96 V. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................96 F. SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................100 I. ADELE BLOCH BAUER'S INSTRUCTIONS ....................................................................100 II. FERDINAND BLOCH-BAUER'S DECLARATION TO THE PROBATE COURT...................102 III. APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL ACT REGARDING THE RESTITUTION OF ARTWORKS FROM AUSTRIAN FEDERAL MUSEUMS AND COLLECTIONS DATED 4TH DECEMBER 1998, FEDERAL LEGAL GAZETTE I 1998/181 ........................................................................................106 3 4 Brief Summary of the Main Conclusions I. In the period between 1923 and 1948, the Republic of Austria did not acquire a claim to or ownership of the Klimt paintings. 1. Adele Bloch-Bauer's testamentary request to her husband Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer to leave the paintings to the Austrian Gallery after his death constitutes a non-binding wish, and therefore does not constitute the basis for any estate law claims. Even if one assumed there was an intention to establish an obligation, that testamentary order would be ineffective, as it would encroach upon Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer's testamentary freedom. It would only be possible to convert the ineffective testamentary order into a reversionary-heir legacy if the paintings were the property of Adele Bloch-Bauer. A conversion of this kind is impermissible, as it would encroach upon testamentary freedom if the paintings were the property of Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer. Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer