MILLION DOLLARS OF LOST ART: THE STORY OF NAZI LOOTED ARTIFACTS by Elina Palmer

Author:Elina, Palmer
Language: eng
Format: epub
Published: 2021-06-13T16:00:00+00:00

1.4

Concluding Remarks on the Material Norm

Inconsistencies in outcomes, as seen in the categories of ‘early sales’, ‘sales by art dealers’

and ‘ Fluchtgut’ sales, illustrates that there exists no clear definition of what is considered an unjustified taking (‘Nazi confiscation’) within the context of the ‘just and fair’ rule. In addition to establishing what constitutes a ‘forced sale’ – and the limits of that concept –

there are many other difficulties in determining a ‘just and fair solution’. How, for example, to deal with the interests of a new possessor, who may have acquired the artefact for a considerable sum of money and in good faith (as in the French Pissarro case noted in the introduction)? Furthermore, how should earlier compensation or settlements influence the outcome of present-day claims?

And on another note: is it justifiable to take into account the interests of the general public in cases involving important works of art in museums, in line with the internationalist Semmel collection regarding The Landing Stage by Van der Hulst in the Groninger Museum, and RC 1.75 of 1 July 2009 regarding Semmel), the artefacts were returned. This is explained by a difference in policy lines between cases that concern the Dutch State collection of heirless art and cases concerning other collections. In the latter category, the Committee balances the interests of the parties, while in the category concerning the heirless art collection, the policy is more lenient.

86

(RC 3.128), (RC 3.131) and (RC 3.126). As explained, the committee recommended restitution only in the case (RC 3.126).

87

Toledo Museum of Art v. Claude George Ullin, et al., No. 3:06 CV 7031, US Dist. N.D. Ohio, 28

Dec. 2006, at 7. Concluding: “Defendants [the Nathan heirs, EC] can prove no set of facts that entitle them to relief.”

88

Detroit Institute of Arts v. Ullin, Slip Copy, 2007 WL 1016996 (E.D. Mich. 2007). For a pending US ‘Fluchtgut’ case see Zuckerman v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Index No. 1:16-cv-07665, Complaint, U.S. Dist. (C.D. New York, S. D., 30 Sept. 2016).

(or ‘universalist’) notion in the cultural property debate?89 How to see, for example, the disappearance of an iconic painting like the Klimt portrait of Adele Bloch Bauer II from public display?90 If the interest of the general public would be considered a relevant factor in the setting of dispute resolution regarding Nazi-looted art, those interests would amount to an argument against the return of such works to private ownership. In that view, a financial settlement would be the preferred solution over restitution by a museum into private hands, as is often done in practice. This in turn raises another question, particularly if compensation was previously awarded in the post-war period under the provisions of the Settlement Convention mentioned above: when will a case be settled definitively?

Every case is different and, as such, alternative procedures, with the flexibility to accommodate creative and fact-specific solutions, may be needed. This also requires the availability of neutral and transparent procedures to further develop the fair and just norm.

However, at a procedural level, there

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.