Document Type

Article

Disciplines

International Law

Abstract

A remarkable event recently occurred. The North Carolina Museum of Art - presented with evidence that a sixteenth-century German Renaissance painting in its collection had been confiscated by the Nazis from a Viennese collector, Dr. Philipp von Gomperz, in 1940 - returned the painting to Gomperz's heirs.2 There was no litigation. The Museum did not force the heirs to prove their claim in court. It did not defend on the ground that the statute of limitations barred the heirs' claim. Nor did it argue that returning the painting would open the floodgates to a myriad of claims against museums about their collections. Indeed, the heirs did not even have to hire an attorney: Monica Dugot, the Deputy Director of the New York State Holocaust Claims Processing Office, part of the State Banking Department, negotiated on behalf of the heirs and helped to achieve the resolution of this matter.

Moreover, the heirs were so taken with the Museum's beneficence that they agreed to sell their painting back to the Museum at substantially below the market price, reflecting what they called a "partial donation" because, as they put it, "the public should know that the heirs of Philipp Gomperz appreciate the sense ofjustice shown by the [Museum's] decision to restitute the painting." 3 And the State of North Carolina was so impressed with the whole affair that it presented Ms. Dugot with a special state medal, never before given to a non-resident of North Carolina.

Perhaps doing the right thing, as the Museum did in this case, should not be thought of as remarkable. Unfortunately, however, claims to Nazi-looted art have not always been resolved in this manner. Indeed, based on the claims reportedly asserted thus far in the United States, it is fair to say that claimants should be prepared for litigation - perhaps long drawn-out litigation - to reclaim their Nazilooted property. By way of example, one rather famous (or infamous) case with which I have been closely involved - the claim of the heirs of Lea Bondi to "Portrait of Wally," painted by Egon Schiele - has been litigated for three years against two museums that have not only aggressively fought the claim of a Holocaust victim's heirs, but fought the Government of the United States as well as the New York District Attorney, all in order to prevent the restitution of a painting stolen by a Nazi agent over sixty years ago.

After providing some brief historical background, this article will discuss some of the burdens that claimants of Nazi-plundered art will need to overcome in order to establish their claims to ownership. Certain of these burdens would apply, of course, to any litigation seeking to recover stolen cultural property, such as suits brought by foreign governments seeking to recover looted antiquities. But some issues are particularly relevant in the context of Nazi-looted art. I will conclude with an overview, and summary of the current status, of the Portrait of Wally/Schiele painting litigation.

Accessibility Requirements

1

Download

Share

COinS