Publication date: 4 December 2020
Even if the Restitutions Committee recommends to return looted art, it is not certain that the work of art will actually return to its rightful claimants. It could be that the work of art is irreplaceable and indispensable to Dutch cultural heritage.
Even if the Restitutions Committee recommends to return looted art, it is not certain that the work of art will actually return to its rightful claimants. It could be that the work of art is irreplaceable and indispensable to Dutch cultural heritage and may not leave the Netherlands.
The Dutch government’s art property contains works of art that may have been looted by the Nazis. The owners therefore involuntarily lost possession of these works of art. This applies in particular to the Collectie Nationaal Kunstbezit (NK-collectie; Netherlands Art Property Collection). Next of kin of the original owners of these objects can submit a request for restitution to the Restitutions Committee. The Restitutions Committee assesses the request by looking at the interests of the claimants and those of the current owner, among other things. In addition, the interests of public art property are taken into account. If the Restitutions Committee is convinced of the legitimacy of the claim, it advises the Minister of Education, Culture and Science to return the work of art. This concludes that case and the work of art can be returned, can’t it?
If the government wishes to dispose of a cultural good or collection, this must always be published on the basis of the Heritage Act. It is done by publishing the intention to alienate the cultural good in the Staatscourant (Government Gazette). See, for example, this recent publication. Then, everyone has six weeks in which to submit an opinion “on the question whether the cultural object or collection is of special cultural-historical or scientific significance and is irreplaceable and indispensable to Dutch cultural property”. Besides, the Minister can ask a special committee for advice on this. If the answer to the question is positive, the work of art can be designated a protected cultural property. This scheme also applies to the implementation of a recommendation by the Restitutions Committee.
A designation as protected cultural property means that a work of art cannot be sold, given away, auctioned, leased, and given in loan without permission. Relocation within the Netherlands must also be reported.
Most relevant in this context, however, is the provision that the owner needs permission from the Minister if he wants to take the work abroad. It does not matter whether it concerns sale, loan, or moving it to the owner’s home.
Most looted art was owned by Jewish families. During and after the Nazi regime, these families were often scattered all over the world. Thus, many claims come from abroad.
The consequence of the procedure for alienation is that after a successful claim there will still be the chance that they will not be able to freely dispose of their property. Surely that is not what this procedure is for? Besides, the Restitutions Committee has already taken into account the interests of public art possession in its judgment. Why should the Committee’s decision be called into question in this way? And why should it be called in question by the government itself?
The underlying problem is that the scheme for the designation as protected cultural good does not take into account the special situation of restitution. The procedure is based on the situation that the owner of a cultural object in the Netherlands is a resident of the Netherlands, as can be seen, for example, from the provision that a protected cultural good may not go to a non-resident in the event of a division of an estate. However, in the case of restitution claims this principle is not correct.
Fortunately, so far it has not occurred that a work of art had to remain in the Netherlands after its return. This is partly due to a reluctant designation policy. However, this policy was terminated on the advice on the Pechtold Committee in December 2019.
The same Committee also recommended that the ongoing evaluation of the restitution policy should include “a final judgement on whether returned art could qualify for designation” (Recommendation 3.2). In our opinion, this evaluation is indeed highly desirable and there can only be one answer: an unequivocal “no”. Art to be returned should not be preserved for the Netherlands via this “detour”. This is not compatible with the core idea of restitution: the reparation of the material injustice done to victims of persecution. In other words: art objects lost involuntarily must return to the original owners or their descendants.
So what can be done? Of course, in consultation with the rightful owners it is possible to see whether they are willing to leave the work of art in the Netherlands. This has happened, for example, in a case handled by Russell Advocaten at the Restitutions Committee. After the restitution application was granted, Jan Toorop’s painting “Gebed voor de maaltijd” was bought again by the Zeeuws Museum. However, this will always be on a voluntary basis and not enforced by an instruction. This is not compatible with the Washington Principles.
Do you have any questions about he new policy of the Dutch Art Property Collection? Do you want to know what the consequences might be for your art property? Or are you looking for advice about the sale of art outside the Netherlands, distribution of art in the family, or all other art related questions? Please contact our team of specialized lawyers of call or Paul W.L. Russell, LL.M. (email@example.com).
The Advisory Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property (also referred to Pechtold Committee) presented its advice to the Minister of Culture on 30 September 2019. What are the consequences, among others for art dealers, collectors and foundations?read on
Proceedings do not always have to be in court. There are other ways to resolve legal disputes. An important and often also appealing alternative is arbitration. In particular if you are doing business internationally. What are the advantages of arbitration?read on
Russell Advocaten has for the 17th consecutive year in a row been included in The Legal 500. We are pleased with the recognition for the quality of our legal services by experts and clients. Please read what they say about us:read on
The Dutch restitution policy returns to its original principles and is rightly becoming more generous. Cases that have already been settled can also be resubmitted. What will change in the policy?read on
The sale of a drawing by Rubens, owned by Princess Christina, at an auction in New York caused great indignation and a discussion about the policy for cultural heritage in the Netherlands. This resulted in two advice committees, the Pechtold Committee and the Buma Committee. The latter has issued an interim opinion, that, if adopted, could have serious consequences for art collectors and art dealers in the Netherlands.read on
The outcome of legal proceedings, both in the US and the EU, is often determined by the quality of evidence. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to collect as much evidence as possible before initiating legal proceedings. But what if a third party refuses to give you relevant documents? Eileen Pluijm of Russell Advocaten and Kelsey Weiss of U.S. law firm Mateer Harbert explain which options you have.read on
Russell Advocaten noticed in its proceedings before the Dutch Restitutions Committee that the committee increasingly attached importance to the interest of the current owners. This is contrary to the Washington Principles. The committee appointed to evaluate Dutch restitution policy agrees with us in its “Striving for Justice” report.read on