Thyssen keeps stolen artwork
Judge rules museum 'rightfully owns' Nazi-looted painting
A Spanish museum is allowed to keep an artwork that the Nazis took from a Jewish woman in 1939, a judge ruled.Madrid's Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum has fought a 14-year legal battle in the US with the family of Lilly Cassirer. Ms Cassirer was forced to trade the valuable Camille Pissarro painting for her freedom as she tried to flee Germany, just before the war.
A federal judge in California ruled that legally it belongs to the museum, which acquired it in 1993.
According to Spanish law, if a collector or museum does not know that an artwork was looted when they acquire it, then they are legally entitled to keep it.
But the judge, John Walter, criticised Spain for not keeping to the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art - an international agreement to return Nazi-looted art to the descendants of the people they were taken from.
Some 44 nations, including Spain, signed it in 1998.
In his written decision, Judge Walter said that despite being legally entitled to keep the artwork, Spain's insistence on keeping the painting - Pissarro's Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effects of Rain - was "inconsistent" with the agreement.
Washington Principles, he said, was "based upon the moral principle that art and cultural property confiscated by the Nazis from Holocaust victims should be returned to them or their heirs".
He also said that Baron Hans-Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the German industrialist who bought the painting from a US dealer in 1976, should have been aware of the "sufficient circumstances or 'red flags'" that signalled it had been looted - such as missing and damaged provenance labels.
His decision leaves open the possibility of appeal - although the Cassirer family has yet to say whether they plan to do so.
The lawyer acting for the museum, Thaddeus Stauber, told the Associated Press news agency that that the verdict "puts an end to" the dispute.
However, the Cassirer family's lawyer Steve Zack told AP: "We respectfully disagree that the court cannot force the kingdom of Spain to comply with its moral commitments."
The journey of the painting
Ms Cassirer's father-in-law bought the painting from Pissarro's art dealer in 1900. Her grandson, Claude Cassirer, told the LA Times in 2010 that he had vivid memories of seeing the Pissarro painting hanging on her wall while growing up in Berlin in the 1920s.
In 1939, months before the start of World War Two, Ms Cassirer tried to escape the country. However, a Nazi official forced her to hand over the painting in exchange for the exit visa.
After the war she, along with other European Jews, sought help from the Allied forces in being reunited with looted art. In 1999 a friend of Claude's discovered that it was on display in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum.
Claude filed the lawsuit in 2005 but died in 2010. His son David now deals with the case.
Baron Thyssen-Bornemisza's entire art collection was bought in 1993 and turned into a museum bearing his name.
Comments
I agree that everyone must comply contracts, commitments and agreements, but in specific cases and, above all, when you defend a country you can´t comply them like a kid at school. I mean that you have to evaluate what law says and your own case. You have to check if your case is one of those which can be considered for a particular law.
In this case, the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art says that Nazi-looted art must return to descendants of the people they were taken from. The facts were next: Mrs. Cassirer was forced to trade the valuable Camille Pissarro painting if she wanted to flee from Germany. A US dealer bought the painting. Baron Hans-Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, bought the painting from a US dealer in 1976 and the Spanish museum acquired it in 1993. The museum did not know that this painting was looted when it acquired it. In 1999, this family discovered that the painting was in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum. They said that.
In the first place, Mrs. Cassirer gave the painting to flee from Germany, that it wasn´t Nazi-looted exactly. In the second place, the US dealer, Baron Hans-Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza and the Spanish museum didn´t know that this painting was Nazi-looted. There were other buyers previously at the moment of which the Museum acquired the painting.
For instance, if I buy goods such as a flat, a jewel, a computer and so on, and three months later, police or the court tell me that this good was stolen three years ago, should I give back it free to the first owner? It would be unfear. Spanish law says that if you didn´t know it, you are owner indeed.
This case is legal, the federal US judge is right and the museum is legally entitled, in my opinion.
See you.
There are many examples around the world where the ownership of art and artefacts is in dispute. In this case, Lilly Cassirer had to trade the painting for her survival, effectively. The Thyssen has a moral obligation to return the painting and Spain should respect the agreement it signed in 1988.
I agree that everyone must comply with contracts, commitments and agreements, but in specific cases and, above all, when you defend a country, you can´t comply with them like a kid at school. I mean that you have to evaluate what the law says and your own case. You have to check if your case is one of those which can be considered for a particular law. (It's just dawned on me. Your cryptic talk stems from the fact that you are a lawyer.)
In this case, the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art says that Nazi-looted art must be returned to descendants of the people they were taken from. The facts were as follows: ...
... The painting had been bought by others previous to the Museum acquiring it.
For instance, if I buy goods such as a flat, a jewel, a computer or such like, and three months later, the police or the court tells me that the good was stolen three years ago, should I give back it to the first owner for free? It would be unfair. Spanish law says that if you didn´t know that the goods had been stolen, you are .
This case is legal, the federal US judge is right and the museum is legally entitled to the painting, in my opinion.