Warfare of Art & Law Podcast
Warfare of Art and Law Podcast sparks conversation about the intriguing – and sometimes infuriating – stories that arise in the worlds of art and law with artist and attorney Stephanie Drawdy.
Warfare of Art & Law Podcast
Dr. Hannes Hartung on Germany's Nazi-Looted Art Claims Reform, Bavaria's Nazi-Looted Art Scandal, Restitution and Remembrance
To learn more, please visit Dr. Hartung's site.
2:30 Jonathan Petropoulos' Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi Germany
2:50 Hartung’s 2005 book, Art Theft in War and Persecution
3:25 representation in 2014 of Cornelius Gurlitt regarding the Gurlitt Trove
5:20 Gurlitt exemplifies issues with Germany’s soft law towards art restitution
6:50 twelve works from Gurlitt Trove confirmed as looted
7:15 works from Gurlitt Trove with historical gaps in provenance
8:50 Germany’s task force – 5 million Euros
10:20 degenerate art in Gurlitt Trove
11:10 works on loan from private collections seized as degenerate
11:40 Paul Klee’s “Swamp Legend” from Sophie Küppers
13:30 Kandinsky’s “The Colorful Life”–Irma Klein / Lewenstein Family
17:10 Germany’s shift from advisory commission to an arbitration tribunal
22:30 restitution of “The Colorful Life"
23:40 "Blick in Ebene" by Paul Adolf Seehaus to Koppel heirs
24:10 Gibb's "Aeneas and his Family Fleeing Burning Troy" to Hartveld heirs
24:35 Sir Justice Moses, chair of UK’s Spoliation Advisory Panel
26:00 restitution-Waldmüller’s “Young Girl with Her Family” looted from Teresa Belthower; acquired by Nazi photographer Heinrich Hoffmann
28:00 looted art scandal at Bavarian State Painting Collections
30:50 suit over Friedrich von Amerling’s “Girl with a Straw Hat”
37:05 Emily Gould–restitution by Bavaria versus other German states
39:55 no formal restitution schemes in Spain and Belgium
41:25 whistleblower from Bavarian State Painting Collections
42:50 Markus Stötzel, attorney for Flechtheim heirs
44:00 Picasso’s “Madame Soler” taken from Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy; Bavaria refused to accept its body’s restitution recommendation
47:20 Hartung’s view of justice
48:00 Germany’s arbitration system-public versus private holders of work
50:40 new framework’s guidelines-presumptions and burden
53:55 new framework’s guidelines-dealers and work on commission
55:50 Hartung’s hope to contribute to higher justice and remembrance
57:20 Stolpersteine
1:01:55 Aluko, Stein & Gould
Please share your comments and/or questions at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com
Music by Toulme.
To hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.
To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com.
Thanks so much for listening!
© Stephanie Drawdy [2025]
There are some colleagues who say they are born art lawyers. I was not a born art lawyer. I had to know the art first. I had to know the stories, the history first, and this has been a long way.
Speaker 2:Welcome to Warfare of Art and Law, the podcast that focuses on how justice does or doesn't play out when art and law overlap. Hi everyone, it's Stephanie, and that was art law attorney Dr Hannes Hartung. What follows is a conversation with Dr Hartung where he shares about how he came into the area of art law, with a focus on restitution. He gives his insight from decades of experience working in this area, including his representation of Cornelius Gurlitt regarding the Gurlitt Trove. We discuss cases he's dealt with that involved work taken during the Nazi regime from state museums but that were on loan from private individuals, including Paul Klee's Swamp Legend and Kandinsky's the Colorful Life.
Speaker 2:Dr Hartung also discusses the scandal regarding the Nazi-looted art held by the Bavarian State Paintings Collection approximately 200 Code Red artworks and 800 marked as highly suspicious and we also explore the current state of Germany's approach towards Nazi-era restitution and how its replacement of the former Advisory Commission with an arbitration tribunal is progress, but what other steps forward might be useful in giving a more comprehensive approach to restitution. Dr Hannes Hartung, welcome to Warfare of Art and Law. And Second Saturday. Thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 1:Thank you very much. Thank you, Stephanie, for having me.
Speaker 2:Would you give a bit of background on how you came into your work in art law and restitution specifically?
Speaker 1:Yeah, it all started, by the way, in 2000, when I was searching for a topic for my doctoral thesis in Tübingen, where I studied, and then my supervisor said, did you read the book of Jonathan Petropoulos, the Fortune Bargain? And I thought, oh gosh, what is? Who is this person? Of course I know him now, but in 2000, I didn't know him. And then I took the book and I was really excited, yeah. Then I took the book and I was really excited, yeah. And then I learned about the Washington Principles in 98. And then I wrote a pretty good book, or a pretty thick book Art theft and war and persecution. So it's the whole frame 600 pages under German law, under public international law and private international law. And this is how it all started. And then, to be honest, it was a long and tough way until now, until I got the cases. I mean, it started in 2000 and the very big case then was in 2014 with Cornelius Gurlitt. He and Yannick.
Speaker 2:Yeah, since you've just brought him up, would you want to kind of give us an overview of how you came to represent him and a bit about just a background for those who may not know about Hildebrand Gurlitt and how Cornelius came to have the collection that he had?
Speaker 1:Yeah, sure, it was really amazing. I mean, we all know that his whole collection was confiscated in Schwabing in his apartments, more than 1,200 items. And I got the case because I was interviewed by the media as an expert on looted art and then he was under what we call Betreuung this is a kind of a supervision because he was very sick and he got a person who cared for him, mr Edel sick, and he got a person who cared for him, mr Edel, and this person called me in the first day of 14. I thought it was a joke, because so many lawyers dreamt of representing Cornelius Gullit. And then he asked me Hannes, could you represent him? And I said, yeah, of course I would love to. Yeah, yeah, of course I would love to. And so I got the PUA and I was not the only lawyer, but I was the only lawyer for all the restitution cases and for whole collection. And there has been two other lawyers because of the prosecution, so there have been criminal lawyers defending him against the seizure of his paintings in his apartments. And I was the lawyer for the whole collection, for all looted art questions, for all degenerate art questions.
Speaker 1:The Gullit case is a good example of what is going wrong in Germany? Because in Germany you don't have a clear law on looted art. Germany, you don't have a clear law on looted art. You just have a soft law which is founded on the Washington principles. But if you would apply our general law, we have a time bar of 30 years. We have a Sitzung, which is an acquisitive prescription, so you have no chance. Okay, which is acquisitive prescription, so you have no chance, okay. So if you want to recover rooted R here in Germany, it all depends on that. The person who currently possesses it says I'm fair, I want a fair and just solution. If you say no, so far and this happens very often you cannot recover.
Speaker 1:And probably coming back to Gurlitz, I had many hopes after this case that we would get a law where we could get a binding law dealing with looted art in Germany which would allow us to go to court to claim back art at court. But so far this is not possible. And this is pretty sad because politicians have been very straightforward about the confiscation and about what a bad man he would have been, which is wrong. Only 12 items of 1,500 items have been, after five years, been confirmed as looted art. Twelve Twelve, which is below a percentile. It's so, it's nothing.
Speaker 2:On that. I was curious. Your thoughts about the issues that many of the provenance researchers had with the girl at Trove and the lack of evidence and the gaps and there were many that were put in a category where they just said we don't have enough evidence to know, is my understanding. And so in that respect, those that you were talking about, that dozen or so is where they did find concrete evidence and or where there then there could be restitution possibly, but those others it was just a lot of historical gaps, which is really why we needed the washington principles that's right.
Speaker 1:I mean, uh, the so-called task force, who, which was invented by the former chancellor merkel in november 13, um, had a problem because there has been many graphic German expressionism, graphic work, you know. Sometimes from the same motive you have ten different versions and you could not say which one is the right one. So this I think I assume there was more than 12 items after all in the collection, because in most of the German collections we will speak about the current cases later in most of the collections there's much more rooted art than just 12 items. For instance, here in Munich we have hundreds, but we'll speak about it later and about task force. Probably because you asked about task force. They spent 5 million euro on provenance research, so terminal taxpayers paid 5 million euros on the the task force and the outcome was nothing. It was not. Pretty much everyone was very disappointed. Because I was not disappointed because I said there is not much looted art in it and I was right, so I was not disappointed. But people were very disappointed because they thought this would be the big art trough, with the big looted art. So you can see what happens if media is saying that's a trough and this is Nazi, so the whole world is still thinking this is looted art. But this is wrong.
Speaker 1:So once again, now the museum in Bern has inherited that collection, which is wonderful for them because, yeah, such wealth of items. So they did not have to restitute many paintings. There are wonderful paintings in this collection, including Imp, impressionist art of Paul Cezanne and Montaigne, saint-victoire of Monet, waterloo Bridge, other paintings which are really valuable. And the heart of the collection is so-called degenerate art and Art de Kunst, the father of Cornelius Gollet. He acquired all of it from the Nazis, but one must know that all degenerate art is not subject to restitution in Germany because we say the state was stealing the art from their own collections. So if you take it away from yourself and throw it away, like selling it to Hildebrand Goerlitz, this is not a looted art case. But most items have been and are the deoins, degenerate art in the collection.
Speaker 2:The exception to what you just said is where pieces were owned privately and on loan in the museums when they were seized. And is that not the case for the Swamp Legend and the Colorful Life, which were two pieces?
Speaker 1:that you dealt with Exactly. Thank you, Stephanie. Exactly.
Speaker 2:So maybe we segue into that.
Speaker 1:I'm just looking to a museum where the Colorful Life is away. But let us start with the Swamp Legend. With the Swamp Legend Swamp Legend I was happy to represent the city of Munich and Berlin-Bachhaus and the painting is still there. It's a wonderful painting of Paul Klee which was degenerate art on loan from Sophie Lisicki-Küppers to the Pro Provencial Museum in Hannover, and Nazis took it out of the museum as well and then it was shown in the big exhibition called and art to kunst here in Munich, very nearby, where they wanted to degenerate the art. They degenerated the art, they really humiliated the modern German expressionism and they shout the swamp legends in this exhibition as to be degenerate. So now the heirs of Sophie have demanded the restitution of the painting and this was a very, very long battle. It was 25 years. So I was very happy that I could negotiate a settlement which is really fair in such cases in my point of because it's not looted art, it's degenerate art and to respect all the context and to pay a considerable, high amount to the heirs, in my point of view, outside Holocaust, outside Washington principles, is a very good solution.
Speaker 1:This has been a good story. The bad story is not degenerate art, it's the story of a colorful life. A colorful life is one of the most important paintings of Vasily Kandinsky from 1907. And this was in the collection of the Levenstein family in Amsterdam, who were needle manufacturers. But you must know that the colourful life was consigned voluntarily by Irma Klein. There are three reasons for selling art Death, divorce and death. And here Irma Klein was left by her husband who went for love to your wonderful country, to the USA. He fell in love with Shirley Otskin and he left her. Irma Klein was staying still in Amsterdam with a wonderful art collection of 63 pieces which she consigned right before Germany invaded Netherlands. Germany invaded Netherlands, the Nazis in 1940. But you also must understand, or should understand, that persecution did not start in that year, where the colourful life was sold at auction, at auction Müller Müller in Amsterdam.
Speaker 1:There had been another case in Netherlands, another Kandinsky painting with houses it's called painting with houses from Stedelijk Museum and the Residuee Commissie has refused to return it. But our problem was that there has been a new mayor in Amsterdam, a social Democrat, and she has decided she's not happy that the painting is still in the museum. And she said no, I do not follow the recommendation of the restitutee commissie and I restitute it to the heirs. And this put us pretty much under pressure and the beratende Kommission, the advisory commission, decided to return the painting, just saying hey, it's a Jewish origin, there is a presumption, but it can't be alluded.
Speaker 1:Therefore, we assume awful, we have showed completely that colorful life was part of the divorce procedure in Amsterdam between Irma and Robert. But they didn't follow. And, yeah, they had a celebration of 20 years advisory commission and then they could celebrate a restitution as well. Let me say I'm always in favor of restitution if it has to be restituted. I don't want anyone to keep art if it has been looted, but in this case I'm 1000 convinced that colorful life has not been looted and it's not a looted art case, absolutely you've touched on a lot of different points and anyone who does have questions, please feel free to to jump in.
Speaker 2:I don't know if now is the time that you want to start talking about how there is this need and the creation from a commission into the arbitration tribunal and what brought that up. Before we started the call, we talked about some of the decisions, like the Max Stern restitution project and the 2019 decision that they received, so I don't know if you want to just touch on your involvement with that and your perspective.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah. So now in Germany we have developments, but we didn't start. So let me start with this that we had a hearing at Parliament last December on a new law, on a new law on restitution of looted art under civil law. This is the one system. The other system. This system would be like going to court suing and they would have killed the time bar, saying there's no more time bar. But the problem on the draft and let me say we have no law. We now have a new government, we have a new term, yeah, and in this new term they didn't start already with this law? Let me say, at the moment we have enough problems with two leaders in the world. One of them is in Russia, one of them is in your country. I don't say more, but this is the case. So they didn't start with the law again. So this law was saying it would allow us to sue at court, also in a central court in Frankfurt, for restitution of Holocaust-looted art and the time bar is completely killed. Okay, but other problems have not been addressed. We have a problems of bona fide purchase and the biggest problem obviously under German law is the ad-sitzung acquisitive prescription. Ad-sitzung, alright. I also had a case at the High Federal Court about acquisitive prescription, where I was very happy about the court.
Speaker 1:The highest German court, the Bundesgerichtshof, has decided that the requirements are getting higher, higher and higher when it comes to art. So that's a good development, but still, the draft we had last year was just about the time bar, but not on the other things. So this is system number one. We wouldn't be in Germany if it's not a system number two. So system number two is an arbitration system says that everybody can address the arbitration even without the consent of a public body. So if you would have, for instance, looted art in a public museum, you could address the arbitration and ask for a settlement, a recommendation of the arbitration under the new scheme. We will have a new scheme. But if you ask me now, when will this come? I would tell you please call Berlin and ask them. I don't know. They have decided to do it in January, February already, but we don't have it in place. We don't have it in place.
Speaker 1:There should be more than 20 or 30 arbitrators who are on a panel, so you could choose as a close panel of arbitrators who would give a recommendation on these cases. And I really welcome this, because before you had no chance whatsoever. You could not go to court because there was always a time bar and you could also not go to the Beratende Kommission, to the Advisory Commission, because this needed the consent of the other side. And there had been many cases in the past where the other side has said no, I don't want a recommendation. Or even if they recommended the return, people refused to follow the recommendation because it is not a binding recommendation.
Speaker 1:When it came to Das bunte Leben, Colorful Life, they recommended the return and obviously I represented the Bavarian Bank, Bayerische Landesbank, and it's a public body and they cannot allow to say, oh, we don't follow. But they could have had the possibility to have this recommendation checked from a court. But they decided okay, no, we give it back because we respect, we accept this recommendation. And so the painting was returned, but I don't know where it is now. I only know it was restituted to the Lievenstein heirs, but I don't know what has happened. I assume it has been sold. It's a very valuable painting. It was a very painful and long discussion of more than eight years. So I assume that this, but for that you would have to ask Mondex what happened to the painting, but I assume it was sold in a private sale and not at a auction.
Speaker 2:So yeah, I had read the perspective of the claims conference about this arbitration tribunal and they were very favorable and did cite that. These issues that still linger like acquisitive prescription, where do you project it going in the time frame?
Speaker 1:I hope this is coming very fast because we will now switch to the current cases, if you want, and let me start with the good ones. Yeah, this is restitution number one. This is from Louise, as I call her, louise Koppel, from Cologne. She was a Jew from Cologne and it was taken away from her. It's from Paul Seehaus, who is a pupil from August Macke, from German Expressionism, and this one we could recover from the museum in Bonn. So this was the first restitution this year. Our second restitution this year, this is from the Tate Gallery in London. I'm very proud of that. I'm very proud of that For the heirs of Samuel Hartfeld.
Speaker 1:Samuel Hartfeld was a dealer in Belgium, in Antwerp, and all his belongings has been looted by the Nazis. And this pollution advisory panel is chaired by Sir Justice Moses and I knew this guy only from literature. So I was very happy to get a recommendation from him. I knew him from City of Gotha, recommendation from the 90s, where he made a landmark decision in the 90s where he said that it was being against the consciousness of the court and good faith if something looted is being kept by someone as a general English principle. So this was a landmark decision City of Gotha against Sotheby's, where Sotheby's lost this case, that this landmark decision was the very starting point, that the big auction houses started to have restitution departments in their houses because you know, they lost some cases. So a scene. Oh, we need to fix this, we need to handle this issue. And, coming back to your, I hope we have the arbitration very soon because we are waiting long and we have really trouble.
Speaker 1:This is a very problematic case. The title of this one is A Young Girl with Her Family. It's one of the most beautiful paintings the young farm girl, farmer girl with her family. It's from a famous Austrian romantic painter called Waldmüller. Yeah, and this painting was in the collection of Therese Bretthauer in Vienna and was taken away from her. And what is really horrible about this case is that Mr Hoffman acquired this painting after it was looted from her. And who is Heinrich Hoffman? Heinrich Hoffman was the photographer of Adolf Hitler. Okay, he was a guy who made all the famous photographs of Adolf Hitler. So this painting was more than 80 years in the possession of a Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, the Bavarian State Painting Collections.
Speaker 1:Who must, who must have known, who must have known that this painting was looted because it was given to them with the job already in the 50s, find the owner and give it back. So now and this is a scandal I wanted to talk about I'm involved at the moment and I'm really terrified about this because it's my hometown okay, munich. I'm living in Munich since 2004 and even in the past I was proud to represent this museum as well, 15 years ago in our cases. I'm really very upset about what happened, what is right now going on here in Bavaria, because we have a very big looted art scandal at the moment. The problem is that this museum has more approximately 200 paintings looted art, red, code red in their procession and they never. They made a very good provenance research for decades, for more than 20 years, but, hey, they never shared their knowledge with the public. So in February, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported about that scandal, yeah, and said oh, we have an internal museum database showing that 200 paintings code red are in their possessions, where they say it is looted art and 800 items are highly suspicious to be looted. So let me say this case is much bigger than the Gullit case, much bigger, but nobody is speaking about it like they did the same way they did when I was speaking with probably you know CBS 60 Minutes and I was speaking with Molly Safer, a very old gentleman. I nearly couldn't hear him because he was speaking so soft, but I was with him and I tried to explain the problems we have with wooded art in Germany and also America was very much interested in what is going on here. Right now we have much more cases, a much bigger case here with the museum, and so far all discussions are only here in German media and did not reach America. So I hope your podcast is the first start, that it comes to your awareness, also to the esteemed colleagues here in New York in America, that we are right now having a big trouble here because the museum is very reluctant giving back the art.
Speaker 1:We have another case here. It is Friedrich von Ameling. It's the girl with a straw hat. It's also a romantic Austrian painter and this one came from the Leon Provers. Leon Provers have been one of the most prominent art dealers, jewish art dealers, here in Munich before Nazis, before Nazis persecuted them, before Nazis really closed their gallery and before they had to flee. This is really a very important Jewish gallery here in Germany and the problem about this case is as well that the museum knows all of it for a long time, since 2014. They started to undertake provenance research on the painting In 2019. They said it's red. So they said in our opinion it's a looted art painting. Now they're saying they would have been a voluntarily exchange between the Leon Proverbs and the museum. I strongly, I strongly contest this, because there is no document whatsoever proving that the Jewish Gallery agreed with this exchange.
Speaker 1:They number one they only got two paintings, which are nonsense. We even have a letter from the director of a museum from January 35 saying we get a wonderful, high-profile painting and we give away rubbish and very not relevant paintings in return which are not on the same worth. So this letter is clearly saying this can't be outside Nazi regime, because nobody is giving away such a wonderful painting for nothing or for nearly nothing. So we really hope that the state of Bavaria is coming to terms here. And this Bavarian minister is saying Mr Blume, his name is Blume, markus Blume. This guy is saying, ah well, bavaria, we are a wonderful state, we are number one in Germany doing restitution.
Speaker 1:I would say, all right, they do restitution, but only for very cheap things. As soon as real art like this one, they do not do it like as you've seen before with the Waldmüller, the Waldmüller painting. They have decided to give it back, even already, in August 22. In August 22, they have decided to return it. And you will wonder why didn't they do it then? Why didn't they give it over then? Oh, they're saying the inheritance situation is not clarified and they never searched for the heirs. It was us who addressed them and said hello, you have decided to return it. Probably you'd be at kind BS, kinds to return it now, as you have decided already. All right. But then we said ah, there's still one person in London saying he would be a rightful heir, so we cannot do it. So, sorry, I don't know how you handle these things.
Speaker 1:In New York, in Germany, we say that the community of heirs is releasing the museum from all claims of third parties in respect of the painting. Okay, freistellung, we release it from all claims of third parties in respect of the painting. Okay, we release it from all claims. So, uh, I have suggested this three years ago already, or two years ago, sorry, I want to be correct. Two years ago I've suggested this, but unfortunately they still keep us waiting, and I think this is really, really. This is really humiliating my clients. Yeah, this is really humiliating. This is really not in the spirit of the Washington principles in both cases from Weidmüller and the Weidmü-Drethauer case on the one side and the Leon side on the other hand. So I cannot wait that we have laws. So, because you know, if we have laws we can go to arbitration, for instance, or if we would have a binding law to sue, I would be more than happy to sue.
Speaker 1:I mean, for the Waldmühle we need just one more one last probate, and as soon as and this is so painful, this is so painful really three years. It's horrible, painful. If we have this probate, then they will restitute it, but not before. But let me say the new scheme is saying uh, be very relaxed with these proofs. If you've got sufficient proofs and here we have a Testament saying this guy is the heir and in other cases you can see him was restituting small items basing on Testaments, restituting small items basing on testaments. But in this case they are saying, no, we need a survey, take formal hurdles to delay restitution for years. And we know that even some of the heirs died over such procedures from Austria, from abroad, with the Bayererische Stadtschirm-Einsatz, which is really a shame, in my point of view.
Speaker 3:Hannes, could I just ask?
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:So the approach of the Bavarian State Museum in these cases that you're talking about that has been very resistant to these claims. Is that typical of museums throughout Germany, or are other museums much more observant with the Washington principles?
Speaker 1:Thank you, emily the Seehaus. This just took one year from demand letter to restitution, so that's a normal time frame. My experience with other museums is very positive and let me say I also know that other big houses, like in Dresden or in Stuttgart or in Hamburg or in Berlin, berlin had been a very good place for restitution. But they have a gulf treasure which is a pretty big combat right at the moment. So Berlin is not as strong with restitution, no more. But Berlin always was very strong when it came to restitution. So now really I would say Munich is an exemption, um, and the others. Really, the difference is that I think that the other museums do publish what they find in their museums, where they think it is red or it's orange, so it's clearly looted art or it's really highly suspicious to be looted art. So then you publish it on on lost arts de, on our database, and people could find it. And if they are better and they do it, I know in some cases they search for the heirs and then obviously they don't need me, but that's all right with me, I have enough cases, so they don't need me for that. Yeah, I think Bavaria is a very bad example and I think the other German museums are stronger there. But still, as long as we don't have a binding scheme, we have experienced cases in which museums said we don't go to the commission, we don't want a recommendation. So I know some cases who will still be tuned for restitution but nothing happened because it was not possible.
Speaker 1:But overall I would say that Germany is not a bad place and if you are searching for bad places, go to Spain or go to Belgium. Ok, both of these countries don't have a restitution scheme at all and they also in Belgium. They now try to set up some things. I have a procedure right now running in Belgium, also from heartfelt. I've showed you the tape painting from some well and have another painting from some well in at the city of Ghent and, fingers crossed, we get a recommendation until September or something from an ad hoc commission. They made an ad hoc commission for us for that case, which is fair enough. But we wait for two years already. So after one year we say, ah, bertram needs to deal with looted art, but if you go to Spain, oh, good luck. Probably you know it from the Casira case. So, going to Spain, so far Spain has a scheme for Franco stuff. So if something was looted in context with Franco dictatorship, you will have a chance, but all Holocaust-looted art, german-looted art, no. So there's nothing in place.
Speaker 2:Just going back to the scandal of the Code Red hundreds of paintings. Could you share a bit more about that, how it broke, and a little more detail?
Speaker 1:Yeah, sure, I was really surprised about that. To be honest, there was a whistleblower last year, a whistleblower who sent me the internal list of a museum and I was shocked. I cannot tell you how shocked I was. They sent me a list with approximately 200 paintings, but only the red ones, code Red, in which the Ameling is in it, for instance. So this one here, but also other paintings. So this one was on the list as well and I was really shocked. To be honest, I was completely shocked and I thought this can't be true. But now, yeah, it turned that it was true. It turned that it was true. So the museum, after the media, started to publish the scandal, slice by slice, slice by slice, the museum started to publish the paintings yeah, before they didn't show it. So, but there are also other paintings by Flechtheim.
Speaker 1:Probably you are aware of Flechtheim. So my friend Markus Stötzl is doing these cases. Probably you can speak with him another time. Markus has made very big looted art cases here in Germany as well. So he is representing the Flechtheim heirs who are living in America and he is fighting. This is horrible. He is fighting in this case for 16 years. Imagine 16 years. This is painful. 16 years. Imagine 16 years. This is painful 16 years.
Speaker 1:And the former director, professor Maas, was even in favor of restitution of some of the items of Flechtheim. But obviously the minister, the Bavarian state minister, mr Blume, obviously the minister, the Bavarian state minister, mr Blume, has decided against it and he said I want the arbitration to decide on these claims. He also decided about the Schöp's cases. Probably you have heard the name of Paul von Mendelssohn-tholdy, the Picasso, madame Soler. So Madame Soler is a very high profile painting at the museum and since 2008, the heirs of Paul von Mendelssohn Bartholdy are asking the museum for an advisory commission, for mediation, and Bavaria refused to accept the public body.
Speaker 1:Let me tell you again this was also invented by Bavaria and by the federal and by the federal. So we have. So the Land, bavaria and our federal government has set the Beratende Kommission in place exactly for this, and every state was asked to accept this procedure and to use it, and Bavaria has consistently refused to use the body they have invented themselves. So now they were very. They say oh, we are very good, we now lovely, we now have a lovely, we now have a lovely system in place, wonderful with arbitration. But once again, Stephanie, we don't have arbitration so far. So I know that all my colleagues would be more than happy to go to arbitration with these cases, as these cases are very, very strong, yeah, but we are all waiting. I'm waiting for it in my cases, marcus is waiting for it, ulf is waiting for it. Who do the other cases? And I'm very. I think that Marcus has very strong cases.
Speaker 1:When it comes to Madame Solaire, I don't have the details, I cannot tell. Probably this could be a case in which the widow of Paul, who was a Jew, she was an Aryan, it was Gräfin Kessel Aryan, it was Gräfing Kesselstadt and it was inherited to her and, to my best knowledge, she was allowed to do with the art whatever she wanted, and it's been told that Countess Kesselstadt loved the champagne much more than art. Okay, so she sold a lot of art at that time. So it still can be that this is not a looted art case. But please, I am not familiar with all details, but in the Flechtheim case, it's obvious that some of the items are looted art and have to be restituted, and they are not restituted in Bavaria since 2008. And this is really frustrating.
Speaker 2:With the range of cases you have worked on since you started with the restitution work. How would you say your idea or your definition of justice has evolved?
Speaker 1:I think there's still a long way to justice. I mean justice means that it works that if you have a case you get restitution if it's found out after proper provenance research. So the way to justice when it comes here in Germany is still a long and a painful way, and I really hope that we get the arbitration very soon in place. But there is one problem there Arbitration is not possible if the art is in private hands. So if a private collector would say I do not agree with arbitration, would say I do not agree with arbitration, you still don't have a chance. So I'm asking to modify the scheme. We are all happy because, please, it's much better than anything we had so far, because all was soft, all was not binding and you could do nothing. So now that's a very good step forward. You can go to arbitration if it's in public hands. So that's a very exciting, a very good thing. Can't wait, okay. So even for the armaling, if they say we don't restitute, you can. That's my first case. That's going to be my first case on arbitration. Yeah, obviously so. And we have other cases for Leon at the Germanische Nationalmuseum as well, and so this would be our cases as well. So we have other cases where, in 1946, the Germanische Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg acquired a very valuable cross and our new scheme is saying if the Jewish gallery has been shut down before, this cannot be voluntarily.
Speaker 1:So here it would be very clear that any arbitrator would apply the ski and he would say dear Cross, go home to the family. And that's a good outcome. So there's much hope in my heart, but we are waiting, waiting, waiting. It's now going on for 25 years for me now. I'm dealing with that now for 25 years as a lawyer for 23 years, and I'm waiting for the big progress. So step number one of progress would be arbitration and step number two would be a comprehensive law allowing us to see if there's something in private hands and we have a remedy, we have a possibility to recover it. It's going to be. I'm still dreaming of it. It's not true, but probably next year or in two years this dream is coming true and we can start. Yeah, hopefully.
Speaker 2:For the new framework and how certain things that say the commission in the past had ruled on, versus how the new framework works, say, when the Nuremberg laws were passed, do they look at that as a bright line and say 1935, if there was a sale, that those sales are under duress and deemed looted?
Speaker 1:Thank you very much for this question. Yeah, so far we have the guidelines, the Handreichung who is saying we have a presumption that it's been looted from taking over of Nazi power from January 33, then this presumption to be rebutted is much more difficult after the Nuremberg Laws in September 1935 and after 1938 or even 1946. So now it's getting. We have a progress there, because so far we said only from 1948. This cannot be rebutted. No more this presumption.
Speaker 1:The new guidelines will say even going toward much, much tougher, as I said. So, for instance, if a gallery was shut down, it's after 1935. Most of the Jewish galleries also Munich, like the Gallery of Leon Province which I represent, the heirs were shut down in September 1945. So they take over the old scheme, but the new one is much more in detail. We have much more examples, what can happen and much more a shift of burden of proof. So the burden of proof goes much more on the other side, which is wonderful, which I always demanded, because in most cases you could not say anything. So you need to work with a presumption and so it's up to the museum, it's up to the owner to show up. He's been in good faith but all was right and it's not up to us.
Speaker 1:You must know many records have been deleted or destroyed. Let me give you an example the Dorotheum in Vienna. They destroyed by mean, all their archives. Okay, and these archives have been vast archives on looting, because Nazis has sent all that stuff to Vienna, which was part of Germany at that time, yeah, and sold it there, yeah, and there are many records destroyed forever, yeah, uh, coming from, uh from, sent from Munich or from Germany to Vienna to be sold, looted, or so I think it's so that the burden of proof so far, claimants have to prove it all. So there must be a shift of that burden to the other side and a relaxation which is more fair and equitable for both sides to come to terms.
Speaker 2:Is there a specific that speaks to the say, if it was an individual who was a dealer, who had been persecuted?
Speaker 1:Yeah, so now the new scheme differs between private persons and dealers. It's also been different between whether it was on commission, sold on commission by the dealer, which is always, for instance, very relevant when it comes to Fleckheim or Leon and all the Jewish art dealers. So the new scheme is asking has it been from the stock from the dealer himself, or has it been on commission? So it's a very I think it's a good job. They did a very terrific job doing this new scheme, because the first scheme was made very fast after Washington principle in 2001 and it was saying very broad, just saying take the old German restitution law which was basing on the American and all the other occupation laws to restitute things and all the other occupation laws to restitute things, the Bundesrückerstattungsgesetz. But now the new scheme is much more, having different scenarios, and so it's a big progress. Yeah, in my point of view.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much, Hannes. Is there anything I have not asked you yet that you wanted to share with us?
Speaker 1:I mean we've talked now one hour, but probably the other colleagues have questions, or Luca or Lauren or Emily, so we still can discuss, so happy to answer questions.
Speaker 2:Well, while we wait for anyone who might have questions, I would ask you, with the work you're doing, what's the mark that you hope to be making in this area with your work?
Speaker 1:What I hope to do is to contribute to higher justice in any way I can do so. For me, I'm always happy. I'm always happy, and I'm really when I have video calls with my clients and they start to cry because they see each other for the first time in their life, because Holocaust has separated family throughout the world. This is really touching me. So the mark is to do this job, is to contribute to a higher justice and to remembrance. So if I can do this, I hope I can do this. I'm 52 years old, so I can hope. My son is nine years, so I will still be working. My son is speaking English already because in an international school. I'm very happy about that. So I think I will work for the next 20 years still. So if I can contribute to a lot of restitutions and if we, if we have developments there, I would be very happy with my clients clients.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I know we're closing out the hour, but what you just said prompted me to ask you also? About another case that you're working on that deals with remembrance the Stolperstein Would you want to share a little bit about that.
Speaker 1:Sure sure, Such an interesting scenario there.
Speaker 1:Sure, sure, Such an interesting scenario there? Yeah, it is, it is. I represent my clients here, Terry Schwarzberg, who is working on this initiative for 20 years. He's fighting that Stäubelsteine, stumbling stones. These are stones who are put in the public grounds throughout Germany to remember the man or the woman who was living there and deported from that last place to concentration camp. So Stolpersteine are remembering Jews and persecuted people. It is a wonderful project.
Speaker 1:Unfortunately, in Munich it is not allowed to put it on public places, only on private places, and I sued at court that it's been allowed, that it's also been put on public places. The problem is the law says we need a special. I was using for a so-called special permission and the court the public court has told me Mr Hartung, we are sorry but you don't need such a permission because these stones is not so. It's not hindering any people who is walking over it to use it. So you don't need a permission. You just would need a private license, which you have to make with the city of Munich. But unfortunately the city of Munich decided to follow the opinion of Charlotte Knobloch. I really very much appreciate her work, but I do not agree with her opinion that Stolperstein would be not an adequate mean to remember the people who lived there.
Speaker 1:Throughout Germany, Stolpersteine are a very good thing to remember Jewish persecuted people who lived there and who were deported, and we have thousands, thousands of Stolpersteine laid down in the ground in public grounds of Germany. So I also hope that one day in Munich we will have these Stolpersteine laid down in public grounds. Munich has decided to make a much more expensive way with steels, with so-called steels or shields which are put at the wall, and I am for the freedom of remembering. I was representing Peter Jordan there, a Jew from Great Britain who died now and who wanted to remember his parents here in Munich, and unfortunately there is no private place on the ground where he could put the stone on. So that's why, because the public ground is just going until you know his house or the former house of his parents.
Speaker 1:So I really hope, finger crossed, that one day you must know that in the rest of Germany it's not a big deal. The whole Germany, this wonderful project is going on. Students, young students, would clean these stones, these wonderful messing stones, throughout the place, throughout Germany, thousands of them, and learning about the Holocaust, the holocaust yeah, in classes. So it's only in munich where, uh, we don't have them so far, but I'm also very still hoping, and but we have many on the private grounds just next to the house when there's private ground. So hundreds of them have been placed in private grounds already, which is wonderful, and yeah.
Speaker 2:Thank you.
Speaker 1:Thank you too.
Speaker 2:Is there any other question or follow-up that anyone has?
Speaker 5:Yeah, I was going to ask a question, but you've answered it. Hi, I'm Toby. Yeah, I was going to ask a question, but you've answered the question already. The question I was going to ask a question, but you've answered the question already. The question I was going to ask was that younger lawyers are interested in this area of art law, and you answered the question already by saying that students actually help in cleaning most of the remembrance things, and I think that kind of answers the question. But I was still going to ask it anyway.
Speaker 1:I think that kind of answers the question, but I was still going to ask it. No, no, no. I think your question is whether there's enough work for all of us. There is, there is, I think, in Germany. You will need practitioners not only me but other esteemed colleagues to do that job, and the question is how long you still do that job? And the question is, how long do you still do that? In Germany there's always a discussion how long do we restitute? What I'm saying is as long as all these cases have not been resolved with a settlement or whatever it is. And still, young lawyers have a good chance to work in this field here in Germany. So I hope that many young lawyers do my job and that they are interested in this field. And once again, if we have a framework, it's going to be much better, because so far we have no binding framework. As soon as we have more binding framework, it's going to be much better. More young lawyers working on that. Do you work on that as well in New York on outlaw?
Speaker 5:No, I don't work in New York. I live in England.
Speaker 1:Ah, in England, oh, wonderful.
Speaker 5:I'm more into the privacy space currently. That's what I do currently.
Speaker 1:I had a case in England this year, as I told you.
Speaker 3:I'm also in England actually.
Speaker 5:Ah, wonderful, yeah, yeah, ashley.
Speaker 1:Ah, wonderful, yeah, yeah, yeah. So England is also a very exciting place when it comes, because I think your Spoliation Advisory Panel is doing an awesome job.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I agree, they really do a wonderful job, and Justice Moses is one of them. I'm a big fan of him, so you have wonderful people there and doing an awesome job. So, yeah, yeah, really good. Yeah, probably not so many cases like we have I don't know, uh, but probably there's still some cases to be resolved. I'm pretty sure about that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And where are you working, lauren?
Speaker 4:um, I'm actually still in law school, but I am in New York right now for the summer at a litigation firm, so I'm planning to do art law in the future. That's what I am Good idea. Because New.
Speaker 1:York is such a strong place and Stephanie can tell you because there are many good art lawyers like Stephanie. So New York is much bigger. The market, the art market in London and New York the markets are much bigger than the German market is. So I think pretty much the same for all of you.
Speaker 4:Do you have any English translations of your book or sections of your book available for us to read?
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:But there's still the issue with I need to clarify this with the guys, because Norman Palmer do you know Norman Palmer?
Speaker 1:Norman Palmer was the boss of the Institute of Art and Law and he wanted to translate this book, and now I need to clarify with the publisher that I can get it translated, because we want to work on a new book, on a restitution handbook, and then we would just.
Speaker 1:You know that translations now are much easier than they were, so there's already a translation available I can send it to you, there's already a wonderful, deep translation of this book, and that we want to, because this book is from 2005, so it's 20 years old, and I wanted to make a new book with new development and all of it and basing on that one and eradicating the things which are no more relevant, but the new thing. So, yeah, I hope to publish this in an English form in the next years, but I can only do it if I have time and I have many cases at the moment and I have a family. So you know, yeah, but I hope that I can do it if I have time and I have many cases at the moment and I have a family. So you know, yeah, but I hope that I can do it in the next years, yeah.
Speaker 2:Well, we will definitely be looking for that and I appreciate your time so much. Thank you for sharing about your work and it's just been wonderful talking with you, and thank you everyone for being here. So with that I will close, unless there is any other questions or comments.
Speaker 3:No, no, I just wanted to say a big thank you to Hannes, because it was just really insightful to hear your very candid and, you know, transparent comments about what's going on in Germany in the various cases, and I think we all look forward to fingers crossed the new system in Germany and very probably lots more cases which will come forth.
Speaker 1:This is a wonderful initiative. You started many years ago and I was very happy to speak with you tonight. I'm wishing you, all of you a wonderful summer and I hope to see you in person.
Speaker 2:There will be links in the show notes to learn more. If you're intrigued by this podcast, it would be much appreciated if you could leave a rating or review and tag Warfare of Art and Law podcast. If you could leave a rating or review and tag Warfare of Art and Law podcast Until next time. This is Stephanie Droddy bringing you Warfare of Art and Law. Thank you so much for listening and remember injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.