Released in connection with the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, Washington, DC, December 3, 1998.

In developing a consensus on non-binding principles to assist in resolving issues relating to Nazi-confiscated art, the Conference recognizes that among participating nations there are differing legal systems and that countries act within the context of their own laws.

1. Art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted should be identified.

2. Relevant records and archives should be open and accessible to researchers, in accordance with the guidelines of the International Conference on Archives.

3. Resources and personnel should be made available to facilitate the identification of all art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted.

4. In establishing that a work of art had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, consideration should be made for unavoidable gaps or ambiguities in the provenance in light of the passage of time and the circumstances of the Holocaust era.

5. Every effort should be made to publicize art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted in order to locate its pre-War owners or their heirs.

6. Efforts should be made to establish a central registry of such information.

7. Pre-War owners and their heirs should be encouraged to come forward and make known their claims to art that was confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted.

8. If the pre-War owners of art that is found have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, can be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution, recognizing this may vary according to the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case.

9. If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis, or their heirs, can not be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution.

10. Commissions or other bodies established to identify art that was confiscated by the Nazis and to assist in addressing ownership issues should have a balanced membership.

11. Nations are encouraged to develop national processes to implement these principles, particularly as they relate to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership issues.

In accordance with the requirements of the Allied restitution provisions, the Federal Act on Restitution and the Federal Indemnification Act, the Federal Republic of Germany has fulfilled merited claims on grounds of the confiscation of works of art by the Nazi regime after WW II, and set up the necessary procedures and institutions for enabling persons entitled to such indemnification to enforce their claims vis-à-vis other parties liable to restitution. The claims primarily arose to those who immediately suffered damage and their legal successors or, in case of Jewish assets without heirs or Jewish assets that were not claimed, to the successor organizations established in the Western zones and Berlin. The material restitution was effected either on a case-by-case basis or by global settlement. The restitution law and the general civil law of the Federal Republic of Germany thus finally and comprehensively provide for issues of restitution and indemnification of Nazi-confiscated art, especially from Jewish property.

In the German Democratic Republic (GDR) the compensation pursuant to Allied law of wrongs perpetrated under National Socialism did not go beyond a rudimentary stage. In the course of German reunification, the Federal Republic of Germany has undertaken to apply the principles of the restitution and indemnification law. Nazi-confiscated art was returned or indemnified in accordance with the provisions of the Act on the Settlement of Unresolved Property Claims and the Federal Act for the Compensation of the Victims of National Socialist Persecution (NS-Verfolgtenentschädigungsgesetz). Thanks to the global filing of claims on the part of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany Inc. (JCC) in its capacity as today’s association of successor organizations, claims situated in the accession area with regard to cultural property of Jewish parties having suffered loss have been filed. As formerly in the West German Länder, material indemnification on a case-by-case basis was sought; where this was not possible, compensation was effected by global settlement.

I. Irrespective of such material compensation, the Federal Republic of Germany declared its readiness at the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets on 3 December 1998 to look for and identify further Nazi-confiscated cultural property in so far as the legal and factual possibilities allow and, if necessary, take the necessary steps in order to find an equitable and fair solution. Against this background, the decision by the Foundation Board of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation of 4 June 1999 is welcomed. The Federal Government, the Länder and the national associations of local authorities will bring their influence to bear in the responsible bodies of the relevant statutory institutions that works of art that have been identified as Nazi-confiscated property and can be attributed to specific claimants are returned, upon individual examination, to the legitimate former owners or their heirs, respectively. This examination includes checking for material compensation already provided. Such a procedure makes it possible to identify the legitimate owners and avoid duplicate compensation (e.g. by repayment of compensation already paid). It is recommended that the relevant institutions negotiate the extent and procedure of return or other material indemnification (e.g. in the form of permanent loans, financial or material equalization) with the clearly identified legitimate former owners or their heirs, respectively.

II. The German public institutions such as museums, archives and libraries have supported the tracing of Nazi-confiscated art already in the past by means of
1. exploitation of and access to the data research findings and records available to them;
2. investigations in case of concrete inquiries and research, on their own initiative, in case of new acquisitions;
3. search activities in the framework of the institutions’ tasks;
4. information on the history of Nazi-confiscated art in collections, exhibitions and publications.
These efforts shall be carried on wherever there is sufficient reason.

III. Furthermore, the Federal Government, the Länder and the national associations of local authorities consider in accordance with the principles of the Washington Conference setting up a website on the Internet with information on the following:
1. What the institutions involved can do for publicizing art of unclear origin to the extent that it is presumed to have been confiscated by the Nazis.
2. A search list in which claimants may enter the items they are looking for and thus report for investigation by the relevant institutions and the interested public.
3. Information on the transfer abroad of Nazi-confiscated art during or immediately after the war.
4. Establishing a virtual information platform where the interested public institutions and third parties may enter their findings relating to the tracing of Nazi-confiscated art in order to avoid duplicate work on the same subjects (e.g. at which auction was Jewish cultural property of which collection sold?) and make such information available using a full-text search.

IV. This statement refers to archives maintained by public institutions, museums, libraries and their inventory. The public bodies funding these institutions are called upon to ensure the implementation of these principles by taking decisions to this effect. Institutions under private law and individuals are called upon also to apply the principles and procedures laid down at the Washington Conference.

In 2001, these practical Guidelines were developed to help implement the ideas of the Common Statement. The Guidelines provide additional information to institutions holding cultural property, helping them to fulfil tasks outlined in the Common Statement. The Guidelines were revised in 2007 and were rewritten in the present version in 2019.

On 3 December 1998, 44 states participating in the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets endorsed the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, which is incorporated by reference herein. These principles were subsequently commented on and clarified in the Vilnius Forum Declaration of October 5, 2000, endorsed by 38 states, the Terezin Declaration of June 30, 2009, endorsed by 47 states, and the 2010 Terezin Guidelines and Best Practices (which recognized the State of Israel’s special moral role as a home for the largest number of survivors of the Holocaust (Shoah)).
In recognition of the 25th anniversary of the Washington Conference Principles, the following legally non-binding but morally important best practices clarify and improve the practical implementation of these Principles. As was the case with the Principles, the best practices were drafted with the awareness that there are differing legal systems and that states act within the context of their own laws. Countries will apply the best practices that follow in accordance with national laws.

A. “Art” refers to the cultural property of victims of the Holocaust (Shoah) and other victims of Nazi persecution, in public or private hands, including but not limited to paintings and other visual and decorative art, sacred scrolls, synagogue and ceremonial objects, as well as libraries, manuscripts, archives, records, and musical instruments belonging to individuals and to Jewish and other communities, organizations, and institutions.

B. “Nazi-confiscated” and “Nazi-looted” refer to what was looted, confiscated, sequestered, and spoliated, by the Nazis, the Fascists and their collaborators through various means including but not limited to theft, coercion, and confiscation, and on grounds of relinquishment, as well as forced sales and sales under duress, during the Holocaust era between 1933-45.

C. Taking into account the specific historical and legal circumstances in each case, the sale of art and cultural property by a persecuted person during the Holocaust era between 1933-45 can be considered equivalent to an involuntary transfer of property based on the circumstances of the sale.

D. “Just and fair solutions” means just and fair solutions first and foremost for the victims of the Holocaust (Shoah) and other victims of Nazi persecution and for their heirs. In principle, as set out in the Terezin Declaration, the primary just and fair solution is restitution, among other just and fair solutions.

E. Restitution should be to all lawful beneficiaries and heirs in accordance with a country’s usual inheritance law. All pre-War owners who are identified through provenance research or their heirs should be proactively sought by the current possessors for the purpose of restitution.

F. In case of restitution, current possessors should not seek repayment from the pre-War owners or their heirs of the purchase price of Nazi-confiscated works of art in their collections. Compensation should be tax exempt.

G. Governments should encourage provenance research and projects to catalogue, digitize and make available on the internet public and private archives, including dealer records. Public and private collections should be encouraged to publish their inventories.

H. Provenance researchers should have access to all relevant archives and source documents. Provenance research carried out by public or private bodies should be made publicly available on the internet. Where queries are made, as a matter of fairness current possessors in particular should disclose all documentation related to acquisition and provenance to claimants. Provenance research, particularly regarding potential claims, ideally should be conducted by an independent research body to avoid possible conflicts of interest. Such an independent institution should be granted access to all relevant archives whether public or private.

I. Countries are encouraged to create an independent expert body whose composition may be the states’ responsibility, to which unilateral access is available that can adjudicate cases of art and cultural property and arrive at or recommend a binding or non-binding decision (for example, the use of commissions in Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). Such bodies should have balanced, expert, and representative membership. Use of alternative resolution mechanisms is encouraged to avoid litigation.

J. Claims handling bodies such as national commissions, museums or other agencies, are encouraged to publish terms of reference and rules of procedure as well as their decisions and recommendations so that the claims process and grounds for decisions are fully transparent to claimants.

K. To make restitution of art and cultural property that remains in state-owned collections and private hands possible, countries should consider making exceptions to barriers such as regulations against deaccessioning from state collections, statutes of limitations, market overt, usucapion (mode of acquiring title to property by uninterrupted possession of it for a definite period), good faith acquisition, and export bans.

L. Countries and institutions should maintain and publish online comprehensive information and statistics on research undertaken, works of art that have been identified and restitutions or other fair and just solutions that have been achieved. Information should be published about claims which have been made and that have been resolved, including reasons for the decision, giving due regard to confidentiality.

M. Countries and institutions should establish central contact points to provide information, advice and help on any query regarding art, records, archives and claims.

N. There is a recognized urgent need to work on ways to achieve a just and fair solution to the issue of spoliated art and cultural property where pre-War owners or their heirs, both individuals and legal persons cannot be identified, while recognizing there is no universal model for this issue and recognizing the previous Jewish or other ownership of such cultural assets.

O. Art and cultural property that is determined to have been the property of Jewish communities should be returned to an existing successor community, institution, or organization, and/or a successor organization for the Jewish people as a whole. The objects should not be seen as collection items but as part of the collective memory of the Jewish people. As yet unreturned items that exist in textual form, such as manuscripts, archives, scrolls, and books, should be digitized and made easily accessible over the internet.