George Grosz (1893–1959) was one of the prominent artists of the Weimar Republic. He was a member of the German Communist Party, co-organiser of the First International Dada Fair and co-founder of politically radical journals. Between 1921 and 1932, artworks created by him were the subject of several court cases due to accusations that they were indecent and were critical of society and the war.
George Grosz suffered individual persecution under the National Socialists due to his political opposition to National Socialism and on ideological grounds. Additionally, some 500 of his works were confiscated from public ownership in connection with the “Degenerate Art” campaign in 1937, with some of them being defamed at propaganda exhibitions of the same name. Grosz emigrated to New York City in mid-January 1933. Even though he himself emphasised that he had not gone to the USA for political reasons, already in March 1933 his decision to do so seemed to him to be a “Wink des Schicksals” [“stroke of destiny”].
Galerie Alfred Flechtheim GmbH was the official agent for George Grosz’s works of art from 1923 onwards. This cooperation was terminated by Alfred Flechtheim (1878–1937) at the end of 1931. At this time Grosz owed Flechtheim a total of more than 16,000.00 Reichsmark, and these debts had existed since as early as 1928. In subsequent years, too, the artist evidently failed to comply with repeated requests and agreements to pay off his debts in instalments.
Alfred Flechtheim suffered collective and individual persecution under the National Socialists on racial grounds. From September 1933, he tried to gain a foothold in business outside the Nazi sphere of power and at the same time appointed the auditor Alfred E. Schulte (1892–1972) to prevent the bankruptcy of his financially ailing company in Germany.
George Grosz had had delivered the disputed paintings in dispute to Alfred Flechtheim on commission basis immediately after creating them. Pompe Funèbre was located in Paris as of 1933 at Flechtheim’s instigation. It is also known that this painting was in the Netherlands from 1937 and was auctioned there in February 1938 as part of Flechtheim’s estate. The provenance of the painting Stillleben mit Okarina, Fisch und Muschel from May 1932 to January 1960 is unclear.
As the direct descendants and heirs of George Grosz, the claimants request restitution of the paintings. They are of the opinion that both paintings were lost as a result of Nazi persecution, saying that Pompe Funèbre was sold for an unreasonably low price at a sham auction held in the Netherlands in 1938, without either Flechtheim (or his heir) or Grosz having knowledge of this or being in favour of it. Stillleben mit Okarina, Fisch und Muschel is likewise said by the claimants to have been sold in the Netherlands before the end of the war.
Freie Hansestadt Bremen is of the opinion that George Grosz transferred ownership of the painting Pompe Funèbre to Alfred Flechtheim no later than 1934 due to his heavy debt burden. According to Freie Hansestadt Bremen, there is no evidence that Stillleben mit Okarina, Fisch und Muschel was lost as a result of Nazi persecution between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945.
The Advisory Commission is convinced that George Grosz lost ownership of the painting Pompe Funèbre as a result of transferring ownership to his former gallerist Alfred Flechtheim or the latter’s company prior to 15 April 1934. In the view of the Advisory Commission, this emerges clearly from a letter written by Flechtheim to Grosz dated 15 April 1934, in which Flechtheim mentions paintings of which ownership had been transferred to him as security (“als Sicherheit übereignet”). This is also supported by the numerous efforts of Flechtheim and his company to achieve settlement of the debts owed to him by Grosz. In the opinion of the Advisory Commission, the transfer of ownership of the painting does not constitute a case of seizure as a result of Nazi persecution: the painting was not transferred as a consequence of Grosz’s persecution but in response to the heavy debt burden that Grosz already had with Flechtheim before 30 January 1933.
The Advisory Commission is of the opinion that even if the claimants’ view is correct and the painting Pompe Funèbre was indeed still owned by George Grosz and was auctioned in the Netherlands as a commission good after Alfred Flechtheim’s death, this does not constitute a case of seizure as a result of Nazi persecution. In the view of the Advisory Commission, there is no causal link between Grosz’s persecution on the one hand and the consignment for auction and the subsequent auction on the other. No documents were submitted proving that the auction took place without either Grosz or Flechtheim’s heir having knowledge of this or being in favour of it, or that it was a sham auction.
In the case of Stillleben mit Okarina, Fisch und Muschel, the claimants maintain that this painting likewise arrived in the Netherlands via France as part of the set of works on commission basis with Alfred Flechtheim and was sold in the Netherlands before the end of the war. In the opinion of the Advisory Commission, however, there is a lack of evidence to support this: it is up to the claimants to prove both their ownership of the painting and their loss during the period of persecution. The claimants’ assertion that the painting was located in Paris, like Pompe Funèbre, is not sufficiently substantiated either by a French customs stamp on the back of the work or by a Paris depot list. Neither are there documents to support the assumption that the painting was sold in the occupied Netherlands before the end of the war. In fact, a letter is preserved from the illustrator and writer Leo Lionni (1910–1999), dated 1981, in which he recalls that his father acquired the work “after the war” in the Netherlands.
For these reasons, the Advisory Commission does not recommend restitution in either case.

Along with their daughter Käthe, Martha and Max Liebermann were persecuted from the time the National Socialists seized power on 30 January 1933 because they were Jewish. As early as May 1933, discrimination and persecution forced Max Liebermann (1846–1935) to resign his membership and honorary presidency of the Prussian Academy of Arts, of which he had been a member for 25 years. Faced with imminent deportation, Martha Liebermann (1857–1943) took her own life in 1943. Their daughter Käthe Riezler, née Liebermann (1885–1952), managed to escape with her family to the USA in 1938. Liebermann’s extensive art collection was largely forcibly dissolved as a result of the family’s persecution.
The disputed drawing Bauarbeiter belonged to Max Liebermann from 1916 onwards. In a photograph of Max Liebermann taken in autumn 1932, 16 years after he acquired it, the drawing can be seen in the background, hanging on a wall in his house by Lake Wannsee.
The direct descendants of Martha and Max Liebermann request the restitution of the drawing. The Kulturstiftung Sachsen-Anhalt is of the opinion that the claimants have not provided evidence that the work was still owned by Max Liebermann at the time of the National Socialist seizure of power on 30 January 1933 and therefore during the period relevant to the issue of persecution. The Kulturstiftung Sachsen-Anhalt argues that the claimants should prove that the drawing was not sold between the summer of 1932 and the National Socialists’ seizure of power.
It is true that the burden of proof demonstrating that the work still belonged to Max Liebermann when the National Socialists seized power lies with the claimants. However, the mere assertion that the Liebermanns might have lost possession of the work during the few months between autumn 1932 and the National Socialists’ seizure of power on 30 January 1933 is pure speculation – a shot in the dark. According to the general rules of evidence, anyone claiming that something is true must present a substantiated factual submission. If the Kunststiftung Sachsen-Anhalt asserts that ownership of the work of art might have passed to someone else in the few months before the National Socialists seized power, it must provide evidence that this was the case. No such evidence has been provided, however. Since there are no other indications of the work having been traded, and given that Max Liebermann’s fondness for the drawing is evident from the fact that he not only owned it from 1916 onwards but that it was also one of the works that hung on a wall of his house, it must be assumed that the work still belonged to Max Liebermann when the National Socialists seized power.
The Advisory Commission believes that the drawing was seized by the Nazis in April 1936 at the latest, when it was sold by the Hamburg gallery Commeter to the legal predecessor of today's Kulturstiftung Sachsen-Anhalt. There are no surviving documents that identify Martha Liebermann, who had become Max Liebermann's heir upon his death on 8 February 1935, as the consignor. However, even a disposition at an earlier point in time is considered to be due to Nazi persecution according to the Guidelinesfor implementing the Statement by the Federal Government, the Länder and the national associations of local authorities on the tracing and return of Nazi-confiscated art, especially Jewish property, of December 1999 (New edition 2019) (hereinafter: Guidelines), which form the basis for the recommendations of the Advisory Commission. This is because, for the benefit of the persecuted persons, the Guidelines stipulate that, with the onset of collective persecution on 30 January 1933, a legal transaction by persons persecuted by the regime is regularly to be assessed as Nazi-persecution-related with the consequence of restitution. Since the Kulturstiftung Sachsen-Anhalt was not able to provide evidence that the legal transaction would have taken place even if the National Socialists had not been in power, the Advisory Commission recommends the restitution of the drawing Bauarbeiter to the heirs of Max and Martha Liebermann.

The Advisory Commission will celebrate its 20th anniversary on 14 September 2023 at the Jewish Museum in Berlin. This anniversary marks two decades of intensive voluntary work and significant recommendations on the restitution of looted art from the National Socialist era. During this time, the commission, consisting of ten public figures with a legal, art historical, historical or political background, has decided on the restitution of Nazi-looted cultural property in 23 cases. The Commission's recommendations were and are regarded as groundbreaking in Germany and abroad and have a significant influence on the decision-making of museums and their state or municipal sponsors as well as the art market.

Under the chairmanship of Prof. Hans-Jürgen Papier, former President of the Federal Constitutional Court, the Advisory Commission adopted a memorandum on 4 September 2023 in which it makes demands on politicians. The Commission calls for more competences and a legal and legally binding basis for its work. These demands are an expression of the need for efficient and comprehensive processing of claims in connection with Nazi-looted property. The Commission is faced with a large number of unresolved claims and considers it necessary to strengthen its role in order to be able to act effectively. The aim must be to fulfil the moral and political responsibility of the Federal Republic of Germany towards the descendants of the victims of Nazi terror.

The Chairman of the Advisory Commission, Prof. Papier, states: "There is a lack of a clear political commitment in the form of legally binding guidelines for the processing of looted art cases that have not yet been restituted. Only on the basis of a formal federal law can the three fundamental requirements for an appropriate and sufficient restitution law be met: These are the unilateral invocability of the Commission, the binding effect of its decisions and, finally, the possibility of initiating restitution proceedings even if the cultural property is in private hands."

The festive event will take place on Thursday, 14 September 2023, with invited participants at the Jewish Museum Berlin. Guests can expect a top-class programme. The Chairman Prof Hans-Jürgen Papier will speak. The Minister of State for Culture and Media of the Federal Republic of Germany, Claudia Roth, the State Secretary in the Lower Saxony Ministry of Science and Culture, Prof Dr Joachim Schachtner, the President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Dr Josef Schuster, and Prof Anthony Friend, descendant of Julius Freund, whose art collection seized as a result of Nazi persecution he has been researching for decades, will give welcoming addresses. Prof Dr Mary Fulbrook, the renowned British historian and professor of German history, will give a speech on the topic of "Restitution - But how?".

The Advisory Commission was established 20 years ago. It is made up of ten public figures under the former President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Papier, as chairperson, and advises on particularly complex looted art cases. It was established in 2003 by the federal government, the Länder and the national associations of local authorities with the aim of mediating in the event of differences between the parties involved over the restitution of cultural property seized as a result of Nazi persecution. It is the only institution of its kind in Germany.

A festive event will be held on 14 September 2023 in Berlin to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Advisory Commission, with the participation of politicians, researchers, victims' associations and claimants. The Advisory Commission has taken this occasion to issue a memorandum outlining the need for a reform of its work and of the law on restitution.

The 23 recommendations issued by the Advisory Commission have been regarded as trend-setting for years now, both in Germany and abroad. They play an important role in the decision-making process in which museums and their sponsoring bodies engage, and they are of considerable significance to the art market. The small number of recommendations issued by the Commission is due to the small number of requests submitted for mediation. To date, the victims and their descendants can only request mediation through the Commission if the institution dedicated to the preservation of cultural property agrees to this. By contrast, there is still a large number of items of Nazi-looted art that have not been restituted. Some 40,000 search entries and a further 35,000 found-object reports of seized items are listed in the so-called “Lost Art Database” alone, a platform dedicated to the publication of such international search and found-object reports.

This means that the conditions under which the Advisory Commission operates continue to be unsatisfactory. Both in Germany and abroad, there is ongoing criticism that the Federal Republic is neither sufficiently able nor genuinely willing to redress Nazi injustice with regard to cultural property in an adequate and comprehensive manner.

In view of this and on the occasion of its 20th anniversary, it is important to the Advisory Commission to identify potential structural weaknesses for itself and with a view to the future and to set out necessary or conceivable approaches to reform.

The option to lodge a unilateral request for mediation: The main obstacle to comprehensive handling of looted art cases by the Advisory Commission is that the descendants of the victims do not have any option to initiate proceedings unilaterally. For this reason, the Advisory Commission calls for victims and their descendants to be given the opportunity to initiate proceedings before the Commission without having to depend on the voluntary cooperation of the cultural institution in whose custody the cultural property is.

Binding effect of the decisions: The Advisory Commission can currently only make recommendations and not issue binding decisions. The implementation of these decisions is left to the parties concerned. For this reason, legislation is required to regulate the establishment, status and composition of the Commission and also the decision-making procedure it follows.

Cultural property in private hands, substantive legislation on restitution is indispensable: Common practice in Germany has meant that up to now, virtually without exception, proceedings have dealt with cultural property in public ownership, to the exclusion of looted art owned by private individuals and private institutions. The Advisory Commission calls for Nazi-looted art held by private institutions and private individuals to be able to be included in restitution proceedings as well. If the aim is to go beyond the notion of voluntary action here, comprehensive legislation on restitution is required: under current civil law, claims for restitution linked to seizure as a result of Nazi persecution are not or no longer justified or enforceable.

Statutory regulatory alternatives: In the case of comprehensive legislation on restitution, the constitutional issues must be assessed and, in particular, care must be taken to ensure protection of the fundamental right of freedom of ownership under Article 14 (1) of the Basic Law. Bona fide owners who would be legally obliged to hand over cultural property would be entitled to compensation or settlement. As far as the role of the Advisory Commission is concerned, it would be conceivable to establish a solution under administrative law in which the Commission is the superior federal authority that decides on restitution requests, or else a solution under civil law in which the Commission is a compulsory arbitration court that precedes judicial proceedings. It would be a welcome step to develop the Commission further in this way since it is an institution that has now accumulated a great deal of experience and expertise.

Provenance research: Federally funded research into the provenance of works of art in Germany is inadequately regulated. In the vast majority of cases, research funds go to museums. As things currently stand, the analysis of research outcomes is not overseen by any independent organisation or body, but is likewise carried out by museums. The Advisory Commission calls for provenance research funding (a total of around 50 million euros since 2008) to no longer go solely to museums but to an independent research institute

From November 1927, the painting belonged to Hedwig and Emanuel Albert Lewenstein, a couple living in Amsterdam. It was part of their extensive art collection. The painting was auctioned on 9 October 1940 – just a few months after the occupation of the Netherlands by the German Wehrmacht – at the auction house Frederik Muller & Co in Amsterdam as one of 82 lot numbers of the Lewenstein estate.
Up until a few weeks before the auction, Das bunte Leben was on loan from the Lewenstein family to the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. It was collected from there on 5 September 1940 on behalf of the art dealer Abraham Mozes Querido. Despite years of research, it has not been possible to clarify who ordered the painting to be picked up from the museum. For this reason, there is no proof of who instigated the sale of the painting at auction by Frederik Muller & Co as part of the Lewenstein estate. At the auction on 9 October 1940 Das bunte Leben was acquired by Salomon B. Slijper, whose widow sold it to the Bayerische Landesbank for 900,000 Dutch guilders (892,524.90 Deutschmarks) in 1972. Since then the painting has been on loan to the Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus and the Kunstbau in Munich.
At the time Das bunte Leben was auctioned in October 1940, the children of the deceased Hedwig and Emanuel Albert Lewenstein, Robert Gotschalk Lewenstein and Wilhelmine Helene Lewenstein, had already emigrated to the USA and to the Portuguese colony of Mozambique respectively. Only Irma had remained in Amsterdam: she was Robert’s separated wife. She survived the war, but was repeatedly the victim of severe persecution.

In the proceedings before the Advisory Commission on the return of cultural property seized as a result of Nazi persecution, especially Jewish property, the Bayerische Landesbank took the view that Irma Lewenstein Klein had put up the collection for auction – including Das bunte Leben – in connection with her divorce settlement. The claimants were of the opinion that the auction of the Lewenstein collection took place in connection with the occupation by the National Socialists and the systematic persecution of the Jewish population that this involved.

The Advisory Commission is of the opinion that the painting was seized as a result of persecution. The Lewenstein family and Irma Lewenstein Klein were persecuted as Jews by the National Socialists from the beginning of the German occupation of the Netherlands on 10 May 1940. According to the statutory presumption set down in the German Guidelines for implementing the Statement by the Federal Government, the Länder and the national associations of local authorities on the tracing and return of Nazi-confiscated art, especially Jewish property, of December 1999 (New edition 2019) (hereinafter: Guidelines), a sale is deemed to be a seizure as a result of persecution if the persons concerned are considered to have been persecuted. There is no evidence to support the assumption that Irma Lewenstein Klein arranged for the painting to be handed over of her own free will. As such, it is not possible to refute the statutory presumption.
The Advisory Commission emphasises that the systematic exclusion, disenfranchisement and dispossession of the Jewish population of the Netherlands began immediately after the invasion of the German Wehrmacht on 10 May 1940. Due to the immediate disenfranchisement of Jewish citizens, the Advisory Commission is therefore of the opinion that the statuary presumption set down in the Guidelines should be applied from the time the invasion began. The Dutch restitution rules, the recently reformed assessment framework, likewise contain a provision to this effect. “If the original owner was a private individual belonging to a persecuted group, involuntary expropriation is presumed if it occurred in the Netherlands after 10 May 1940, in Germany after 30 January 1933 or in Austria after 13 March 1938, unless expressly stated otherwise.”
For this reason, the Advisory Commission recommends the restitution of the painting Das bunte Leben to the heirs of Hedwig Lewenstein Weyermann and Irma Lewenstein Klein. 

The complete recommendation is available at beratende-kommission.de.

The subject of the proceedings is a violin by Giuseppe Guarneri “filius Andreae”. The fate of persecution of Felix Hildesheimer and his family and the loss of the instrument as a result of Nazi persecution is undisputed between the parties. The Advisory Commission has already recommended that the violin be left with the Hagemann Stiftung and that the heirs of Felix Hildesheimer be compensated for the value of the instrument (recommendation of 7 December 2016). Most recently, both parties asked the Advisory Commission to once again determine the value of the instrument after restoration had been completed. The expert opinions obtained indicated an average value of 285,000 Euro.
In partial amendment of its existing recommendation, the Advisory Commission therefore recommends that the Hagemann Stiftung provide the heirs of Felix Hildesheimer with payment in the amount of 285,000 Euro as compensation for the loss suffered.
The Advisory Commission recognizes that the new Board of Directors of the Hagemann Stiftung appointed in 2021 has been particularly committed to a just and fair solution in this matter. The Commission would therefore welcome if the parties could agree on a joint event – such as a commemorative concert – that would keep the memory of Felix Hildesheimer alive and allows to turn the Guarneri violin into a real “instrument of reconciliation”.

The painting was part of the extensive art collection of Robert Graetz. Graetz was a successful entrepreneur and partner in the company Glass & Graetz oHG in Berlin. Because of his Jewish ancestry, he and his family were persecuted individually and collectively. His children from his first marriage managed to escape abroad; the son of his second wife, Bluma Graetz, was taken to England on a Kindertransport. After the invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Bluma Graetz was classified as an "enemy of the state" because of her nationality and extradited to Russia via Turkey, where she had to perform forced labor for six years. Robert Graetz was deported on 14 April 1942 on the 14th Transport to the Trawniki concentration camp near Lublin. A last message to his daughter has survived from the Warsaw Ghetto, dated 16 June 1942. He was declared dead on 31 December 1945.
In light of the Graetz family’s fate of persecution, the Commission assumes that most of the family's extensive art collection was lost during National Socialism as a result of persecution. In the opinion of the Advisory Commission, however, it has not been demonstrated with sufficient probability that the painting in dispute was also seized from Robert Graetz as a result of persecution and that he may have been the primary victim. In addition, a settlement concluded in 1957 precludes the restitution of the property in this case. In this settlement, the heirs of Robert Graetz reached an agreement with the owners of the painting at the time regarding the sale of the painting to the Schiller Theater. On the basis of the settlement, the heirs of Robert Graetz received part of the proceeds of the sale as compensation. In its overall assessment, the Advisory Commission has therefore come to the conclusion that the painting is not to be restituted to the heirs of Robert Graetz.
However, the Advisory Commission attaches importance to the statement that the history of the painting is linked with three – if one adds the sitter, with four – fates of oppression and persecution. The Advisory Commission recommends that the Stiftung Stadtmuseum Berlin acknowledge this provenance in an appropriate manner in its future display of the Portrait of Alfred Kerr.

2. In agreement with the ministers of culture and the cultural senators of the federal states and the national municipal associations, Monika Grütters, Minister of State for Culture, has appointed the former State Premier of North-Rhine Westphalia, Professor Jürgen Rüttgers, to the Advisory Commission on the return of cultural property seized as a result of Nazi persecution, especially from Jewish property. The appointment of a new member had become necessary following the retirement of Prof. Dietmar von der Pfordten.

Die Beratende Kommission NS-Raubgut wurde von Bund, Ländern und Kommunen geschaffen, um eine Prüfung nach der Handreichung, wie sie die kultur-bewahrenden Institutionen vornehmen, um eine ethisch-moralische und politische Bewertung zu ergänzen. Kurt Grawi wurde nach dem Pogrom vom November 1938 im KZ Sachsenhausen interniert, seines Vermögens beraubt und anschließend mit 10 Reichsmark ins Exil vertrieben. Für seine Weiterreise ab Brüssel war Grawi auf fremde Unterstützung angewiesen. In dieser Situation hat er versucht, das mutmaßlich unter erheblichen persönlichen Risiken ins Ausland verbrachte Gemälde zu verkaufen. Wie bereits in früheren Empfehlungen geht die Kommission davon aus, dass ein Rechts-geschäft außerhalb des NS-Machtbereichs die Annahme eines NS-verfolgungsbedingten Entzugs nicht notwendigerweise ausschließt.

Auch im Falle von Kurt Grawi stand der Verkauf in einem unmittelbaren Zusammenhang mit der nationalsozialistischen Verfolgung. Grawi selbst hat betont, dass er nur wegen seiner Flucht aus Deutschland dazu gezwungen sei, das Gemälde zu verkaufen, um sich und seiner Familie im Exil eine neue Existenz aufzubauen. Angesichts dieser Sachlage hat es die Beratende Kommission NS-Raubgut als gerecht und fair erachtet, der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf zu empfehlen, das Bild an die Erben nach Kurt Grawi zu restituieren. Von einer grundlegenden Änderung der bisherigen Praxis kann entgegen einigen Presseberichten nicht die Rede sein.

The painting was owned by Kurt Grawi until at least February 1940. Grawi was a banker, broker and independent entrepreneur. Because of his Jewish origins, he was persecuted both individually and collectively. After the Kristallnacht pogrom, Grawi was imprisoned in Sachsenhausen concentration camp for several weeks. At the end of April 1939, he emigrated via Brussels to Santiago de Chile, where he joined relatives of his wife, Else, on 4 June 1939. Grawi was allowed to take 10 Reichsmark with him. He was reliant on assistance from friends for his onward journey from Brussels. In December 1939, Else Grawi and the couple’s two sons emigrated via Italy to Chile, where they were reunited with Kurt Grawi.
A letter dated 30 April 30 1939, written by Kurt Grawi in Brussels shortly before he continued his onward journey to Chile, indicates that Füchse was located in Paris at that point awaiting onward shipment to New York, where it was to be sold “despite the unfavorable times”. Grawi emphasized that, for himself and his family, “the result of the sale will provide the basis for our emigration”.
The painting was sold to William and Charlotte Dieterle in New York between February and September 1940. It entered the holdings of the Städtische Kunstsammlung Düsseldorf in 1962 as a donation from Helmut Horten. 

The Advisory Commission believes that the painting Füchse by Franz Marc should be restituted, even though the sale took place outside the National Socialist sphere of influence. The sale in 1940 in New York was the direct consequence of imprisonment in a concentration camp and subsequent emigration, and was so closely connected with National Socialist persecution that the location of the event becomes secondary in comparison.

Over the course of decades, Heinrich Rieger had built a substantial collection of contemporary art in Vienna. He probably received the watercolor Kauernder weiblicher Akt from the artist himself, whom he treated as his dentist. After the so-called annexation on 13 March 1938 Rieger was severely persecuted for his Jewish heritage. He lost almost the entirety of his collection in emergency sales and acts of “aryanization”. Rieger was deported to Theresienstadt concentration camp in 1942, where he died on an unknown date. His wife was deported to Auschwitz on 16 May 1944 and probably killed in the gas chambers upon arrival. Only their son Robert managed to escape to the USA in 1938.
The exact fate of the Kauernder weiblicher Akt is unknown. However, Rieger’s collection remained largely intact until 13 March 1938. Rieger rarely relinquished works, particularly those by Schiele, and only in exceptional cases. In accordance with the principles of prima facie evidence, the Commission therefore considers it a proven fact that Kauernder weiblicher Akt was still part of Rieger’s collection on 13 March 1938 and subsequently confiscated due to Nazi persecution.

The painting was owned by Max Fischer until January 1934. Fischer was a doctor of history. Because of his Jewish origins, he was persecuted both individually and collectively. He left Germany in 1935 and emigrated permanently to the United States in 1936.
In January 1944, the painting was in the possession of Erich Heckel and located in the cellar of his Berlin apartment building. Heckel donated it to the Kunsthalle Karlsruhe museum in 1967, where it remains to this day.
It could not be clarified when and under what circumstances Erich Heckel came into possession of the painting or even obtained ownership of it between January 1934 and January 1944. In the view of the Advisory Commission, it thus had to be assumed that the painting was seized as the result of Nazi persecution. The Commission has therefore unanimously decided to recommend the restitution of Geschwister to the heirs of Max Fischer.

The heirs have announced that they plan to donate the painting Geschwister to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. The Advisory Commission acknowledges this as a special gesture.

2. The Hagemann Foundation initially justified its inability to do so by citing legal difficulties under foundation law. However, neither is it clear to what extent the Hagemann Foundation has expressed to the Foundation Supervisory Authority a serious intention to comply with the recommendation of the Advisory Commission, nor have other ways of raising the compensation sum been pursued with the requisite effort. The Advisory Commission regrets that none of the public institutions involved has been able to induce the Hagemann Foundation to comply with the Advisory Commission's recommendation and to support it in doing so.

3. In response to the request of the Advisory Commission to explain its further course of action, the Hagemann Foundation has now referred to new research results which would prove that Felix Hildesheimer was not forced to sell his business as early as 1937 – as still assumed in 2016 – but only on 11 January 1939. The Hagemann Foundation therefore feels justified in abandoning any efforts to implement the recommendation. In doing so, not only does it contradict the applicable principles for the restitution of property looted by the National Socialists as laid down in the Washington Principles and the Guidelines, but it also ignores the established standard of knowledge about living conditions in National Socialist Germany, especially after 09 November 1938.

4. For four years now, the community of heirs, whose German ancestors were subjected to severe persecution under National Socialism, has been given the impression that a political lack of will and bureaucratic hurdles stood in the way of reparation for historical injustice in Germany. The Advisory Commission considers it particularly inappropriate that the Hagemann Foundation continues to claim that its handling of the matter makes the violin an “instrument of reconciliation”.

Appendix

The Advisory Commission’s recommendation of 07 December 2016 was based on the following considerations:

Sophie Hagemann acquired a Guarneri violin in 1974, now owned by the Hagemann Foundation. In the course of a planned restoration, the Hagemann Foundation began to investigate the provenance of the instrument. This revealed that the Speyer music dealer Felix Hildesheimer had acquired the violin on 24 January 1938. As a Jew, Felix Hildesheimer was persecuted individually and collectively. After he was forced to sell his home and music store, Felix Hildesheimer committed suicide on 01 August 1939. His two daughters had previously managed to emigrate to Australia and the United States respectively. His widow was deported to Gurs on 26 October 1940, and was able to escape to the USA via Marseille on 10 November 1941.
The remaining furniture was confiscated by the Gestapo and auctioned off. In view of these facts, it is not clear how Felix Hildesheimer could have lost the violin in a way that would not oblige its restitution today. In its recommendation, the Advisory Commission therefore came to the conclusion that the violin must be considered as cultural property seized as a result of National Socialist persecution in accordance with the Washington Principles and the Guidelines.
Because the donor acquired the violin in good faith and the Hagemann Foundation itself made considerable efforts to clarify the provenance of the instrument, the Advisory Commission refrained from recommending restitution. Instead, it recom-mended that the heirs be financially compensated. At the time, the violin had a value of 150,000 Euro, from which renovation costs of 50,000 Euro were to be deducted. The heirs were therefore to receive compensation of 100,000 Euro. Both sides agreed to this course of action.

Staatsministerin Grütters: „Vor nunmehr zwanzig Jahren fand die Washingtoner Konferenz statt, auf der sich Deutschland dazu bereit erklärt hat, nach NS-verfolgungsbedingt entzogenen Kulturgut zu suchen und gerechte und faire Lösungen zu finden. Es steht auch heute unverändert außer Frage, dass die Aufarbeitung des nationalsozialistischen Kunstraubes eine bleibende Verpflichtung für Deutschland ist. Zur Umsetzung der Washingtoner Prinzipien leistet die Beratende Kommission einen unverzichtbaren und bedeutenden Beitrag. Ich danke Frau Beck, Frau Dr. Lohse und Frau Prof. Dr. Schulze für ihre Bereitschaft, in der Kommission mitzuwirken. Mit ihnen konnten drei Persönlichkeiten gewonnen werden, die mit ihrem Sachverstand und beruflichen Renommee dazu beitragen werden, die bisherige ausgezeichnete Arbeit der Kommission fortzuführen.“
Die Kommission war 2003 von Bund, Ländern und kommunalen Spitzenverbänden eingerichtet worden. Sie vermittelt bei Differenzen über die Rückgabe von Kulturgütern, die im Dritten Reich ihren Eigentümern, insbesondere verfolgten jüdischen Bürgern, entzogen wurden und sich heute in Museen, Bibliotheken, Archiven, anderen öffentlichen Einrichtungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland oder in Privatbesitz befinden. Die Kommission übernimmt eine Mediatorenrolle zwischen den Trägern der Sammlungen und den ehemaligen Eigentümern der Kulturgüter bzw. deren Erben, wenn dies von beiden Seiten gewünscht wird. Zur Beilegung der Meinungsverschiedenheiten kann sie Empfehlungen aussprechen.

Mit Berufung der neuen Mitglieder ist die Beratende Kommission NS-Raubgut nun paritätisch besetzt.

Vorsitzender der Kommission ist der ehemalige Präsident des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Papier, der die Funktion im Jahr 2017 übernommen hat. Weitere Mitglieder sind der Kunsthistoriker und stellvertretende Vorsitzende der Kommission Prof. Dr. Wolf Tegethoff, die ehemalige Präsidentin des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts Marion Eckertz-Höfer, der Präsident des Deutschen Historischen Museums Prof. Dr. Raphael Gross, der Rechts- und Sozialphilosoph Prof. Dr. Dietmar von der Pfordten, der ehemalige Direktor der American Academy in Berlin Dr. Gary Smith und die ehemalige Bundestagspräsidentin Prof. Dr. Rita Süssmuth.

Fed­er­al Gov­ern­ment Com­mis­sion­er for Cul­ture and the Me­dia, Moni­ka Grüt­ters, wel­comed the elec­tion of Hans-Jür­gen Pa­pi­er: “With the elec­tion of Prof. Pa­pi­er, a well-known and high­ly re­gard­ed in­di­vid­u­al is tak­ing over as chair of the Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mis­sion. Prof. Pa­pi­er has ex­ten­sive ex­pe­ri­ence in deal­ing with com­pli­cat­ed and com­plex sit­u­a­tions and this will be in­valu­able in his new hon­orary post. I am de­light­ed that, once again, a for­mer pres­i­dent of the Fed­er­al Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court is tak­ing up this im­por­tant po­si­tion as the suc­ces­sor to Prof. Lim­bach. In-depth le­gal knowl­edge, ex­pe­ri­ence in strik­ing a bal­ance and the high so­cial rep­u­ta­tion of a pres­i­dent of the Fed­er­al Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court will con­tin­ue to strength­en the work of the Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mis­sion in a na­tion­al and in­ter­na­tion­al con­text. The Com­mis­sion’s vol­un­tary work, which in­volves great per­son­al com­mit­ment, is so im­por­tant be­cause the rec­om­men­da­tions of the Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mis­sion are a sig­nif­i­cant part of ful­fill­ing Ger­many’s moral obli­ga­tion to deal with Nazi-con­fis­cat­ed prop­er­ty and the prac­ti­cal im­ple­men­ta­tion of the Wash­ing­ton Prin­ci­ples.”

Pro­fes­sor Pa­pi­er said: “I am look­ing for­ward to tak­ing up this new po­si­tion of re­spon­si­bil­i­ty. In Jut­ta Lim­bach, the Com­mis­sion was chaired by an in­di­vid­u­al who was high­ly re­gard­ed both in Ger­many and abroad, and who had ex­ert­ed a de­ci­sive in­flu­ence on the work of the Com­mis­sion since it was found­ed. It is a great hon­or for me to con­tin­ue this work be­cause the search for fair and just so­lu­tions with re­gard to Nazi-con­fis­cat­ed prop­er­ty re­mains a high­ly sen­si­tive obli­ga­tion, both eth­i­cal­ly and po­lit­i­cal­ly.”

Pro­fes­sor Pa­pi­er has been a mem­ber of the Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mis­sion since 2016. He was pres­i­dent of the Fed­er­al Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court from 2002 to 2010. Be­tween 2010 and 2015, Pro­fes­sor Pa­pi­er was chair of the Cham­ber of Pub­lic Re­spon­si­bil­i­ty of the Evan­gel­i­cal Church in Ger­many. From 1991 to 1998, he was chair­man of the In­de­pen­dent Com­mis­sion for the Re­view of As­sets of Par­ties and Mass Or­gan­i­sa­tions of the GDR. He was deputy chair­man of the ethics com­mit­tee of the Bay­erische Lan­desärztekam­mer from 1996 to 1998.

Pro­fes­sor Tegeth­off has been a mem­ber of the Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mis­sion since 2008. He has been the di­rec­tor of the Zen­tralin­sti­tut für Kun­st­geschichte in Mu­nich since 1991 and has held guest pro­fes­sor­ships in Bonn, Haifa and Venice. Prof. Tegeth­off has been hon­orary pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Mu­nich since 2000.

Pro­fes­sor Lim­bach was the elect­ed chair­wom­an of the Com­mis­sion from 2003 un­til her death in Septem­ber 2016. Pro­fes­sor Thomas Gaeth­gens was deputy chair­man un­til 2008; he was then suc­ceed­ed in the post in 2008 by Pro­fes­sor Rein­hard Rürup, who has act­ed as chair­man since the end of 2015 due to the ill­ness and death of Pro­fes­sor Lim­bach.

These are:

- the op­tion for the Com­mis­sion to be called up­on by pri­vate in­di­vid­u­als in fu­ture, on the side of the hold­er of the cul­tur­al prop­er­ty,
- greater trans­paren­cy, es­pe­cial­ly through pub­li­ca­tion of the Com­mis­sion’s Rules of Pro­ce­dure,
- ex­pan­sion of the Com­mis­sion from eight to ten mem­bers, in­clud­ing at least one Jew­ish mem­ber who can make a more di­rect con­tri­bu­tion from the per­spec­tive of vic­tims,
- pub­lic jus­ti­fi­ca­tion of rec­om­men­da­tions.

Moni­ka Grüt­ters, Fed­er­al Gov­ern­ment Com­mis­sion­er for Cul­ture and the Me­dia, said: “The thor­ough in­ves­ti­ga­tion of Na­tion­al So­cial­ist art theft is an on­go­ing com­mit­ment for Ger­many. It was there­fore ex­treme­ly im­por­tant for me to de­vel­op the Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mis­sion in this way in or­der to en­sure it is able to con­tin­ue per­form­ing its sen­si­tive and chal­leng­ing du­ties suc­cess­ful­ly in the fu­ture, with recog­ni­tion from all sides. The Com­mis­sion serves to en­sure that Ger­many deals hon­est­ly and as­sertive­ly with its past. These pro­posed re­forms are an im­por­tant step to­wards achiev­ing ev­er-bet­ter im­ple­men­ta­tion of the Wash­ing­ton Prin­ci­ples – in the in­ter­ests of the vic­tims of Nazi art theft and their de­scen­dants, and al­so of mu­se­ums in Ger­many.”

The Fed­er­al Cab­i­net ap­proved the fur­ther de­vel­op­ment of the Com­mis­sion this week. The Chiefs of Staff Con­fer­ence has to­day unan­i­mous­ly agreed the pro­pos­als and re­ferred the key points to the KMK Plenum of Min­is­ters for the fi­nal de­ci­sion to be tak­en.

The fol­low­ing new mem­bers were ap­point­ed to the Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mis­sion: Pro­fes­sor Raphael Gross, di­rec­tor of the Si­mon Dub­now In­sti­tute for Jew­ish His­to­ry and Cul­ture; Gary Smith, philoso­pher and for­mer di­rec­tor of the Amer­i­can Acade­my in Berlin; and Mar­i­on Eck­ertz-Höfer, for­mer pres­i­dent of the Fed­er­al Ad­min­is­tra­tive Court.
Oth­er changes at the Com­mis­sion con­cern the ten-year lim­it on the term of of­fice for new­ly ap­point­ed mem­bers and the op­tion for the Com­mis­sion to or­der ex­pert re­ports if nec­es­sary in fu­ture. The Fed­er­al Gov­ern­ment Com­mis­sion­er for Cul­ture and the Me­dia will cov­er the costs as­so­ci­at­ed with the prepa­ra­tion of these ex­pert re­ports.

Prof. Moni­ka Grüt­ters said: “I an­tic­i­pate that all Ger­man mu­se­ums with­out ex­cep­tion are, of course, pre­pared for pro­ceed­ings be­fore the Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mis­sion. This is made nec­es­sary by the moral and his­tor­i­cal du­ty to­wards the vic­tims of Nazi per­se­cu­tion. It is al­so in the in­sti­tu­tions’ own in­ter­ests. Should the par­ties not come to an agree­ment on an ap­peal to the Com­mis­sion, I urge the bod­ies re­spon­si­ble for the in­sti­tu­tions to work to­wards an ap­peal in ac­cor­dance with the agreed and ef­fec­tive Wash­ing­ton Prin­ci­ples. Per­son­al­ly I shall con­tin­ue to pro­vide strong sup­port for the in­sti­tu­tions fund­ed by my de­part­ment.”

The Com­mis­sion was formed in 2003 by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, the fed­er­al states and the lead­ing mu­nic­i­pal as­so­ci­a­tions to me­di­ate in cas­es of dis­pute in­volv­ing the resti­tu­tion of cul­tur­al as­sets that were con­fis­cat­ed dur­ing the “Third Re­ich”, es­pe­cial­ly from per­se­cut­ed Jew­ish cit­i­zens, and which are now held by mu­se­ums, li­braries, archives and oth­er pub­lic in­sti­tu­tions in the Fed­er­al Re­pub­lic of Ger­many. The Com­mis­sion acts as a me­di­a­tor be­tween the or­ga­ni­za­tions in pos­ses­sion of the col­lec­tions and the for­mer own­ers of the cul­tur­al as­sets or their heirs, if de­sired by both par­ties. It can al­so make rec­om­men­da­tions for set­tling dis­putes.

Fed­er­al Gov­ern­ment Com­mis­sion­er for Cul­ture and the Me­dia, Moni­ka Grüt­ters, once again ex­pressed her deep ap­pre­ci­a­tion for the out­stand­ing work car­ried out to date by the Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mis­sion and for the enor­mous vol­un­tary com­mit­ment of its mem­bers. This was es­pe­cial­ly true for Prof. Jut­ta Lim­bach, the for­mer pres­i­dent of the Fed­er­al Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court who re­cent­ly passed away. Prof Lim­bach had been the chair of the Com­mis­sion since its in­cep­tion.

Sie weist in die­sem Zu­sam­men­hang dar­auf hin, dass sich die Anspruchstel­ler in ih­rem Schrei­ben vom 15. Februar 2016 an die Kom­mis­si­ons­vor­sit­zen­de, Prof. Jut­ta Lim­bach, und Prof. Rü­rup aus­drück­lich „für die aus­ge­zeich­ne­te Ver­hand­lungs­lei­tung der gut vor­be­rei­te­ten Sit­zung“ be­dankt ha­ben.

Zu der An­hö­rung sind die Par­tei­en ord­nungs­ge­mäß ein­ge­la­den wor­den, al­le re­le­van­ten In­for­ma­tio­nen sind durch die Ge­schäfts­stel­le der Kom­mis­si­on und wech­sel­sei­tig den Par­tei­en recht­zei­tig vor der An­hö­rung zu­ge­lei­tet wor­den.

Die Par­tei­en wur­den am 12. Februar 2016 so­gleich zu Sit­zungs­be­ginn von Prof. Rü­rup dar­über in­for­miert, dass die Vor­sit­zen­de der Kom­mis­si­on, Prof. Jut­ta Lim­bach, krank­heits­be­dingt ver­hin­dert sei. Hier­ge­gen si­gna­li­sier­te kei­ne der Par­tei­en Ein­wän­de. Für den Ab­lauf der An­hö­rung hat­te die krank­heits­be­ding­te Ab­we­sen­heit der Vor­sit­zen­den kei­ne Aus­wir­kun­gen, da Frau Prof. Lim­bach durch Herrn Prof. Rü­rup ver­tre­ten war.

Die Par­tei­en wur­den zu­dem zu Sit­zungs­be­ginn dar­über in­for­miert, dass ein Kom­mis­si­ons­mit­glied in­fol­ge ei­ner be­reits ein­ge­gan­ge­nen, zeit­lich nicht zu ver­schie­ben­den, an­der­wei­ti­gen Ver­pflich­tung die Sit­zung vor­zei­tig ver­las­sen müs­se. Auch hier­ge­gen hat­te kei­ne der Par­tei­en Ein­wän­de. Das Ver­las­sen der Sit­zung hat­te kei­ne Aus­wir­kung auf die ord­nungs­ge­mä­ße Be­en­di­gung der An­hö­rung, da kei­ne Ver­ta­gung be­an­tragt wur­de.

Die Kom­mis­si­on ist er­staunt über die Art und Wei­se des Vor­ge­hens der Ver­tre­ter der Er­ben­ge­mein­schaft Alfred Flecht­heim. Die Kom­mis­si­on ist auf­grund ei­ner Ent­schei­dung des Bun­des, der Län­der und der kom­mu­na­len Spit­zen­ver­bän­de 2003 als Me­dia­ti­ons­gre­mi­um aus eh­ren­amt­lich tä­ti­gen, hoch­ran­gi­gen Per­sön­lich­kei­ten aus Wis­sen­schaft und öf­fent­li­chem Le­ben ge­grün­det wor­den. Die Ein­schal­tung der Kom­mis­si­on ist frei­wil­lig und muss im Ein­ver­neh­men mit den Par­tei­en er­fol­gen. Die Emp­feh­lun­gen der Kom­mis­si­on sind recht­lich nicht ver­bind­lich. Sie ist kei­ne Be­hör­de oder staat­li­che Stel­le, son­dern un­ab­hän­gig - auch in ih­rem Ver­fah­ren - und un­ter­liegt kei­ner Dienst- und Fach­auf­sicht.