61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

summer 1946. 122 What is more, it had no expert staff such as art historians and
art dealers.
Looted assets cases in the years 1946 to 1953
During the two-year period for filing claims, five male and two female
claimants appeared before the Federal Supreme Court with restitution claims
concerning cultural assets. 123 The proceedings brought by Paul Rosenberg,
Paule-Juliette Levi de Benzion, Alfred Lindon and Alphonse Kann were
successful for the claimants, while others had partial success (Alexandrine de
Rothschild) or none at all (Alexander and Richard Ball and Goudstikker/Duits).
Below is a summary of relevant claims brought before the Chamber of Looted
Assets (Table 9).
The «legal defence mechanism» used by the defendants in the restitution
proceedings followed the same pattern: first, the claimants’ restitution claims
would always be initially disputed; second, doubt would be cast on the binding
nature of the Decree on Looted Assets, and, third, the removal of the paintings
by German military or civilian authorities and the identity of the paintings
would be called into question. The arguments advanced by the lawyers reveal a
concept of jurisprudence that did not question the validity of Nazi law. The
policy of looting adopted by the German occupying power was, as it were,
deemed to be lawful.
The group of claimants before the Federal Supreme Court included only wellknown
art collectors and dealers. Moreover, only paintings that had been seized
in France were restituted. A painting from a Dutch collection was reclaimed
without success: it had not, like those in France, been seized by the Einsatzstab
Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR) or the Devisenschutzkommando but due to «Aryanisation»
in the Netherlands and a subsequent sale, ended up in the hands of the
art dealer Walter Andreas Hofer and Goering respectively. There were many
reasons why, apart from two exceptions, only paintings and drawings were the
subject of claims. As mentioned, Cooper only searched for paintings and
drawings, and even the international art trade was not particularly interested in
other cultural assets. Moreover, classic works of this genre in particular are
readily identifiable and recorded in the specialist literature.
Of the 77 paintings and drawings on Cooper’s list, not all were returned under
a court ruling although this was stated time and again. 126 One painting was
returned in an out-of-court settlement 127, four paintings were not the subject of
an action in the Chamber of Looted Assets 128, another painting was not restituted
despite legal action 129, and another was found not to match the one being
sought once the claim had been filed. 130 Therefore, of 77 paintings and
drawings, 70 were restituted as per judgement.
473