61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

and Willi Raeber, and casual dealers and collectors such as Alexander von Frey,
André Martin and Max Stöcklin. It can thus be seen that it was not only the
professional art trade that was involved in the purchase of looted art, but also
amateur dealers and collectors. At a time of uncertainty and crisis, several
individuals had taken advantage of the circumstances and viewed the trade in
Impressionists on the Swiss art market as an opportunity. An analysis of actions
for recourse shows which players were involved in the «looted assets» trade.
The Federal Supreme Court was mainly interested in the issue of whether those
involved had acted in good or bad faith. It either ignored or deliberately
excluded other questions, such as that of whether Swiss art dealers had acted
directly on the Paris art market during the German occupation. 132 The finance
authorities presented substantial evidence to prove that Bührle and Fischer had
acted in bad faith. By contrast, the Federal Supreme Court decided differently
and deemed all purchasers to have acted in good faith, and entered into a «fishy»
compromise in the case of Fischer in particular, in that it drastically reduced the
sum to be paid in compensation.
Table 10: Compensation payments by Switzerland concerning cultural assets (in francs)
Outcome of suit Claims Settlements Payments
Theodor Fischer 25 June 1952 1 123 768 265 259.92
Emil G. Bührle 5 July 1951 16 943.20
Albin Neupert 26 March 1952 15 000 12 000 8 993.15
Alois Miedl 19 February 1951 400 000 150 000 –
Total 291 196.27
Source: FA, E 2001 (E) 1969/121, vol. 209, claims on the Swiss government from looted goods trials,
no author, no date.
The Swiss Confederation was at the end of the recourse chain as German vendors
such as Hans Wendland and Walter Andreas Hofer could not be prosecuted.
The finance authorities had intended to turn for compensation payments to the
blocked assets of the German vendor who had acted in bad faith. 133 As neither
Wendland’s nor Hofer’s assets were found by the Clearing Office, the authorities
arranged for a sum of just under 300,000 francs to be repaid by the Federal
Republic of Germany in 1958. 134 This recourse had not been provided for in the
Decree on Looted Assets, but was subsequently negotiated by Swiss diplomats.
Switzerland thereby extended the recourse chain away from itself so as not be
left with all the costs. It’s success not only whitewashed «Switzerland the art
trade centre», but also «political Switzerland», which had of necessity been
involved in the actions for recourse.
475