61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

German judicial bodies when the proceedings concerned the surrender of
policies containing a clause offering the possibility of payment in Switzerland.
No clear answer could be found to the question of what happened to policies
which had been issued in Switzerland itself. In many instances of material
damage, such as reimbursement for the damage caused during «Kristallnacht»
on 9 November 1938, the post-war insurers offered very little co-operation in
respect of the claims laid before them.
Secondary financial significance, but great emotional value, was attached to the
works of art, collections, cultural assets, and other movable valuables. They were
included in the London Declaration of 5 January 1943 and the Agreement with
the Currie Mission. Restitution was not easy, however: a large proportion of
these objects had been passed from hand to hand – Switzerland often acting as
a «hub» in this process. In many cases their provenance was no longer readily
apparent. Although the dubiousness of the origin of many works of art should
have been obvious, they were often acquired in more or less good faith by
museums or art-lovers. As with the other categories of assets, in the case of
works of art and cultural assets, information from abroad was awaited in order
to identify possible looted assets. And so, on the basis of a list of objects
compiled by the Allies, the Federal Council issued Decrees in December 1945
and February 1946 allowing owners who had suffered losses to submit a petition
to the Chamber of Looted Assets (Raubgutkammer) of the Federal Supreme Court.
70 of the 77 objects on the Allies’ list were restituted, either through a court
judgment or an out-of-court settlement. However, the Decrees issued by the
Federal Government by no means solved the problem: they were confined to the
war years and to the countries occupied by Germany after 1939, granted the
owners a period of only two years to lodge their claim, and made no attempt to
make these legal provisions known internationally, meaning that in the chaos
of the post-war era many owners did not receive the information in time or were
unable to find the requisite documents.
The same governmental Decrees provided for the restitution of securities. But
here too, the path to restitution was blocked by the banks with feigned legal
obstacles despite the rather more flexible approach of the securities dealers.
Moreover, the same short 2-year deadline made it almost impossible for private
individuals to obtain satisfactory restitution.
Hesitation on the Swiss side in accepting responsibility for the most recent,
momentous past was not confined to material or financial restitution. It was also
apparent in the fear in public and business circles of compromising important
interests, meaning that obscure business dealings (Interhandel) or dubious activities
on the part of a handful of middle-men, lawyers, fiduciaries, or business
people were never explained.
513