Restitutiecommissie = - Recommendation RC 1.100

Recommendation RC 1.100=20

Date	:	3 May 2010
Case number	:	RC 1.100
		Recommendation regarding:
		Zadick

_____________________________________= _________________________________________________________________________= _______________

In a letter dated 17 October 2008, the Minister for Education, = Culture and=20 Science (hereafter referred to as: =91the Minister') asked the = Restitutions=20 Committee (hereafter referred to as: =91the Committee') to issue a = recommendation=20 regarding an application from the Foundation L.d.H.D. (hereafter also = referred=20 to as: =91applicant I') and an application from the Foundation S.J.M.W. = (hereafter=20 also referred to as: =91applicant II') for the restitution of the = painting=20 Ships off the coast by G. van Emmerik. The claimed work of art = is=20 currently part of the National Art Collection under inventory number=20 NK 3536 and on loan to the Dutch embassy in Prague.

The procedure

Both applications for restitution were submitted following contact = with the=20 Origins Unknown Agency (hereafter referred to as: =91BHG'). The BHG = informed both=20 applicants in mid-2007 that NK 3536 may have been the property of = Hartog=20 Zadick. Applicant I filed the application in a letter dated 6 September = 2007 and=20 applicant II in a letter dated 19 February 2008.
Following the = Minister's=20 request for a recommendation, the Committee instigated a fact-finding=20 investigation, the results of which were included in a draft = investigatory=20 report dated 11 January 2010. Copies of this draft report were sent to = the=20 applicants for comment in letters dated 11 February 2010, to which = applicant I=20 responded in a letter dated 22 February 2010 and applicant II in a = letter dated=20 9 March 2010. Both applicants agreed to the representation of the facts = in the=20 draft report. In addition, the Committee sent the draft investigatory = report to=20 the Minister with a request for additional factual information on 11 = January=20 2010, to which the Minister responded on 24 February 2010 that he did = not have=20 any additional factual material. The investigatory report was = subsequently=20 adopted on 3 May 2010. For the facts of the case, the Committee refers = to this=20 report.

Considerations:

Applicants I and II (hereafter jointly referred to as: =91the = applicants')=20 request the restitution of the painting Ships off the coast = by G. van=20 Emmerik, which is thought to have belonged to Hartog Zadick and to = have been=20 confiscated by the occupying forces during the war. Both applicants = claim to=20 be co-heirs of Betje van Gelder and, hence, of Hartog Zadick. = According to a=20 certificate of inheritance issued on 30 April 1948 by J. van Hasselt,=20 civil-law notary in Amsterdam at the time, Betje van Gelder was Hartog = Zadick's wife and sole heir. With regard to the applicants' capacity = as heirs=20 of Betje van Gelder, the Committee has taken cognisance of a copy of = Betje van=20 Gelder's will, sent in by applicant I, executed on 4 September 1972 in = the=20 presence of P.C.J. Beynen, civil-law notary in Baarn at the time. The=20 aforementioned legal inheritance documents have given the Committee no = reason=20 to question the applicants' status as heirs of Hartog Zadick.
Hartog Zadick (hereafter referred to as: =91Zadick') was born to = Lion Zadick=20 and Rebekka Cohen, both of Jewish extraction, in Arnhem on 26 August = 1878.=20 Zadick married Elise van Wien, which marriage was dissolved in 1936 on = the=20 latter's death. The spouses had a daughter, Rebecca, who died shortly = after=20 birth. In December 1940, Zadick married Betje Van Gelder (1900-1974) = without=20 community of property. The Zadicks lived on Richard Wagnerstraat 12 in = Amsterdam. Zadick was a merchant trading in textiles. After the German = invasion in May 1940, the Zadicks suffered from anti-Jewish measures = taken by=20 the occupying forces. For example, they were forced to surrender a few = dozen=20 paintings to the looting organisation Lippmann, Rosenthal & Co. = (hereafter=20 referred to as: =91Liro'), among which was Zadick's seascape by the = painter Van=20 Emmerik. The couple was also forced to move to a house on = Afrikanerplein in=20 Amsterdam, in a Nazi-designated =91Jewish district'. According to = post-war=20 statements by Betje van Gelder, the household effects at both = addresses were=20 seized, and the property that the couple had stored at a shipping = agent was=20 confiscated in mid-1942. The Zadicks were deported to the = Bergen-Belsen=20 concentration camp via Westerbork. Zadick died in Tr=F6bitz (Germany) = on 30 May=20 1945. Betje van Gelder survived the war and returned to the = Netherlands after=20 liberation. She died on 20 May 1974.
As far as is known, neither = Betje van=20 Gelder nor any other relative of Zadick's ever reported the loss of = any works=20 of art during the war, so that there is no question of a case that has = been=20 settled in the past.
Based on the facts summarised under 2, the Committee assumes first = of all=20 that Zadick's loss of the paintings that were confiscated as described = under 2=20 was involuntary and the result of circumstances directly related to = the Nazi=20 regime.
The question that the Committee has yet to answer is whether the = currently=20 claimed NK3536 is the Van Emmerik painting that Zadick surrendered to = Liro.=20 Bearing this question in mind, the Committee conducted a detailed=20 investigation, which produced, in summary, the following results.
The archive of the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage = (hereafter=20 referred to as: =91ICN') was found to contain correspondence between = the=20 Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam and the Dienst voor 's Rijks Verspreide=20 Kunstvoorwerpen (hereafter referred to as: DRVK), the ICN's = predecessor, which=20 shows that the currently claimed painting, together with two other = works of=20 art, was handed to the museum by the criminal investigation department = shortly=20 after the war. The museum informed the DRVK at the time that the = provenance of=20 these works was uncertain and no longer possible to ascertain, adding = that=20 they were probably Jewish property that had been in the enemy's = possession.=20 The museum believed that the administration of the works should be = entrusted=20 to the national government in both cases. On 13 March 1975, these = three works=20 were transferred to the DRVK and later registered as NK numbers; that = is, as=20 works of art with a war-related provenance placed in the custody of = the=20 national government. The museum stated later that if the legal owner = of the=20 works were to claim them, they would have to be returned to the owner. = One of=20 the three works thus handed in to the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam = was an=20 etching by J.M. Graadt van Roggen (NK3537), which, on the = recommendation of=20 the Restitutions Committee (RC1.25), has already been returned. With = regard to=20 this etching, the Committee deemed it likely that it was Jewish = property that=20 was confiscated by Liro and resold during the war to the German firm = of=20 Reinheldt, one of the principal buyers of Jewish-owned works of art=20 surrendered to Liro.
The Committee's research of the property recovery authorities' = archives in=20 connection with the currently claimed work yielded information about = three=20 paintings by G. van Emmerik of which Dutch owners lost possession = during the=20 war. Of these, only Zadick's painting, which was surrendered to Liro = and=20 listed as missing by the post-war authorities on the basis of Liro's = records,=20 displayed similarities with the present NK3536, whereas the other two=20 paintings cannot be reconciled with NK3536.
Research into the provenance of the NK work conducted by the BHG = led to=20 the conclusion that there was no known information from which the = provenance=20 of this painting could be inferred. However, from comments in the BHG = file=20 regarding NK3536, it appears that the BHG did not rule out the = possibility=20 that it was the painting surrendered by Zadick and that, as such, it = is on=20 what is known as the Liro list, an inventory of property that Jews = were=20 ordered to surrender to the looting organisation Liro by the occupying = forces.=20 According to the list, the work of art referred to by the BHG had been = handed=20 in by: =91H. Zadick / Rich.Wagnerstr. 12 / Amsterdam / later = verhuisd naar=20 [later relocated to] / Afrikanerplein 40 / Amsterdam' = and is=20 described as: [Voorstelling] Zeegezicht m/schip / [Schilder] P. v. = Emmerik=20 (1850) / [Tax. Waarde:] 275.- / [Verkoopprijs:] 450.-- / [Verkocht = aan:]=20 Reinhe[l]dt / VB / 999 / 31.3.43 [(Depicted) Seascape w/ship = (Painter)=20 P.v. Emmerik (1850) / (Valued at:) NLG 275 / (Sold for: NLG450 / (sold = to:)=20 Reinhe(l)dt / VB / 999 / 31.3.43].
The Committee has ascertained the extent to which the information = on the=20 Liro list matches NK3536. The painting is currently registered under = the=20 following description:
=91Kunstenaar: Emmerik, G. van [...] / = Signatuur:=20 x / Titel: Schepen bij een kust [...] / Datering van: 1869 / Datering = tot:=20 1869 / Datumtabel: gedateerd / Materiaal/techniek: olieverf op doek /=20 Hoogte/lengte: 57.0 cm / Breedte: 74.0 cm' [=91Artist: Emmerik, = G. van=20 (...) / Signature: x / Title: Ships off the coast (...) / Dated from: = 1869 /=20 Dated until: 1869 / Date table: dated /Material/technique: oil on = canvas /=20 Height/length: 57.0 cm / Width: 74.0 cm].
The descriptions as referred to in considerations 7 and 8 of the = painting=20 on the Liro list and NK3536, respectively, display both similarities = and=20 differences. Given that the Liro list is known to contain many = inaccuracies=20 and errors, the Committee subjected the differences in signature, = description=20 and date to closer scrutiny, which will be discussed below in = considerations=20 10 to 12 inclusive.
The claimed work was made by nineteenth-century painter Govert van = Emmerik=20 (1808-1882), while the Liro list states that the work lost by Zadick = was made=20 by =91P. v. Emmerik'. Research conducted at the Netherlands = Institute=20 for Art History (hereafter referred to as: =91RKD') has revealed that = there is=20 no nineteenth-century (marine) painter known by the name of P. van = Emmerik.=20 The initial =91P' entry therefore seems to be a mistake, = which, if the=20 work on the Liro list and NK3536 are the same work, could be explained = by the=20 poor legibility of the signature.
The ICN describes NK3536 as: =91Schepen bij een kust' = [Ships=20 off the coast], whereas the Liro list describes Zadick's painting = as:=20 =91Zeegezicht m/schip'[Seascape w/ship] . = The=20 painting NK3536 features more than one ship, as well as a coast.
On the Liro list, the painting surrendered by Zadick at the time = is dated=20 =911850', whereas the ICN has dated NK3536 to = =911869'.=20 A question mark added to this latter date in the ICN's inventory book = and=20 inventory card indicates uncertainty about it. According to visual = material=20 requested by the Committee, NK3536 features a signature below which is = stated=20 the year in which the work was produced. Both the signature and year = are=20 poorly legible, as a result of which the sources consulted by the = Committee=20 give different dates in relation to NK3536. For example, in = documentation from=20 the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam the painting is dated 1849, while a = label=20 from the DRVK on the back of NK3536 mentions the year 1879.
In addition, the Committee conducted further research into G. van=20 Emmerik's oeuvre and found that Van Emmerik specialised in seascapes.=20 Photographic documentation at the RKD was found to contain = (approximately) 138=20 seascapes by G. van Emmerik, seven of which were =91definitely or = possibly=20 believed to date from 1850'. More detailed research into the auction = details=20 of works by G. van Emmerik revealed that approximately 100 of his = seascapes=20 were auctioned over the last 19 years, several of them featuring one = ship.=20
According to current restitution policy, restitution is only = possible if=20 the title to art objects has been proved with a high degree of = probability and=20 there are no indications to the contrary. In other words, the = Committee has to=20 answer the question of whether it is highly likely that the currently = claimed=20 painting in the National Art Collection (NK3536) is the Van Emmerik = seascape=20 that was stolen from Zadick.
The Committee deems this not be the case. The Committee concludes = that a=20 few indications that suggest otherwise are insufficient to support the = conclusion that this is highly probable. The Committee bases its = opinion=20 on:
i) the differences between the scene of NK3536 in which a = number of=20 ships are depicted and the description of Zadick's painting on the = Liro list,=20 which suggests that only one ship can be seen (=91Seascape=20 w/ship');
ii) the date of NK3536 (1869), which, although = uncertain,=20 ends with the number =919' in all sources, whereas the date mentioned = for=20 Zadick's painting on the Liro list is 1850;
iii) the fact = that G.=20 van Emmerik's oeuvre comprises many works that fit the description of = the work=20 lost by Zadick, including a number with the correct date.

Conclusion

The Restitutions Committee advises the State Secretary for Education, = Culture=20 and Science to reject the claim.

Adopted at the meeting of 3 May = 2010 by=20 W.J.M. Davids (chair), J.Th.M. Bank, E.J. van Straaten, H.M. Verrijn = Stuart,=20 I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair) and signed by the chair and the = secretary.=20

(W.J.M. Davids,=20 chair) &= nbsp; &n= bsp; =20 (E. Campfens, secretary)

=AB Previous=20 page