Restitutiecommissie = - Recommendation RC 1.101

Recommendation RC 1.101=20

Date	:	9 November 2009
Case number	:	RC 1.101
		Recommendation regarding:
		Wolf

_______________________________________= _______________________________________
=20

In a letter dated 29 October 2008, the Minister for Education, = Culture and=20 Science (hereafter referred to as: =91the Minister') requested the = Restitutions=20 Committee (hereafter referred to as: =91the Committee') to issue a = recommendation=20 regarding the application submitted by Mrs H.J.L.-W. and Mrs = P.J.v.B.d.J.-W=20 (hereafter referred to as =91the applicants') on 14 November 2007 for = the=20 restitution of three works of art in the Netherlands Art = Property=20 Collection (hereafter referred to as: =91the NK collection'). = The=20 applicants are the daughters of Daniel Wolf, to whom the objects are = said to=20 have belonged during the Second World War. The applicants are = represented by Mr=20 P.L., Daniel Wolf's grandson.

The application concerns A country wedding by P. Brueghel II = (NK=20 2227), the painting Madonna and child by L. Cranach (NK 3071) = and a=20 Medallion carpet made of wool with star flower in the = centre=20 (NK 1042). The object NK 1042 is also at issue in another = application for=20 restitution and will be dealt with in connection with that (RC 1.104). = The=20 painting NK 2227 is on loan to the Noordbrabants Museum in Den Bosch; = the=20 painting NK 3071 is under the administration of the Mauritshuis in The = Hague.=20

The procedure

The reason for the application for restitution was that a German = lawyer=20 approached Mr P.L. in October 2007, alerting him to the presence of the = current=20 objects in the NK collection. After carrying out his own research, L. = then=20 decided to submit an application for restitution on behalf of his mother = and=20 aunt. At the Minister's request, L. provided some additional information = in a=20 letter dated 10 December 2007.

Following the Minister's request for a recommendation, the Committee=20 instigated a fact-finding investigation, the results of which were = included in a=20 draft investigatory report dated 14 September 2009. The draft = investigatory=20 report was sent to the applicants for comment in a letter dated 30 = September=20 2009 and to the Minister with a request for factual information on 1 = October=20 2009. On 15 October, the Minister informed the Committee that no further = information would be brought to its attention. The applicants responded = to the=20 draft investigatory report in a letter dated 29 October 2009, on the = basis of=20 which it was subsequently amended. The draft report was subsequently = adopted on=20 9 November 2009 and sent to the applicants on 10 November 2009. For the = facts of=20 the case, the Committee refers to this report.

Considerations:

The applicants requested the restitution of the paintings NK 2227 = and NK=20 3071 in their capacity as heirs to their father Daniel Wolf. In this = context,=20 the Committee has taken cognisance of several documents pertaining to = the law=20 of inheritance. These documents have given the Committee no reason to = doubt=20 the applicants' status as rightful heirs.
The relevant facts are described in the investigatory report of 9 = November=20 2009. The following is a summary. Daniel Wolf (hereafter referred to = as:=20 =91Wolf'), of Jewish descent, was born in Arnhem, the Netherlands, on = 3 January=20 1893. He married Ren=E9e Louise Gokkes in 1919 and the couple had two = daughters=20 (the present applicants). Wolf was a successful businessman. He had a = great=20 interest in antiques and art and owned a substantial collection of = paintings.=20 From 1937, the family lived at =91Groot Haesebroek', an estate in = Wassenaar. The=20 applicants stated that Wolf was in France at the time of the German = invasion.=20 Soon after, he managed to escape to England. Later in the war, he = moved to the=20 United States and died in New York in 1943.
=91Groot Haesebroek' was seized shortly after the German invasion = of the=20 Netherlands, and subsequently served as residence for a high-ranking = Nazi.=20 Wolf's assets were placed under the administration of a Verwalter = in=20 November 1940. According to the applicants, the claimed paintings were = in=20 their father's house when it was confiscated. In connection with this, = the=20 applicants submitted a document drawn up in 1952 by Loyens & = Volkmaars, a=20 firm of accountants, during the settlement of Wolf's estate. The = document=20 provides an overview of Wolf's painting collection on 10 May 1940 = (hereafter=20 also referred to as: =91the 1952 overview'). Among the works listed is = a=20 painting by Brueghel and one by Cranach. Despite the fact that the = overview=20 contains no titles or descriptions of the paintings, the Committee = deems it=20 highly likely that these are the currently claimed works, given the = other=20 documentation found (see considerations 4 and 5). However, in the 1952 = overview, the works by Brueghel and Cranach are part of a group of = paintings=20 alongside which is the note =91in pand van Dr. Tietje'=20 [pledged by Dr Tietje]. This refers to H.C.W. Tietje, who, like = Wolf, was=20 a wealthy industrialist and art lover.
That a situation of pledge did exist is also evident in extant = documents=20 from the audit and trust company Deutsche Revisions- und=20 Treuhand-Aktiengesellschaft (DRT), which recorded Wolf's = financial=20 circumstances in 1942. According to a DRT report, Wolf and Tietje were = mutually involved in various business transactions and Tietje had = given Wolf a=20 number of paintings in pledge as security for the repayment of a = several=20 monetary loans. On the basis of this report too, the Committee deems = it likely=20 that the currently claimed Brueghel (NK 2227) and Cranach (NK 3071) = were part=20 of the pledge.
The Committee concludes that the rest of the documents also = indicate that=20 Wolf was not the owner of the claimed paintings but that he held them = as=20 pledgeholder. Reference is also made to information contained in the = archives=20 of the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (SNK) such as a letter of = 22=20 January 1946 by or to Mr C.J. Kuyer of the Military Investigation = Department=20 of the Central Property Investigation Department, and to provenance = details=20 from the Federal Archive in Koblenz, Germany.
It also appears from the 1952 overview that the Cranach painting = (NK 3071)=20 was sold to Alois Miedl with Tietje's permission for a sum of NLG = 35,000 in=20 June 1940, and was then sold on to G=F6ring. As regards the Brueghel = painting=20 (NK 2227), it is noted that the Verwalter returned it to = Tietje in=20 March 1943 as part of a settlement related to the business relations = between=20 Tietje and Wolf. This is consistent with information in the DRT = report. The=20 applicants challenged the legal validity of these acts in their = response of 29=20 October 2009. This is discussed in considerations 10 and 11.
In October 1945, Wolf's heirs reported the loss of the painting=20 =91Merry-making peasants (fair)' by Brueghel (NK 2227) to the = SNK. It=20 was noted in the report that Wolf was holding the painting in pledge = for=20 Tietje. However, the report also noted that the Verwalter = returned it=20 to Tietje by mistake. Wolf's heirs seem to have changed this viewpoint = at a=20 later date. In a letter dated 9 January 1951, they inform the = competent=20 authorities as follows:
=91Inderdaad was Dr. Tietje eigenaar = van het=20 bovengenoemde schilderij en de heer D. Wolf pandhouder. [...] Uit de = ons in=20 1945 ter beschikking staande gegevens meenden wij destijds te moeten=20 concluderen, dat deze teruggave van het schilderij inderdaad ten = onrechte was=20 geschied. Bij het afwikkelen van de boedel van thans wijlen de Heer D. = Wolf,[...] hebben wij eerst onlangs inzake onze verhouding tot de Heer = Tietje=20 moeten concluderen, dat door ons voor deze dading tussen de toenmalige = beheerder, de Heer Kattenstroth en Tietje, geen rechtsherstel moet = worden=20 aangevraagd. Daar door ons van de theoretische mogelijkheid van = rechtsherstel=20 voor deze dading geen gebruik wordt gemaakt, kunnen door ons geen = rechten meer=20 worden geldend gemaakt op het bovengenoemde schilderij en trekken wij = hierbij=20 de aangifte van vermissing daarvan in.'
[Dr Tietje was indeed = the=20 owner of the aforementioned painting and Mr D. Wolf the pledgeholder. = (...)=20 Based on the information we had in 1945, we believed at the time that = this=20 painting had indeed been wrongfully returned. Only recently, when the = late Mr=20 D. Wolf's estate was being settled, (...), have we been obliged to = conclude=20 with regard to our relationship with Mr Tietje that we should not = request the=20 restoration of rights for this settlement between the former = administrator Mr=20 Kattenstroth and Tietje. As we are not taking advantage of the = theoretical=20 possibility of the restoration of rights, we can no longer exert our = rights to=20 the above painting and therefore withdraw our declaration of loss=20 thereof.]
In October 1945, Wolf's heirs also reported the loss of the = painting=20 =91Madonna and child' by Cranach (NK 3071) to the SNK. = However, in a=20 letter dated 22 January 1953, the heirs stated that: =91dat door = ons afstand=20 wordt gedaan van alle rechten, welke wij mogelijkerwijs zouden kunnen = doen=20 gelden i.v.m. ons bovengenoemd schilderij, vroeger eigendom van thans = wijlen=20 de Heer D. Wolf en verplichten ons geen stappen te zullen ondernemen = om al of=20 niet tegen betaling van de door U genoemde f. 35.000 dit schilderij in = ons=20 eigendom terug te verkrijgen.' [We are waiving all rights which = we may=20 have been able to exert to our painting mentioned above, the former = property=20 of the late Mr D. Wolf, and undertake to refrain from taking any steps = to=20 regain possession of said painting, whether for payment of the sum of = NLG 35,=20 000 mentioned by you or otherwise.]
In connection with the Cranach = painting, the Committee concludes that in 1953, the heirs refer to it = as=20 Wolf's property, even though this is contrary to the information in = the 1952=20 overview and to the other provenance details. As the applicants have, = for that=20 matter, not provided any information that would suggest title to = ownership,=20 the Committee concludes in the light of considerations 3 to 6, that = Wolf held=20 the painting in pledge.
In a letter to the Minister dated 10 December 2007, the applicants = noted=20 that the lack of financial resources was the reason why the heirs = decided not=20 to claim the paintings in the 1950s. The Committee does not consider = this=20 plausible, however. Rather, the correspondence shows that the heirs = had=20 resigned themselves to the settlement and believed that they could not = exert=20 any rights to the paintings. In this context, the Committee refers to = the last=20 part of the quotation cited in consideration 8, which shows that = possible=20 repayment did not play a part in the decision not to claim the Cranach = painting.
In their response to the draft investigatory report, the = applicants argued=20 that the sale of the Cranach painting (NK 3071) in June 1940 probably = took=20 place without Wolf's knowledge or permission as he was abroad at the = time.=20 Hence they are of the opinion that the sale was involuntary and, = therefore,=20 unlawful. In this regard, the applicants refer to another painting = from Wolf's=20 collection (Jan Steen's The Alchemist), which was also sold = to Alois=20 Miedl in Wolf's absence in the summer of 1940. After the war, the SNK = assumed=20 that the Jan Steen painting had been sold by an unauthorised party, = after=20 which it returned to the heirs of Wolf on payment of the sales price = received=20 during the war. As for the Brueghel painting (NK 2227), the applicants = challenge the legal validity of the March 1943 settlement between = Tietje and=20 the Verwalter and the painting's return to Tietje related to it. In = their=20 opinion, the settlement was probably reached without Wolf having been=20 consulted and the return of the painting was unlawful, given that = Tietje's=20 debt to Wolf had not been redeemed.
As regards the applicants' arguments, the Committee considers it = perfectly=20 possible that the sale of NK 3071 to Miedl in June 1940 and the return = of NK=20 2227 to Tietje in March 1943 took place without Wolf's knowledge or=20 permission. It is no longer possible to find out whether due to these = events,=20 Wolf, as pledgeholder, was at a disadvantage. It is not the task of = the=20 Committee, however, to advise the Minister on the reparation of = financial loss=20 that may have occurred during the war. The Committee's exclusive task, = as=20 described in Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Decree establishing the=20 Restitutions Committee of 16 November 2001, is to advise the Minister = on=20 decisions to be taken concerning applications for the restitution of = items of=20 cultural value of which the original owners involuntarily = lost=20 possession due to circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. = According=20 to the Ekkart Committee's eighth recommendation of April 2001 = concerning=20 private art property, the title to art objects has to be proved with a = high=20 degree of probability, and there can be no indications to the = contrary. The=20 results of the investigation suggest however, that Wolf was not the = owner of=20 the claimed paintings but held them in pledge. In the Committee's = opinion, the=20 comparison with the return of the Jan Steen painting does not hold. = After all,=20 according to the 1952 overview, the Jan Steen painting was Wolf's = property=20 while the claimed work NK 3071 was owned by Tietje, according to that=20 overview.
In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the = conditions for=20 restitution have not been met and recommends that the application for=20 restitution of the works NK 2227 and NK 3071 be rejected.

Conclusion

The Restitutions Committee advises the Minister for Education, = Culture and=20 Science to reject the application for the restitution of A country = wedding=20 by P. Brueghel II (NK 2227) and the painting Madonna and = child by=20 L. Cranach (NK 3071).

Adopted at the meeting of 9 November 2009 by W.J.M. Davids (chair), = J.Th.M.=20 Bank, J.C.M. Leijten, P.J.N. van Os, E.J. van Straaten, H.M. = Verrijn=20 Stuart, I.C. van der Vlies (vice-chair), and signed by the chair and the = secretary.

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

=AB Previous=20 page