Restitutiecommissie = - Recommendation RC 1.105

Recommendation RC 1.105=20

Date	:	3 May 2010
Case number	:	RC 1.105
		Recommendation regarding:
		Rosenberg

__________________________________= _________________________________________________________________________= ______________________

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 J.L., of California, United = States of=20 America (hereafter referred to as: =91the applicant'), on = 17 December 2007=20 for the restitution of a commode in regency style. The claimed piece of=20 furniture was returned to the Netherlands after the Second World War and = is=20 currently part of the National Art Collection under inventory number=20 NK 256. The commode is currently on loan to the Dutch embassy in = Brussels.=20

The procedure

The reason for the application for restitution is a letter from the = Origins=20 Unknown Agency (hereafter referred to as: =91the BHG') to the applicant = dated 11=20 May 2007, in which the BHG informed the applicant of the possibility = that=20 NK 256 had once belonged to the applicant's = grandfather.

Following=20 the Minister's request for a recommendation, the Committee instigated a=20 fact-finding investigation, the results of which were included in a = draft=20 investigatory report dated 7 December 2009. The draft investigatory = report was=20 sent to the applicant for comment in a letter dated 18 December 2009 and = to the=20 Minister with a request for more factual information on 24 December = 2009. After=20 repeated deferral, the applicant provided no substantive comment on the = draft=20 investigatory report. The State Secretary for Education, Culture and = Science=20 (hereafter referred to as =91the State Secretary) informed the Committee = on 15=20 March 2010 that she did not have any additional factual material that = she would=20 like to bring to the Committee's attention.*[1] The investigatory report was subsequently = adopted on=20 3 May 2010. For the facts of the case, the Committee refers to this = report.=20 The applicant was represented in this procedure by M. St=F6tzel, a = lawyer in=20 Marburg (Germany).

Considerations:

The applicant requests restitution of a commode in regency style = (NK256),=20 which is believed to have belonged to the applicant's grandfather, = Saemy=20 Rosenberg, and to have been confiscated by the occupying forces during = the=20 war. The applicant has declared that he is the grandson and sole heir = of Saemy=20 Rosenberg. In this context, the Committee has taken cognisance of a = number of=20 legal inheritance documents sent by the applicant, which have given = the=20 Committee no reason to question the applicant's status.
Saemy Rosenberg (hereafter referred to as: =91Rosenberg') was born = in Berlin=20 on 27 July 1892. Together with his brothers Raphael and Siegfried = Rosenberg=20 and his cousins Eric and Hans Stiebel, he was employed by his uncle = Isaak=20 Rosenbaum in the latter's art dealership in Frankfurt am Main. With = his=20 brothers and cousins, Rosenberg would later continue this art = dealership.=20 Rosenberg moved to Amsterdam in April 1933, where he joined the board = of=20 management of =91N.V. Internationale Antiquiteitenhandel'. = From 1938,=20 the company was wholly owned by the four cousins from the Rosenberg = and=20 Stiebel families, who renamed it =91I. Rosenbaum N.V' = (hereafter=20 referred to as: =91Kunsthandel Rosenbaum'). When the Second World War = broke out=20 in September 1939, Rosenberg was in England, where he would stay and = not=20 return to the Netherlands. This means that when the Germans invaded = the=20 Netherlands in May 1940, Rosenberg was abroad, as were many of his = family=20 members who had already fled before 1940. In November 1940, Saemy left = England=20 for the United States, travelling via Mexico and Cuba.
In its provenance investigation, the BHG concludes that the = currently=20 claimed commode (NK256) =91tijdens de oorlog door Dienststelle = M=FChlmann in=20 beslag is genomen' [was confiscated by Dienststelle M=FChlmann = during the=20 war], naming =91Rosenberg' as its possible owner. Rosenberg's = alleged=20 ownership of NK256 becomes apparent after studying the sources = informing this=20 conclusion, based on a post-war statement by M=FChlmann in relation to = the=20 commode's recuperation. After the war, the allied recuperation = authorities=20 transferred the commode from Austria to Munich, in relation to which = M=FChlmann=20 stated at the time that the commode in question came from: = =91Rosenberg',=20 =91Holland'. In October 1948, the commode was returned to the=20 Netherlands.
After the liberation, Rosenberg contacted the Netherlands Art = Property=20 Foundation (hereafter referred to as: =91the SNK') in an attempt to = recover the=20 items lost during the war, both from his private estate and from = Kunsthandel=20 Rosenbaum's trading stock. Rosenberg finally managed to secure the = restitution=20 of three commodes through the mediation of the SNK, two from his = private=20 estate and one that M=FChlmann had confiscated from Kunsthandel = Rosenbaum in=20 1942. In correspondence with the SNK, the last-mentioned commode was = described=20 as: =91Louis XV-commode'(..), for which the Dienststelle = M=FChlmann paid=20 NLG6,500. Rosenberg viewed this commode himself at the time and = identified it=20 as former property of Kunsthandel Rosenbaum.
With regard to the identification of the currently claimed commode = (NK256)=20 as an item that had been the property of Rosenberg, the Committee = finds that=20 the post-war statement by M=FChlmann referred to in consideration 3 is = the only=20 evidence suggesting that NK256 was part of Rosenberg's possessions. = The=20 Committee's investigation did not reveal any other sources on the = basis of=20 which NK256 could be identified as former property of Rosenberg.
The following is known with regard to Rosenberg's personal effects = during=20 the occupation. In 1949, MsE.C.M. Peters, who was de facto director of = Kunsthandel Rosenbaum during the war, wrote to the SNK that = Rosenberg's entire=20 estate, which was stored at the Firma de Gruyter firm, had to be = handed over=20 to the German looting organisation Sammelverwaltung feindlicher=20 Hausger=E4te in early 1941. On the instructions of this=20 Sammelverwaltung, Rosenberg's estate was then auctioned at = the Marle=20 & Bignell auction house in The Hague on 18 June 1941 and the = following=20 days. At this auction, Kunsthandel Rosenbaum, under the direction of = Peters,=20 bought a number of items from Rosenberg's private estate in an attempt = to=20 secure them. With regard to the commode confiscated from Kunsthandel=20 Rosenbaum, referred to in consideration 4, it is known that in the = course of=20 1941, the Dienststelle M=FChlmann conducted an investigation into the = property=20 of this art dealership, after which, in March 1942, the Dienststelle=20 confiscated a number of items, including, as evidenced by the = investigation, a=20 commode described as =91Kommode van Cressent, Hfl. 6.500,-' = [commode by=20 Cressent, NLG 6,500]. The Committee's investigation produced no = evidence that=20 the Dienststelle M=FChlmann had any commodes from either Rosenberg or = Rosenbaum=20 in its possession other than the =91Louis XV-commode' = referred to in=20 consideration 4 above.
From the above factual account, the Committee concludes that = during the=20 war, M=FChlmann had only one Rosenbaum commode in its possession and = that=20 Rosenberg, identifying this commode as former property of Kunsthandel=20 Rosenbaum, bought it back after the war. The Committee looked more = closely=20 into the question of how M=FChlmann's statement regarding NK256 = tallies with the=20 above and found that the commode repurchased by Rosenberg at the time, = a photo=20 of which from the Bundesarchiv Koblenz is in the Committee's = investigation=20 file, bears a great resemblance to NK256 in terms of style. The = investigation=20 also revealed that the commode repurchased by Rosenberg was damaged = and that=20 the marble plate was missing, which, remarkably, was also the case = with NK256=20 (at the time of its recuperation). In archival research into the = commode=20 repurchased by Rosenberg, the Committee found the entry = =91Fischhorn',=20 which suggests that, like NK256, this piece of furniture ended up at = the=20 Austrian castle Schloss Fischhorn after it had been = confiscated by=20 the Dienststelle M=FChlmann.
According to the Ekkart Committee's eighth recommendation of April = 2001=20 concerning private art property, the title to art objects has to be = proved=20 with a high degree of probability, and there can be no indications to = the=20 contrary in order for a claim to be awarded.
It appears from the = above that=20 the sole indication that NK256 had been Rosenberg's property was found = in=20 M=FChlmann's post-war statement as referred to in consideration 3 that = the=20 currently claimed commode was part of the =91Rosenberg' = estate. As no=20 first name or initials were mentioned, it is unclear exactly which = Rosenberg=20 is meant. It appears from a source in the archive of the Council for = the=20 Restoration of Rights that there were at least 29different Rosenbergs=20 registered as =91gedepossedeerde' [dispossessed]. At the same = time, it=20 was established that the Dienststelle confiscated a commode from = Kunsthandel=20 Rosenbaum in 1942 that bears a resemblance to NK256. With regard to = this=20 commode, however, it has been established that Rosenberg viewed it = after the=20 war and identified it as former property of Kunsthandel Rosenbaum, and = was=20 subsequently able to regain possession of it through the mediation of = SNK.=20 Based on this information, the Committee deems it likely that the = commode=20 repurchased by Rosenberg and the currently claimed commode (NK256) = were so=20 similar that the two commodes were mistaken for one another during the = recuperation from Schloss Fischhorn and that M=FChlmann's = statement=20 related to the commode repurchased by Rosenberg instead of NK256. = Accordingly,=20 the Committee finds that there is insufficient proof that the commode = (NK256)=20 was the property of Rosenberg, either privately or in his capacity as = art=20 dealer.

Conclusion

The Restitutions Committee advises the State Secretary for Education, = Culture=20 and Science to reject the application for the restitution of the commode = in=20 regency style (NK 256).

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

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

*[1] On 24 February 2010, the State Secretary for OCW = took over=20 the restitution file from the Minister.

=AB Previous=20 page