Category: News about the Case

Das Verfahren David Bakalar vs. Vavra und Fischer (GERMAN)

von Herbert Gruber

Download this article as PDF

Bakalar vs Fischer und Vavra (german only)

Die Provenienz des verfahrensrelevanten Kunstwerks wurde wie folgt dargelegt:

1.    Jane Kallir:  Catalogue Raisonné 1998

Nr. 1974

Seated Woman with Bent Left Leg (Torso), Sitzende mit angezogenem linken Bein (Torso) Gouache and black crayon. Signed and dated, lower center, (35.1 x 25.5 cm) [sight].

Provenienz:

Provenance: Gutekunst & Klipstein, Bern; Galerie St.Etienne, New York; Norman Granz; Galerie St. Etienne, New York; David Bakalar

Exhibitions:

Bern, 1956, no. 51. ill.; New York, 1957, no. 28, ill.; Boston, 1960, no. 63, ill.

Literature:

Kenyon Review, 1964, facing p. 616

2.    Gutekunst und Klipstein

Lager- und Ausstellungskatalog Nr. 57,

Ausstellung Egon Schiele

8. September bis 6. Oktober 1956

Nr. 51

Sitzende mit angezogenem linkem Bein. Schwarze Kreide u. Tempera. 35,1:25,2 cm. Sehr schöne farbige Zeichnung, Auf glattem Maschinenpapier. Voll signiert und « I917» datiert.

3.   Sotheby´s in London

Am 8.2.2005 wurde bei Sotheby´s in London das  Kunstwerk um GBP 400.000,00 versteigert. Die Provenienz wurde wie folgt dargelegt:

Fritz Grünbaum, Vienna (until 1941)

Elisabeth Grünbaum-Herzl, Vienna (widow of the above; until 1942; thence by descent)

Mathilde Lukcas – Herzl (sister of the above)

Gutekunst & Klipstein, Bern (on consignment from the above by 1956)

Galerie St. Etienne, New York

Norman Granz, New York[1]

Galerie St. Etienne, New York

Acquired from the above by the present owner

Am 10.2.2005 kontaktierte  der Anwalt der Erben nach Fritz Grünbaum, Dr. Gabriel Lansky Sotheby´s London und bezog sich auf eine Information der IKG Wien – Frau Erika Jakubovits – wonach das gegenständliche Werk der Sammlung von Fritz Grünbaum entstammt. Er forderte Sotheby´s auf das Kunstwerk einzufrieren bis zur Klärung der Eigentumsverhältnisse.

Der Käufer des Bildes wurde von Sotheby´s über diese Forderung informiert daraufhin trat er vom Kauf zurück.

Es gab Gespräche mit Repräsentanten von Sotheby´s und es waren weitere Termine vereinbart, als am  21.3.2005 der Besitzer des nunmehr nicht verkauften Bildes, Herr David Bakalar[2], Klage gegen die beiden Erben von Fritz Grünbaum am  United States District Court Southern District of New York zur Zahl 05 Civ. 3037 (WHP) einbrachte.

Die Klage lautete auf Feststellung seiner Eigentümerschaft und Schadenersatz in der Höhe von USD 650.000,–.

Da einer der Erben in New York wohnt, war die Klageerhebung in New York möglich.

Nachdem die Anwälte 7500 Dokumente ausgetauscht hatten, stellte das Gericht am 18.September 2008 die Eigentumsrechte von Herrn David Bakalar am gegenständlichen Bild fest.Die Klage auf Schadenersatz war von Bakalars Anwälten zurückgezogen worden.

Der Einzelrichter Hon. William H. Pauley III erachtete Schweizer Recht für seine Entscheidung maßgeblich, obwohldas Bild dem in Österreich lebenden und in Deutschland  ermordeten Fritz Grünbaum gehörte. Es war in Wien 1938 letztmalig nachweisbar, bevor es 1956 in der Schweiz an Otto Kallir veräußert wurde.

Der Einzelrichter Hon. William H. Pauley III erachtete Schweizer Recht für seine Entscheidung maßgeblich, obwohl

  1. das Bild dem in Österreich lebenden und in Deutschland  ermordeten Fritz Grünbaum gehörte. Es war in Wien 1938 letztmalig nachweisbar, bevor es 1956 in der Schweiz an Otto Kallir veräußert wurde.
  2. das Bild nach 1956 an in den USA durch Otto Kallir zweifach gehandelt und an Herrn David Bakalar verkauft wurde.
  3. Laut Aussage des Schweizer Galeristen Eberhard W. Kornfeld (Gutekunst & Klipstein) kauft er das Bild am 24.4.1956 von Mathilde Lukacs (damals Brüssel) und verkaufte es am 18. September 1956 an Otto Kallir.  Somit befand sich das Bild  knapp 5 Monate in der Schweiz.

Wesentlicher Grund zur Rüge der erstgerichtlichen Entscheidung war der Konflikt der Rechtssysteme von

  • Österreich
  • New York und der
  • Schweiz

sowie die Entscheidung des Gerichtes, ausschließlich Schweizer Recht zu Anwendung zu bringen.

Begründet wurde diese Entscheidung mit dem Umstand, dass der Verkauf des Bildes an den Otto Kallir in der Schweiz stattfand.

Korrekt wäre aber die Berücksichtigung

  • des Österreichischen Rechts für die erbrechtliche Situation nach Fritz Grünbaum
  • des Schweizer Rechts für den Ankauf des Bildes
  • des Rechts des Staates New York[3] für den Ankauf des Bildes durch Otto Kallir und dessen zweimalige Weiterveräußerung an Norman Granz und an David Bakalar.

Zum Stand des zweitinstanzlichen Verfahrens:

Stewart E. Eizenstat[4] und die IKG Wien traten dem zweitinstanzlichen Verfahren als Amicus Curiae[5] auf Seiten der Erben des Fritz Grünbaum bei.

Am 11.03.2009 korrigierte das Appelationsgericht eine Entscheidung der Erstinstanz, wonach eine Rechtsmeinung  der Wiener Anwältin der Grünbaum Erben, Dr. Kathrin Höfer, doch verfahrensrelevant zuzulassen ist.

Am 9.10.2009 fand eine mündliche Tagsatzung statt, in welcher vor allem der Konflikt der verschiedenen Gesetze und deren Konsequenzen diskutiert wurden. Stimmung und Inhalt  der Tagsatzung lassen sich aus nachfolgender Äußerung eines der drei Richter  ersehen:

JUSTICE KORMAN:

…….Perhaps that would be so if, in fact, there was a claim against a Swiss citizen. In other words, I’m not going to be prepared to quarrel if, if, if there was a claim against Kornfeld and  the action, you know, damages of replevin was brought against him, but  right now, no Swiss citizen, no Swiss business is at all implicated and what you have is, under my premise, stolen property being introduced into New York.


Aktuell kann keine Aussage darüber getroffen werden, wann  eine Entscheidung ergehen wird. Die zweite Instanz hat zur zeitlichen Abfolge ihrer Tätigkeit keinerlei Vorgaben.

Zusammenfassung:

Ein Verfahren wie dieses kann nur im Bundesstaat New York geführt werden, der  Verfahrensstand resultiert aus einer gescheiterten bzw. zurückgezogenen Klage auf Schadenersatz und der weiterhin aufrechten Gegenklagen der Erben, entsprechend dem Grundsatz in der US Verfahrensführung „Wer nicht klagt hat schon verloren“.

Das Appellationsgericht hat die Möglichkeit das Verfahren an die Erstinstanz zurück zu verweisen, dies meist mit verfahrensprägenden Verbesserungsaufträgen, oder es kann selbst eine Entscheidung fällen.

[1] Norman Granz (* 6. August 1918 in Los Angeles; † 22. November 2001 in Genf) war ein US-amerikanischer Jazz-Impresario und -produzent.

[2] David Bakalar,  Geboren 1931, Industrieller, Künstler und Kunstsammler, früherer Eigentümer der Firma Transition, der ehemaligen Nummer 2 am Weltmarkt der Transistorenhersteller, dies nach Texas Instruments, Transition hatte zur Hochblüte 10.000 Mitarbeiter. Im Jahre 1980 wurde Transition verkauft. Mit 62 startete David Bakalar eine Karriere als Bildhauer, mit 75 produzierte er seinen ersten Film.

[3] Das Recht des Staates New York kennt  eine Besonderheit,  nämlich dass ein Dieb in der Kette der Besitzer die Kette aller Besitzer bricht und ein gutgläubiger Erwerb nicht mehr erlangt werden kann.

Jedenfalls Mathilde Lukacs hat das Eigentum am Bild niemals rechtmäßig erworben.

[4] US Chefverhandler während der Administration Clinton  in Washington, welche als eines der Resultate das Allgemeine Entschädigungsfondsgesetz hatten

[5] Der Amicus ist v.a. jemand, der wesentliche fachliche Aspekte des Rechtsstreits und möglicher Entscheidungen hervorhebt. Er kann vertiefte Informationen und Sachkenntnis dem entscheidenden Gericht zur Verfügung stellen. Indes braucht er nicht völlig unabhängig zu sein, maßgeblich ist, nicht Partei zu sein. Amicus ist sogar häufig jemand, dessen Interessen indirekt durch den Rechtsstreit und die Entscheidung betroffen sein könnten. Es ist auch statthaft, eine Interessenseite oder einen Teilaspekt zuzuspitzen und pointiert vorzutragen. Gerade im Widerstreit und in der Gewichtung der Argumente erweist er dem Gericht einen „Freundschaftsdienst“. Im angelsächsischen Rechtssystem tritt der Amicus Curiae als eine Art parteiischer Sachverständiger auf, wie z. B. in den USA die Bürgerrechtsorganisation ACLU.

Traffickers in Stolen Schieles: U.S. Museum Directors Warned Not To Act As Receivers of Stolen Goods

Egon Schiele Self-Portrait – Stolen from Fritz Grunbaum when he was deported to Dachau, now at the Morgan Library (Bequest of Fred Ebb)

The Morgan Library claims that the Berne gallery Gutekunst & Klipstein purchased this artwork directly from the estate of Egon Schiele.  Source: From Berlin to Broadway:  The Ebb Bequest of Modern German and Austrian Drawings (2007).

Gutekunst & Klipstein (now owned by Eberhard Kornfeld) claims that the work belonged to Fritz Grunbaum and that it bought the work in 1956 through Grunbaum’s sister in law.

Why would the Morgan Library tell a different story?

The late Francis Henry Taylor, former Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, warned U.S. museums not to act as receivers of stolen goods in 1943…

We know that the Nazis have carried off virtually all of the movable works of art in private possession.

***
The methods by which these properties are acquired have an ingenious quality of wickedness bordering on the naïve. The Nazis resort to the strictest legal fictions to justify their operations. …The laws regarding ownership of property by Jews have been invoked at every turn…. They were easy victims.

***

… their personal possessions — particularly works of art — were sold at public auction where German officials directly, or indirectly through local Quislings, bought in the objects with the worthless paper currency … . Then in turn the money realized by the original owner was taxed 100 percent and passed directly to the Nazi treasury.

***
Not since the time of Napoleon Bonaparte has there been the wholesale looting and destruction of art property that is going on today in the occupied countries. The Nazis have either confiscated or acquired by fictitious purchase the most important masterpieces of both public and private collections.

***

…after a fugitive existence [the artworks] will inevitably find their way to the free markets of neutral countries. In Buenos Aires and Madrid, in Stockholm, Berne and Lisbon, in Istanbul and Cairo we will see come out of hiding in the years immediately following the war objects of great intrinsic worth, held for the most part under fictitious names, and representing the real assets of the Nazi officials who are lucky enough to escape. These works will be offered primarily in the Western Hemisphere. How can we prevent this from happening and becoming ourselves party to the looting of Europe?

***

Private individuals might continue to operate in a “black market” of antiquities in which no questions would be asked, but public institutions disposing of trust funds could not very well connive in the liquidation of the artistic patrimony of Europe and act as public receivers of stolen goods.

Taylor, Francis Henry, Europe’s Looted Art: Can It Be Recovered? New York Times, September 19, 1943

Why is it that only today’s American museum directors seem to believe that Jews voluntarily sold artworks under the Nazi reign of terror?   And that they have a fiduciary duty to conceal stolen property?

Francis Henry Taylor knew that people in Berne would be selling artworks using fake names and he warned the art market.  In 1943.

Crossposted, see copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com

Austria and Fritz Grunbaum’s Stolen Schieles at the Albertina Museum

In 1955, Austria signed a treaty with the United States promising to give back all of the property it stole from Jews during the period of Nazi “occupation” of Austria.   Ever since, Austria has treated this obligation largely as a joke, thumbing its nose at Jews who attempted to get their property back.  Only in the 1990’s through a combination of class action lawsuits and the actions of the Clinton Administration spearheaded by Amb. Stuart Eizenstat, did Austria instead agree to pay pittances to Jewish persecutees in lieu of giving them their property back.   The sad tale is well told in Eizenstat’s book Imperfect Justice.

But the class action settlements did not cover stolen artworks in Austria.  In 1998, in reaction to D.A. Morgenthau’s seizure of Egon Schiele’s Portrait of Wally and Dead City (Dead City belonged to Fritz Grunbaum), Austria passed an Art Restitution Law that permitted claims to be made against artworks in Austria’s federal museum collections.  On April 13, 1999, the heirs of Fritz Grunbaum made claims to the following works by Egon Schiele that were stolen from Grunbaum while he was in the Dachau Concentration Camp:

Egon Schiele, Female Nude Seated on Red Drape, Back View
Sitzender weiblicher Rückenakt mit rotem Rock

Jane Kallir: Egon Schiele, The Complete Works 1998, New York №:1504
Gouache, watercolor, and pencil. Signed and dated, lower right. (48.2 x 31.8 cm).
Gutekunst & Klipstein, Nov. 24, 1955, lot 107 1

Exhibitions: London, 1964, no. 67, ill.; Hamburg, 1981, no. 214, ill.
Inventorylist Albertina: 39.931

Jane Kallier: Egon Schiele, The Complete Works 1998, New York №:1797: Heinrich Rieger; Gutekunst & Klipstein, Bern; Galerie St. Etienne, New York; Rudolf Leopold;

Provenance as per Catalog: “Egon Schiele” Würthle Gallery, Vienna 1925:
“Mutter und Kind”, sign Egon Schiele 1915 Sammlung Fritz Grünbaum
Austria never responded to the claims of Fritz Grunbaum’s heirs.  From 2000 through 2009, Austria claimed that it was “investigating” the status of the works.  In 2006, Mag. Eva Blimlinger was called in to oversee the investigation together with Mag. Annaliese Schallmeiner.

Blimlinger is a respected Austrian historian and oversaw the Austrian Historian Commission’s report found at http://www.provenienzforschung.gv.at/ The Blimlinger and Schallmeiner Report, which was supposed to have issued in the fall of 2009, never has seen the light of day, apparently the victim of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture.   Why was that report killed and what did it say?

In the summer of 2009, at the Prague Conference on Holocaust Era Assets, Minister Claudia Schmid promised Congressman Wexler that she would investigate the status of the Grunbaum works at the Albertina.  I spoke to Dr. Christophe Bazil and Dr. Thomas Baier, who reassured me that they would investigate the issue and be in contact.   I wrote to them and never got any response.

In February, a client alerted me to a forum to take place in New York on Austrian Restitution.  The program is here.    I was rather shocked that the very Austrian officials who had promised to look into the Grunbaum affair and who did not have the time to answer my communications were to be speaking in New York City.

By failing to return property belonging to Jews, Austria has breached its obligations under the Austrian State Treaty of 1955.  This treaty was a condition of Austria’s existence, like our Constitution.  The Allies – Russians, French, British and Americans – pulled out of Austria on the promise that all property would be returned to Jews.   Instead, Austrians continue to live in homes stolen from Jews, operate businesses stolen from Jews, and to buy, sell and enjoy art stolen from Jews.

Since the Allies left Austria, Austria has enacted successively a system of inadequate and insulting postwar laws that failed to restore property to Jews.   To understand Austria’s obligations clearly (the treaty is written in plain English), we look to the actual writing. Article 26 of the 1955 Austrian State Treaty states as follows:

PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF MINORITY GROUPS IN AUSTRIA

1. In so far as such action has not already been taken, Austria undertakes that, in all cases where property, legal rights or interests in Austria have since 13th March, 1938, been subject of forced transfer or measures of sequestration, confiscation or control on account of the racial origin or religion of the owner, the said property shall be returned and the said legal rights and interests shall be restored together with their accessories. Where return or restoration is impossible, compensation shall be granted for losses incurred by reason of such measures to the same extent as is, or may be, given to Austrian nationals generally in respect of war damage.

The full text of the Austria is found here, courtesy Wikipedia.  You will see that there are no “if’s” ands or “buts” in the Treaty.  Its language is unconditional and does not depend on enabling legislation.  Indeed, any enabling legislation that fell short of the absolute terms of the Treaty would be unconstitutional in Austria.

It is to be hoped that the U.S. State Department will assist the heirs of Fritz Grunbaum in obtaining a copy of the Blimlinger/Schallmeiner Report and in facilitating conversations through the U.S. Embassy in Vienna, consistent with the Washington Principles on Holocaust-Era Assets.   It is to be hoped that President Obama’s Ambassador to Austria, Amb. William Eacho will take a personal interest in the plight of Jews dispossessed in the Holocaust.

Crossposted, see copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com

Nazi Looted Art in U.S. Museums: Amb. Stuart Eizenstat’s Call for a US Commission

This article is cross-posted (see  Copyright Litigation Blog by Raymond Dowd)

eizenstatAmbassador Stuart E. Eizenstat was appointed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to lead a delegation to the Prague Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets. Eizenstat was the principle architect of the 1999 Washington Conference on the same topic. He authored the book Imperfect Justice and has been instrumental in achieving international solutions that afford restitution to Holocaust victims.
In the PBS video linked to below, Eizenstat calls for the U.S. to create a commission of experts to rule on ownership issues and decries U.S. museums that are asserting “technical defenses” such as statutes of limitations against Holocaust victims and their heirs.
Check out http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2009/07/conversation-stuart-eizenstat.html

For the full text of what came out of the Prague Conference, known as the Terezin Declaration, click here

Nazi Looted Art at Oberlin College and Other U.S. Museums: Prague Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets

This article is cross-posted (see  Copyright Litigation Blog by Raymond Dowd)

In late June I was invited to speak on a panel of legal experts on artwork looted by the Nazis. My topic was legal obstacles to the recovery of stolen artworks.

girl with black hairThe image you see here is of an artwork by the artist Egon Schiele called Girl with Black Hair. Every major Schiele expert in the world – Jane Kallir, Eberhard Kornfeld and Rudolph Leopold – has said that this artwork came from Fritz Grunbaum’s collection. Yet Oberlin College refuses to return it – or even to share their research or conclusions about where they believe it came from. Oberlin’s website shows that the work mysteriously surfaced in Switzerland in 1956 – and stops there.

U.S. museums and liberal arts institutions concealing the origins of their artworks is one of the biggest obstacles to researchers being able to restitute artworks to the Jews and other Nazi persecutees from whom they were stolen. As Holocaust victims and their descendants die, U.S. museums simply wait, knowing that they have stolen artworks in their collections. In his 2006 testimony to Congress, AAMD Director James Cuno estimated the number of potentially Nazi-looted works in U.S. museums at “tens of thousands”.

It is astonishing that U.S. museums can engage in this Holocaust denial and feel no backlash. Shame on Oberlin College. Its Dean should be tossed out on his ear.

Amb. Stuart Eizenstat supports a U.S. Art Restitution Commission. Good for him, and not a moment too soon.

You can find my full speech in Prague at the link below.

http://artstolenfromfritzgrunbaum.wordpress.com/category/speech-at-holocaust-conference/live-recorded/

Disclosure: I represent the heirs of Fritz Grunbaum, a Jewish cabaret performer who was murdered by the Nazis at Auschwitz.

International Holocaust Conference

26 – 30 June 2009, Prague, Terezín, Czech Republic

The Holocaust Era Assets Conference will be held in Prague and Terezín, Czech Republic, on 26-30 June 2009, hosted by the Government of the Czech Republic in co-operation with the Forum 2000 Foundation, Documentation Centre of Property Transfers of Cultural Assets of WW II Victims, Federation of Jewish Communities in the Czech Republic, Jewish Museum in Prague, Terezín Memorial, and Institute of Jewish Studies at the Hussite Theological Faculty of Charles University in Prague.

A number of thematic topics selected by the specialised working groups will be discussed by professional experts: settlement of property claims (movable and immovable assets), provenance of stolen works of art, Judaica and Jewish cultural property, and education, remembrance and research about the Holocaust.

Panel 1: Legal Issues

Chair:

  • Charles A. Goldstein (United States, Commission for Art Recovery)

Speakers:

  • Olaf S. Ossmann (Germany, IAJLJ) – One Collection, One Persecution, One Deseizin –  but Different ideas of ” Just and Fair Solutions” Hurdles in Different National Processes for Heirs of Art Collections
  • Raymond J. Dowd (United States, Dunnington Bartholow and Miller LLP) – Fritz Grunbaum’s Stolen Art Collection:  Legal Obstacles To Recovery
  • Marc-André Renold (Switzerland, The University of Geneva) – The Renewal of the Restitution Process: Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods
  • Stephen Knerly Jr. (United States, Association of Art Museum Directors) – Selected Issues for American Art Museums Regarding Holocaust Looted Art
  • Norman Palmer (United Kingdom, Spoliation Advisory Panel) – Integrity, Transparency and Pertinacity in the Treatment of Holocaust-Related Art Claims

For more information, please visit the conference websites at

http://www.holocausteraassets.eu/