US proceedings concerning the Guelph Treasure: Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation files motion to dismiss lawsuit
Press release from 10/30/2015
The Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation is of the opinion that the action for the return of the Guelph Treasure is unfounded and cannot be brought before a U.S. court.
- English version: please find PDF below German text -
In February of this year, a lawsuit for the return of the Guelph Treasure was filed against the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (SPK) and the Federal Republic of Germany at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C.(Philipp and Stiebel vs. Federal Republic of Germany and Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation). On 29 October 2015, the SPK filed a "Motion to Dismiss" to dismiss this lawsuit. The plaintiffs claim that the sale of the Guelph Treasure in 1935 by a consortium that included successful Frankfurt art dealers took place under duress and was therefore a case of restitution. After thorough research into the facts of the case, the Foundation is of the opinion that this is not the case and therefore considers the claim to be factually unfounded. Furthermore, it considers the claim to be inadmissible.
"In cases of Nazi-looted property, the SPK is clearly committed to fair and just solutions in accordance with the Washington Principles, as I have always made clear," said Prof Dr Hermann Parzinger, President of the SPK. "In the case of the Guelph Treasure, however, we have come to the conclusion after intensive research that it is not Nazi-looted art and that restitution would not be appropriate. The SPK is therefore of the opinion that this claim before a U.S. court is not justified and should also be dismissed for several important reasons, which we have explained in detail to the court."
The "Motion to Dismiss" asserts several grounds on which the action should be dismissed, such as:
- The court lacks jurisdiction because SPK, as a federally directable foundation, generally enjoys immunity under the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act with respect to suits brought against it in the United States. The statutory exceptions to immunity relied upon by Plaintiffs do not apply in this case.
- Plaintiffs lack standing because they cannot assert claims on behalf of the consortium that sold the Guelph Treasure in 1935. In order to be entitled to sue, they would have to take certain legal steps, which they have not yet done.
- The plaintiffs' claims contradict the foreign policy stance of the U.S., which has favoured an "internal restitution process" for decades: states should resolve legal disputes regarding property losses during the Nazi era within their own borders. In the present case, this has already happened in Germany with the proceedings before the "Advisory Commission in connection with the restitution of cultural property seized as a result of Nazi persecution, in particular Jewish property".
- The claims could be heard more easily and better in Germany and should therefore be dismissed by the U.S. court in accordance with the forum non conveniens principle. According to this American procedural principle, an action can be dismissed if the proceedings can be heard in another country more closely or more favourably for the parties or the courts, or if it is in the public interest to conduct the proceedings in another country. There are appropriate grounds for dismissal in this case, such as the fact that almost all relevant evidence is written in German and is located in the Federal Republic of Germany.
In addition, the SPK is committed to finding solutions to claims for Nazi-looted property. It therefore voluntarily submitted the case to the advisory commission. If the plaintiffs had brought their claims before a German court, the SPK would not have raised the defence of the statute of limitations and would not do so in the future if the present action were to be dismissed. Under U.S. law, however, the plaintiffs had sufficient time to assert their claims. The location and ownership of the Guelph Treasure had been known since the end of World War II, and it could have been argued much earlier that this sale was a forced sale.
On the procedure before the Advisory Commission in accordance with the Washington Principles
"The Federal Republic of Germany is aware of its special responsibility for coming to terms with the Nazi art theft. Like the SPK, it is unreservedly committed to the 'Washington Declaration'," explains Monika Grütters, Minister of State for Culture and the Media, who is also Chair of the SPK Foundation Council. "The Foundation deals responsibly with cultural property where a Nazi-related seizure can be assumed or cannot be ruled out. It has intensively researched the acquisition history of the Guelph Treasure and presented the case to the "Advisory Commission", which, after intensive discussion, voted in favour of not handing over the Guelph Treasure."
The Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation is strongly in favour of fair and just solutions in the restitution of Nazi-looted art. Since 1999, the SPK has returned more than 350 works of art and more than 1,000 books to their rightful owners in the course of processing more than 50 restitution requests. These included a drawing by Vincent van Gogh, a work by Munch and the "Watzmann" by Caspar David Friedrich. In total, German museums and institutions have returned more than 14,300 objects as Nazi-looted art.
Back in 2012, the SPK and the claimants at the time, including the current plaintiffs, jointly appealed to the "Advisory Commission" in the Welfenschatz case. The "Advisory Commission in connection with the restitution of cultural property seized as a result of Nazi persecution, in particular Jewish property" was set up in consultation between the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media, the Conference of Ministers of Culture of the Federal States and the municipal umbrella organisations. It can be called upon in the event of disputes over the restitution of cultural assets that were seized from their owners during the Third Reich, in particular persecuted Jewish citizens, and are now in public institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany. In 2014, the Commission came to the conclusion that the sale in 1935 was not a forced sale due to persecution and that it could therefore not recommend restitution.
The Advisory Commission has issued a recommendation in the matter. U.S. law does not permit the plaintiffs to disregard it and attempt to reassert their claims in a U.S. court. Although the Foundation is confident that it would prevail in the U.S. District Court, the lawsuit - as outlined in the brief filed today - must be dismissed at this stage due to various rules of U.S. law.
Background to the Guelph Treasure
In 1929, a consortium of successful art dealers from Frankfurt formed to purchase from the Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg a collection of medieval ecclesiastical German treasure art that had belonged to the House of Guelph since the 17th century. The collection, known as the Welfenschatz, was originally the reliquary of today's Brunswick Cathedral. The consortium planned to sell the Guelph Treasure on at a profit. A few weeks after paying a high price for the collection, the US stock market collapsed, leading to the global economic crisis that lasted for several years. Art prices fell with the stock market prices. The consortium had invested a fortune in the hope of making a substantial profit, but was unable to find buyers for the entire collection.
The consortium contacted museums and collectors in the U.S., Germany and the rest of Europe, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. It even arranged a tour of the collection around the U.S. After having to abandon its original hope of selling the collection in its entirety, the consortium began to sell individual items from it. The buyers were collectors and museums, including the Cleveland Museum of Art. After selling those parts of the Guelph Treasure for which there were buyers, the Consortium moved the rest of the Guelph Treasure to Amsterdam while the Great Depression continued.
Almost two years later, the consortium entered into negotiations with a German bank that was interested in acquiring the remaining part of the Guelph Treasure for an unnamed client. Both sides submitted initial offers, and after extensive negotiations, the consortium and the bank agreed on a purchase price that was roughly in the middle of their original offers. The sales contract was signed on 14 June 1935. The consortium received what had been contractually agreed. In the following 70 years, the sale was not called into question.
In 2008, some claimants - who claim to be the heirs of some of the companies that were part of the consortium - contacted the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, which, as the owner, exhibits the Guelph Treasure in the Museum of Decorative Arts of the National Museums in Berlin. The claimants, which included the current plaintiffs, argued that the sale of the Guelph Treasure had taken place under duress because the owners of the art dealers involved in the consortium were German Jews, because the unnamed client of the negotiating bank was the State of Prussia, and because the NSDAP had come to power in 1933. The SPK carried out an intensive investigation into the circumstances of the 1935 sale. In accordance with its policy of transparency, it shared its findings and the historical documents supporting them in extensive correspondence with the plaintiffs. Based on the results of its investigations, the SPK came to the conclusion that the sale in 1935 was voluntary and that an appropriate, fair market price was achieved.
Both sides jointly appealed to the Advisory Commission in 2012 and presented their respective views on the case. On 20 March 2014, the Commission came to the conclusion that "the sale of the Guelph Treasure was not a forced sale due to persecution". It stated: "Although the Commission is aware of the difficult fate of the art dealers and their persecution during the Nazi era, there is no evidence to suggest that the art dealers and their business partners in the specific case to be assessed by the Advisory Commission were put under pressure in the negotiations - for example by Göring; moreover, they were also dealing with the effects of the Great Depression in 1934/1935. .... Moreover, there is no evidence that the art dealers and their business partners were unable to freely dispose of the proceeds." Almost a year after the Commission made this finding, the plaintiffs Alan Philipp and Gerald G. Stiebel filed a civil suit against the SPK and the Federal Republic of Germany at the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C.
The Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation is represented in the case in the U.S. by the law firm Wiggin and Dana.
Contact person
In Germany: Birgit Jöbstl, 030 266 411445
For U.S. media: Andrew Frank, +1 212 333-0275