Return-Path: <randols@bslaw.net>
Delivered-To: randols@bslaw.net
Received: (qmail 9236 invoked by uid 399); 1 May 2009 17:37:16 -0000
X-Virus-Scan: Scanned by ClamAV 0.94.2 (no viruses);
  Fri, 01 May 2009 12:37:16 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com) (71.74.56.125)
  by mail2.andhosting.com with ESMTP; 1 May 2009 17:37:16 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 71.74.56.125
Received-SPF: softfail (mail2.andhosting.com: transitioning SPF record at bslaw.net does not designate 71.74.56.125 as permitted sender)
	identity=mailfrom; client-ip=71.74.56.125;
	envelope-from=<randols@bslaw.net>;
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (really [75.82.36.115])
          by hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com with ESMTP
          id <20090501173713335.TAFY6415@hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com>;
          Fri, 1 May 2009 17:37:13 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 10:36:36 -0700
Subject: Amalie Zuckerkandl
From: "E. Randol Schoenberg" <randols@bslaw.net>
To: Eva Blimlinger <eva.blimlinger@uni-ak.ac.at>
CC: E Randol Schoenberg <randols@bslaw.net>
Message-ID: <C6208134.47677%randols@bslaw.net>
Thread-Topic: Amalie Zuckerkandl
Thread-Index: Ack6+pOjBDQRtKz6LUy//PTHw+IwhiPiMyNZ
In-Reply-To: <C52FB1A9.2C677%randols@bslaw.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Eva,

I still cannot forget about the problem with the Bloch-Bauer's Klimt "Amali=
e
Zuckerkandl" painting (and the two Waldm=C3=BCllers from Gertrude L=C3=B6w
Fels=C3=B6vanyi).

Below is the correspondence I have had with Michael Franz.

I think if there is ever any hope of getting a correct result in this case,
it will have to be up to you.  If you agree that there is a problem, which =
I
think that you do, the only way to help is to convince President Jabloner
and Michael Franz that it is something that needs to be looked at again mor=
e
closely.  The solution is simply amending the law to conform with the
current practices of the Beirat, and then applying the current law properly=
.

If the status quo remains, these lost paintings will fester like an open
wound forever. What bothers me the most is that this should have been an
easy case, much easier than the paintings from Adele's will.  But by denyin=
g
restitution, the Beirat and the judges have, perhaps unknowingly, engaged i=
n
a bit of Holocaust denial.  By imagining (without ANY evidence!) a gift fro=
m
Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer to Amalie Zuckerkandl after January 1939, they preten=
d
that it was possible for a Jew in exile (he fled March 1938) to control the
disposition of his property.  You and I know that this was not the case.
But apparently too many Austrians are ignorant of this basic fact.  Of
course, the judges also ignored the fact that already the post-war
restitution courts recognized that even gifts by Jews who were fleeing
Austria were "Entziehungen" subject to reversal.  (But in this case there
obviously was never even a gift.  The painting could only have been
liquidated by Dr. Fuehrer like all the rest of Ferdinand's property.)

Please, please help me correct this injustice.  I just saw Maria Altmann
again this week.  She is 93 years old but she will not be here forever.
(The same goes for Dr. Felsoevany.)  I fear that I am powerless to help
them.  You may be our only hope.

I should be returning to Vienna in October for a concert of my grandfather
Eric Zeisl's "Requiem Ebraico" with Zubin Mehta and the Vienna Philharmonic=
.
Perhaps I will have time to meet with you then.  But I would love to hear
your thoughts.

Randy Schoenberg


------ Forwarded Message
From: E Randol Schoenberg <randols@bslaw.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:47:05 -0700
To: Michael Franz <Michael.Franz@bmukk.gv.at>
Cc: Hans Peter Huber <Hanspeter.Huber@bmukk.gv.at>, E Randol Schoenberg
<randols@bslaw.net>
Subject: Thanks again for the visit

Dear Michael,

It was a great pleasure meeting you here in Los Angeles.  I hope the rest o=
f
your trip was successful.

I am so glad we had the opportunity to meet and talk about the issues that
you and I are both grappling with.  As I explained, it was one of my great
frustrations that for so long I could not have any direct communication wit=
h
your predecessors.  I think that talking about the issues can often lead to
a resolution that is beneficial for both sides.  So I was especially happy
to be able to speak with you.

I understand your political circumstances, and the desire not to propose an=
y
further changes in the new law, for fear that the =C3=96VP will then abandon th=
e
entire restitution project.  I wish only that the new law could have been
drafted to resolve these issues the first time!  But I respect your judgmen=
t
and hope that you will be successful in having the new law passed as it is
currently drafted.

At some point, I hope it will be appropriate to ask President Jabloner or
perhaps Prof. Eva Blimlinger to review the actual decision in the Amalie
Zuckerkandl painting case and let you know if they agree with the result, o=
r
if, as I have suggested, the result could have been different if the curren=
t
practices of the Beirat had been followed.  The same type of review would b=
e
appropriate for the Fels=C3=B6vanyi family=E2=80=99s two Waldm=C3=BCller paintings.  Thes=
e are
the ONLY two cases I know of that were not correctly decided, in my view.
So a wholesale review of prior decisions should not be warranted.  If, as I
suspect, President Jabloner or Prof. Blimlinger agree with me that the
Zuckerkandl painting and Fels=C3=B6vanyi cases did not follow the current Beira=
t
guidelines, then I hope that you will take a closer look at the issue of ho=
w
to resolve these matters.  A further revision of the law may not be
necessary.=20

As we joked at our brunch, Austria sometimes has the problem that it shoots
itself in the foot.  So, even while the art restitution law is one of the
most far-reaching and generous in all of Europe, the misapplication of the
law has led to embarrassments that have overshadowed all the good that was
done!  I hope that working together we can rectify this, and help clear up
the few remaining disputes that are preventing Austria from moving forward
without shame over the way that it has dealt with its past.

Thank you again for our meeting.  I look forward to speaking with you again
soon,

Randy Schoenberg

------ Forwarded Message
From: E Randol Schoenberg <randols@bslaw.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:47:16 -0700
To: Alexandra Schwabl <Alexandra.Schwabl@bmukk.gv.at>, Franz Michael
<Michael.Franz@bmukk.gv.at>
Cc: E Randol Schoenberg <randols@bslaw.net>, Hans Peter Huber
<Hanspeter.Huber@bmukk.gv.at>
Subject: Re: Restitution Amalie Zuckerkandl

Dear Dr. Franz,

Thank you so much for sending me the letter from Prof. Jabloner.
Unfortunately, I do not see any evidence that the Beirat (or you) have
considered the fact that the decisions in the Amalie Zuckerkandl case (by
the Beirat in 2005, the Schiedgericht in 2006, and the OGH in 2008) are
INCONSISTENT with the current practices of the Beirat and your Ministry!

As I have pointed out numerous times, the original 2006 Beirat decision
(http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Decisions/beirat.pdf) and the
decision of the Schiedsgericht (
http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Decisions/decision.pdf) were based
on the assumption that the 3. R=C3=BCckstellungsG and related decisions of the
restitution courts did not apply to the definition of "Entziehung" in the
NichtigkeitsG =C2=A71 (which is the only restitution law mentioned in the
R=C3=BCckgabeG).  The OGH (
http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Revision/OGH.pdf ) found that it
was plausible that the Parliament in 1998 intended NOT to apply the 3.
R=C3=BCckstellungsG when it mentioned only =C2=A71 of the NichtigkeitsG, and theref=
ore
found that the Schiedspruch was not against the "ordre public".  (=E2=80=9CDass d=
er
Gesetzgeber des Kunstr=C3=BCckgabeG einen Verweis auf das 3. RStG bewusst
vermieden haben k=C3=B6nnte, um die Republik =C3=96sterreich nicht mit der nur durc=
h
die Entziehungsvermutung zu rechtfertigenden Beweislastumkehr zu belasten,
ist vor diesem Hintergrund immerhin so weit wahrscheinlich, dass die
Forderung nach einer (anologen) Anwendung dieser Bestimmung keineswegs
zwingend erscheint.=E2=80=9D)

But as I have pointed out, in many decisions since 2007, the Beirat has in
fact applied the 3. R=C3=BCckstellungsG definition of Entziehung to determine i=
f
an artwork should be restituted.  For example,

Max Roden Rosenzweig,
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15340/beschlussmaxrodenrosenzweig.pdf
=E2=80=9C=C2=A7 1 des Bundesgesetzes vom 15 . Mai 1946, BGBI.Nr. 106/46, erkl=C3=A4rt auc=
h
entgeltliche Rechtsgesch=C3=A4fte w=C3=A4hrend der Deutschen Besetzung
=C3=96sterreich fu=CC=88r null und nichtig, wenn sie im Zuge einer durch das Deutsc=
he
Reich erfolgten politischen und wirtschaftlichen Durchdringung vorgenommen
worden sind, um natu=CC=88rlichen Personen Verm=C3=B6gen zu entziehen, das ihm am 1=
3 .
M=C3=A4rz 1938 zugestanden ist.  Nach =C2=A7 2 Abs. 1
des dritten Ru=CC=88ckstestellungsgesetzes BGBL 1947/54, liegt eine nichtige
Verm=C3=B6gensentziehung dann vor, wenn der Eigentu=CC=88mer politischer Verfolgung
durch den Nationalsozialismus unterworfen war und der Erwerber des Verm=C3=B6ge=
ns
nicht dartut, dass die Verm=C3=B6gensu=CC=88bertragung auch unabh=C3=A4ngig
von der Machtergreifung des Nationalsozialismus erfolgt w=C3=A4re .=E2=80=9D Die
Rechtssprechung der Ru=CC=88ckstellungskommission hat dazu festgehalten, dass e=
s
als gerichtsbekannt keines weiteren Beweises bedu=CC=88rfe, dass "Juden in
=C3=96sterreich der p=C3=B6litischen Verfolgung durch die nationalsozialistischen
Machthaber ausgesetzt waren" (Rkb Wien 83/47), ferner dass es bei Verk=C3=A4ufe=
n
durch politisch Verfolgte fu=CC=88r die Ru=CC=88ckstellungspflicht ohne Belang ist,=
 ob
der Kaufpreis angemessen war oder der Verk=C3=A4ufer die Verkaufsverhandlungen
selbst eingeleitet hat (Rkv 7/48, Rkb Wien 97/47) . Der vom Erwerber zu
erbringende Nachweis, die Verm=C3=B6gensu=CC=88bertragung h=C3=A4tte auch ohne die
Machtergreifung des Nationalsozialismus stattgefunden, erfordert den Beweis
bereits vorher stattgefundener Vertragsverhandlungen zu vergleichbaren
wirtschaftlichen Bedingungen oder aber einer - von der Machtergreifung des
Nationa'sozialismus unabh=C3=A4ngigen - aussichtslosen finanziellen Lage des
Verk=C3=A4ufers (Rkb Wien 905/48) . Es ist somit mit Sicherheit davon auszugehe=
n,
dass der in Rede stehende Kunstgegenstand ru=CC=88ckzustellen gewesen w=C3=A4ren.=E2=80=
=9D

See also similar language in
Maria and Dir. Michael Ottakar Popper,
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15339/beschlussmariaunddir_michael.pdf
Ernst Gotthilf,=20
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15335/beschlussernstgotthilf.pdf
Theodor Wolf,=20
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15342/beschlusshrdr_theodorwolf.pdf
Wilhelm M=C3=BCller-Hofmann,
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15591/rest_beirat_mueller.pdf
Roubicek & Purm,=20
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15593/rest_beirat_roubicek.pdf
Marianne Nechansky,
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/16670/beschluss_nechansky.pdf

These decisions are clearly INCONSISTENT with the decision of the
Schiedgericht, which found as follows

=E2=80=9CDa das Schiedsgericht, wie oben dargelegt, davon ausgeht, dass die =C3=9Cber=
gabe
des Bildes aus der Sammlung Bloch-Bauer an die Familie
Zuckerkandl/M=C3=BCller-Hofmann freiwillig, also auf durch die private Beziehun=
g
zu Amalie Zuckerkandl motivierte Veranlassung Ferdinand Bloch-Bauers,
erfolgte, liegt in diesem Vorgang keine =E2=80=98Entziehung=E2=80=99 im Sinne des
Nichtigkeitsgesetzes zu Lasten des Verm=C3=B6gen von Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer, mag
die R=C3=BCckgabe auch durch die Verfolgung Ferdinand Bloch-Bauers in dem Sinne
verursacht worden sein, dass ohne die Ereignisse nach 1938 alle Dinge eine
andere Wendung genommen h=C3=A4tten. Das Gesetz verlangt vielmehr, dass die
Verm=C3=B6gensverschiebung erfolgte, =E2=80=98um zu . . . Entziehen=E2=80=99, welches
Tatbestandsmerkmal vorliegend nicht erf=C3=BCllt ist.=E2=80=9D

The Beirat and the Schiedsgericht assumed (without any evidence to support
the finding, and much contrary evidence) that there was a "gift" of the
painting from Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer after 1938 (in exile!) to the
Zuckerkandl family in Vienna.  I have always pointed out that under the 3.
R=C3=BCckstellungsG, such a gift (if it occurred) must be considered an
Entziehung and the painting would still without question have been subject
to restitution to the Bloch-Bauer heirs (they did not locate the painting
until 1978, after the restitution laws had expired!).

The Beirat itself took this position in the later Hans Abels case.  See
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15332/beschlussdr_hansabels8882.pdf
("Unter Beru=CC=88cksichtigung des dargestellten Sachverhaltes kann kein Zweife=
l
daran bestehen, dass diese Schenkung ein Rechtsgesch=C3=A4ft war, das zufolge =C2=
=A7 1
des BG vom 15 . Mai 1946, BGBI . 106, nichtig war. Es ist mit Sicherheit
davon auszugehen, dass die geschenkten Objekte ru=CC=88ckzustellen gewesen w=C3=A4r=
en.
Es ist mit Sicherheit davon auszugehen, dass die geschenkten Objekte
r=C3=BCckzustellen gewesen w=C3=A4re.")  See also Gertrude Fischl,
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15333/beschlussgertrudefischldr_ha.pdf ;
Gerturd Marl=C3=A9=20
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15338/beschlussgertrudemarl.pdf ; Regine
Ehrenfest-Egger=20
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15741/rest_beirat_ehrenfestegger.pdf

This current practice by the Beirat (NOT followed in the Amalie Zuckerkandl
case) is absolutely correct.  As we explained in our filing with the OGH (
http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Revision/Revision.pdf ),
Heller/Rauscher fu=CC=88hren in ihrer Entscheidungssammlung an (siehe Graf NZ
03/2007, 72 f [ http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Opinions/Graf.pdf
]), dass auch Schenkungen unter die Ru=CC=88ckstellungsgesetze fallen: =E2=80=9EEine =
auch
ohne die Machtergreifung des Nationalsozialismus erfolgte
Verm=C3=B6gensu=CC=88bertragung ist nicht bei einer seitens des auswandernden
Eigentu=CC=88mers erfolgten Schenkung von Einrichtungsgegenst=C3=A4nden an seine
Freundin anzunehmen. Denn wenngleich die Gew=C3=A4hrung einer Abfindung bei ein=
er
L=C3=B6sung der Beziehungen zu einer Freundin u=CC=88blich ist, ist nicht dargetan,
da=C3=9F der Eigentu=CC=88mer auch ohne die Machtergreifung, wenn er nicht durch di=
e
Verh=C3=A4ltnisse zur Auswanderung veranlasst worden w=C3=A4re, der Erwerberin gera=
de
die in Frage stehenden (Einrichtungs-)Gegenst=C3=A4nde geschenkt h=C3=A4tte.=E2=80=9D
(Heller/Rauscher, Die Rechtsprechung der Ru=CC=88ckstellungskommissionen, 1949,
221, S. 445-6, Rkb Wien 817/48 v. 10.9.1948
http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Klage/Heller.pdf ).

Once again, I ask that the Beirat reconsider the Amalie Zuckerkandl decisio=
n
in light of the more recent decisions of the Beirat applying the 3.
R=C3=BCckstellungsG and related restitution court decisions.  There is NO LAW
that prohibits such reconsideration by the Ministry or the Beirat (see
Mahler-Werfel decision
http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Munch/Beirat.pdf ).

At the same time, I would ask that when you amend the R=C3=BCckgabeG, you inclu=
de
language that confirms the current practices of the Beirat, as demonstrated
in the various Beirat decisions mentioned above.  At the moment, there is a
conflict between the interpretation of the Schiedsgericht and OGH (that the
Parliament did not intend to apply the 3. R=C3=BCckstellungsG definition of
Entziehung) and the practice of the Beirat and your Ministry (applying the
3. R=C3=BCckstellungsG and related restitution court decisions).  This conflict
should be addressed in the new law and resolved in favor of the Beirat=E2=80=99s
current practice.  There must be some mention of the 3. R=C3=BCckstellungsG in
the law or in the legislative history to avoid further confusion.

Sincerely yours,

Randol Schoenberg

P.S.  All documents related to the Amalie Zuckerkandl case can be found at
http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/ .

------ End of Forwarded Message