Re: Amalie Zuckerkandl

Return-Path: Delivered-To: randols@bslaw.net Received: (qmail 1213 invoked by uid 399); 13 May 2009 15:39:42 -0000 X-Virus-Scan: Scanned by ClamAV 0.94.2 (no viruses); Wed, 13 May 2009 10:39:43 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com) (71.74.56.124) by mail2.andhosting.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2009 15:39:42 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 71.74.56.124 Received-SPF: softfail (mail2.andhosting.com: transitioning SPF record at bslaw.net does not designate 71.74.56.124 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=71.74.56.124; envelope-from=; Received: from [192.168.1.102] (really [75.82.36.115]) by hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090513153940754.WOXU24043@hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com>; Wed, 13 May 2009 15:39:40 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302 Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 08:39:06 -0700 Subject: Re: Amalie Zuckerkandl From: "E. Randol Schoenberg" To: Eva Blimlinger CC: E Randol Schoenberg Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Amalie Zuckerkandl Thread-Index: AcnT4PMDVz4Kb8RZz0eDsz8irEHMDA== In-Reply-To: <49FE999F.1060304@uni-ak.ac.at> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3325048753_13652565" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3325048753_13652565 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Eva, I hope we can speak or discuss this further. I was just reading the recent decisions, for example Maria Kalbeck Mautner, where the Beirat said Der Beirat hat erwogen: Gem=C3=A4=C3=9F =C2=A7 1 Z. 2 Kunstr=C3=BCckgabegesetz k=C3=B6nnen entzogene Gegenst=C3=A4nde ihren urspr=C3=BCnglichen Eigent=C3=BCmern bzw. der Rechtsnachfolger von Todes wegen =C3=BCbereignet werden. Gegenst=C3=A4ndlich l=C3=A4sst sich zwar nicht feststellen, auf welchem Wege die Objekte von der damaligen Theatersammlung erworben wurden. Da jedoch Maria Kalbeck Mautner verfolgt war und im November 1938 =C3=96sterrei= ch verlassen musste, kann dahingestellt bleiben, ob die Objekte aus dem von der Spedition nicht abgegangenen Umzugslift stammen und in der Folge beschlagnahmt wurden oder von Maria Kalbeck Mautner aus Anlass ihrer Flucht der Theatersammlung geschenkt oder an diese ver=C3=A4u=C3=9Fert wurden. In jedem Fa= ll handelt es sich um Rechtsgesch=C3=A4fte, welche durch die Verfolgung von Maria Kalbeck Mautner bedingt (bzw. Teil der Verfolgung) waren. Der Beirat kommt daher zum Ergebnis, dass die Voraussetzungen =C2=A7 1 Z 2 Kunstr=C3=BCckgabegesetz erf=C3=BCllt sind und empfiehlt der Bundesministerin f=C3=BCr Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur die =C3=9Cbereignung der 16 identifizierten Objekt= e. Now, why (other than animosity towards me and Maria Altmann) wasn't this th= e standard used for the Klimt "Amalie Zuckerkandl" painting from Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer's collection? The solution is very simple. The Beirat should reconsider the case. The prior agreement and judgment is not a bar to reconsideration. See Kantor (settlement), Mahler-Werfel (final judgment AND prior negative Beirat recommendation). If Dr. Kremser can get over his animosity towards me, and Dr. Rosenauer can forget for just one moment that they have to lose another Klimt, this shoul= d be a simple case. It was ALWAYS a simple case. Randy > From: Eva Blimlinger > Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 09:30:39 +0200 > To: E Randol Schoenberg > Subject: Re: Amalie Zuckerkandl >=20 > Dear Randol, I will answer you next week, because I have a lot auf > appointment this week and not really time to answer, best Eva Blimlinger >=20 > E. Randol Schoenberg schrieb: >> Eva, >>=20 >> I still cannot forget about the problem with the Bloch-Bauer's Klimt "Am= alie >> Zuckerkandl" painting (and the two Waldm=C3=BCllers from Gertrude L=C3=B6w >> Fels=C3=B6vanyi). >>=20 >> Below is the correspondence I have had with Michael Franz. >>=20 >> I think if there is ever any hope of getting a correct result in this ca= se, >> it will have to be up to you. If you agree that there is a problem, whi= ch I >> think that you do, the only way to help is to convince President Jablone= r >> and Michael Franz that it is something that needs to be looked at again = more >> closely. The solution is simply amending the law to conform with the >> current practices of the Beirat, and then applying the current law prope= rly. >>=20 >> 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 den= ying >> restitution, the Beirat and the judges have, perhaps unknowingly, engage= d in >> a bit of Holocaust denial. By imagining (without ANY evidence!) a gift = from >> Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer to Amalie Zuckerkandl after January 1939, they pre= tend >> 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 ther= e >> obviously was never even a gift. The painting could only have been >> liquidated by Dr. Fuehrer like all the rest of Ferdinand's property.) >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> I should be returning to Vienna in October for a concert of my grandfath= er >> Eric Zeisl's "Requiem Ebraico" with Zubin Mehta and the Vienna Philharmo= nic. >> Perhaps I will have time to meet with you then. But I would love to hea= r >> your thoughts. >>=20 >> Randy Schoenberg >>=20 >>=20 >> ------ Forwarded Message >> From: E Randol Schoenberg >> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:47:05 -0700 >> To: Michael Franz >> Cc: Hans Peter Huber , E Randol Schoenberg >> >> Subject: Thanks again for the visit >>=20 >> Dear Michael, >>=20 >> It was a great pleasure meeting you here in Los Angeles. I hope the res= t of >> your trip was successful. >>=20 >> I am so glad we had the opportunity to meet and talk about the issues th= at >> you and I are both grappling with. As I explained, it was one of my gre= at >> frustrations that for so long I could not have any direct communication = with >> 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 hap= py >> to be able to speak with you. >>=20 >> I understand your political circumstances, and the desire not to propose= any >> further changes in the new law, for fear that the =C3=96VP will then abandon= the >> entire restitution project. I wish only that the new law could have bee= n >> drafted to resolve these issues the first time! But I respect your judg= ment >> and hope that you will be successful in having the new law passed as it = is >> currently drafted. >>=20 >> At some point, I hope it will be appropriate to ask President Jabloner o= r >> 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= , or >> if, as I have suggested, the result could have been different if the cur= rent >> practices of the Beirat had been followed. The same type of review woul= d be >> appropriate for the Fels=C3=B6vanyi family=E2=80=99s two Waldm=C3=BCller paintings. T= hese 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, a= s I >> suspect, President Jabloner or Prof. Blimlinger agree with me that the >> Zuckerkandl painting and Fels=C3=B6vanyi cases did not follow the current Be= irat >> guidelines, then I hope that you will take a closer look at the issue of= how >> to resolve these matters. A further revision of the law may not be >> necessary.=20 >>=20 >> As we joked at our brunch, Austria sometimes has the problem that it sho= ots >> itself in the foot. So, even while the art restitution law is one of th= e >> most far-reaching and generous in all of Europe, the misapplication of t= he >> law has led to embarrassments that have overshadowed all the good that w= as >> done! I hope that working together we can rectify this, and help clear = up >> the few remaining disputes that are preventing Austria from moving forwa= rd >> without shame over the way that it has dealt with its past. >>=20 >> Thank you again for our meeting. I look forward to speaking with you ag= ain >> soon, >>=20 >> Randy Schoenberg >>=20 >> ------ Forwarded Message >> From: E Randol Schoenberg >> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:47:16 -0700 >> To: Alexandra Schwabl , Franz Michael >> >> Cc: E Randol Schoenberg , Hans Peter Huber >> >> Subject: Re: Restitution Amalie Zuckerkandl >>=20 >> Dear Dr. Franz, >>=20 >> 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 (b= y >> 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! >>=20 >> 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 ba= sed >> on the assumption that the 3. R=C3=BCckstellungsG and related decisions of t= he >> restitution courts did not apply to the definition of "Entziehung" in th= e >> 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 i= t >> 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 the= refore >> found that the Schiedspruch was not against the "ordre public". (=E2=80=9CDas= s der >> 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 d= urch >> die Entziehungsvermutung zu rechtfertigenden Beweislastumkehr zu belaste= n, >> ist vor diesem Hintergrund immerhin so weit wahrscheinlich, dass die >> Forderung nach einer (anologen) Anwendung dieser Bestimmung keineswegs >> zwingend erscheint.=E2=80=9D) >>=20 >> 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 determin= e if >> an artwork should be restituted. For example, >>=20 >> 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 = auch >> 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 Deu= tsche >> Reich erfolgten politischen und wirtschaftlichen Durchdringung vorgenomm= en >> worden sind, um natu=CC=88rlichen Personen Verm=C3=B6gen zu entziehen, das ihm a= m 13 . >> 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 Verfolg= ung >> durch den Nationalsozialismus unterworfen war und der Erwerber des Verm=C3= =B6gens >> 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, das= s es >> als gerichtsbekannt keines weiteren Beweises bedu=CC=88rfe, dass "Juden in >> =C3=96sterreich der p=C3=B6litischen Verfolgung durch die nationalsozialistische= n >> Machthaber ausgesetzt waren" (Rkb Wien 83/47), ferner dass es bei Verk=C3=A4= ufen >> durch politisch Verfolgte fu=CC=88r die Ru=CC=88ckstellungspflicht ohne Belang i= st, ob >> der Kaufpreis angemessen war oder der Verk=C3=A4ufer die Verkaufsverhandlung= en >> 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 Bew= eis >> bereits vorher stattgefundener Vertragsverhandlungen zu vergleichbaren >> wirtschaftlichen Bedingungen oder aber einer - von der Machtergreifung d= es >> Nationa'sozialismus unabh=C3=A4ngigen - aussichtslosen finanziellen Lage des >> Verk=C3=A4ufers (Rkb Wien 905/48) . Es ist somit mit Sicherheit davon auszug= ehen, >> dass der in Rede stehende Kunstgegenstand ru=CC=88ckzustellen gewesen w=C3=A4ren= .=E2=80=9D >>=20 >> 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, >> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15593/rest_beirat_roubicek.pdf >> Marianne Nechansky, >> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/16670/beschluss_nechansky.pdf >>=20 >> These decisions are clearly INCONSISTENT with the decision of the >> Schiedgericht, which found as follows >>=20 >> =E2=80=9CDa das Schiedsgericht, wie oben dargelegt, davon ausgeht, dass die =C3=9C= bergabe >> des Bildes aus der Sammlung Bloch-Bauer an die Familie >> Zuckerkandl/M=C3=BCller-Hofmann freiwillig, also auf durch die private Bezie= hung >> 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 Si= nne >> verursacht worden sein, dass ohne die Ereignisse nach 1938 alle Dinge ei= ne >> 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 >>=20 >> The Beirat and the Schiedsgericht assumed (without any evidence to suppo= rt >> 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 subje= ct >> to restitution to the Bloch-Bauer heirs (they did not locate the paintin= g >> until 1978, after the restitution laws had expired!). >>=20 >> 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 Zwe= ifel >> daran bestehen, dass diese Schenkung ein Rechtsgesch=C3=A4ft war, das zufolg= e =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=A4ren. >> 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 ; Regi= ne >> Ehrenfest-Egger=20 >> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15741/rest_beirat_ehrenfestegger.pdf >>=20 >> This current practice by the Beirat (NOT followed in the Amalie Zuckerka= ndl >> 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 N= Z >> 03/2007, 72 f [ http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Opinions/Graf.p= df >> ]), dass auch Schenkungen unter die Ru=CC=88ckstellungsgesetze fallen: =E2=80=9EEi= ne 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 = einer >> L=C3=B6sung der Beziehungen zu einer Freundin u=CC=88blich ist, ist nicht darget= an, >> da=C3=9F der Eigentu=CC=88mer auch ohne die Machtergreifung, wenn er nicht durch= die >> Verh=C3=A4ltnisse zur Auswanderung veranlasst worden w=C3=A4re, der Erwerberin g= erade >> die in Frage stehenden (Einrichtungs-)Gegenst=C3=A4nde geschenkt h=C3=A4tte.=E2=80=9D >> (Heller/Rauscher, Die Rechtsprechung der Ru=CC=88ckstellungskommissionen, 19= 49, >> 221, S. 445-6, Rkb Wien 817/48 v. 10.9.1948 >> http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Klage/Heller.pdf ). >>=20 >> Once again, I ask that the Beirat reconsider the Amalie Zuckerkandl deci= sion >> in light of the more recent decisions of the Beirat applying the 3. >> R=C3=BCckstellungsG and related restitution court decisions. There is NO LA= W >> that prohibits such reconsideration by the Ministry or the Beirat (see >> Mahler-Werfel decision >> http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Munch/Beirat.pdf ). >>=20 >> At the same time, I would ask that when you amend the R=C3=BCckgabeG, you in= clude >> language that confirms the current practices of the Beirat, as demonstra= ted >> in the various Beirat decisions mentioned above. At the moment, there i= s 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 t= he >> 3. R=C3=BCckstellungsG and related restitution court decisions). This confl= ict >> 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. >>=20 >> Sincerely yours, >>=20 >> Randol Schoenberg >>=20 >> P.S. All documents related to the Amalie Zuckerkandl case can be found = at >> http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/ . >>=20 >> ------ End of Forwarded Message >>=20 >>=20 >> =20 >=20 > --=20 > Mag. Eva Blimlinger > Projektkoordination Kunst- und Forschungsf=C3=B6rderung > Universit=C3=A4t f=C3=BCr Angewandte Kunst/University of Applied Arts > Oskar Kokoschka-Platz 2 > A- 1010 Wien/VIenna > T: +43/1/71133-2778 > F: +43/1/71133-2776 > eva.blimlinger@uni-ak.ac.at >=20 >=20 >=20 --B_3325048753_13652565 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: Amalie Zuckerkandl Eva,

I hope we can speak or discuss this further. I was just reading the r= ecent decisions, for example Maria Kalbeck Mautner, where the Beirat said
Der Beirat hat erwogen:
Gemäß § 1 Z. 2 Kunstrückgabegesetz können entzoge= ne Gegenstände ihren ursprünglichen Eigentümern bzw. der Rech= tsnachfolger von Todes wegen übereignet werden. Gegenständlich = lässt sich zwar nicht feststellen, auf welchem Wege die Objekte von der= damaligen Theatersammlung erworben wurden. Da jedoch Maria Kalbeck Maut= ner verfolgt war und im November 1938 Österreich verlassen musste, kann= dahingestellt bleiben, ob die Objekte aus dem
von der Spedition nicht abgegangenen Umzugslift stammen und in der Folge be= schlagnahmt wurden oder von Maria Kalbeck Mautner aus Anlass ihrer Flucht= der Theatersammlung geschenkt oder an diese veräußert wurden= . In jedem Fall handelt es sich um Rechtsgeschäfte, welche durch= die Verfolgung von Maria Kalbeck Mautner bedingt (bzw. Teil der Verfolgung)= waren.
Der Beirat kommt daher zum Ergebnis, dass die Voraussetzungen § 1 Z 2 = Kunstrückgabegesetz erfüllt sind und empfiehlt der Bundesministeri= n für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur die Übereignung der 16 identifi= zierten Objekte.

Now, why (other than animosity towards me and Maria Altmann) wasn't this th= e standard used for the Klimt "Amalie Zuckerkandl" painting from F= erdinand Bloch-Bauer's collection?

The solution is very simple. The Beirat should reconsider the case. &= nbsp;The prior agreement and judgment is not a bar to reconsideration. = ;See Kantor (settlement), Mahler-Werfel (final judgment AND prior negative B= eirat recommendation).

If Dr. Kremser can get over his animosity towards me, and Dr. Rosenauer can= forget for just one moment that they have to lose another Klimt, this shoul= d be a simple case. It was ALWAYS a simple case.

Randy

> From: Eva Blimlinger <eva.blimlinger@uni-ak.ac.at>
> Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 09:30:39 +0200
> To: E Randol Schoenberg <randols@bslaw.= net>
> Subject: Re: Amalie Zuckerkandl
>
> Dear Randol, I will answer you next week, because I have a lot auf > appointment this week and not really time to answer, best Eva Blimling= er
>
> E. Randol Schoenberg schrieb:
>> Eva,
>>
>> I still cannot forget about the problem with the Bloch-Bauer's Kli= mt "Amalie
>> Zuckerkandl" painting (and the two Waldmüllers from Gert= rude Löw
>> Felsövanyi).
>>
>> Below is the correspondence I have had with Michael Franz.
>>
>> I think if there is ever any hope of getting a correct result in t= his case,
>> it will have to be up to you. If you agree that there is a p= roblem, which I
>> think that you do, the only way to help is to convince President J= abloner
>> and Michael Franz that it is something that needs to be looked at = again more
>> 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 a= n open
>> wound forever. What bothers me the most is that this should have b= een an
>> easy case, much easier than the paintings from Adele's will. = ;But by denying
>> restitution, the Beirat and the judges have, perhaps unknowingly, = engaged in
>> a bit of Holocaust denial. By imagining (without ANY evidenc= e!) a gift from
>> Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer to Amalie Zuckerkandl after January 1939, th= ey pretend
>> that it was possible for a Jew in exile (he fled March 1938) to co= ntrol the
>> disposition of his property. You and I know that this was no= t 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 fle= eing
>> Austria were "Entziehungen" subject to reversal. (= But in this case there
>> obviously was never even a gift. The painting could only hav= e been
>> liquidated by Dr. Fuehrer like all the rest of Ferdinand's propert= y.)
>>
>> Please, please help me correct this injustice. I just saw Ma= ria Altmann
>> again this week. She is 93 years old but she will not be her= e forever.
>> (The same goes for Dr. Felsoevany.) I fear that I am powerle= ss to help
>> them. You may be our only hope.
>>
>> I should be returning to Vienna in October for a concert of my gra= ndfather
>> 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 <Han= speter.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 h= ope the rest of
>> your trip was successful.
>>
>> I am so glad we had the opportunity to meet and talk about the iss= ues that
>> you and I are both grappling with. As I explained, it was on= e of my great
>> frustrations that for so long I could not have any direct communic= ation with
>> your predecessors. I think that talking about the issues can= often lead to
>> a resolution that is beneficial for both sides. So I was esp= ecially happy
>> to be able to speak with you.
>>
>> I understand your political circumstances, and the desire not to p= ropose any
>> further changes in the new law, for fear that the ÖVP will th= en abandon the
>> entire restitution project. I wish only that the new law cou= ld have been
>> drafted to resolve these issues the first time! But I respec= t your judgment
>> 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 Jabl= oner 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, or
>> if, as I have suggested, the result could have been different if t= he current
>> practices of the Beirat had been followed. The same type of = review would be
>> appropriate for the Felsövanyi family’s two Waldmü= ller paintings. These are
>> the ONLY two cases I know of that were not correctly decided, in m= y 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 Felsövanyi cases did not follow the = current Beirat
>> guidelines, then I hope that you will take a closer look at the is= sue of how
>> to resolve these matters. A further revision of the law may = not be
>> necessary.
>>
>> 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 i= s one of the
>> most far-reaching and generous in all of Europe, the misapplicatio= n 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<= /a>>
>> Cc: E Randol Schoenberg <randols@bs= law.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 c= ase (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 Min= istry!
>>
>> As I have pointed out numerous times, the original 2006 Beirat dec= ision
>> (http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Decisions/beirat.pdf) an= d the
>> decision of the Schiedsgericht (
>> http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Decisions/decision.pdf)= were based
>> on the assumption that the 3. RückstellungsG and related deci= sions of the
>> restitution courts did not apply to the definition of "Entzie= hung" in the
>> NichtigkeitsG §1 (which is the only restitution law mentioned= in the
>> RückgabeG). 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 th= e 3.
>> RückstellungsG when it mentioned only §1 of the Nichtigk= eitsG, and therefore
>> found that the Schiedspruch was not against the "ordre public= ". (“Dass der
>> Gesetzgeber des KunstrückgabeG einen Verweis auf das 3. RStG = bewusst
>> vermieden haben könnte, um die Republik Österreich nicht= mit der nur durch
>> die Entziehungsvermutung zu rechtfertigenden Beweislastumkehr zu b= elasten,
>> ist vor diesem Hintergrund immerhin so weit wahrscheinlich, dass d= ie
>> Forderung nach einer (anologen) Anwendung dieser Bestimmung keines= wegs
>> zwingend erscheint.”)
>>
>> But as I have pointed out, in many decisions since 2007, the Beira= t has in
>> fact applied the 3. RückstellungsG definition of Entziehung t= o determine if
>> an artwork should be restituted. For example,
>>
>> Max Roden Rosenzweig,
>> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15340/beschlussmaxrodenros= enzweig.pdf
>> “§ 1 des Bundesgesetzes vom 15 . Mai 1946, BGBI.Nr. 106= /46, erklärt auch
>> entgeltliche Rechtsgeschäfte während der Deutschen Beset= zung
>> Österreich fu=CC=88r null und nichtig, wenn sie im Zuge einer dur= ch das Deutsche
>> Reich erfolgten politischen und wirtschaftlichen Durchdringung vor= genommen
>> worden sind, um natu=CC=88rlichen Personen Vermögen zu entziehen,= das ihm am 13 .
>> März 1938 zugestanden ist. Nach § 2 Abs. 1
>> des dritten Ru=CC=88ckstestellungsgesetzes BGBL 1947/54, liegt eine ni= chtige
>> Vermögensentziehung dann vor, wenn der Eigentu=CC=88mer politisch= er Verfolgung
>> durch den Nationalsozialismus unterworfen war und der Erwerber des= Vermögens
>> nicht dartut, dass die Vermögensu=CC=88bertragung auch unabhä= ;ngig
>> von der Machtergreifung des Nationalsozialismus erfolgt wäre = .” Die
>> Rechtssprechung der Ru=CC=88ckstellungskommission hat dazu festgehalte= n, dass es
>> als gerichtsbekannt keines weiteren Beweises bedu=CC=88rfe, dass "= ;Juden in
>> Österreich der pölitischen Verfolgung durch die national= sozialistischen
>> Machthaber ausgesetzt waren" (Rkb Wien 83/47), ferner dass es= bei Verkäufen
>> durch politisch Verfolgte fu=CC=88r die Ru=CC=88ckstellungspflicht ohne Be= lang ist, ob
>> der Kaufpreis angemessen war oder der Verkäufer die Verkaufsv= erhandlungen
>> selbst eingeleitet hat (Rkv 7/48, Rkb Wien 97/47) . Der vom Erwerb= er zu
>> erbringende Nachweis, die Vermögensu=CC=88bertragung hätte a= uch ohne die
>> Machtergreifung des Nationalsozialismus stattgefunden, erfordert d= en Beweis
>> bereits vorher stattgefundener Vertragsverhandlungen zu vergleichb= aren
>> wirtschaftlichen Bedingungen oder aber einer - von der Machtergrei= fung des
>> Nationa'sozialismus unabhängigen - aussichtslosen finanzielle= n Lage des
>> Verkäufers (Rkb Wien 905/48) . Es ist somit mit Sicherheit da= von auszugehen,
>> dass der in Rede stehende Kunstgegenstand ru=CC=88ckzustellen gewesen = wären.”
>>
>> See also similar language in
>> Maria and Dir. Michael Ottakar Popper,
>> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15339/beschlussmariaunddi= r_michael.pdf
>> Ernst Gotthilf,
>> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15335/beschlussernstgotthilf.pd= f
>> Theodor Wolf,
>> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15342/beschlusshrdr_theodorw= olf.pdf
>> Wilhelm Müller-Hofmann,
>> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15591/rest_beirat_mueller.pdf<= BR> >> Roubicek & Purm,
>> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15593/rest_beirat_roubicek.pdf
>> Marianne Nechansky,
>> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/16670/beschluss_nechansky.pdf<= BR> >>
>> These decisions are clearly INCONSISTENT with the decision of the<= BR> >> Schiedgericht, which found as follows
>>
>> “Da das Schiedsgericht, wie oben dargelegt, davon ausgeht, d= ass die Übergabe
>> des Bildes aus der Sammlung Bloch-Bauer an die Familie
>> Zuckerkandl/Müller-Hofmann freiwillig, also auf durch die pri= vate Beziehung
>> zu Amalie Zuckerkandl motivierte Veranlassung Ferdinand Bloch-Baue= rs,
>> erfolgte, liegt in diesem Vorgang keine ‘Entziehung’ i= m Sinne des
>> Nichtigkeitsgesetzes zu Lasten des Vermögen von Ferdinand Blo= ch-Bauer, mag
>> die Rückgabe auch durch die Verfolgung Ferdinand Bloch-Bauers= in dem Sinne
>> verursacht worden sein, dass ohne die Ereignisse nach 1938 alle Di= nge eine
>> andere Wendung genommen hätten. Das Gesetz verlangt vielmehr,= dass die
>> Vermögensverschiebung erfolgte, ‘um zu . . . Entziehen&= #8217;, welches
>> Tatbestandsmerkmal vorliegend nicht erfüllt ist.”
>>
>> The Beirat and the Schiedsgericht assumed (without any evidence to= support
>> the finding, and much contrary evidence) that there was a "gi= ft" of the
>> painting from Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer after 1938 (in exile!) to the<= BR> >> Zuckerkandl family in Vienna. I have always pointed out that= under the 3.
>> RückstellungsG, such a gift (if it occurred) must be consider= ed an
>> Entziehung and the painting would still without question have been= subject
>> to restitution to the Bloch-Bauer heirs (they did not locate the p= ainting
>> 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_hansabels8= 882.pdf
>> ("Unter Beru=CC=88cksichtigung des dargestellten Sachverhaltes ka= nn kein Zweifel
>> daran bestehen, dass diese Schenkung ein Rechtsgeschäft war, = das zufolge § 1
>> des BG vom 15 . Mai 1946, BGBI . 106, nichtig war. Es ist mit Sich= erheit
>> davon auszugehen, dass die geschenkten Objekte ru=CC=88ckzustellen gew= esen wären.
>> Es ist mit Sicherheit davon auszugehen, dass die geschenkten Objek= te
>> rückzustellen gewesen wäre.") See also Gertru= de Fischl,
>> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15333/beschlussgertrudefi= schldr_ha.pdf ;
>> Gerturd Marlé
>> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15338/beschlussgertrudemarl.pdf<= /a> ; Regine
>> Ehrenfest-Egger
>> http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15741/rest_beirat_ehrenfest= egger.pdf
>>
>> This current practice by the Beirat (NOT followed in the Amalie Zu= ckerkandl
>> case) is absolutely correct. As we explained in our filing w= ith 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.pd= f
>> ]), dass auch Schenkungen unter die Ru=CC=88ckstellungsgesetze fallen:= „Eine auch
>> ohne die Machtergreifung des Nationalsozialismus erfolgte
>> Vermögensu=CC=88bertragung ist nicht bei einer seitens des auswan= dernden
>> Eigentu=CC=88mers erfolgten Schenkung von Einrichtungsgegenstände= n an seine
>> Freundin anzunehmen. Denn wenngleich die Gewährung einer Abfi= ndung bei einer
>> Lösung der Beziehungen zu einer Freundin u=CC=88blich ist, ist ni= cht dargetan,
>> daß der Eigentu=CC=88mer auch ohne die Machtergreifung, wenn er = nicht durch die
>> Verhältnisse zur Auswanderung veranlasst worden wäre, de= r Erwerberin gerade
>> die in Frage stehenden (Einrichtungs-)Gegenstände geschenkt h= ätte.”
>> (Heller/Rauscher, Die Rechtsprechung der Ru=CC=88ckstellungskommission= en, 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 Zuckerkand= l decision
>> in light of the more recent decisions of the Beirat applying the 3= .
>> RückstellungsG 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 Rückgab= eG, you include
>> language that confirms the current practices of the Beirat, as dem= onstrated
>> in the various Beirat decisions mentioned above. At the mome= nt, there is a
>> conflict between the interpretation of the Schiedsgericht and OGH = (that the
>> Parliament did not intend to apply the 3. RückstellungsG defi= nition of
>> Entziehung) and the practice of the Beirat and your Ministry (appl= ying the
>> 3. RückstellungsG and related restitution court decisions). &= nbsp;This conflict
>> should be addressed in the new law and resolved in favor of the Be= irat’s
>> current practice. There must be some mention of the 3. R&uum= l;ckstellungsG in
>> the law or in the legislative history to avoid further confusion.<= BR> >>
>> Sincerely yours,
>>
>> Randol Schoenberg
>>
>> P.S. All documents related to the Amalie Zuckerkandl case ca= n be found at
>> http://www.bsl= aw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/ .
>>
>> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mag. Eva Blimlinger
> Projektkoordination Kunst- und Forschungsförderung
> Universität für Angewandte Kunst/University of Applied Arts<= BR> > Oskar Kokoschka-Platz 2
> A- 1010 Wien/VIenna
> T: +43/1/71133-2778
> F: +43/1/71133-2776
> eva.blimlinger@uni-ak.ac.at<= BR> >
>
>
--B_3325048753_13652565--