Return-Path: <randols@bslaw.net>
Delivered-To: randols@bslaw.net
Received: (qmail 22616 invoked by uid 399); 25 Nov 2008 23:19:59 -0000
X-Virus-Scan: Scanned by ClamAV 0.93.3 (no viruses);
  Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:20:00 -0600
Received: from unknown (HELO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com) (71.74.56.124)
  by mail2.andhosting.com with ESMTP; 25 Nov 2008 23:19:59 -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=<randols@bslaw.net>;
Received: from [192.168.0.14] (really [75.82.42.118])
          by hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP
          id <20081125231946.MGOT11341.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@[192.168.0.14]>;
          Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:19:46 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:19:41 -0800
Subject: Re: Thanks again for the visit
From: "E. Randol Schoenberg" <randols@bslaw.net>
To: Franz Michael <Michael.Franz@bmukk.gv.at>
CC: "E. Randol Schoenberg" <randols@bslaw.net>
Message-ID: <C551C80D.2D363%randols@bslaw.net>
Thread-Topic: Thanks again for the visit
Thread-Index: Ack6+pOjBDQRtKz6LUy//PTHw+IwhgB89MSABJl5D5g=
In-Reply-To: <3D8A70EADE0DD34AA2414E7CE70A4B2403A3DBEA@SV2CL03EV01.voyager2.or.at>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="B_3310471186_376262"

> 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_3310471186_376262
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Congratulations on the new government.

I see in the news yet another case (correctly decided) that is inconsistent
with the Amalie Zuckerkandl decision.

> Siegfried Gerstl =C3=BCbergab dem Technischen Museum seine Sammlung an Dias u=
nd
> Glasnegativen von landwirtschaftlichen Maschinen (549 St=C3=BCck sowie zwei
> "Diab=C3=BCcher"), weil er, wie er im August 1938 schrieb, "als Jude m=C3=B6glich=
erweise
> gezwungen sein werde, meine Heimat, trotzdem ich 76 Jahre hier wohne, zu
> verlassen": Er erlaubte sich die Anfrage, ob das Museum geneigt sei, "im
> Falle, dass ich auswandern m=C3=BCsste", die Sammlung zu =C3=BCbernehmen - "koste=
nlos".
> F=C3=BCr den Beirat steht fest: Die Schenkung war "unzweifelhaft durch die
> nationalsozialistische Macht=C3=BCbernahme bedingt." Die Flucht gelang Gerstl
> nicht: Er starb am 25. September 1938.

Again, a gift is considered an =E2=80=9CEntziehung=E2=80=9D and the works must be retur=
ned.
Why then in the case of Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer=E2=80=99s Klimt painting, left behi=
nd
in his bedroom when he fled the country, is the result any different???
Even assuming (contrary to everything we know) that a gift was made somehow=
,
the painting would have to be returned, right?  Why on earth would Austria
want to keep this painting?  I still cannot understand it.

Randy



From: Franz Michael <Michael.Franz@bmukk.gv.at>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:29:23 +0100
To: "E. Randol Schoenberg" <randols@bslaw.net>
Subject: Thanks again for the visit

Dear Randy,
=20
once again from my side many thanks for the open and cordial discussion,
your generous invitation and the transportation you have provided. I look
forward to renewing our acquaintance during one of your visits to Vienna. I=
n
any event, I will keep an eye on the issues we have discussed and,
circumstances permitting, may revert to them at a later point in time.
=20
Sincerely,
Michael
=20
P.S.: Reynolds Cafferata made a good impression on me. He has already
forwarded his draft engagement letter which we are studying now. Thanks for
the recommendation.
=20


Von: E. Randol Schoenberg [mailto:randols@bslaw.net]
Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2008 02:47
An: Franz Michael
Cc: Huber Hanspeter; E. Randol Schoenberg
Betreff: Thanks again for the visit
=20
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/ .



--B_3310471186_376262
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Thanks again for the visit</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt=
'>Congratulations on the new government.<BR>
<BR>
I see in the news yet another case (correctly decided) that is inconsistent=
 with the Amalie Zuckerkandl decision.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Ar=
ial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10pt'>Siegfried Gerstl &uuml;bergab dem Technisc=
hen Museum seine Sammlung an Dias und Glasnegativen von landwirtschaftlichen=
 Maschinen (549 St&uuml;ck sowie zwei &quot;Diab&uuml;cher&quot;), weil er, =
wie er im August 1938 schrieb, &quot;als Jude m&ouml;glicherweise gezwungen =
sein werde, meine Heimat, trotzdem ich 76 Jahre hier wohne, zu verlassen&quo=
t;: Er erlaubte sich die Anfrage, ob das Museum geneigt sei, &quot;im Falle,=
 dass ich auswandern m&uuml;sste&quot;, die Sammlung zu &uuml;bernehmen - &q=
uot;kostenlos&quot;. F&uuml;r den Beirat steht fest: Die Schenkung war &quot=
;unzweifelhaft durch die nationalsozialistische Macht&uuml;bernahme bedingt.=
&quot; Die Flucht gelang Gerstl nicht: Er starb am 25. September 1938.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helve=
tica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10pt'><BR>
Again, a gift is considered an &#8220;Entziehung&#8221; and the works must =
be returned. &nbsp;Why then in the case of Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer&#8217;s Kli=
mt painting, left behind in his bedroom when he fled the country, is the res=
ult any different??? &nbsp;Even assuming (contrary to everything we know) th=
at a gift was made somehow, the painting would have to be returned, right? &=
nbsp;Why on earth would Austria want to keep this painting? &nbsp;I still ca=
nnot understand it.<BR>
<BR>
Randy<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN =
STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'><BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"95%"><B>From: </B>Franz Michael &lt;<a hre=
f=3D"Michael.Franz@bmukk.gv.at">Michael.Franz@bmukk.gv.at</a>&gt;<BR>
<B>Date: </B>Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:29:23 +0100<BR>
<B>To: </B>&quot;E. Randol Schoenberg&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"randols@bslaw.net"=
>randols@bslaw.net</a>&gt;<BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Thanks again for the visit<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#800000"><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verd=
ana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10pt'>Dear Randy,<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
once again from my side many thanks for the open and cordial discussion, yo=
ur generous invitation and the transportation you have provided. I look forw=
ard to renewing our acquaintance during one of your visits to Vienna. In any=
 event, I will keep an eye on the issues we have discussed and, circumstance=
s permitting, may revert to them at a later point in time.<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
Sincerely,<BR>
Michael<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
P.S.: Reynolds Cafferata made a good impression on me. He has already forwa=
rded his draft engagement letter which we are studying now. Thanks for the r=
ecommendation.<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"=
><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>
</SPAN></FONT>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER>
<FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12pt'><HR ALIGN=3DCENTER =
SIZE=3D"2" WIDTH=3D"100%"></SPAN></FONT>
<P>
<FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'=
font-size:10pt'><B>Von:</B> E. Randol Schoenberg [<a href=3D"mailto:randols@bs=
law.net">mailto:randols@bslaw.net</a>] <BR>
<B>Gesendet:</B> Freitag, 31. Oktober 2008 02:47<BR>
<B>An:</B> Franz Michael<BR>
<B>Cc:</B> Huber Hanspeter; E. Randol Schoenberg<BR>
<B>Betreff:</B> Thanks again for the visit<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12=
pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'=
font-size:11pt'>Dear Michael,<BR>
<BR>
It was a great pleasure meeting you here in Los Angeles. &nbsp;I hope the r=
est of your trip was successful.<BR>
<BR>
I am so glad we had the opportunity to meet and talk about the issues that =
you and I are both grappling with. &nbsp;As I explained, it was one of my gr=
eat frustrations that for so long I could not have any direct communication =
with your predecessors. &nbsp;I think that talking about the issues can ofte=
n lead to a resolution that is beneficial for both sides. &nbsp;So I was esp=
ecially happy to be able to speak with you.<BR>
<BR>
I understand your political circumstances, and the desire not to propose an=
y further changes in the new law, for fear that the &Ouml;VP will then aband=
on the entire restitution project. &nbsp;I wish only that the new law could =
have been drafted to resolve these issues the first time! &nbsp;But I respec=
t your judgment and hope that you will be successful in having the new law p=
assed as it is currently drafted.<BR>
<BR>
At some point, I hope it will be appropriate to ask President Jabloner or p=
erhaps Prof. Eva Blimlinger to review the actual decision in the Amalie Zuck=
erkandl 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 current pr=
actices of the Beirat had been followed. &nbsp;The same type of review would=
 be appropriate for the Fels&ouml;vanyi family&#8217;s two Waldm&uuml;ller p=
aintings. &nbsp;These are the ONLY two cases I know of that were not correct=
ly decided, in my view. &nbsp;So a wholesale review of prior decisions shoul=
d not be warranted. &nbsp;If, as I suspect, President Jabloner or Prof. Blim=
linger agree with me that the Zuckerkandl painting and Fels&ouml;vanyi cases=
 did not follow the current Beirat guidelines, then I hope that you will tak=
e a closer look at the issue of how to resolve these matters. &nbsp;A furthe=
r revision of the law may not be necessary. <BR>
<BR>
As we joked at our brunch, Austria sometimes has the problem that it shoots=
 itself in the foot. &nbsp;So, even while the art restitution law is one of =
the most far-reaching and generous in all of Europe, the <U>misapplication</=
U> of the law has led to embarrassments that have overshadowed all the good =
that was done! &nbsp;I hope that working together we can rectify this, and h=
elp clear up the few remaining disputes that are preventing Austria from mov=
ing forward without shame over the way that it has dealt with its past.<BR>
<BR>
Thank you again for our meeting. &nbsp;I look forward to speaking with you =
again soon,<BR>
<BR>
Randy Schoenberg<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><S=
PAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10pt'><BR>
------ Forwarded Message<BR>
From: E Randol Schoenberg &lt;<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"randols@bsl=
aw.net">randols@bslaw.net</a></U></FONT>&gt;<BR>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:47:16 -0700<BR>
To: Alexandra Schwabl &lt;<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"Alexandra.Schwa=
bl@bmukk.gv.at">Alexandra.Schwabl@bmukk.gv.at</a></U></FONT>&gt;, Franz Mich=
ael<BR>
&lt;<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"Michael.Franz@bmukk.gv.at">Michael.Fr=
anz@bmukk.gv.at</a></U></FONT>&gt;<BR>
Cc: E Randol Schoenberg &lt;<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"randols@bslaw=
.net">randols@bslaw.net</a></U></FONT>&gt;, Hans Peter Huber<BR>
&lt;<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"Hanspeter.Huber@bmukk.gv.at">Hanspete=
r.Huber@bmukk.gv.at</a></U></FONT>&gt;<BR>
Subject: Re: Restitution Amalie Zuckerkandl<BR>
<BR>
Dear Dr. Franz,<BR>
<BR>
Thank you so much for sending me the letter from Prof. Jabloner.<BR>
Unfortunately, I do not see any evidence that the Beirat (or you) have<BR>
considered the fact that the decisions in the Amalie Zuckerkandl case (by<B=
R>
the Beirat in 2005, the Schiedgericht in 2006, and the OGH in 2008) are<BR>
INCONSISTENT with the current practices of the Beirat and your Ministry!<BR=
>
<BR>
As I have pointed out numerous times, the original 2006 Beirat decision<BR>
(<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl=
/Decisions/beirat.pdf">http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Decisions/be=
irat.pdf</a></U></FONT>) and the<BR>
decision of the Schiedsgericht (<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/=
Decisions/decision.pdf">http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Decisions/d=
ecision.pdf</a></U></FONT>) were based<BR>
on the assumption that the 3. R&uuml;ckstellungsG and related decisions of =
the<BR>
restitution courts did not apply to the definition of &quot;Entziehung&quot=
; in the<BR>
NichtigkeitsG &sect;1 (which is the only restitution law mentioned in the<B=
R>
R&uuml;ckgabeG). &nbsp;The OGH (<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/=
Revision/OGH.pdf">http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Revision/OGH.pdf<=
/a></U></FONT> ) found that it<BR>
was plausible that the Parliament in 1998 intended NOT to apply the 3.<BR>
R&uuml;ckstellungsG when it mentioned only &sect;1 of the NichtigkeitsG, an=
d therefore<BR>
found that the Schiedspruch was not against the &quot;ordre public&quot;. &=
nbsp;(&#8220;Dass der<BR>
Gesetzgeber des Kunstr&uuml;ckgabeG einen Verweis auf das 3. RStG bewusst<B=
R>
vermieden haben k&ouml;nnte, um die Republik &Ouml;sterreich nicht mit der =
nur durch<BR>
die Entziehungsvermutung zu rechtfertigenden Beweislastumkehr zu belasten,<=
BR>
ist vor diesem Hintergrund immerhin so weit wahrscheinlich, dass die<BR>
Forderung nach einer (anologen) Anwendung dieser Bestimmung keineswegs<BR>
zwingend erscheint.&#8221;)<BR>
<BR>
But as I have pointed out, in many decisions since 2007, the Beirat has in<=
BR>
fact applied the 3. R&uuml;ckstellungsG definition of Entziehung to determi=
ne if<BR>
an artwork should be restituted. &nbsp;For example,<BR>
<BR>
Max Roden Rosenzweig,<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15340/b=
eschlussmaxrodenrosenzweig.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15340/besc=
hlussmaxrodenrosenzweig.pdf</a><BR>
&#8220;&sect;</U></FONT> 1 des Bundesgesetzes vom 15 . Mai 1946, BGBI.Nr. 1=
06/46, erkl&auml;rt auch<BR>
entgeltliche Rechtsgesch&auml;fte w&auml;hrend der Deutschen Besetzung<BR>
&Ouml;sterreich fu</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10pt'><FONT FACE=3D"Ta=
homa, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New,=
 Courier">r null und nichtig, wenn sie im Zuge einer durch das Deutsche<BR>
Reich erfolgten politischen und wirtschaftlichen Durchdringung vorgenommen<=
BR>
worden sind, um natu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=
=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">rlichen Personen Verm&ou=
ml;gen zu entziehen, das ihm am 13 .<BR>
M&auml;rz 1938 zugestanden ist. &nbsp;Nach &sect; 2 Abs. 1<BR>
des dritten Ru</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FON=
T><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">ckstestellungsgesetzes BGBL 19=
47/54, liegt eine nichtige<BR>
Verm&ouml;gensentziehung dann vor, wenn der Eigentu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahom=
a, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Co=
urier">mer politischer Verfolgung<BR>
durch den Nationalsozialismus unterworfen war und der Erwerber des Verm&oum=
l;gens<BR>
nicht dartut, dass die Verm&ouml;gensu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, H=
elvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">bertra=
gung auch unabh&auml;ngig<BR>
von der Machtergreifung des Nationalsozialismus erfolgt w&auml;re .&#8221; =
Die<BR>
Rechtssprechung der Ru</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"=
>=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">ckstellungskommission =
hat dazu festgehalten, dass es<BR>
als gerichtsbekannt keines weiteren Beweises bedu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma,=
 Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Cour=
ier">rfe, dass &quot;Juden in<BR>
&Ouml;sterreich der p&ouml;litischen Verfolgung durch die nationalsozialist=
ischen<BR>
Machthaber ausgesetzt waren&quot; (Rkb Wien 83/47), ferner dass es bei Verk=
&auml;ufen<BR>
durch politisch Verfolgte fu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, =
Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">r die Ru</FONT><=
FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas,=
 Courier New, Courier">ckstellungspflicht ohne Belang ist, ob<BR>
der Kaufpreis angemessen war oder der Verk&auml;ufer die Verkaufsverhandlun=
gen<BR>
selbst eingeleitet hat (Rkv 7/48, Rkb Wien 97/47) . Der vom Erwerber zu<BR>
erbringende Nachweis, die Verm&ouml;gensu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana=
, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">ber=
tragung h&auml;tte auch ohne die<BR>
Machtergreifung des Nationalsozialismus stattgefunden, erfordert den Beweis=
<BR>
bereits vorher stattgefundener Vertragsverhandlungen zu vergleichbaren<BR>
wirtschaftlichen Bedingungen oder aber einer - von der Machtergreifung des<=
BR>
Nationa'sozialismus unabh&auml;ngigen - aussichtslosen finanziellen Lage de=
s<BR>
Verk&auml;ufers (Rkb Wien 905/48) . Es ist somit mit Sicherheit davon auszu=
gehen,<BR>
dass der in Rede stehende Kunstgegenstand ru</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verd=
ana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">=
ckzustellen gewesen w&auml;ren.&#8221;<BR>
<BR>
See also similar language in<BR>
Maria and Dir. Michael Ottakar Popper,<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15339/b=
eschlussmariaunddir_michael.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15339/bes=
chlussmariaunddir_michael.pdf</a><BR>
Ernst</U></FONT> Gotthilf, <BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15335/b=
eschlussernstgotthilf.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15335/beschluss=
ernstgotthilf.pdf</a><BR>
</U></FONT>Theodor Wolf, <BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15342/b=
eschlusshrdr_theodorwolf.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15342/beschl=
usshrdr_theodorwolf.pdf</a><BR>
</U></FONT>Wilhelm M&uuml;ller-Hofmann,<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15591/r=
est_beirat_mueller.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15591/rest_beirat_=
mueller.pdf</a><BR>
</U></FONT>Roubicek &amp; Purm, <BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15593/r=
est_beirat_roubicek.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15593/rest_beirat=
_roubicek.pdf</a><BR>
</U></FONT>Marianne Nechansky,<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/16670/b=
eschluss_nechansky.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/16670/beschluss_ne=
chansky.pdf</a><BR>
</U></FONT><BR>
These decisions are clearly INCONSISTENT with the decision of the<BR>
Schiedgericht, which found as follows<BR>
<BR>
&#8220;Da das Schiedsgericht, wie oben dargelegt, davon ausgeht, dass die &=
Uuml;bergabe<BR>
des Bildes aus der Sammlung Bloch-Bauer an die Familie<BR>
Zuckerkandl/M&uuml;ller-Hofmann freiwillig, also auf durch die private Bezi=
ehung<BR>
zu Amalie Zuckerkandl motivierte Veranlassung Ferdinand Bloch-Bauers,<BR>
erfolgte, liegt in diesem Vorgang keine &#8216;Entziehung&#8217; im Sinne d=
es<BR>
Nichtigkeitsgesetzes zu Lasten des Verm&ouml;gen von Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer,=
 mag<BR>
die R&uuml;ckgabe auch durch die Verfolgung Ferdinand Bloch-Bauers in dem S=
inne<BR>
verursacht worden sein, dass ohne die Ereignisse nach 1938 alle Dinge eine<=
BR>
andere Wendung genommen h&auml;tten. Das Gesetz verlangt vielmehr, dass die=
<BR>
Verm&ouml;gensverschiebung erfolgte, &#8216;um zu . . . Entziehen&#8217;, w=
elches<BR>
Tatbestandsmerkmal vorliegend nicht erf&uuml;llt ist.&#8221;<BR>
<BR>
The Beirat and the Schiedsgericht assumed (without any evidence to support<=
BR>
the finding, and much contrary evidence) that there was a &quot;gift&quot; =
of the<BR>
painting from Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer after 1938 (in exile!) to the<BR>
Zuckerkandl family in Vienna. &nbsp;I have always pointed out that under th=
e 3.<BR>
R&uuml;ckstellungsG, such a gift (if it occurred) must be considered an<BR>
Entziehung and the painting would still without question have been subject<=
BR>
to restitution to the Bloch-Bauer heirs (they did not locate the painting<B=
R>
until 1978, after the restitution laws had expired!).<BR>
<BR>
The Beirat itself took this position in the later Hans Abels case. &nbsp;Se=
e<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15332/b=
eschlussdr_hansabels8882.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15332/beschl=
ussdr_hansabels8882.pdf</a><BR>
</U></FONT>(&quot;Unter Beru</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, =
Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">cksichtigung des=
 dargestellten Sachverhaltes kann kein Zweifel<BR>
daran bestehen, dass diese Schenkung ein Rechtsgesch&auml;ft war, das zufol=
ge &sect; 1<BR>
des BG vom 15 . Mai 1946, BGBI . 106, nichtig war. Es ist mit Sicherheit<BR=
>
davon auszugehen, dass die geschenkten Objekte ru</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma,=
 Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Cour=
ier">ckzustellen gewesen w&auml;ren.<BR>
Es ist mit Sicherheit davon auszugehen, dass die geschenkten Objekte<BR>
r&uuml;ckzustellen gewesen w&auml;re.&quot;) &nbsp;See also Gertrude Fischl=
,<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15333/b=
eschlussgertrudefischldr_ha.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15333/bes=
chlussgertrudefischldr_ha.pdf</a></U></FONT> ;<BR>
Gerturd Marl&eacute; <BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15338/b=
eschlussgertrudemarl.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15338/beschlussg=
ertrudemarl.pdf</a></U></FONT> ; Regine<BR>
Ehrenfest-Egger <BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15741/r=
est_beirat_ehrenfestegger.pdf">http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15741/rest_=
beirat_ehrenfestegger.pdf</a><BR>
</U></FONT><BR>
This current practice by the Beirat (NOT followed in the Amalie Zuckerkandl=
<BR>
case) is absolutely correct. &nbsp;As we explained in our filing with the O=
GH (<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/=
Revision/Revision.pdf">http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Revision/Rev=
ision.pdf</a></U></FONT> ),<BR>
Heller/Rauscher fu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88<=
/FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">hren in ihrer Entscheidung=
ssammlung an (siehe Graf NZ<BR>
03/2007, 72 f [ <FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bslaw.com/altm=
ann/Zuckerkandl/Opinions/Graf.pdf">http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/=
Opinions/Graf.pdf</a><BR>
</U></FONT>]), dass auch Schenkungen unter die Ru</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma,=
 Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Cour=
ier">ckstellungsgesetze fallen: &#8222;Eine auch<BR>
ohne die Machtergreifung des Nationalsozialismus erfolgte<BR>
Verm&ouml;gensu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FO=
NT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">bertragung ist nicht bei eine=
r seitens des auswandernden<BR>
Eigentu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT=
 FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">mers erfolgten Schenkung von Einricht=
ungsgegenst&auml;nden an seine<BR>
Freundin anzunehmen. Denn wenngleich die Gew&auml;hrung einer Abfindung bei=
 einer<BR>
L&ouml;sung der Beziehungen zu einer Freundin u</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, V=
erdana, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courie=
r">blich ist, ist nicht dargetan,<BR>
da&szlig; der Eigentu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=
=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">mer auch ohne die Macht=
ergreifung, wenn er nicht durch die<BR>
Verh&auml;ltnisse zur Auswanderung veranlasst worden w&auml;re, der Erwerbe=
rin gerade<BR>
die in Frage stehenden (Einrichtungs-)Gegenst&auml;nde geschenkt h&auml;tte=
.&#8221;<BR>
(Heller/Rauscher, Die Rechtsprechung der Ru</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma, Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial">=CC=88</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier">c=
kstellungskommissionen, 1949,<BR>
221, S. 445-6, Rkb Wien 817/48 v. 10.9.1948<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/=
Klage/Heller.pdf">http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Klage/Heller.pdf<=
/a></U></FONT> ).<BR>
<BR>
Once again, I ask that the Beirat reconsider the Amalie Zuckerkandl decisio=
n<BR>
in light of the more recent decisions of the Beirat applying the 3.<BR>
R&uuml;ckstellungsG and related restitution court decisions. &nbsp;There is=
 NO LAW<BR>
that prohibits such reconsideration by the Ministry or the Beirat (see<BR>
Mahler-Werfel decision<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/=
Munch/Beirat.pdf">http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/Munch/Beirat.pdf<=
/a></U></FONT> ).<BR>
<BR>
At the same time, I would ask that when you amend the R&uuml;ckgabeG, you i=
nclude<BR>
language that confirms the current practices of the Beirat, as demonstrated=
<BR>
in the various Beirat decisions mentioned above. &nbsp;At the moment, there=
 is a<BR>
conflict between the interpretation of the Schiedsgericht and OGH (that the=
<BR>
Parliament did not intend to apply the 3. R&uuml;ckstellungsG definition of=
<BR>
Entziehung) and the practice of the Beirat and your Ministry (applying the<=
BR>
3. R&uuml;ckstellungsG and related restitution court decisions). &nbsp;This=
 conflict<BR>
should be addressed in the new law and resolved in favor of the Beirat&#821=
7;s<BR>
current practice. &nbsp;There must be some mention of the 3. R&uuml;ckstell=
ungsG in<BR>
the law or in the legislative history to avoid further confusion.<BR>
<BR>
Sincerely yours,<BR>
<BR>
Randol Schoenberg<BR>
<BR>
P.S. &nbsp;All documents related to the Amalie Zuckerkandl case can be foun=
d at<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/=
">http://www.bslaw.com/altmann/Zuckerkandl/</a></U></FONT> .</FONT></SPAN></=
FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'=
font-size:11pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>


--B_3310471186_376262--