- A US court has said Spain can keep valuable paintings looted by the Nazis from their Jewish owners.
- The decades-long legal battle has been noted as a landmark case in art compensation.
- One of the judges said that although she agreed with the decision, it still went against her “moral compass.”
A priceless painting looted by the Nazis and kept in a Spanish museum does not need to be returned to its original owner’s Jewish family, three judges have ruled.
The court’s decision on Tuesday, in perhaps the most high-profile art compensation case of World War II, shocked the families and led one of the judges to say it was her “moral fault.” It was even said that it was against the guidelines.
In 1939, Jewish art collector Lily Neubauer was forced by the Nazis to sell Impressionist Camille Pissarro’s painting “Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. The Effects of the Rain” while fleeing Germany.
She was never given access to the bank account where the fees were paid, according to court documents reviewed by Business Insider.
According to the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza in Madrid, which currently owns the painting, the painting depicts a quiet, rainy street in Paris, created in 1897, and depicts the view from the window of Pissarro’s hotel. is said to be depicted.
After the war, the U.S. Court of Reparations Appeals ruled that Neubauer remained the owner of the painting, which she believed had been lost or destroyed. The German government paid Neubauer the value of the painting at the time (equivalent to about $250,000 in today’s money) as compensation.
The painting is now estimated to be worth around $30 million, The Guardian reported.
After changing hands several times, the painting was purchased by Spanish aristocrat Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, whose art collection now bears his name and is supported by the Spanish government. It is owned by a non-profit organization.
In 2000, one of Neubauer’s descendants, California resident Claude Casirer, learned that the painting was on display at the Thyssen-Bornemisza National Museum in Madrid and asked for its return, but Spain refused.
Lawsuits surrounding the painting have continued ever since.
The decades-old case gained further attention in April 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court reopened the case and sent it back to California’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, trade publication Art Newsletter reported at the time.
The justices said the case will depend on whether Spanish law or California law applies. The judges said the Spanish-backed nonprofit had no idea the paintings had been looted when it bought the collection, giving it a stronger case within Spanish law.
“Under California law, plaintiffs would recover the art, but under Spanish law, they would not,” they wrote.
They said the decision ultimately comes down to whose interests are more harmed by a decision that goes against them.
“The Commission concludes, based on the facts of this case, that the interests of the government of Spain are harmed by the application of California law more than the interests of the government of California are harmed by the application of Spanish law,” they wrote. writing. “Spanish law must therefore apply.”
The family was “surprised and disappointed” by the decision, attorney Sam Dubin told the Los Angeles Times.
In a statement obtained by the newspaper, the family’s lawyer said the decision “does not explain Spain’s interest in applying its laws to launder ownership of the spoils.” said.
The statement continued: “The Cassirers must refute Spain’s insistence on preserving Nazi looted art, especially in light of the explosion of anti-Semitism in this country and around the world today. I believe that,” he added.
The museum welcomed the decision. Both the Spanish government-backed nonprofit organization and Thyssen-Bornemisza claimed they had no knowledge that the painting had been stolen when they purchased it.
The family disputed this, saying he should have done more due diligence, the Times reported.
Consuelo Callahan, one of the judges, said in a statement that she agreed with the sentence but said it contradicted her “moral compass.”
He added that he believed “Spain should have voluntarily given up this painting.”