Limbach Commission

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Limbach Commission , officially the advisory commission in connection with the return of cultural assets seized as a result of Nazi persecution, in particular from Jewish property , was set up on July 14, 2003 and can be called upon by those affected to answer questions about the restitution of looted art . The commission got its slang name after its first, meanwhile deceased chairman Jutta Limbach .

history

The commission was set up in response to numbers 10 and 11 of the Washington Declaration (balance of responsible commissions, creation of an "alternative mechanism" for dispute settlement) on the initiative of the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and Media Michael Naumann ( SPD ), the Conference of Ministers of Education of the Länder and the municipal umbrella organizations launched. It met for the first time on July 14, 2003 for its founding meeting in Berlin and elected Jutta Limbach as its chairwoman. The Stiftung Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste runs the office of the commission and takes care of the preparation, implementation and follow-up of the meetings. The coordination office also acts as the point of contact for applicants in the process.

Legal status of the commission

In the opinion of the Commission, it is not an authority, but a “completely independent” acting “pure advisory body” that neither takes nor prepares administrative decisions itself. In the opinion of the Magdeburg Administrative Court, the commission “should” be a “mixed structure” that cannot be clearly assigned to either its organization or its function at the federal, state or local level. In any event, the Commission is not a "federal institution (...) that performs administrative tasks under public law". In particular, the Advisory Commission does not exercise any advisory role to the administration.

functionality

The commission elaborates its proposals taking into account the Washington Declaration of 1998, with which the Federal Republic had undertaken to track down cases of Nazi-looted art, to find the rightful owners or their heirs and to take the necessary steps to “fair and just solutions ”. It takes on a role as a mediator between the public collections concerned and the former owners of the cultural assets or their heirs and can make recommendations for or against a return. In the opinion of the Magdeburg Administrative Court , their activities are not based on legal provisions of public law and are not measured by them; the balancing decisions are not legally bound according to the function of this body. The Commission's deliberations are confidential. In the opinion of the federal government and the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation , the work of the commission is characterized by its “moral authority”. The prerequisite for a procedure is that both sides agree to the appeal to the Limbach Commission.

Legal dispute over inspection of files

In 2013, a previous, unsuccessful applicant requested access to the Commission's files relating to his proceedings after the procedure was concluded . He claimed that the office of the commission had given the defendant, the Stiftung Deutsches Historisches Museum, far-reaching recommendations and had prepared a joint approach. In this context, in September 2013 the office of the commission issued a position on behalf of its chairman on the working methods and the standards by which the commission is oriented, justifying the fact that the deliberations of the commission must remain confidential. The Magdeburg Administrative Court summarized this statement as follows:

"The Advisory Commission is purely an advisory body of high-ranking volunteers from science and public life who make non-binding recommendations to institutions and people. These recommendations are based on ethical weighing decisions, which are based on a moral reasoning. In this connection, the rapporteurs only submitted oral reports to the Commission from the files submitted by the parties to the proceedings, which were also sent to the other party. The reports that were occasionally available in writing were mostly limited to a summary reproduction of the contents of the files and did not provide any information about the - later - moral reflection (sic!) Of the commission with regard to its recommendation. Even in the minutes of the committee meetings there is no information on this. When it was set up in 2003, the Commission had already agreed that only progress minutes should be produced by the Secretariat for its meetings. In addition, there is also the high personal interest of all commission members that their independence in the deliberations is not impaired by the fact that documents of the advisory commission - of whatever kind - are made publicly available. The work of the advisory commission is only possible if its activities remain confidential. "

In 2017, by decision of March 27, the applicant's action for inspection of the files was rejected in the second instance. According to the reasoning of the court, the Advisory Commission does not fall under the Federal Freedom of Information Act (IFG). How they work and function in legal disputes remains controversial.

Reform proposals Parzinger

At a conference of the German Center for Cultural Property Losses (DZK) on November 28, 2015, the President of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, Hermann Parzinger, called for far-reaching reforms. He suggested that the Commission should also act in the future if only one side wanted it. He said that the Commission's office must be independent of the DZK. In addition, she should give herself a procedural order. In his speech, Parzinger emphasized that transparency must have a high priority for the activities of all institutions dealing with provenance issues and that the burden of proof rules of the manual from 2001, which assumed the Nazi persecution began in 1933, apply to state cultural institutions. The burden of proof is rightly not on the applicant, but on the respective cultural institution, which above all has to prove that the purchase price of a work was reasonable and that the buyer could freely dispose of it. Finally, Parzinger spoke out in favor of a representative of a Jewish organization being appointed to the commission soon. Public political support, especially in promoting the unilateral callability of the commission and the transparency of decision-making, came from the party Die Linke. In March 2016, the federal state minister for culture, Monika Grütters, said that she would recommend the commission to “involve someone with a Jewish background in the work”. One could also “think about individual aspects of the work order after 13 years of good work”.

Dispute about the need for completeness of the commission at the Flechtheim hearing

At the hearing of the heirs of the former art dealer Alfred Flechtheim on February 12, 2016, the commission was not fully present. The heirs saw u. a. there was a procedural violation and asked a few days after the hearing that no recommendation should be made initially. The Commission rejected this position. After the negotiation, the heirs thanked in writing "for the excellent negotiation of the well-prepared meeting". At the meeting they had no objection to the fact that they would be heard without the chairwoman, who was absent due to illness. They also had no objections when it was announced to them that a member would leave during the negotiations because of other obligations. The Commission added that it was also independent with regard to its procedure. The procedure was "properly concluded" with the consultation and resolution.

Appointment of Jewish members and reform of Grütters

So far only German former civil servants have belonged to the commission. When asked to nominate a Jewish member for the commission, the Minister of State for Culture Monika Grütters said in March 2016 that there were good reasons for this not being planned. After all, a Jewish member could be biased. Shortly afterwards, she changed her mind and announced that she supported the appointment of a Jewish representative to the commission. After criticism of the decision in the L. Behrens & Söhne case was raised in addition to the criticism of the Flechtheim recommendation , Grütters announced the establishment of a commission with representatives from the federal, state and local governments to advise on the possible reform. The Left faction in the German Bundestag has at September 20, 2015 Small request made to the federal government on reforming the Commission. In it, she asks, among other things, whether in the future other than long-standing German civil servants should also be admitted to the commission, with a view to the proceedings before the Magdeburg Administrative Court (6 A 81/15), whether the commission should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and whether the standards on the basis of which the Commission is to decide. She also asks whether the commission should in future be able to appeal unilaterally and make a binding decision for the public sector and how it should be ensured that the commission is independent, although the German Center for Cultural Property Losses is on the one hand the office of the commission and on the other hand is an advisor to public museums on looted art issues.

The Commission was reformed on November 2, 2016. Changes were made to the rules of procedure, the mandate, the composition of the members and the documentation of the recommendations.

According to the publicly accessible rules of procedure, in addition to public institutions, “private cultural institutions in Germany” (Rules of Procedure, Section 1 (1)) may appoint the commission. The consent of both sides is still required as a “prerequisite for the Commission's action” (Rules of Procedure, Section 3 (1)). Furthermore, at least one of the ten member seats is reserved for representatives of Jewish organizations. The recommendations made by the Commission and their reasons are published on the DZK website (Rules of Procedure, Section 6 (7)).

The changes met with mixed reactions. Insofar as the reform followed Parzinger's proposals, it was welcomed in the media, but continued to be sharply criticized for the fact that Parzinger's demand for the Commission to be unilateral was not taken up. In this way, hundreds of restitution applications are believed to have gotten stuck because the museums could refuse to appeal to the commission without any disadvantage for them. The President of the World Jewish Congress, Ronald Lauder, described it as a problem that the reform had not been implemented by law and that the commission would still only act if both parties to the dispute gave their consent. The Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany also criticizes this point. Monika Grütters, however, said that the previous regulation had "proven itself". The unilateral action of the commission also comes close to the establishment of a court and is therefore presumably unconstitutional. On the other hand, the objection is raised that the current rules favor museums excessively, and that the Commission only makes recommendations that are merely politically but not legally binding. For this reason one cannot speak of a court.

Members

The commission consists of up to ten suitable persons. They work on a voluntary basis and are appointed by the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media in agreement with the Conference of Ministers of Education and the municipal umbrella organizations. According to the resolution of the Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs on December 5, 2002, these were initially: Thomas Gaehtgens, Jutta Limbach, Günther Patzig, Dietmar von der Pfordten, Reinhard Rürup, Rita Süssmuth, Richard von Weizsäcker and Ursula Wolf. Currently members are:

former members

Previous recommendations

So far, the Commission has adopted the following recommendations:

  • Julius Freund , 2005, granted
  • Hans Sachs , 2007, rejection
  • Baumann, 2008, comparison
  • Lewin, 2009, granted
  • Robert Graetz, 2011, granted
  • Westheim, 2013, comparison
  • Alfred Flechtheim , 2013, granted
  • Hackenbroch u. a. Welfenschatz , 2014, rejection
  • Clara Levy, 2014, rejection
  • Behrens , 2015, rejection
  • Heirs according to Ludwig Traube, 2015, comparison
  • Heirs according to Alfred Flechtheim , 2016, rejection
  • Heirs after Alfred Salomon, 2016, granted
  • Heirs according to Felix Hildesheimer, 2016, comparison
  • Heirs to Max and Margarethe Rüdenberg , 2017, granted

Related entries

List of restitution cases

Web links

Refund order Berlin 1949 (REAO)

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Brief of the federal government and the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation in the Welfenschatz proceedings before the US Court for the District of Columbia from October 29, 2015, Civ. Action No .: 1: 15-cv-00266-CKK, page 41
  2. ↑ Foundation's website , accessed on March 17, 2016
  3. ^ Judgment of the Magdeburg Administrative Court of March 31, 2015 - 6 A 81/15, Rn. 14, appeal admitted
  4. ^ Judgment of the Magdeburg Administrative Court of March 31, 2015 - 6 A 81/15, Rn. 24, 25
  5. ^ Judgment of the Magdeburg Administrative Court of March 31, 2015 - 6 A 81/15, Rn. 26th
  6. ↑ Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs: Agreement between the federal government and the federal states and central municipal associations to set up an advisory commission in connection with the return of cultural assets seized as a result of Nazi persecution, in particular from Jewish property (KMK decision of December 5, 2002), accessed on March 17, 2016
  7. ^ Judgment of the Magdeburg Administrative Court of March 31, 2015 - 6 A 81/15, Rn. 9
  8. ^ Judgment of the Magdeburg Administrative Court of March 31, 2015 - 6 A 81/15, Rn. 6 , see "Jutta Limbach as a 'scholar in the theater'. Her job is" moral reasoning ", Westfälische Nachrichten, March 17, 2016
  9. ↑ Higher Administrative Court of the State of Saxony-Anhalt: Decision of March 27th on the right to information from the Advisory Commission in connection with the return of cultural assets seized as a result of Nazi persecution, in particular from Jewish property. March 24, 2017. Retrieved May 18, 2017 .
  10. ^ Scientific services of the German Bundestag: Restitution practice and the future of the advisory commission . In: State of affairs: looted art and restitution. Washington Declaration and Limbach Commission . Berlin December 1, 2016, p. 13 ( bundestag.de [PDF]).
  11. ↑ Handout for the implementation of the “Declaration of the Federal Government, the Länder and the Central Municipal Associations on the Finding and Returning of Cultural Property Stolen by National Socialist Persecution, especially from Jewish Property” from December 1999. Version from November 2007
  12. ^ German Advisory Commission - Changes proposed by Hermann Parzinger, President of the SPK , Deutschlandradio Kultur, broadcast FAZIT from November 29, 2015 "Conference on cultural property losses" , Hermann Parzinger: Cultural goods and their provenance - research, enlightenment, solutions. Experiences from the point of view of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation. Speech at the conference of the German Loss of Cultural Property “New Perspectives on Provenance Research in Germany” (the spoken word counts), pp. 4, 19, last viewed on December 15, 2015.
  13. ↑ Press release from Sigrid Hupach: Transparent processing of Nazi-looted art long overdue. December 2, 2015, accessed May 18, 2017 .
  14. ^ Grütter's reform plans. Retrieved April 3, 2017 .
  15. ↑ "Grütters gives in in the dispute over the Nazi looted art committee". Süddeutsche Zeitung , March 11, 2016, archived from the original on April 9, 2018 . ;; Stefan Koldehoff: "Moral, not legalistic." Die Zeit, March 17, 2016, p. 57. http://www.deutschlandradiokultur.de/limbach-kommission-soll-veraendert-haben.265.de.html?drn: news_id = 590604
  16. ↑ Press release Kunstsammlung NRW o. D.
  17. ^ "Scandal in the looted art dispute, Flechtheim heirs terminate proceedings", Berliner Zeitung of February 26, 2016, accessed on May 18, 2017
  18. ↑ Press release of the Advisory Commission in connection with the return of cultural assets seized as a result of Nazi persecution, in particular from Jewish property, dated February 25, 2016 ( Memento of the original from March 24, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , - ( Memento of the original from March 25, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Recommendation of the Advisory Commission Alfred Flechtheim Erben ./. North Rhine-Westphalia Art Collection Foundation, Düsseldorf, accessed on May 18, 2017 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.kulturgutverluste.de @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.kulturgutverluste.de
  19. ^ "Germany to Continue Funding to Establish Provenance of Looted Art", Alyson Smale in The New York Times of March 3, 2016.
  20. ^ "Grütters' lapse. Who is more biased? Monika Grütters, the Minister of State for Culture, triggers a storm of indignation in the USA with her statement on the occupation of the Limbach Commission among associations. ”, Cathrin Lorch in Süddeutsche Zeitung of March 9, 2016; "Moral, not legalistic The commission for the return of Nazi-looted art should be reformed", Stefan Koldehoff in Die Zeit of March 17, 2016.
  21. ↑ "Urgent need for reform at the Limbach Commission", Henning Kahmann in the journal for open property questions 2016, 8
  22. ↑ Press and Information Office of the Federal Government: Press release: 217/2016, “Joint press release from BKM and KMK. Top discussion on cultural policy in the Federal Chancellery ” ; "German culture minister promises to reform Limbach Commission after mounting criticism" in The Art Newspaper of August 5, 2016
  23. ^ [1] Small inquiry , Bundestag printed paper 18/9724
  24. ^ Parzinger's suggestion. Will the Limbach Commission's rules of procedure be changed once more? Retrieved March 30, 2017 .
  25. ↑ Press release of the Federal Government of November 10, 2016. Accessed March 30, 2017 .
  26. ↑ Rules of procedure of the Advisory Commission in connection with the return of cultural assets seized as a result of Nazi persecution, in particular from Jewish property, dated November 2, 2016 . German Loss of Cultural Property Center. Retrieved July 16, 2019.
  27. ↑ Stefan Koldehoff: "To a large extent it is actually improvements". Deutschlandfunk, November 4, 2016, accessed on May 18, 2017 .
  28. ^ "Commemorative wreaths are not enough" Ronald S. Lauder on the return of Nazi-looted art, morals and errors by the Limbach Commission. (No longer available online.) Jüdische Allgemeine, April 21, 2017, archived from the original on June 13, 2018 ; accessed on May 18, 2017 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.juedische-allgemeine.de
  29. ^ "Our work is far from over" Rüdiger Mahlo on the plight of Shoah victims, deficiencies in provenance research and right-wing populist historical oblivion. (No longer available online.) Jüdische Allgeimeine, January 26, 2017, archived from the original on April 8, 2018 ; accessed on May 18, 2017 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.juedische-allgemeine.de
  30. ^ German Bundestag: Answer of the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media State Minister Monika Grütters from November 16, 2016. In: Written questions with the answers received from the Federal Government in the week of November 21, 2016. November 25, 2016. Retrieved May 18, 2017 .
  31. ↑ Dr. Henning Kahmann: Parzinger's suggestion. Will the rules of procedure of the "Limbach Commission" be changed again? Journal for open wealth issues, January 2017, pp. 11–13 , accessed on May 18, 2017 .
  32. ↑ Agreement between the federal government, the federal states and central municipal associations to set up an advisory commission in connection with the return of cultural property confiscated as a result of Nazi persecution, in particular from Jewish property (decision of the Conference of Ministers of Education of December 5, 2002) , accessed on July 30, 2015
  33. ↑ Internet presence of the Stiftung Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste , accessed on March 17, 2016 and press release from the Federal Government of November 10, 2016 ( memento of the original of November 17, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.kulturgutverluste.de
  34. ↑ Internet presence of the Stiftung Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste , accessed on March 17, 2016
  35. ↑ Recommendation of the Advisory Commission for the return of cultural property confiscated as a result of Nazi persecution. Retrieved March 3, 2017 .
  36. ↑ Recommendation of the Advisory Commission for the return of cultural assets seized as a result of Nazi persecution for the painting "Three Graces" by Lovis Corinth. Retrieved March 3, 2017 .
  37. ↑ Recommendation of the Advisory Commission in the matter “Behrens. /. Düsseldorf ”. February 3, 2015, accessed May 18, 2017 .
  38. ↑ Recommendation of the Advisory Commission in the Traube case ./. City of Düsseldorf. November 30, 2015, accessed May 18, 2017 .
  39. ^ Recommendation of the Advisory Commission in the Alfred Flechtheim Erben case ./. North Rhine-Westphalia Art Collection Foundation, Düsseldorf. Retrieved March 3, 2017 .
  40. ↑ Recommendation of the Advisory Commission in the Erben Salomon case ./. City of Gelsenkirchen. Retrieved March 3, 2017 .
  41. ^ Recommendation of the Advisory Commission in the case of Erben Felix Hildesheimer ./. Franz Hofmann and Sophie Hagemann Foundation. Retrieved March 3, 2017 .
  42. ↑ Recommendation of the Advisory Commission in the Erben Rüdenberg case ./. City of Hanover. Retrieved March 3, 2017 .