There where theft or confiscation is concerned both Jewish and non-Jewish art dealers or their heirs have a right to restitution. However, here too it must be taken into account that in dealing with these cases – particularly with regard to Jewish dealers – in very many instances hard evidence for the correctness of this qualification is lacking. That is why leniency must be employed. If theft or confiscation was indicated as a qualification on the declaration form after the war and nothing has proven this erroneous the qualification in question should be accepted. If no declaration form was made or only an internal declaration, clues which make theft or confiscation probable must be treated in a magnanimous way.

Recommendation 4:

The committee recommends that if in a declaration form after the war the transfer of artworks from the property of an art dealer has been qualified as theft or confiscation, and nothing has been discovered which refutes this, the qualification concerned should be accepted. If no declaration form was made or there is only a internal declaration form, clues which make it highly probable that the case concerns theft or confiscation must be considered a reason for restitution, whereby with regard to Jewish art dealers the threatening general circumstances must be taken into account.