Recommendation

In a letter dated 21 May 2007, the Minister for Education, Culture and Science (hereafter referred to as: ‘the Minister’) requested the Restitutions Committee (hereafter referred to as: ‘the Committee’) to issue a recommendation regarding the decision concerning the application of G.S. of N.Y.C. and J.L. of L.A. (hereafter jointly referred to as: ‘applicants’) dated 28 March 2007 for the restitution of, among other things, the painting Landscape with classical temple by the artist Hubert Robert. This work is part of the Netherlands Art Property Collection (NK collection) and is administered by the Dutch government under inventory number NK 1432. It is currently on loan to the Dutch Embassy in Budapest, Hungary.

Considerations

1. The applicants stated that they are heirs of ‘the late Isaak and Jacob Rosenbaum and descendants, especially of Saemy Rosenberg and Hans and Eric Stiebel’. It emerges from the investigation that applicant J.L. is a grandson of Saemy Rosenberg and applicant G.S. is Eric Stiebel’s son. Saemy Rosenberg and Eric Stiebel were among the shareholders of art dealership I. Rosenbaum N.V. of Amsterdam (hereafter referred to as: ‘art dealership Rosenbaum’). This claim is based on the applicants’ initial proposition that the current NK 1432 was part of art dealership Rosenbaum’s trading stock, the possession of which was lost involuntarily during the occupation as a result of the Nazi regime. With reference to the Committee’s investigation of the facts, the applicants later revised their argument (see 5).
2. Pursuant to current national policy in respect of the restitution of works of art, they are only eligible for restitution if there is a convincing case regarding the right of ownership and there are no indications to the contrary.
3. On the basis of its investigation, the Committee concludes that in all probability, art dealership Rosenbaum did not own the currently claimed work of art. It can be concluded from archive documents that after the war, the current NK 1432 was inadvertently linked to the Rosenbaum art dealership. After the war, the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (SNK) noted the name ‘Rosenbaum’ on an internal declaration form for the painting, but this annotation was crossed out and replaced with ‘niet v. Rosenbaum’ [not from Rosenbaum]. Originally, ‘Rosenbaum, Amsterdam’ was noted on the inventory card belonging to the form but this was later corrected and the remark ‘volgens S. Rosenberg niet van de firma’ (According to S. Rosenberg not from the company) added. Evidently, the SNK contacted Saemy Rosenberg at the time, who then declared that the current NK 1432 had not belonged to the art dealership Rosenbaum.
4. Furthermore, the Committee has found evidence that at the time of loss of possession during the war, the current NK 1432 was the property of the Jewish family Mathiason, who originally came from Germany. The work was in all likelihood part of the family Mathiason’s relocation property, which had been confiscated in the Netherlands during the war. This information provides proof that contradicts the ownership by art dealership Rosenbaum, within the meaning of the Ekkart Committee’s eighth recommendation of April 2001. The Committee refers to its recommendation regarding Mathiason of 31 January 2011 (RC 1.108) for its assessment of the provenance as being Mathiason.
5. Finally, the Committee takes into consideration that, after reading the draft investigatory report, the applicants themselves indicated that it seems unlikely that the art dealership Rosenbaum owned the current NK 1432. In a letter dated 11 January 2011, the applicants declared: ‘it seems that this – former ownership of I. Rosenbaum N.V. concerning NK 1432 – is not very likely.’