Spring naar content
Binding opinion Budge / Amsterdam City Council

Two salts made in 1643 by Johannes Lutma

Report number: RC 3.181

Advice type: binding opinion

Advice date: 16 November 2022

Period of loss of ownership: 1933-1940

Original owner: private individual

Location of loss of ownership: Outside the Netherlands

Two parcel gilt salts made in 1643 by Johannes Lutma (photo: Amsterdam Museum)

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailDownload PDF
  • Twee zoutvaten van gedeeltelijk verguld zilver uit 1643 door Johannes Lutma

Summary of binding opinion

The Restitutions Committee has assessed the application submitted by the people entitled to the estate of Emma Budge (1852-1937) for restitution of two salts made by the artist Johannes Lutma (1584-1669). It emerged from research conducted by the  Expert Centre Restitution (ECR) that the salts came from the private collection of the Jewish Emma Budge. It has also become sufficiently plausible that her beneficiaries lost possession of the salts involuntarily in Germany after 1933.

It is known that, at some unknown moment, the salts became part of the art collection of the Budges, who lived in Hamburg. After the Nazis came to power, Emma Budge had a number of wills drawn up relating to the disposition and sale of her art collection, but her executors were unable to implement her wishes after her death in 1937. Contrary to her instructions, the salts, together with another pair of salts that are the same, went under the hammer in Berlin at the Paul Graupe auction house, which had meanwhile been Aryanized. The two pairs of salts were purchased by a person called ‘Graetzer’, about whom no details are known.

The salts were subsequently held successively by the antiques dealer A. Vecht of Amsterdam, the art collector H.P. Doodeheefver of Hilversum and the art and antiques gallery Firma D. Katz of Dieren. Thereafter they came into the possession of W.J.R. Dreesmann. This businessman and collector built up a large collection of Amsterdam-related cultural material. In March 1960 Amsterdam City Council bought the two pairs of salts in a sale at auctioneers Frederik Muller in Amsterdam. The Amsterdam Museum received one pair of salts on loan. The City Council sold the other pair of salts to the Dutch State for the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, where the objects are currently present.

Emma Budge and her beneficiaries, because of their Jewish descent, belonged to a persecuted population group and the loss of possession happened during the Nazi regime. On the grounds of criterion 3.1 of the applicable assessment framework, the Committee must assume that the loss of possession was involuntary, unless the facts expressly show otherwise. The changes that Emma Budge made to the provisions in her will cannot be considered in isolation from the political developments in Germany and rise to power of the Nazi regime. In view of the pressure exerted on the executors, which resulted in them acting in a way that was very different from what Emma Budge’s will intended, having the salts sold at auction was not a free choice. It is furthermore plausible that the Budge beneficiaries did not have free disposal of the proceeds of the sale as a result of the severe anti-Jewish measures. The loss of possession was therefore not voluntary.

The Committee has ruled that Amsterdam City Council should restitute the pair of salts made by Johannes Lutma, which are currently in the Amsterdam Museum, to the people entitled to the estate of Emma Budge.

Binding opinion regarding Budge / Amsterdam City Council

Date of binding opinion: 16 November 2022

Binding Opinion

regarding the restitution application by, on the one hand

AA, of BB (Germany) in his capacity as executor of the estate of Emma Ranette Budge-Lazarus, represented by Lothar Fremy, lawyer of Berlin (Germany)

(hereinafter referred to as the Applicant),

and on the other hand

Amsterdam City Council (hereinafter referred to as the City Council), represented by CC, Amsterdam City Council’s Director of Art and Culture.

issued by the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War in The Hague (the Restitutions Committee), hereinafter referred to as the Committee.

1. The Application

The restitution application concerns two parcel gilt salts (hereinafter referred to as the artworks) by the artist Johannes Lutma (1584-1669) (hereinafter referred to as Lutma). The artworks were purchased by the City of Amsterdam at the sale of the collection of W.J.R. Dreesman on 23 March 1960, lot number 95. The Amsterdam Museum (previously the Amsterdam Historical Museum) has the artworks with inventory numbers KA 8050 and KA 8051 on loan from the owner, Amsterdam City Council. The artworks are part of a set of four. The two other salts are the same and were also purchased by the City of Amsterdam in this lot. They were later taken over by the Dutch State for the Rijksmuseum and are currently in the custody of the Dutch State.

The Applicant contends that the artworks belonged to the collection of Emma Ranette Budge-Lazarus (hereinafter referred to as Emma Budge). After her death the artworks ceased to be part of the estate allegedly as the result of a forced sale. On behalf of the Emma Budge estate the Applicant claims restitution of the artworks on the grounds of his contention that there was involuntary loss of possession as a result of circumstances directly associated with the Nazi regime.

The Committee previously issued a binding opinion on 16 April 2018 (RC 3.163) concerning the claim by the Applicant to restitution of the sculpture Moses attributed to the artist Alessandro Vittoria. In this binding opinion, the Committee ruled that this work should be restituted to the executor for the benefit of the estate of Emma Budge.

In a joint letter of 18 June 2019 the City Council and the Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the parties) asked the Committee to issue a binding opinion. By signing the letter, the parties declared that they accepted the Committee’s regulations applicable at the time for dealing with the request (approved on 3 December 2007; most recently amended on 28 January 2019) and considered the opinion to be issued by the Committee as binding.

At the request of the City Council the Protection Worthiness Assessment Committee (hereinafter referred to as the TCB) was asked to advise about the protection worthiness of the four salts, including the two in the Amsterdam Museum.

2. The procedure and the Applicable Assessment Framework

In an e-mail of 1 August 2019 the Committee stated that it would take the request under consideration on the grounds of the regulations as approved on 28 January 2019. A new Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee came into force on 22 April 2021 together with a new assessment framework to be applied by the Committee. At the same time, so did new regulations that no longer contain an assessment framework for the Committee to use. The parties agreed that the new Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee and the new regulations are applicable.

The Committee took note of all the documents submitted by the parties. It forwarded to the other party copies of all documents. The Committee furthermore submitted research issues to the Restitution of Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War Expertise Centre of the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies (hereinafter referred to as the ECR). The ECR conducted much of the research into the facts during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2020 to March 2022). The significant delay in completing their overview of the facts was due in part to this. The findings of the investigation are recorded in the overview of the facts.

Identity of the parties 

The Applicant asserts that he represents the rightful claimants to Emma Budge’s estate. To this end the Applicant submitted a certificate of inheritance (‘Testamentsvolstreckerzeugnis’) of 28 December 2007, issued by the Hamburg local court (Amtsgericht Hamburg), in which it is stated that he was appointed an executor (‘Testamentsvollstrecker’) with regard to Emma Budge’s estate. In the Committee’s opinion it has thus been shown sufficiently that the Applicant represents all those entitled to the assets of Emma Budge. During the procedure the Applicant had himself represented by Lothar Fremy, lawyer (Rechtsanwalt) of Berlin. The Committee furthermore took note of the letter from the Mayor of Amsterdam of 5 April 2019, which explained that the City Council’s Executive had authorized DD, Director of Art and Culture, to represent the City Council during the Committee’s procedure.

Chronological overview of the committee’s actions and the responses to them

  • In a joint letter of 18 June 2019 the parties requested a binding opinion with regard to the Applicant’s claim for restitution of the artworks. The parties provided a more detailed explanation concerning the request for a binding opinion on 21 August and 4 October 2019 respectively. The City Council submitted some appendices, which included further information about the advice of the TCB of 23 August 2019.
  • As a result of the request for a binding opinion, on 8 October 2019 the Committee asked the ECR to launch an investigation into the facts.
  • The results of the investigation were recorded in a draft overview of the facts, which was sent to the parties on 22 November 2021 for additional information or comments. The City Council responded on 22 December 2021. The Applicant responded on 31 January 2022. The ECR amended the draft overview of the facts on the basis of the responses. The responses are attached to the final overview of the facts as appendix 2.
  • The final overview of the facts was adopted on 24 March 2022 and it was sent to the parties on 1 April 2022.
  • On 10 May (Applicant) and 12 May 2022 (City Council) the parties stated that they had no comments on the final overview of the facts. At the same time the parties consented to application of the new regulations and the assessment framework accompanying the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee of 15 April 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the assessment framework). The assessment framework is in the Appendix to the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee.
  • On 30 May 2022 the Committee asked whether the parties needed a hearing and on 7 June 2022 the Applicant answered that he wanted a hearing. At the same time the Applicant stated he did not object to a simultaneous meeting relating to all the Budge cases currently being dealt with by the Committee (RC 1.175, RC 3.179 and RC 3.181). The City Council also agreed to a simultaneous hearing.
  • In a letter of 19 July 2022 the City Council notified the Committee that it waived the right to invoke good faith.
  • The joint hearing took place on 22 August 2022 at the offices of the CAOP in The Hague.
  • An English transcript of the hearing was sent to the parties on 16 September 2022.
  • The Committee sent its draft binding opinion to the parties on 3 October 2022.
  • The applicants have indicated in an e-mail of 3 November 2022 that they will not comment on the draft binding opinion. The City Council stated in an e-mail of 9 November 2022 that the City Council’s Executive intends to decide on 15 November 2022 not to respond substantively to the draft binding opinion. In an e-mail of 16 November 2022, the City Council notified the Committee that the City Council’s Executive definitively decided not to respond substantively to the draft binding opinion.

3. Establishing the Facts

The Committee establishes the following facts on the grounds of the literature and archival research that was conducted in case RC 3.163 and in the current case and that involved bodies and individuals in the Netherlands, Germany, the United States and elsewhere.

The Budges

Emma Ranette Lazarus, the daughter of a Jewish trader, was born on 17 February 1852 in Hamburg. On 10 October 1879 she married Heinrich (Henry) Budge, who, like her, was of Jewish descent. In 1866 Henry Budge went to the United States, where he acted as a financial specialist in the financing of the construction of the American railways. Henry Budge became an American citizen on 12 July 1882. On 12 October 1889 Emma Budge acquired American citizenship. The couple had no children and in 1903 they returned with their wealth to Germany, where they went to live in a large house at Harvestehuderweg 12 in Hamburg. The house became known as Budge Palace (Budge Palais). Henry and Emma Budge undertook charitable activities and, among other things, they contributed to the establishment of Goethe University Frankfurt. They also built up an extensive art collection in Hamburg. Henry Budge died on 20 October 1928. Emma Budge died on 14 February 1937.

The will and the sale of Emma Budge’s art collection

The will of Emma Budge, supplemented by five codicils

Initially Emma Budge intended to leave her art collection to the city of Hamburg. That changed after the Nazi regime came to power in January 1933. Emma Budge had her last wishes recorded in a will dated 5 October 1933, which was supplemented over the years by five codicils, the last of which was registered in 1936. It can be deduced from the documentation that in her will and testament Budge took into account the rise of the Nazi regime and the possible consequences. She included stipulations concerning her art collection in the will of 5 October 1933. She changed the section relating to her art collection in a codicil of 11 June 1934. In it she stipulated that the executors were authorized to donate individual objects to museums or other institutions as they saw fit. The artworks that remained after this then had to be sold. At the same time she stipulated, among other things, that a public sale in Hamburg was ruled out.

 

Emma Budge’s freedom to stipulate what was to happen to her art collection after her death was significantly constrained by anti-Jewish measures, including Reich Capital Flight Tax (Reichsfluchtsteuer), which was intended to combat capital leaving the country. Budge made substantial changes to her will shortly after the promulgation of the Nuremberg Race Laws on 15 September 1935 in the form of a fourth codicil, dated 21 November 1935. In view of the measures taken against German Jews, in it she stipulated that all executors had to be Jewish. She stated with regard to her art collection that a sale in the German Reich was not expected to be advisable.

The beneficiaries of Emma Budge in 1937 and the estate

Emma Budge died on 14 February 1937. Aside from a few charitable institutions that she had helped to set up, as far as we know she bequeathed thirteen Jewish private individuals as beneficiaries. By the time she died, a number of these beneficiaries had fled to foreign countries or had made preparations to do so. It emerges from a list of the component parts of Emma Budge’s estate that securities represented by far the biggest part of the assets (over 5.4 million Reichsmarks), with the art holdings a long way behind in second place (about 716,650 Reichsmarks). Most of these securities were held in the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt in Zurich, so they were beyond the reach of the German authorities. The four Jewish executors put Emma Budge’s house up for sale. On 11 December 1937 Budge Palace and two other buildings belonging to Emma Budge were acquired by the city of Hamburg.

The sale at Graupe auction house in Berlin in 1937

Despite the fact that Emma Budge had stated in 1935 in a codicil to her will that it would probably not be prudent to sell her art collection inside Germany, after her death in 1937 her art collection went under the hammer at Berlin auctioneers Paul Graupe. The sale of Emma Budge’s art collection took place on the instructions of the executors on 4, 5 and 6 October and 6 and 7 December 1937 under the supervision of Hans W. Lange, who had Aryanized the Graupe auction house. Among the 812 lots that went under the hammer, there were over 300 lots containing objects from Emma Budge’s collection.

The proceeds of the sale

The sale of Emma Budge’s collection attracted international interest. The results of the sale were also reported in detail in the Dutch press and media. These reports referred to the proceeds of two pairs of salts, not as two but as ‘a pair’, and furthermore mentioned that they were purchased by ‘a museum in The Hague’. The proceeds of the sale (912,089 Reichsmarks) were greater than the values estimated by Graupe.

It is not possible, based on the available documentation, to establish what happened to the proceeds of the sale. The Applicant stated that the proceeds were put into a frozen account and that the Budge beneficiaries never had access to them. Research revealed that the proceeds were probably deposited by the auction house in the estate account opened by the executors and thus became part of the assets of the undivided estate. It has been established that during the period after the auction the Nazi regime was in any event able to check out important assets in the Budge estate that were in Switzerland by threatening a number of individual Jewish beneficiaries.

The Emma Budge estate 1938-1945

The lion’s share of the Budge estate consisted of securities and currency that were beyond the reach of the Nazi regime in an account with the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt. There was a fierce struggle for these assets in 1938 and 1939. The German authorities pushed for the transfer of foreign assets to Germany, where the Nazis could easily appropriate the assets under the applicable foreign currency legislation. This involved exerting pressure on the beneficiaries and executors remaining in Germany by means of arrest, seizure of the personal assets of the individual beneficiaries and withdrawal of their passports. After the Night of Broken Glass (Kristallnacht) on 9 and 10 November 1938 the position of the beneficiaries remaining in Germany became even more perilous. One of the beneficiaries and the spouse of another beneficiary were detained in Buchenwald concentration camp. Their release was linked to willingness to cooperate with the authorities. Furthermore, the domestic assets of the beneficiaries were seized.

Pressure was also exerted on the Jewish executors. The Chief Finance Administrator (Oberfinanzpräsident) of the Hamburg local court (Amtsgericht Hamburg) issued instructions to have two executors who remained outside Germany replaced by two other Jewish executors who were in Germany and therefore under the Nazis’ influence. In the end they were to be replaced in turn by the lawyer Dr Ernst Blum of Lucerne and Gottfried Francke of Hamburg, accountant and former tax advisor to Emma Budge. Neither was Jewish. In the end the Nazis were to succeed in getting two-thirds of the assets transferred from Switzerland to Germany with Francke’s help. In 1939 he had the securities transferred by the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt to the Aryanized banking house of Warburg and deposited in an account that was accessible only to him. Allegedly none of the assets were transferred to Emma Budge’s beneficiaries.

On 21 July 1939 the management of the estate passed essentially completely into the hands of the two non-Jewish executors Francke and Blum. This consequently completely sidelined the Jewish beneficiaries and the Jewish executors. Payments were only made into blocked accounts, which the beneficiaries could not access. As a result of foreign currency legislation, the shares in the estate were decimated, so that nothing remained of the sums concerned. Permission for the beneficiaries to leave Germany was linked to their willingness to relinquish the remaining share of the estate. In a case brought by a few of the beneficiaries after the war they stated that of these amounts, ‘they had not and have not received anything’ [‘hatten und haben die Antragsteller nichts erhalten’],

After the Second World War

After the war Francke remained an executor of the Emma Budge estate until his death in 1956. Francke was not dismissed from this position after 1945 despite the fact that he had been appointed during the Nazi regime and had acted in the spirit of the regime. Attempts by individual Budge beneficiaries to obtain compensation from the German state or attempts to get the artworks restituted got nowhere thanks in part to his efforts.

On 4 May 1960 the Hanseatic higher regional court (Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht) ruled in appeal proceedings that two of Emma Budge’s beneficiaries could claim compensation in the context of the German federal restitution law (BRüG) amounting to DM 1,340,141.73. It can be deduced from the file that this amount was paid out in subsequent years. As far as we know, this sum concerned securities in the estate and no monies were paid out in connection with the sale at auction of Emma Budge’s art collection in 1937.

Provenance until 1960

The Dutch website ‘Museum Acquisitions since 1933’ [‘Museale verwervingen vanaf 1933’] states the following about the salts: ‘The salts are most likely from the confiscated collection of Emma Budge’s beneficiaries.’ [‘De zoutvaten behoorden hoogstwaarschijnlijk tot de geconfisqueerde collectie van de van Emma Budge.’] Meanwhile, research has revealed that the salts were not confiscated but were sold at auction in 1937.

It emerged from the investigation that until 1960 the two salts in the Amsterdam Museum in all probability had the same provenance as the two salts that are currently in the Rijksmuseum.

The four salts were sold in 1906 at the Frederik Muller auction house in Amsterdam. At some unknown point thereafter they became part of the Budges’ art collection in Hamburg. The dates and sources relating to this are unknown because there is no overview of the Budges’ acquisitions.

After Emma Budge’s death in 1937 her art collection, as part of the undivided estate, was sold at auction at the Graupe auction house on the instructions of the executors appointed in her will. Research has revealed that the two pairs of salts, with lot numbers 254 and 255, dating from 1643 and 1639 respectively, were listed in the sale catalogue and actually went under the hammer. The two pairs of salts were purchased at the sale in 1937 by ‘Graetzer’. Given the absence of initials or other distinguishing information, the identity of this person remains unknown to this day. It is not clear whether this person bought the salts for themselves or as a bidder on behalf of a third party. The nature of the annotation in the sale catalogue makes it plausible that both lots went under the hammer together for a total of 12,900 Reichsmarks.

The Dreesmann Collection

It is stated in a Rijksmuseum Amsterdam inventory book that after the sale in 1937 the two pairs of salts were held successively by the antiques dealer A. Vecht of Amsterdam, the businessman and art collector H.P. Doodeheefver of Hilversum and the art and antiques gallery Firma D. Katz of Dieren. At some unknown point thereafter, but in any event before 1950, they came into the possession of W.J.R. Dreesmann. This businessman and collector built up a large collection of Amsterdam-related cultural material. Dreesmann died on 23 May 1954.

The claimed artworks in the Amsterdam Museum

The two salts, together with a second pair of salts, with lot numbers 95 and 96 were purchased by Amsterdam City Council at a sale at the Frederik Muller auction house between 22 and 25 March 1960 for NLG 110,000 and NLG 122,000. One pair is in the Amsterdam Museum with inventory numbers KA 8050 and KA 8051. This museum has the two salts on loan from the owner, Amsterdam City Council. Amsterdam City Council sold the other pair to the Dutch State for the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, where it is currently present.

Regarding the advice from the TCB

As a result of the application for restitution of the two salts submitted by the Applicant, the City Council asked the TCB to conduct a protection worthiness assessment. The TCB assessment is aimed at formulating a statement about the importance of the object to Dutch cultural heritage. The TCB’s advice van 23 August 2019 was passed on by the RCE and was added to the file of case RC 3.181. The TCB considered the salts made by Lutma to be worthy of protection within the meaning of the Dutch Heritage Act as an ensemble, as individual objects and as a combination of individual objects. According to the TCB, the salts are both irreplaceable as part of Dutch cultural heritage and indispensable on the grounds of their benchmark function.

The Committee points out that it has no task associated with implementation of the Heritage Act and that, on the grounds of this act, it is the Minister who takes the decision in respect of the TCB’s advice. In this context the Committee also refers to the report Irreplaceable & Indispensable (Onvervangbaar & Onmisbaar) of 8 March last, issued by the Dutch Public Art Holdings Committee (Commissie Collectie Nederland) and presented to the State Secretary for Culture and Media. In its report this committee, which was set up by the Council for Culture, takes the view that Nazi looted art that comes within the scope of the restitution policy is not eligible for protection against undesirable export of cultural material.

4. Substantive Assessment of the Application

The Committee has established that the requirements in section 1 a to e of the assessment framework have been met and that the application is therefore eligible for substantive handling.

The City Council let it be known that it waived the right to invoke good faith, and therefore the substantive assessment of the restitution application remains limited to sections 2 and 3 of the assessment framework.

Pursuant to section 2 of the assessment framework, the Committee must assess whether it is highly plausible that the artworks were the property of Emma Budge’s estate, and on the grounds of section 3 whether it is sufficiently plausible that after Emma Budge’s death in 1937 possession of the artworks was lost involuntarily as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. To this end the Committee finds as follows:

Ownership requirements (section 2 of the assessment framework)

It is known that the four salts became part of the Budges’ art collection at some unknown moment after the sale at Frederik Muller in 1906. The Committee finds that after Emma Budge’s death in 1937 her substantial art collection, as part of the undivided estate, was put up for sale by auction at the Paul Graupe auction house in Berlin, which had been Aryanized by Hans W. Lange. This was done on the instructions of the executors appointed in her will. Research has established that the two pairs of salts are referred to in the sale catalogue The Late Emma Budge Collection, Hamburg (Die Sammlung Emma Budge † Hamburg) as lot number 254, dated 1643, and lot number 255, dated 1639. The auction and sale are also mentioned as such in 1937 press reports and publications.

On the grounds of the relevant information from the investigation in case RC 3.163 and in the present case, the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly likely that the two salts came from the private collection of Emma Budge. This means that the ownership requirement of section 2 of the assessment framework has been met.

The consequence of this is that the Committee now has to evaluate whether, with regard to the two salts in the Amsterdam Museum, there was involuntary loss of possession as a result of circumstances directly associated with the Nazi regime.

Involuntary loss of possession (section 3 of the Assessment Framework)

In keeping with the considerations in its binding opinion of 16 April 2018 (RC 3.163), the Committee finds the following about the loss of possession of the two objects:

In the Committee’s opinion the changes in the provisions in the will about Budge’s art collection cannot be considered in isolation from the political developments in Germany and rise to power of the Nazi regime. Neither can the loss of possession of the salts in the sale at the Aryanized Graupe auction house in 1937 be considered as voluntary. In view of the pressure that the executors were put under, which resulted in them acting in a way that was very different from what Emma Budge’s will intended, it is not possible to say that there was freedom of choice. The Committee furthermore agrees with the Applicant that it is plausible that the Budge beneficiaries did not have free disposal of the proceeds of the sale as a result of the severe anti-Jewish measures.

It has been established that Emma Budge and her beneficiaries were of Jewish descent and these beneficiaries lost possession of the two artworks after 1933 in Germany, and therefore on the grounds of section 3 of the assessment framework it has to be assumed that this loss of possession was involuntary, unless the facts expressly show otherwise. In the Committee’s opinion, the facts established in chapter 3 above have not shown that the loss of possession was voluntary. The Committee therefore concludes that the loss of possession by the Budge estate has to be designated as involuntary, caused by circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime.

Conclusion with regard to the restitution application

The Committee concludes that it is highly plausible that the two parcel gilt salts made by Lutma, which are currently in the Amsterdam Museum under inventory numbers KA 8050 and KA 8051, came from Emma Budge’s collection, and that it is sufficiently plausible that possession of the salts was lost in 1937 involuntarily as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. Amsterdam City Council has stated that it waives the right to invoke good faith in regard to the provenance of the artworks when purchasing them and therefore the Committee has not conducted research in this regard.

In view of sections 2 and 3 of the assessment framework (criterion 3.1 and part 3 at the end of section 3), the upshot of all this is that the Committee will rule that the salts should be restituted to the Applicant on behalf of the people entitled to Emma Budge’s estate.

5. Binding opinon

The Restitutions Committee rules that Amsterdam City Council should restitute the two parcel gilt salts made by Johannes Lutma (1584-1669), which are in the Amsterdam Museum, to the Applicant referred to in 2 on behalf of the people entitled to the estate of Emma Ranette Budge-Lazarus.

This binding opinion was issued on 16 November 2022 by E.H. Swaab (Deputy Chair), J.F. Cohen, S.G. Cohen-Willner, J.H. van Kreveld, D. Oostinga and C.C. Wesselink, and signed by the Deputy Chair and the Secretary.

(E.H. Swaab, Deputy Chair)                         (E.M. van Sterkenburg, Secretary)

Relevant press release

PAGE
Six Artworks to be Returned to the Beneficiaries of Emma Budge
Read more Over Six Artworks to be Returned to the Beneficiaries of Emma Budge

Related recommendation/binding opinions

PAGE
Budge
Read more Over Budge
PAGE
Budge / The Hague City Council
Read more Over Budge / The Hague City Council
PAGE
Bronze sculpture ‘Moses’, attributed to Alessandro Vittoria
Read more Over Bronze sculpture ‘Moses’, attributed to Alessandro Vittoria