Recommendation regarding Mogrobi III

On 1 August 2023 the State Secretary for Culture and Media (hereinafter referred to as the State Secretary) asked the Restitutions Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) to issue advice. This advice concerns the application for restitution of twelve artworks in the Netherlands Art Property Collection (hereinafter also referred to as the NK Collection).

The restitution application was submitted by AA, also on behalf of BB, CC and DD (hereinafter also referred to as the Applicants). The Applicants stated they are all heirs of Mozes Mogrobi (10 February 1898 – September 1944) and his wife Zilia Mogrobi-Jacobi (13 February 1897 – 22 January 1971). The Netherlands Cultural Heritage Agency (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed) (hereinafter also referred to as the RCE) represented the State Secretary in this case.

The application concerns the following twelve artworks.
– NK 139 – Astrolabe, octagonal, on 3 legs
– NK 169 – Candlestick, yellow brass with hollow round base and concave conical edge
– NK 171 – Brass candlestick
– NK 176 – Jug, earthenware, tin glaze, decor in green and manganese
– NK 217 – Large plate, Chinese pottery. Model: curved, on a cylindrical base ring
– NK 219 – Bowl, earthenware, glaze, polychrome decor in Italian style
– NK 220 – Plate, earthenware, tin glaze, decor with putto, edge with tendrils and birds in yellow and blue
– NK 439-A – Shard, of bowl, decorated with lady’s head, earthenware, polychrome decor in sgraffito technique
– NK 439-B – Shard, of bowl, decorated with lady’s head, earthenware, polychrome decor in sgraffito technique
– NK 439-C – Shard, from bowl, decorated with unicorn, earthenware, polychrome decor in sgraffito technique
– NK 623 – Brass pen candlestick
– NK 625 – Bronze pen candlestick

2. The Procedure and the Applicable Assessment Framework

The Committee told the applicants in a letter of 6 October 2023 about the request from the State Secretary for advice and in a letter of 14 December 2023 about the Committee’s procedure and regulations. The Committee took note of all submitted documents. It sent copies of all documents to the applicants and the RCE.

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

• On 24 July 2023 the RCE told the applicants about the results of the investigation into the Artworks in the context of the Programme to Accelerate WWII Restitution Policy (2022-2025). In an e-mail of 25 July 2023, the applicants asked the State Secretary to restitute the Artworks.
• On 1 August 2023 the RCE, on behalf of the State Secretary, asked the Committee to advise about this restitution application.
• In connection with the information and documentation known to it, on 14 December 2023 the Committee informed the applicants and the RCE that the case was not being submitted to NIOD’s Restitution Expertise Centre for investigation. In addition, the applicants and the RCE were asked whether they wished to submit further supplementary information and whether they wanted the opportunity to attend a hearing.
• On 14 December the applicants advised that they had no supplementary information and that they did not wish to have a hearing. On 20 December 2023 the RCE stated that it would comply with the applicants’ wishes as regards a hearing.
• On 18 April 2024 the Committee sent its draft advice to the applicants and the RCE and at the same time asked whether there was a need for a hearing. The applicants and the RCE responded on 18 April and 29 April 2024 with a few editorial comments.

Attempts to change the registration as ‘Volljude’

The raids in February 1941, implementation of the Nuremberg Race Laws in the Netherlands at the end of March 1942, the obligation to wear a yellow Star of David a few months later and the Liro regulations of 8 August 1941 and 21 May 1942 were among the factors that clearly showed the consequences of being registered as Volljude. A few days after the large-scale raid in Amsterdam in July 1942, Mozes Mogrobi made several attempts to change the registration of himself and his family as Volljuden.

For example, he tried to convince the authorities that he had Turkish nationality and that his family was of ‘arabischen Blutes’ [‘Arab blood’]. After an initial rejection and pending his second request, Mozes Mogrobi asked the Turkish authorities to confirm that his father ‘tatsächlich arabischen Blutes ist.’ [was ‘actually of Arab blood.’]. He also stated that it was urgent ‘da es für mich eine Lebensfrage gilt.’ [‘because for me it is a question of life and death.’]. Mozes Mogrobi furthermore tried to collect all sorts of evidence that supposedly showed that he was not Jewish. For example, he sent the Abteilung innere Verwaltung [department for administration of the interior], part of the Generalkommissariat für Verwaltung und Justiz [general commissariat for administration and justice], an extract from the population register showing that he was registered as having Turkish nationality. He also collected a number of notarized statements by people who had declared under oath that his father was a Turkish subject and therefore his family ‘arabischen Blutes ist.’ Mogrobi moreover sent a copy of a page from a book with a reference to Moghrabi Mosque. This supposedly showed that the name Mogrobi signifies ‘a pure Arab Muslim.’ In addition, he had a report prepared by a Dutch doctor and physical anthropologist who concluded that although Mozes Mogrobi’s appearance was ‘Orientalisch’ [‘Oriental’], ‘aber bestimmt nicht typisch Jüdisch.’ [‘definitely not typically Jewish’]. He furthermore submitted a 1903 photograph of his father dressed in Arab-looking clothing.

His most far-reaching attempt to prove he was not Jewish was on 22 April 1943 when he served a summons on the Portuguese-Jewish Congregation of Amsterdam and accused the board of the Jewish Congregation of unjustly registering him and his family as members of it. On 6 May 1943 the court decided in Mozes Mogrobi’s favour.

A few days after the rejection, Mozes made a final attempt by submitting a request in which he repeated his earlier arguments. Unlike his previous attempts, he now asked for his registration to be changed to GII (quarter-Jew) and those of his children to GI (half-Jew). This attempt also failed.

Liquidation of the gallery and going into hiding

It did not emerge from research exactly when, after the promulgation on 12 March 1941 of regulation 48/1941 concerning the removal of Jews from the business community, the occupying forces sealed Mogrobi’s gallery. It did emerge from documentation, however, that the last occasion on which the name ‘Mogrobi’ appears in the buyers books of the Mak van Waay auction house was on 24 June 1941. It is also known that Mozes Mogrobi sold various artworks to Jan Herman van Heek, director of the Rijksmuseum Twenthe. on 1 February 1941 and 27 March 1942. These artworks were the subject of restitution application RC 1.145.

In March 1944 Omnia Treuhandgesellschaft mbH (hereinafter referred to as Omnia) received instructions from the Wirtschaftsprüfstelle to act as Liquidationstreuhänder of Mogrobi’s business. The Committee assumes on the grounds of research that the gallery had been sealed until that moment Liquidation was initiated at the end of March 1944. The Kammergerichtsrat [superior court counsel] instructed the gallery’s contents to be sold at auction. The sale took place on 25 July 1944 at the Mak van Waay auction house.

According to a post-war statement by Mozes’s wife Zilia Mogrobi-Jacobi, they went into hiding during the war in Sloterdijk. It is not known when this period of hiding started. In 1947 Zilia Mogrobi-Jacobi stated the following about it: ‘Destijds lag er reeds beslag op onze boedel, welk beslag gelegd was door een of andere Duitse instantie; alles was gezegeld. Wij waren in die tijd ondergedoken’. [‘At the time, all our possessions had already been seized. The seizure had been organized by some German agency or other. Everything was sealed. We went into hiding during that period.’]

Archival documents reveal that in April 1944 Mozes Mogrobi went to the police to report the theft of clothes and shoes with a value of 5,000 guilders from the warehouse of Jacob Aalderink, a fellow antiques dealer who lived around the corner from Mogrobi.

Fates of the Mogrobi family

Mozes and Zilia Mogrobi were arrested by the Sicherheitsdienst on 6 July 1944. It emerges from a post-war statement by Zilia that on 12 July 1944 she and Mozes were deported to Westerbork transit camp, and from there they were transported to Auschwitz concentration camp on 3 September 1944.

Before the end of the month Mozes Mogrobi was murdered in Auschwitz. He was 46 years old. His son Alfred Mogrobi, who was 23, was murdered in Buchenwald concentration camp on 1 December 1944. On 26 October 1944 Zilia Mogrobi was taken to the German labour camp Liebau, where she was liberated on 9 May 1945. The couple’s daughter, Sonja Mogrobi, also survived the war.

Mozes Mogrobi’s gallery after the war

Zilia Mogrobi continued her husband’s business after she had returned to the Netherlands on 13 June 1945. She submitted a number of compensation claims in order to receive some recompense for the goods lost during the Second World War. These claims primarily concerned the goods that went under the hammer at the Mak van Waay auction house on 25 July 1944 on the instructions of the occupying forces. Zilia Mogrobi stated the following about this after the war:
“De totaalschade, welke wij gedurende de bezettingstijd door diefstal uit onze zaak enz. enz. geleden hebben, bedraagt circa 50.000 gulden. Verder is onze privé-boedel in veiling gebracht bij de Fa. S. Mak van Waay, hetgeen ongeveer 58.000 gulden heeft opgebracht.” [The overall loss we sustained during the occupation because of thefts from our shop etc. etc. amounted to about 50,000 guilders. Furthermore, our personal possessions were auctioned off at the firm of S. Mak van Waay, and the proceeds were approximately 58,000 guilders.]

An accountant’s report reveals that Zilia Mogrobi-Jacobi received a total of 17,500 guilders from H.S. Nienhuis, the director of the Mak van Waay auction house. This payment related to the sale organized by Mak van Waay on 25 July 1944. Y. Scholten, who acted as Zilia Mogrobi-Jacobi’s authorized representative, wrote about this to O.J.T.N. Domela Nieuwenhuis, H.S. Nienhuis’s authorized representative:
“Ter voldoening aan de verbintenis, welke Uw client H.S. Nienhuis uit moraal en fatsoen tegenover mijn cliente, Mevrouw Mogrobi gevoelt te hebben ter zake van de door hem, tijdens de bezetting gehouden veiling (dd. 25 Juli 1944), van de goederen van cliente, kwamen wij het navolgende overeen:” [In fulfilment of the obligation that my client, Mrs Mogrobi, considers your client, H.S. Nienhuis, to be under on the grounds of ethics and decency in regard to the auction of my client’s goods that was conducted by him during the occupation on 25 July 1944, we have agreed as follows:]

It emerges from the agreements made and the subsequent entries referred to in the accountant’s report that Nienhuis paid the sum of 17,500 guilders in twelve instalments starting on 1 May 1947. The sums received did not benefit the profit and loss account of Mozes Mogrobi’s business but were paid into the personal account. According to the accountant’s report, the fact that the sums received were deposited in the personal account was related to ‘een verbintenis voortvloeiende uit moraal en fatsoen’ [‘an obligation arising from ethics and decency’], and it also aligns with Zilia Mogrobi-Jacobi’s statement that ‘onze privé-boedel in veiling [is] gebracht bij de Fa. S. Mak van Waay.’ [‘our personal possessions were auctioned off at the firm of S. Mak van Waay’]. The gallery was liquidated with effect from 1 October 1956 after Zilia Mogrobi-Jacobi, in her capacity as ‘eigenaresse’ [‘proprietress’], had reported to the commercial register in Amsterdam that the business had ceased trading.

No documents or indications were found in the archives of the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the SNK) that bear witness to any contact between Zilia Mogrobi-Jacobi and the SNK.

4. Substantive Assessment of the Application

In view of the requirements in section 1 a to e of the assessment framework, the application is eligible for substantive handling by the Committee. The fact that the Committee issued advice concerning NK 219 previously is without prejudice to this opinion since new facts have emerged, as explained above. In this regard the Committee refers to section 1 paragraph 2 of the assessment framework, on the grounds of which the Committee can handle a renewed application if there are new facts or circumstances that justify doing so.

Pursuant to section 2 of the assessment framework, the Committee must assess whether it is highly plausible that the Artworks were the property of Mozes Mogrobi, and on the grounds of section 3 whether it is sufficiently plausible that 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)

The results of the RCE’s investigation indicate that the Artworks were sold by Mogrobi’s gallery in April 1941 and July 1942. It has been established that two artworks were part of a set of three candlesticks that were purchased in 1942 from Mogrobi’s gallery by Professor Hans Schröder, director of St. Annen Museum in Lübeck. It has emerged that ten of the other artworks were bought in the Netherlands from Mogrobi’s gallery in April 1941 by the Museum für Kunsthandwerk. They included the artwork NK 219, the subject of restitution application RC 1.37. It was not possible to establish at that time that it was still present in Mogrobi’s gallery in 1941 and consequently the restitution application concerning this object was rejected.

The Committee concludes on the basis of the current status of the investigation that it is highly likely that the Artworks were the property of Mozes Mogrobi when they were acquired by St. Annen Museum and the Museum für Kunsthandwerk. 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 Artworks, 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 the assessment of the nature of the loss of possession, the applicable principle, on the grounds of the first paragraph of criterion 3.2 of section 3 of the assessment framework, is that a sale by a Jewish art dealer is considered to be involuntary if there are indications that make involuntary loss of possession sufficiently plausible. According to paragraph 4 of criterion 3.2, the presence of involuntary loss of possession is assessed on the basis of criterion 3.1 if there are sufficient indications that the item of cultural value did not belong to the art dealer’s trading stock but to his private collection

The Committee concludes that in the present case it is difficult to determine whether the objects sold belonged to the trading stock or the personal possessions of Mozes Mogrobi. The investigation unearthed further information that, in the Committee’s opinion, clearly shows that in practice Mogrobi’s trading stock and his personal possessions were intermingled. After the war Zilia Mogrobi stated that the works of art that Omnia considered to be trading stock and that were auctioned off as such in 1944 at Mak van Waay were private property: ‘Verder is onze privé-boedel in veiling gebracht bij de Fa. S. Mak van Waay, hetgeen ongeveer 58.000 gulden heeft opgebracht.’ [‘Furthermore, our personal possessions were auctioned off at the firm of S. Mak van Waay, and the proceeds were approximately 58,000 guilders.’]
Zilia Mogrobi’s statement is consistent with the fact that the compensation she received in connection with this auction did not benefit the profit and loss account of Mozes Mogrobi’s business but were paid into the personal account.

The Committee furthermore points out that the Mogrobi gallery was a small one-man business run by someone who was first and foremost a devotee and collector of the types of objects that he sold in his gallery. Mogrobi’s private collection and trading stock were furthermore in the same building because the Mogrobi family lived above the gallery. Information that emerged from the investigation confirms that Mozes Mogrobi indeed used his gallery to exhibit objects from his private collection, as described above in the section about ‘Mozes Mogrobi’s gallery’.

After considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances together, the Committee concludes that the Artworks have to be designated as not belonging to Mozes Mogrobi’s trading stock but to his private collection. This means that the Committee will assess the loss of possession of the Artworks according to criterion 3.1 of section 3, which is based on loss of possession by a private individual who belonged to a persecuted population group. In that case, loss of possession in the Netherlands is deemed to be involuntary if it occurred after 10 May 1940, unless it is expressly revealed that it was not involuntary loss of possession. The Committee concludes that this was not the case.

It is clear for the Committee that Mozes Mogrobi sold the Artworks at moments when he was experiencing the threat of the Nazi regime to a progressively greater degree. In the Committee’s opinion, the sales in April 1941 to the Museum für Kunstgewerbe and in July 1942 to St. Annen Museum cannot be considered in isolation from the context in which they took place, namely the growing anti-Jewish measures and the threat and Mogrobi’s limited freedom of movement arising from them. In this context the Committee refers to the following facts:

• as a consequence of the information that Mogrobi was compelled to report to the German authorities in accordance with the registration obligation, all the members of his family were designated by the occupying forces as ‘Volljuden’;
• in February 1941 hundreds of Jewish residents of Amsterdam – where the Mogrobi family lived – were assaulted, arrested, violently driven onto lorries and deported. This raid was a response by the occupying forces to fights between Jews, anti-Semitic gangs and the German police;
• on 12 March 1941 regulation VO 48/1941, concerning the removal of Jews from the business community, was promulgated. This regulation was aimed at Aryanizing or closing down Jewish businesses. Pursuant to this regulation, at an unknown moment, but probably not long after March 1941, occupying forces seized Mozes Mogrobi’s one-man business and sealed his gallery;
• in March 1941 the designation ‘J’ was noted on the Mogrobi family’s personal registration cards.

In the Committee’s opinion, indications of the serious threat perceived by Mogrobi can also be found in Mogrobi’s hopeless attempts between July 1942 and the end of 1943 to have his registration as a ‘Volljude’ amended. These attempts resulted from:

• the promulgation of the first Liro regulation on 8 August 1941, under which Jews had to surrender their financial assets;
• the introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws in the Netherlands on 27 March 1942;
• the obligation to wear a Star of David from April 1942;
• the second Liro regulation of 21 May 1942, aimed at obtaining all other valuable goods possessed by Jews including artworks, gold, silver and jewellery, and
• the start of deportations in July 1942.

As a result of the aforementioned events, the Committee considers it likely that Mogrobi felt the need to generate the maximum possible amount of financial resources; resources that he might have been able to use later to go into hiding.

The above leads the Committee to conclude that there are indications which make it sufficiently plausible that possession of the twelve Artworks was lost involuntarily, in accordance with criterion 3.2 paragraph 4 in combination with criterion 3.1 of section 3 of the assessment framework. The Committee therefore concludes that the loss of possession was involuntary, caused by circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. This means that the requirements relating to involuntary loss of possession in section 3 of the assessment framework have been met.

Conclusion with regard to the restitution application

The Committee concludes that it is highly plausible that the Artworks, which are known under inventory numbers NK 139, NK 169, NK 171, NK 176, NK 217, NK 219, NK 220, NK 439-A, NK 439-B, NK 439-C, NK 623 and NK 625, came from the collection of and belonged to the art dealer Mozes Mogrobi, and that it is sufficiently plausible that possession of the Artworks was lost involuntarily in April 1941 and July 1942 as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime.

In view of sections 2 and 3 of the assessment framework (criteria 3.2, 3.1 and the end of section 3), the upshot of all this is that the Committee will recommend that the Artworks should be restituted to the Applicants.