Note: In this post, I update readers on a compensation and restitution claim I filed with the French Ministry of Culture in October 2014 related to family works of art seized by the Nazis at the Port of Bordeaux in December 1940. The paintings and etchings had been consigned for sale to an art gallery in New York City by my father’s first cousin, Fedor Löwenstein, when they were confiscated. I recently attended a meeting in Paris where the Ministry discussed my longstanding case
Related Posts:
POST 105: FEDOR LÖWENSTEIN ‘S NAZI-CONFISCATED ART: RESTITUTION DENIED
POST 131: AN “EXEMPLARY” RESTITUTION WITH CURT GLASER’S HEIRS INVOLVING AN EDVARD MUNCH PAINTING
My wife Ann and I recently attended a meeting in Paris of the French Ministry of Culture’s (Premier Ministre) Commission pour la restitution des biens et l’indemnisation des victimes de spoliations antisemites (CIVS), Commission for the restitution of property and compensation for victims of anti-Semitic spoliation. This French agency is tasked with processing claims from Jewish heirs requesting restitution for and repatriation of works of art that were confiscated from their ancestors by the Nazis in France during World War II. The CIVS is specifically responsible for dealing with works of art that wound up in the possession of the Centre Pompidou, France’s Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, following the end of the war. After learning the origins of some of their holdings, the museum now tacitly acknowledges it does not have legal entitlement to the surviving works of art and is seeking to repatriate these artifacts and compensate rightful owners.
In 2014, I inadvertently discovered that three paintings seized by the Nazis at the Port of Bordeaux in December 1940 that were rendered by my father’s first cousin, Fedor Löwenstein (variously also spelled Lowenstein, Loewenstein, Loevenstein) (Figures 1-2), survive at the Centre Pompidou. It so happens that in 2014, the summer my wife and I spent 13 weeks in Europe visiting places stretching from Poland to Spain associated with my Jewish family’s diaspora, serendipitously these three painting were exhibited at the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Bordeaux.
In reviewing online materials discussing this show, I learned that Ms. Florence Saragoza was the curator of this museum exhibit. At the time Ms. Saragoza was coincidentally the director of an archaeological museum, the National Prehistoric Museum in Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France (Figure 3); I say coincidentally because I too once worked as an archaeologist. In any event, I set out to contact Florence, and within two days after reaching out to her she responded with very moving words telling me, and I paraphrase, that it brought tears to her eyes to learn that Fedor Löwenstein has a living descendant. Florence and I are still in contact after ten years.
Acutely aware of my ancestral lineage, I quickly realized I’m Fedor’s closest surviving blood relative. Upon learning this, Ms. Saragoza asked me whether I wished to file a claim with the CIVS. I told her I did, and Florence graciously assisted me in doing so in October 2014. Because of Florence’s in-depth knowledge of Fedor’s personal history and artworks, I learned the consignment of art destined for New York the Nazis seized in December 1940 in Bordeaux included not only the three surviving paintings but also 22 other etchings and paintings that are believed to have been destroyed. For these no longer existing pieces of art, my claim requested restitution. Below I will explain in more detail the history of the artworks confiscated by the Nazis in France.
As many readers may know, claims from Jewish heirs whose ancestors had their artworks and personal property confiscated by the Nazis elsewhere typically take decades to resolve because the artworks and such are strewn around the globe and/or the heirs encounter stiff resistance from museums and purported owners who acquired the artworks under dodgy circumstances or with no provenance. Unlike such claims, as mentioned above, the French Ministry of Culture acknowledges its responsibility to repatriate seized items housed in the Centre Pompidou and, where the items are thought to have been destroyed, compensate heirs. That said, this does not mean the process is expeditious. To date my claim has been under review for ten years. Let me update readers on the status of my claim begun in 2014 though I hasten to add it has not yet been resolved to my satisfaction.
I first reported on the status of my claim in Post 105 published in 2021. Let me review what I disclosed at the time. At the outset, it is very important to point out that the CIVS did not initiate contact with me and the heirs to Fedor’s estate. Rather, I initiated contact with them and submitted my claim based on publicly available information I uncovered claiming the CIVS is searching for family to whom to repatriate looted art. This is significant as to where things stand today and the reason I seemingly have the Commission’s attention.
In 1940, while hiding out in a town called Mirmande in Drôme, the southernmost department in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region of Southeastern France (Figure 4), Fedor traveled to Paris. There he selected small format works as well as six watercolors that he brought to be shipped to New York City. There is little information about the circumstances surrounding this project, but the paintings were sent to a harbor warehouse in Bordeaux for shipment to an American gallery. Unfortunately, the crates never left Bordeaux but were instead “requisitioned” by German military authorities on the 5th of December 1940, the date of a major seizure operation.
A special commando unit affiliated with the “Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR)” (Reichsleiter Rosenberg Taskforce) raided the warehouse where Fedor’s crates were stored, seized them, and had them shipped to Paris where they were stored at the “Jeu de Paume.” The ERR was a Nazi Party organization dedicated to appropriating cultural property during WWII and was led by the chief ideologue of the Nazi Party, Alfred Rosenberg, ergo its name. The Jeu de Paume was the seat of ERR’s processing of looted art objects confiscated from Jewish-owned collections in France. (Figure 5)
Owing to the abstract cubist nature of Löwenstein’s works, the ERR staff at the Jeu de Paume deemed them as “degenerate” and consigned them to the store room for condemned art, the “Salles des Martyrs,” Martyrs’ Hall. (Figures 6-7) They were marked for destruction, in German “vernichet.” In total, 25 paintings by Fedor were seized and brought to the Jeu de Paume to be disposed of for ideological reasons.
Almost seventy years after the Liberation of Paris in August 1944 three of the purportedly destroyed Löwenstein paintings resurfaced at the Centre Pompidou. French Ministry of Culture officials were able to match the resurrected paintings with information contained in the ERR database for three works labeled by the Germans as Löwenstein 4 (“Composition (Paysage)” or Landscape) (Figure 8), Löwenstein 15 (“Peupliers” or Poplars) (Figure 9), and Löwenstein 19 (“Les Arbes” or The Trees). (Figure 10) In the official catalogue of unclaimed works and objects of art known as “Musée Nationaux Récupération (MNR),” the works are assigned MNR numbers R26, R27, and R28. These three paintings correspond to Löwenstein’s works of art that were displayed at the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Bordeaux in 2014. All three paintings were signed “Fedor Loevenstein,” though possibly the “v” was actually a “w.” (Figure 11) I would later learn from a French reader of my Blog, who purchased several of his works at auction, that Löwenstein also signed some with his initials in reverse, “LF.”
In connection with researching and writing the catalog for the 2014 exhibit of Fedor Löwenstein’s three resurrected paintings, Florence Saragoza and her colleagues uncovered the notes of the curatorial attaché at the Jeu de Paume, Rose Valland. (Figure 12) Her notes from July 20, 1943, confirm the fate of artworks destined for destruction: “Scholz and his team continue to choose from among the paintings in the Louvre’s escrow and stab the paintings they do not want to keep. This is how they destroyed almost all of Masson’s works and all of Dalí’s. The paintings in the Loewenstein, Esmont (sic), M[ichel]-G[eorges] Michel collections are almost all shredded. . .” On July 23rd, she added “The paintings massacred in the Louvre’s sequestration were brought back to the Jeu de Paume. Five or six hundred were burned under German surveillance in the museum garden from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. . . . The paintings that remained in the Louvre were classified by category. . .”. It appears that Löwenstein’s three works that escaped destruction had been classified by the Louvre as “paintings of lesser importance,” while his remaining works were likely stabbed, shredded and/or incinerated. More on this below.
Florence Saragoza and her colleagues, using the notes left behind by Rose Valland, were able to attribute most of the paintings exhibited there. They did this using a detailed digitization of the negatives, work by work, accompanied by a process of so-called “anamorphosis.” Suffice it to say about this process that since the paintings in the contemporary photos from the Jeu de Paume look somewhat distorted (see Figures 6-7), some digital manipulation was required to identify and attribute the works of art.
Beyond Löwenstein’s painting known as “Composition (Paysage)” which survives and is one of the objects of my claim, two other paintings by Löwenstein are partially or completely visible in the contemporary photos from the Jeu de Paume; one cannot be identified, and the second is titled “The Modern City.” Their status is unknown, but they are presumed to have been destroyed by the Nazis in the manner described above by Rose Valland.
As previously alluded to, Fedor Löwenstein’s 25 paintings were seized from État-major administratif du port, hangar H, Bordeaux, the “Port Administration Headquarters, Hanger H, Bordeaux.” They were confiscated at the same time as a set of Dali’s works were taken from another collector, which were described under the acronym “unbekannt,” “unknown.” This was intended to indicate that the history of the works had been lost during the various transfers from their seizure in Bordeaux to their shipment to Paris, the inventories being drawn up only belatedly by the historians of the ERR. Again quoting from the exhibition catalog, “But the fact that these collections were made anonymous was also part of the ideological policy of the Third Reich, which aimed at cultural appropriation, an affirmation of superiority inscribed in a historical connection and a rewriting of art history.” As in the case of Dali’s works, the provenance of the three orphan paintings by Löwenstein was lost and they were described as having been donated anonymously in 1973. Only in 2011 were they reclassified as stolen works. This brings me to what I had learned by the time I filed my claim in 2014.
Following submission of my claim in October 2014 and acknowledgement of such by the CIVS in November of that year, no further action was undertaken by them until I was contacted in February 2017 by a forensic genealogist they contracted with. Having essentially already done all the genealogical fact-finding on my own, I turned over a copy of my research. The next time I corresponded with the Premier Ministre’s office was in June 2021 when they sent me an initial letter rejecting my claim.
I vented my bitterness and disappointment about this determination in Post 105, so I refer readers to that post. However, I will briefly review the basis for the French Ministry of Culture’s decision, and actions I have subsequently taken to attempt to right this perceived wrong.
Inasmuch as I can ascertain, I’m a “victim” of France’s legal system, which follows civil law rather than common law. Under civil law, codified statutes and ordinances are followed. In common law, past legal precedents or judicial rulings are used to decide cases at hand.
Historians believe the Romans developed civil law in around 600 C.E., when the emperor Justinian began compiling legal codes. Current civil law codes developed around the Justinian tradition of codifying laws as opposed to legal rulings.
The United States, Canada, England, India, and Australia are generally considered common law countries. Because they were all once subjects or colonies of Great Britain, they have often retained the tradition of common law. The state of Louisiana uses bijuridicial civil law because it was once a colony of France. Civil law countries include all of South America (except Guyana), almost all of Europe (including Germany, France, and Spain), China, and Japan.
Common law dates to the early English monarchy and began when the courts began collecting and publishing legal decisions. Later, those published decisions were used as the basis to decide similar cases.
Today the difference between common law and civil legal tenets lies in the actual source of law. While common law systems refer extensively to statutes, judicial cases are considered the most important source of law, allowing judges to actively contribute to rulings. For consistency, courts abide by precedents set by higher courts examining the same issue.
In the case of civil law systems, codes and statutes govern all eventualities and judges have a more limited role of applying the law to the case in hand. Past judgements merely provide loose guidelines.
What this means in terms of my claim against the French Ministry of Culture is that the rights to Fedor Löwenstein’s estate are determined by the civil code governing inheritance in France. Thus, the people whom Fedor specifically named in his will and their named heirs are deemed to be the rightful legatees. So, since Fedor left his estate to his sister Jeanne Goff, née Löwenstein (1902-1986) (Figure 13) and brother Heinz Löwenstein (1905-1979) (Figure 14) and neither of them had children, Fedor’s siblings left their estates to unrelated friends who in turn left their property to their heirs. Unlike me, these individuals are not blood relatives of Löwenstein.
France considers property left in a will a “universal legacy,” and a person who inherits the rights, obligations, possession, and debts of a testator’s title in property through a testamentary disposition is called a “universal legatee.” CIVS concluded these heirs, these so-called “universal legatees,” have a legal claim to Löwenstein’s property and damages that supersedes mine; this concept of universal legatees is an element of civil law.
The forensic genealogist identified two universal legatees to Fedor Löwenstein’s estate, one for each of Fedor’s siblings, making me a third-tier heir. Following the identification of these two universal legatees, the CIVS contacted both. They agreed to subrogate my claim, that’s to say, to substitute their names for mine on the compensation claim. How magnanimous of them!
In layman’s terms, then, it was on this basis that my claim for restitution and repatriation of Fedor’s paintings has been rejected.
Following publication of Post 105, I was contacted by one of my distant cousins. She and her extended family are involved in their own long-running case for compensation and repatriation of works of art stolen from one of her ancestors by the Nazis or the sales of which were forced at a much-reduced value. (See Post 131) My cousin suggested I contact her New York-based lawyer, who put me in touch with an American-trained French lawyer, who in turn referred me to a French lawyer specializing in cases like mine. Feeling I had nothing to lose I hired this lawyer.
Based on what I’ve detailed above, French civil law is clear as to my rights or the lack thereof to compensation and restitution related to Fedor Löwenstein’s estate. Thus, my lawyer was compelled to find another way to obtain some measure of justice on my behalf. The argument we made to the CIVS is that I should be eligible for a finder’s fee. Absent my discovery and hard work, neither of the universal legatees would have been aware that the CIVS had any Löwenstein paintings to repatriate, nor compensation to mete out. Insofar as I’m aware, neither of the universal legatees was even aware of Fedor Löwenstein’s existence prior to my endeavors. Furthermore, given the CIVS’ extreme workload it is highly unlikely they would have prioritized dealing with Fedor Löwenstein’s estate; absent my claim, the case might have languished for many more years, long after the legatees were dead.
The Latin term and legal theory quantum meruit applies and translates to “as much as he has earned,” and refers to the actual value of services rendered. It is defined as “payment for the value of goods or services as partial fulfillment of a contract, or when there is no contract specifying a price in the transaction.” Vis a vis my case, the universal legatees are receiving services from me (i.e., my research; submission of a claim application) on an unexpected basis from which they stand to benefit (i.e., repatriation of valuable paintings and monetary restitution). While they obtained these benefits without signing a contract for payment, or without obtaining a price for those services, given that we were previously unaware of one another’s existence, a reasonable person would know that payment is expected. As such there can be no doubt that I deserve to be paid for the services rendered and the benefits the legatees stand to receive.
The CIVS had seemingly agreed I should receive a finder’s fee, which, if true, would have been ground-breaking in terms of the previous claims that have come before the committee. This would have been unprecedented.
This pretty much brings readers up to date with where things stood prior to my recent trip to Paris.
Shortly before an upcoming vacation my wife and I already had planned to Spain and Portugal, my lawyer asked us whether we could come to Paris to attend a full CIVS committee meeting scheduled for April 26th. Among other business, my claim was to be discussed and hopefully resolved. My lawyer and I agreed that my attendance might be valuable.
One of the universal legatees resides in Haifa, Israel, the other in the environs of Nice, France. Neither legatee attended nor had a representative at the meeting. However, both have expressed their desire to committee liaisons that Fedor Löwenstein’s three paintings remain together in France and their apparent willingness to share a portion of the restitution. While I would prefer the paintings remain united, it is my preference they come to the United States as Fedor himself had wanted and be donated to an appropriate museum in America. However, as a non-universal legatee, I have no leverage to dictate this outcome.
Complicating matters in this regard is that the Premier Ministre has made it clear they consider these paintings to be part of France’s historical legacy and want them to stay in France. All three paintings which my wife and I had an opportunity to view (Figure 15) and handle during our recent visit to Paris, have evidence of large red “Xs” (Figure 16) Nazis scrawled across the canvases, indicating they were slated for immolation. Interestingly, the modest valuation of Löwenstein’s artworks is augmented by this desecration of the paintings.
Following the meeting in Paris, my lawyer and I requested an opportunity to contact the universal legatees, something we’d been discouraged from doing previously, to allow time to negotiate a fair agreement on restitution and repatriation. They supposedly agreed. Upon my return to the states, I wrote letters to both legatees, though neither has gotten back to me. Bewilderingly, amid these efforts, just as I was putting the final touches on this blog post, the CIVS rendered their “final” decision. Apparently, what the CIVS considers a “fair” finder’s fee is splitting the not insubstantial restitution money between the two universal legatees and “giving” the universal legatees and myself one painting each with an expectation that the paintings remain in France.
My quest for justice must continue.
REFERENCES
“Civil Law vs Common Law.” Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 12 Jun 2024. Civil Law vs Common Law – Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Fédor Löwenstein (1901-1946) trois œuvres martyres. 16 May-24 Aug. 2014. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux, Bordeaux.
“Quantum Meruit.” Legal Dictionary.net. Quantum Meruit – Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes (legaldictionary.net)
