-
13 Archaeological Objects – Italy and Boston Museum of Fine Arts
-
Between 1971 and 1999, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts acquired a number of ancient archaeological objects. Italy suspected that such antiquities had been excavated clandestinely in Italian territory and illegally exported.
Located in
All Cases
-
14 Archaeological Objects – Italy and Cleveland Museum of Art
-
On 19 November 2008, the Italian Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities and the Cleveland Museum of Art signed an agreement concerning 14 archaeological objects in the museum’s collection. This agreement provides for the return to Italy of the artworks in exchange for loans of “a similar number of works of equal aesthetic and historical significance”.
Located in
All Cases
-
15 Archaeological Objects – Italy and Princeton University Art Museum
-
The Italian Government and the Princeton University Art Museum signed an agreement on 30 October 2007 that resolved the question of ownership of 15 archaeological objects in the Museum’s collection. This accord was the culmination of negotiations that were initiated by the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities following the discovery of substantial evidence demonstrating the illicit provenance of the requested antiquities.
Located in
All Cases
-
Ancient Manuscripts and Globe – Saint-Gall and Zurich
-
Thanks to the Swiss Confederation who acted as a mediator, the dispute between the Cantons of Zurich and Saint-Gall over cultural objects displaced during the religious wars of 1712 was ultimately settled in 2006 by an inventive agreement.
Located in
All Cases
-
Auschwitz Suitcase – Pierre Lévi Heirs and Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Oswiecim and Shoah Memorial Museum Paris
-
After an initial unsuccessful attempt to negotiate the dispute regarding a suitcase between the heirs of the Holocaust victim Pierre Lévi and the Auschwitz Birkenau State Museum in Oswiecim, the heirs decided to file a restitution claim against the Museum. The parties eventually settled with the help of the Shoah Memorial Museum in Paris and agreed to a long-term loan of the suitcase at the Shoah Memorial Museum.
Located in
All Cases
-
Ayuba Suleiman Diallo – Qatar Museums Authority and United Kingdom
-
The Qatar Museum’s Authority (QMA) purchased at Christie’s the painting “Ayuba Suleiman Diallo” by Hoare of Bath that was subsequently hit with a temporary export bar in the United Kingdom. The export suspension gave any interested British museum the opportunity to buy the painting within a lapse of time. The National Portrait Gallery (NPG) in London made a firm purchase offer that was refused by the QMA...
Located in
All Cases
-
Bath of Bathsheba – Italy and Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art
-
The painting “The Bath of Bathsheba”, by Jacopo Zucchi, was looted in 1945 from the Italian Embassy in Berlin, where it was on loan from the Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica of Rome. In 1965, it was acquired by the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art.
Located in
All Cases
-
Blumengarten – Deutsch Heirs and Moderna Museet Stockholm
-
The heirs of Holocaust victims Otto Nathan Deutsch made several requests to the Moderna Museet Stockholm for the restitution of the painting “Blumengarten (Utenwarf)” (1917) by Emil Nolde
Located in
All Cases
-
Buddhist Paintings – Los Angeles County Museum of Art and Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism
-
The Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) bought four Buddhist paintings in 1998. These paintings were featured in frequent exhibitions of LACMA’s Korean art galleries until the Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism notified LACMA that the paintings were stolen. After amicable negotiation, these paintings were returned to the Jogye Order in August 2020.
Located in
All Cases
-
Die Grosse Seestrasse in Wannsee – X. v. Switzerland
-
The painting “Die Grosse Seestrasse in Wannsee” was bought in 1948 by François de Diesbach. After de Diesbach’s death, the painting was forgotten within the Swiss embassy. When the Swiss embassy decided to donate the painting to the Liebermann Villa, a distant relative of de Diesbach seized a Swiss court and claimed ownership over the painting. The High Court of the Canton of Bern ultimately held that the Swiss Confederation had acquired ownership over the painting.
Located in
All Cases
