-
One-Thousand-Five-Hundred-Pound, Hand-Carved Lintels Removed from Religious Temples in Thailand – United States of America and City & County of San Francisco
-
In 2017, the government of Thailand formally requested that the United States restitute two ancient stone lintels of Khmer origin that had been removed from Thai temples between 1959–1968 and acquired by the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. From 2017 to 2020, the United States and Thailand negotiated with the Museum for the restitution of the lintels, but in October 2020, the United States sued the Museum in federal court to seek their forfeiture. In February 2021, the Museum and the United States settled the case for a conditional restitution of the lintels to Thailand.
Located in
All Cases
-
Deux tableaux de Toulouse-Lautrec – Koerfer c. Goldschmidt
-
En 1940, Jakob Goldschmidt, banquier juif et grand collectionneur d’art se voit retirer la nationalité allemande par le régime nazi qui s’approprie, par la suite, son patrimoine. Deux de ses tableaux du peintre Toulouse-Lautrec sont alors vendus aux enchères publiques et acquises par Jakob Koerfer qui en fait cadeau à sa femme, résidant en Suisse. Au décès de cette dernière, les tableaux sont dévolus aux enfants du couple. En 1956, Alfred Erwin Goldschmidt ouvre contre Jakob Koerfer et ses enfants une action en restitution des tableaux litigieux. Sa demande est rejetée en dernière instance par le Tribunal fédéral selon lequel les héritiers Koerfer sont, d’après le droit suisse, valablement devenus propriétaires des tableaux litigieux.
Located in
All Cases
-
Trente-sept tableaux spoliés par le régime nazi – Paul Rosenberg c. Théodore Fischer et consorts
-
En 1946, Paul Rosenberg, célèbre marchand d’art français et israélite, ouvre une action en restitution de trente-sept tableaux de maître dont il a été spolié en France, durant l’occupation allemande, par le régime nazi, et qui se sont retrouvés en Suisse à la fin de la guerre. L’action est portée devant la Chambre des actions en revendication de biens spoliés, chambre spéciale et extraordinaire du Tribunal fédéral (TF). En 1948, le TF admet le recours et condamne les défendeurs à restituer les tableaux litigieux à P. Rosenberg.
Located in
All Cases
-
Case Cranach Diptych – Goudstikker Heirs and Norton Simon Museum
-
The Cranach diptych “Adam and Eve” was presumably part of Jacques Goudstikker’s collection looted by the Nazis during the Second World War. For several years, Goudstikker’s sole heir, Marei von Saher, and the Norton Simon Museum in California have led unsuccessful negotiations regarding the heir’s restitution claim. Notwithstanding the support received by the State of California and by several organizations, Marei von Saher’s claims in replevin were dismissed by both the District Court for the Central District of California and by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court of the United States denied the heir’s petition for writ of certiorari.
Located in
All Cases
-
Guelph Treasure – Alan Philipp, Gerald G. Stiebel and Jed R. Leiber v. Germany and Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation
-
A collection of medieval ecclesiastical art is claimed by the heirs of three Jewish dealers, who allege that the collection was sold under duress during the Nazi era. After an unsuccessful conciliation in front of Germany’s Advisory Commission, the claim is being litigated before the courts of the United States. On 3 February 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favour of Germany on the interpretation of the expropriation exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Located in
All Cases
-
Portrait d’Isabelle d’Este – Cecchini c. Italie
-
Dans le cadre d’une procédure pénale, le procureur du Tribunal de Pesaro (Italie) a adressé à la Suisse une demande d’entraide judiciaire portant sur un tableau attribué à Leonardo da Vinci qui aurait été transféré d’Italie en Suisse, par sa propriétaire, sans l’autorisation des autorités italiennes. Après avoir fait séquestrer le tableau, le Ministère public du Tessin ordonne la remise de ce dernier à l’Italie. La propriétaire de l’œuvre recourt contre cette décision jusqu’au Tribunal fédéral, qui casse la décision précédente.
Located in
All Cases
-
The Actor – Leffmann Heir v. Metropolitan Museum of Art
-
Before the Second World War, Paul and Alice Leffmann, a couple of German Jews, fled Germany to Italy and then to Brazil. To be able to leave Europe, they sold the painting “The Actor” by Picasso to three art dealers for a fraction of its market value. In 1939, one of the dealers sold the painting to Thelma Foy. Several years later, Thelma Foy donated the painting to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET) of New York. In the 2010s, the great-grandniece of Paul and Alice Leffmanns sued the MET to retrieve the painting.
Located in
All Cases
-
Two Schiele Paintings – Grunbaum Heirs v. Richard Nagy
-
In 1938, the Nazis expropriated the art collection of Fritz Grunbaum while he was detained in Dachau concentration camp. In 2016, the Grunbaum heirs filed suit against Richard Nagy, the art dealer in possession of two of the paintings by Schiele that formed part of Fritz Grunbaum’s collection (“Woman in a Black Pinafore” and “Woman Hiding Her Face”). Eventually, the New York’s Supreme Court directed Nagy to return the artworks to the Grunbaum heirs.
Located in
All Cases
-
Ancient Coins – Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. United States
-
In an attempt to challenge import regulations in force in the United States (US), the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) imported into the US 23 ancient coins, which were seized by customs officials. The case was litigated from 2007 to 2019, with courts consistently deciding in favour of the US Government and the import restrictions remaining in place.
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