Time To Go—Flechtheim Heirs Withdraw From Limbach Commission That Has Outlived Its Usefulness

Two days after suspending their participation in the Advisory Commission on the return of cultural property seized as a result of Nazi persecution, especially Jewish property, often called the "Limbach Commission" after its presiding member Jutta Limbach (the Beratende Kommission im Zusammenhang mit der Rückgabe NS-verfolgungsbedingt entzogenen Kulturguts, insbesondere aus jüdischem Besitz), the heirs of Alfred Flechtheim withdrew from the proceedings entirely. The dispute concerns Violon et encrier (Violin and Inkwell) (1913) by Juan Gris in the Stiftung Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen (Art Collections Foundation of North Rhine-Westphalia) in Düsseldorf.

Dr. Michael Hulton, Flechtheim's great nephew, issued a press release through his lawyers this morning in German, citing the opaque information involved and procedural irregularities before and during the February 12, 2016 hearing. The press release notes the background of calls to reform the Advisory Commission—in particular the inclusion of a Jewish member—calls that have come from all sides.

Dr. Hulton issued an English-language press release later this morning that made the irregularities clear. After flying from California to make his case, he was shocked to find that members of the Advisory Commission were not even present, among others, the chairperson Prof. Jutta Limbach. As if that were not enough, one of the members who was there simply left during the hearing, citing a prior engagement. Thereafter, the Advisory Commission's office claimed not to have received a letter, sent by email beforehand, that Dr. Hulton's attorney Markus Stoetzel sent with supplemental information (a message that Mr. Stoetzel and Mel Urbach, Dr. Hulton's other attorney at the hearing, had advised would be forthcoming), but declined to delay its deliberations.

The Advisory Commission's response was even stranger. Rather than simply register its disagreement with Dr. Hulton's decision, the Advisory Commission actually tried in a press release to defensively excuse this proceeding. It argued that presiding member Jutta Limbach's absence was meaningless because she was represented by another member. With regard to the mid-hearing departure, the Advisory Commission's press release stated (my translation):

The parties were informed at the start of the hearing that a member would have to leave the hearing because of a competing obligation that could not be moved. Here too, none of the parties objected. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT