Der Spiegel conducted a face to face interview with Cornelius Gurlitt that was published over the weekend, addressing his intentions about the 1,400 artworks connected to Nazi looting. Most striking was Gurlitt’s declaration with regard to the artworks seized by Bavarian tax authorities “I will give nothing back willingly.” The highlights of the interview, available in both German and English (the fuller version only in print, in German), ranges from discussing Gurlitt’s reclusive existence, to his perceived victimhood, to some standard-fare denialism (like that Hildebrand engaged in the commerce of “degenerate art” nearly always sold under duress or worse only in order to “save” the art).
As we discussed Friday, then, it appear that the game is afoot with regard to competing claims of ownership, and that Gurlitt intends to be an active participant. Aside from the implications under U.S. law, what about claims brought against Gurlitt himself in Germany and possible statutes of limitations?
For this analysis, readers are commended to Peter Bert’s Dispute Resolution in Germany blog, where Bert (a German lawyer) discusses the application of Germany’s statute of limitation on property actions (§ 221 of the German Civil Code), as well as the possible impact of last year’s decision ordering the return of the Hans Sachs posted collection to his heirs, a decision in which the German high civil court (Bundesgerichtshof) declined to enforce a strict statute of limitations (and held that the Sachs heirs never lost good title to the artworks). Links are also included to Bert’s longer article in Legal Times on the same topic (in German). Bert notes that one of the few other cases dealing squarely with the limitation issues was actually an English court applying German law in City of Gotha and Federal Republic of Germany v. Sotheby’s and Cobert Finance S.A.
It seems only a matter of time now for claims to start coming in. The question is whether the German government will try to preempt the dispute by seeking some resolution with Gurlitt so that the state can administer restitution.
Lastly, the remains another unanswered question about choice of law: namely, what role does Austria play? Gurlitt appears to have spent significant amounts of time in his Salzburg home in addition to the Schwabing (Munich) apartment where the art was found. Were some of the artworks stored in Austria? Acquired in Austria, by Hildebrand before war’s end, or by Gurlitt if Hildebrand brought them to Austria before his death in the 1950s? German and Austrian law are more similar that German and U.S. law, but there are important differences, of course. Everything about this story continues to get more complicated.
