Die Welt reports today that a scheduled cabinet meeting of the government of Bavaria includes discussion of a draft revision to the state’s statute of limitations. Justice Minister Winfried Bausback (CSU) has apparently stated his desire to ensure that claimants like those heirs to owners of works found in Cornelius Gurlitt’s apartment will not be barred by the statute of limitations, following through on statements he made last year after being selected. There has been lively discussion of whether such claims would be time barred, but this revision would presumably be intended to answer the question broadly. It could signal the beginning of legislative steps to address the situation. The previous Justice and Culture Minister Beate Merk had come under heavy criticism, but a new minister may have room to make some changes. And, in a parliamentary system, the consensus of the ruling government is more significant in anticipating the passage of legislation.
Still unanswered, of course, is what happens next, now two months after the bombshell disclosure by Focus. The coordination office in Magdeburg (www.lostart.de), working with the Gurlitt Task Force headed by Ingeborg Berggreen-Merkel, has now posted a total of 442 objects suspected of having been looted or sold under duress. In each case, the contact information for anyone with questions is listed as the Bavarian prosecutor in Augsburg that initially seized the paintings as part of its tax investigations. I’ve been told, however, that inquiries to that office, even by identifiable claimants seeking specific objects, simply go unanswered.
The view here remains that civil claims, whether in Germany or in the claimants’ current home, will be what breaks this logjam. It is possible, of course, that once the Task Force identifies all works that it believes were stolen, some broader federal solution will be enacted, but with the initial attention fading, that may exert less pressure than it once seemed. Politically it seems feasible that Germany could enact an arbitration process like the one in Austria, which has its critics (what system doesn’t), but which has presided over the return of a number of objects.
Dr. Lorenz Kähler has published a proposal in the Legal Tribune for the Augsburg court to appoint a curator to represent as-yet unknown claimants, presumably similar to a guardian ad litem at common law.
If Germany wants to avoid claims around the world, however, it may be running out of time to keep control of the situation. Perhaps the Bavarian legislation, if it comes to that, will be a first step.
