DThe current rules for restitution of cultural property confiscated due to Nazi persecution have two aspects. Both are derived from the Washington Principles adopted by the federal government in 1998. According to this, on the one hand, for the artworks confiscated by the Nazis, “necessary measures should be taken quickly to find a just and fair solution”—return to the original state in the true sense. On the other hand, as their whereabouts are unknown in many cases, artworks should be “identified” first. These two aspects were considered in the 1999 joint statement of the federal government, federal states, and the Central Municipal Association-restitution and identification, and expanded from artistic works to cultural assets, from Nazi confiscation to deprivation and deprivation related to Nazi persecution. Limited public cultural assets (excluding private property).
The Federal Commissioner for Culture and Media (BKM) has published an ever-increasing “Guidelines for Exit Review Related to Persecution” as a “handout” to the public. Unlike the Joint Statement, it also applies to the preparation of the chain of custody for the return of private property The decision to return the request”. In order to support the victims of Nazi persecution, it includes a simplification of the evidence of their previous property, as well as the rebuttable presumption that the cultural property requested to be returned was confiscated due to the Nazi persecution. If the return of specific cultural assets There are disagreements, the advisory committee established by the federal government in consultation with the federal states and the Central Municipal Association in 2003 will take action upon request from both parties. On the party that opposes the restitution, this can be the public or private owner of the cultural property The committee acts as a mediator. It can make non-binding recommendations for resolving disputes, so it is not an arbitrator who decides on its own disputes.
In its rules of procedure, in addition to the joint statement, the handouts of the current version of the BKM, and the Washington Principles, the committee also cited the 2009 Terezin Declaration adopted by the federal government as the basis for its work. Small businesses, companies, houses and properties, from the small bakery around the corner to the service villa of the Federal President of Berlin today. Therefore, the scope of return of the backdoor that is ready to pass the procedural rules of the Advisory Committee is extended to all other Holocaust assets, which is composed of private individuals appointed by BKM with legal, ethical, cultural, and historical expertise. The rules of procedure also stipulate that the committee can justify its recommendations on a purely moral and ethical basis-which runs counter to Washington’s “just and fair” standards. This was the case in the Grawi case on February 10, 2021, which suggested that the city of Düsseldorf should return Franz Marc’s painting “Fox”-all legal rebuttals were declared irrelevant.
