Case Law Database

Trafficking in cultural property

Offences

• Trafficking in cultural property
• Illegal import/export

Malewicz Heirs vs. City of Amsterdam

Fact Summary

In 1927, the famous Russian artist Kazimir Malewicz held an exhibition of his work in Berlin when he suddenly had to return to Russia. He entrusted his works of art to four German friends (Gustav von Riesen, Hugo Haering, Hans Richter, and Dr. Alexander Dorner. Upon the end of the exhibition, Dr. Dorner stored the art pieces for safekeeping because they could not be sent back to the U.S.S.R. due to the fact that “Stalinist condemnation of abstract art would undoubtedly have led to their confiscation and destruction”. Dr. Dorner stored the pieces in the basement of the museum which he was the director of— the Landesmuseum in Hannover, Germany.

In 1935, Dr. Dorner was visited by the then-director of the New York Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), Alfred Barr. Barr persuaded Dr. Dorner “to ship some of the works to MoMA to be held on loan”. Kazimir Malewicz died in May of that same year. In 1937, Dr. Dorner fled Nazi Germany and took two Malewicz works with him. Mr. Haering in Berlin safeguarded the remaining pieces until he moved them to his native town of Biberach following the bombing of Berlin in 1943. Dr. Dorner died in 1957 and Mr. Haering in 1958. Upon his death, Dr. Dorner bequeathed the two Malewicz pieces he had taken with him to the Busch-Reisinger Museum at Harvard University. The Malewicz Heirs demanded the return of the pieces from MoMA and the Busch-Reisinger Museum. The latter returned both pieces, while MoMA returned one piece.

In the years prior to his death, Mr. Haering was approached on several occasions by Dr. W.J.H.B. Sandberg, who was then the director of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Dr. Sandberg tried to convince Mr. Haering to send the Malewicz Collection to the Stedelijk to restore and exhibit the pieces. Mr. Haering refused the requests and “emphasized that he was only a custodian of the works, responsible for their safekeeping and that he had no right to convey ownership of them to anyone”. In 1956, Dr. Sandberg visited Mr. Haering while he was in the hospital where Mr. Haering once again emphasized that he was not the owner of the pieces and thus could not sell them. However, Mr. Haering decided to lend the pieces to the Stedelijk Museum.

Dr. Sandberg prepared a proposal for the terms of the loan and left it with Ms. Margot Aschenbrenner, Mr. Haering’s secretary. Ms. Aschenbrenner sent a response on 8 May 1956 suggesting “the possible sale of the Malewicz Collection for DM 120 000”. Dr. Sandberg inquired as to how this would occur as Mr. Haering could not transfer ownership of the Collection as he was not the owner. Dr. Sandberg received a response “signed on behalf of Mr. Haering but not by him” stating that according to German law, “ownership of the Malewicz works had passed to Haering in 1955”. In November 1956, the City of Amsterdam “entered into a loan contract with Mr. Haering…that contained an option to purchase the Malewicz Collection”. The Malewicz Heirs allege that the documents claiming that Mr. Haering possessed ownership and could thus transfer ownership of the Collection were fraudulent and that Mr. Sandberg knew they were frauds due to his previous conversations with Mr. Haering. In 1996, the Malewicz Heirs asked Amsterdam to return the Collection but the City refused claiming that they possessed valid ownership.

In 2003, 14 pieces from the Collection were sent to the Guggenheim Museum in New York City and the Menil Collection in Houston as part of temporary exhibitions. Amsterdam requested that the pieces be granted immunity from legal process while in the U.S. (the Malewicz Heirs filed an objection) and the State Department granted immunity from seizure. The pieces were then returned to Amsterdam following the closure of the exhibitions.

The Malewicz heirs filed an action seeking the return of the pieces as well as damages and the City of Amsterdam filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in April 2004. The United States “filed a Notice of Possible Interest on November 15, 2004 and then a Statement of Interest on December 22, 2004”. The Malewicz Heirs and Amsterdam filed their responses in early 2005, while the United States “subsequently filed a Supplemental Statement of Interest on March 17, 2005”. On 30 March 2005 the district court denied Amsterdam’s motion to dismiss. On 27 June 2007, the district court denied Amsterdam’s renewed motion to dismiss. In April 2008, the Malewicz Heirs and the City of Amsterdam reached a settlement in which the Heirs received five pieces of significance while the rest of the Collection remained with Amsterdam. The Heirs then withdrew the lawsuit.

Sentence Date:
2007-06-27

Cross-Cutting Issues

Liability

... for

• completed offence

... based on

• no criminal intent

Offending

Details

• occurred across one (or more) international borders (transnationally)

Involved Countries

Netherlands (Kingdom of the)

United States of America

Procedural Information

Legal System:
Common Law
Latest Court Ruling:
Appellate Court
Type of Proceeding:
Civil
 
 
Proceeding #1:
  • Stage:
    first trial
  • Official Case Reference:
    362 F.Supp.2d 298 (2005)
  • Court

    Location

  • City/Town:
    United States District Court, District of Columbia
  • • Civil

    Description

    On 30 March 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the City of Amsterdam's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Malewicz Heirs seeking the return of the Malewicz Collection as well as damages.

     
    Proceeding #2:
  • Stage:
    Other
  • Official Case Reference:
    517 F.Supp.2d 322 (2007)
  • Court

    Location

  • City/Town:
    United States District Court, District of Columbia
  • • Civil

    Description

    On 27 June 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the City of Amsterdam's renewed motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Malewicz Heirs. The City argued that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the case; however, the Court found that jurisdiction could be established under the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

     

    Victims / Plaintiffs in the first instance

    Plaintiff:
    Malewicz Heirs
    Nationality:
    American

    Defendants / Respondents in the first instance

    Defendant:
    City of Amsterdam

    Court

    Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

    Jurisdiction

    The City of Amsterdam claimed that American courts did not have jurisdiction over the case; however, the District Court for the District of Columbia established jurisdiction pursuant to the expropriation exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

    Sources / Citations

    Information on the 2008 settlement retrieved from: http://www.herrick.com/news/the-city-of-amsterdam-and-the-heirs-of-kazimir-malevich-reach-an-amicable-settlement-regarding-the-malevich-collection-in-amsterdam/