Families of Jews robbed by National Socialism still have to fight to get their art treasures back. They are supported in their efforts by lawyer Dr. Hannes Hartung from Munich, among others. In the interview, he provides insights into his work and expresses clear criticism of the actions of the Ministry of Art under the leadership of Minister Markus Blume and the Bavarian State Painting Collections. He also talks about what drives him in his day-to-day work.
Germany has committed itself to the Washington Principles on the Restitution of Looted Art. Do you think that enough has been done so far to implement these principles?
Hannes Hartung: Definitely not, and I don’t think the arbitration procedure now planned is sufficient either. It only applies to the public sector and then only to those who submit a standing offer. You have to be prepared to take part in the arbitration procedure from the outset. It is therefore essential that there is a law on looted art. As early as 2002, as part of the major reform of the law of obligations, the Federal Council called for a so-called looted art law – and it still does not exist today. Such a law is urgently needed to enable fair and equitable solutions for private owners as well. As long as the law is missing, the implementation of the Washington Principles still depends on the goodwill of private individuals, where there is still no chance of enforcing justified claims through the courts.
What legal hurdles currently exist in the restitution of looted art to the rightful owners, and what effect do these have on practical implementation?
Hannes Hartung: The biggest hurdle is that claims are almost impossible to enforce, both legally and practically. The heirs are dependent on the goodwill of the institutions. They have to act honestly, openly and transparently – which unfortunately doesn’t always happen. In the case of the Bavarian State Painting Collections in particular, it became apparent that for many years until February 2025, around 190 objects were classified as red – i.e. clearly looted art – in the internal museum database Museum PLUS, but were not published on Lost Art. Provenance research can only be effective if it is shared. A lot of research has been done in Bavaria – but too often behind closed doors. That’s why I’m calling for complete transparency and an active approach to heirs. As lawyers, we often only come into play when things have already escalated because the institutions are not adhering to basic standards. Ultimately, a legal basis is needed so that restitution is really enforceable.
One of the reasons why the advisory commission was abolished was because it was accused of only conducting a few proceedings – it has to be said that it had to be called upon by both sides, i.e. institutions and heirs. Do you think that the arbitration tribunal can now do everything better?
Hannes Hartung : In principle, the idea is right, but the implementation is disappointing, as an open letter to former Federal Chancellor Scholz showed. I think a law is essential. I am particularly critical of the composition of the arbitration tribunal: many of the 36 appointed arbitrators have no experience in arbitration law, looted art issues or provenance research. This gives the impression that political considerations and the “stable smell” of the public sector play a greater role than professional qualifications. I don’t deny anyone the ability to familiarize themselves with the subject, but how is someone without any experience – such as local politicians or members of the Association of Cities and Towns – supposed to make competent judgments? And who trains these people? Normally, an arbitration panel is put together openly: Both sides have nomination rights, selection is based on suitability and merit, not from a closed list. The current procedure contradicts an open democratic approach and independent arbitration. There must be no “closed stores”. In addition, far too few arbitrators come from the private sector, and private collectors are completely absent. How is the procedure supposed to be attractive for private collectors? The cost structure is also disproportionate: 50,000 euros for a procedure with five arbitrators for a work value of 5,000 euros. The number of judges should be staggered according to the value in dispute. An arbitration tribunal only works if there is trust in competence and neutrality – I don’t see that at the moment. Deficits in the assessment framework were already pointed out before Christmas, such as the false assertion that Jewish art dealers are not subject to a general presumption of seizure due to persecution. Historically, this is wrong: all Jews were persecuted equally.
This can be seen very clearly in the Lion case, which I am currently representing. None of this is true, which is why my clients have rightly filed a lawsuit in New York against the Free State of Bavaria for restitution. 5 of the 7 heirs live in the USA. I was also very surprised that the Bavarian Ministry of Art claimed that arbitration proceedings had been agreed. There is no such agreement, just like the alleged voluntary exchange of the Amerling for worthless paintings. In reality, the Amerling was simply looted in January 1935 – with the active cooperation of officials in the Bavarian Ministry of Art and the Bavarian State Painting Collections at the time. Minister of State Blume’s question as to whether provenance research in the Bavarian State Painting Collections has been appropriate since 2008 deliberately missed the point entirely and was purely a diversionary tactic. No one has claimed that no research has been done. The question is whether provenance research has been consistently published in the last two decades and whether heirs have been sought. That was the reason for the scandal and not provenance research in Bavaria.
Can you tell us something about the Lion brothers case you mentioned? What exactly is it about?
Hannes Hartung: The brothers Louis, Hans and Fred Lion had a successful art dealership on Maximiliansplatz in Munich, which they founded in 1922. After the seizure of power in 1933, they came under massive pressure and their business came to a standstill. The heirs of the Lion brothers are now demanding the return of works of art owned by the Bavarian State Painting Collections. The Free State of Bavaria and the State Painting Collections argue that there was a “voluntary exchange”: This involved the extremely valuable painting by Friedrich von Amerling, “Girl with a Straw Hat” – a repeat of a painting owned by the Prince of Liechtenstein with an estimated market value of around 1.5 million euros – being exchanged for two completely insignificant paintings. On January 15, 1935, the then director Ernst Buchner applied to the Bavarian Ministry of Art for the exchange of a banal genre painting by Luigi Nono and a kitschy, smooth still life by Max Schödl for the work by Friedrich von Amerling from the art dealership of the Jewish Lion brothers. Buchner was demonstrably often involved in Nazi expropriations and said in his application: “Amerling is not yet represented in our collection. This charming, highly sympathetic portrait is an excellent representation of Amerling’s art.” Buchner thus proves that this was not a voluntary exchange and that the paintings to be exchanged were and are not equal in terms of value or art history. Outside of National Socialism, this legal transaction would never have taken place. There is no evidence that the brothers, who originally owned the painting, agreed to this alleged exchange – which never took place. The legal presumption of a persecution-related seizure therefore applies. Jewish art dealers in particular were demonstrably persecuted on a massive scale, and in this context the argument is particularly questionable. It is also striking that there have already been two restitutions – two smaller paintings by Franz Sigrist have been returned. In these cases, Bavaria suddenly said that restitution was possible. But when it comes to an important work like the Amerlings, they again refuse to make a restitution – with flimsy excuses. Under these circumstances, I cannot imagine arbitration proceedings. What is even worse is that the heirs are not being taken seriously and, worst of all, the victims are being ridiculed.
What options do you see for your clients if they don’t want to get involved in arbitration proceedings?
Hannes Hartung: We filed a lawsuit in New York in the South District Court on November 12, 2025 . They have a very powerful law there in the form of the HEAR Act (Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act), which is currently being expanded. It takes two to find fair and just solutions. It is not acceptable for someone to try to impose their own interpretation or even exercise power over the claimants, as the Ministry of Art in Bavaria is currently doing.
Bavaria and the State Painting Collections are not only being criticized for the case described, but are also being accused of non-transparent procedures in other areas regarding possible Nazi-looted art. Markus Blume has announced measures in response. How do you rate these steps and do you already see any progress?
Hannes Hartung: To be honest, I haven’t seen any substantial progress so far. The problem lies deeper: for years – we believe since 2008 – there has been a system of cover-ups and delays. The current actionism is of little use, and personnel decisions such as the dismissal of Director Maaz do nothing to change this. Instead of clearing things up, proceedings are being sat out or defused by new committees or expert reports, such as the recent one headed by Professor Hopp, with misleading questions. It is not about provenance research in Bavaria, but about the years-long cover-up of the results. One example: the “Madame Soler” painting could have been decided by the Advisory Commission long ago – it would have clearly recommended its return. But the procedure was deliberately avoided. At this point, it should also be borne in mind that Bavaria helped set up the Advisory Commission. However, it was not prepared to use it.
How have the affected heirs reacted to the measures taken by the State Painting Collections so far?
Hannes Hartung: Many are very disappointed and feel that they are not being taken seriously. Often only works that are economically insignificant for the Staatsgemäldesammlungen are restituted, while valuable pieces are withheld on the basis of questionable arguments. This not only violates the Washington Principles, but also any moral sense. The heirs are repeatedly confronted with formal objections or supposedly new valuation frameworks that relativize their families’ history of persecution. This leads to a great deal of mistrust – and that is a shame, because many heirs would certainly be prepared to find fair solutions – also for the museums – if they were treated with respect.
Do you see any particular challenges or omissions in Bavaria compared to other federal states when it comes to the restitution of Nazi-looted art? And what is the international situation regarding restitution?
Hannes Hartung: Yes, definitely. My experience in other federal states and also abroad is much better. In North Rhine-Westphalia, for example, restitutions are often handled in an uncomplicated and cooperative manner. There are often no eternally long battles, but rather the cases are discussed together and then restitution is simply made – without any ifs or buts! Unfortunately, I have had the most bad experiences in Bavaria. A lot of things are sat out here. The Free State of Bavaria refers to internal audits or allegedly unresolved inheritance law issues to avoid restitution for over three years, as in the Waldmüller case from the collection of the Viennese Jew Therese Brettauer, even though the restitution in August 2022 was decided long ago. I find that very sad and undignified. Other countries such as the UK, France and the USA are much further ahead: France has had a restitution law for two years and the USA has the HEAR Act of 2016, which is now even being improved. These legal frameworks make it much easier to find fair solutions there.
Has there been a specific case in your work that has particularly occupied you or moved you emotionally?
Hannes Hartung: Yes, whenever a return is actually made and the descendants have tears in their eyes and are happy. These moments show that our work makes a lot of sense and is meaningful. I also particularly remember a case of restitution of so-called looted art: a valuable sculpture by Antoine Houdon was returned to Poland from the Viennese art market after decades. Such moments – when an object returns to its history and its family or to the museum – are the strongest motivation for me. It’s not just about works of art, but about greater justice – that’s what I stand up for every day. When the artwork is returned and there are emotions and tears of joy, then I am very happy. Then I know that all the effort has really been worth it.
Today, April 8, is Provenance Research Day – with events throughout Germany, Austria and Switzerland reminding us how important it is to trace the origins of cultural assets without any gaps: because many works of art, books and objects in museums and collections were stolen from their Jewish owners during the Nazi era and must be returned to their rightful heirs.
You can read more about provenance research here.
