Independent report

Report of the Spoliation Advisory Panel: Three paintings in the Courtauld Institute of Art

Report of the Spoliation Advisory Panel in respect of three Reubens paintings now in the possession of the Courtauld Institute of Art, London (HC 63)

• From: Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
• Published: 28 November 2007

This was published under the 2005 to 2010 Labour government

Documents

Spoliation Advisory Panel report: Three Ruben paintings

Ref: ISBN 9780102951516, HC 63

PDF, 106 KB, 17 pages

Order a copy

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email official.publishing@nationalarchives.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Details

This document contains the following information: Report of the Spoliation Advisory Panel in respect of three Ruben paintings now in the possession of the Courtauld Institute of Art, London

This report deals with a claim by the granddaughter of the late Franz W. Koenigs of the Netherlands in respect of three paintings now in the possession of the Courtauld Institute of Art.

The claimant contended that the family lost possession in 1940 when the paintings, which had been loaned to a Museum, and had been used as collateral to secure a loan from a bank, were called in when the bank went into liquidation. The paintings were sold to a collector, Count Antione Seilern, who subsequently bequeathed them to the the Home House Society (the predecessor of the Samuel Courtauld Trust) in 1978.

The claimant submitted that the paintings were undervalued when sold, as a result of a conspiracy by two persons connected with the museum, and that the sale must have been made under duress. The Panel, echoing a decision by the Dutch Restitution Committee, finds that the family were deprived of the paintings neither by theft, nor by forced sale or by sale at an undervalue.

The Panel recommends that the claim be rejected.

This paper was laid before Parliament in response to a legislative requirement or as a Return to an Address and was ordered to be printed by the House of Commons.

Published 28 November 2007