TRANSLATION OF A GERMAN DOCUMENT

Rebuttal

of the

Fritz Grünbaum Dossier

compiled by

Dr. Sonja Niederacher

of

Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture (bm:ukk) – Leopold Museum Private Foundation (LMP)

Provenance Research

dated June 30, 2010     

 Büro für Genealogie Herbert Gruber

Rauhensteingasse 10/12a 1015 Vienna

Tel.: +43(1) 513 40 84 herbert.gruber@genealogie.co.at

http://www.genealogie.co.at

http://artstolenfromfritzgrunbaum.wordpress.com/

 

January 24, 2011

2

Contents 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3 KEY BIOGRAPHICAL DATA ..................................................................................................... 4 THE PROPERTY DECLARATION FILES ...................................................................................... 5

THE THEFT ........................................................................................................................ 6 THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER FOR THE ASSETS OF FRITZ AND LILLY GRÜNBAUM ........................ 11 FROZEN AND PROCESSED ................................................................................................ 13

RECOGNITION OF DAMAGES BY THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA .................................................... 17 THEORIES AS TO THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE ART COLLECTION AFTER 1939 .......................... 19 MATHILDE LUKACS .............................................................................................................. 19 BAKALAR VS. FISCHER AND VAVRA PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK ........................................... 21

REPLICATION: .................................................................................................................. 21 THE APPEAL RULING ....................................................................................................... 22 SUMMARY OF THE DECISION TO REMAND TO THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ....................... 23

SUMMARY OF THE REBUTTAL OF THE DOSSIER ...................................................................... 24 THE WORKS FROM FRITZ GRÜNBAUM’S COLLECTION IN THE LEOPOLD MUSEUM – PRIVATE

FOUNDATION ....................................................................................................................... 25 DEMAND ............................................................................................................................. 27 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 27

3

INTRODUCTION

In the course of events pertaining to confiscation of the Egon Schiele oil painting Tote Stadt III [Dead City III] from the Leopold Collection in 1998 in New York, the certificate of inheritance after Fritz Grünbaum (issued by Berlin Charlottenburg District Court on May 28, 1963) was recalled. As such Mr. Paul Reif, New York and Mr. Francis Reif, Canada, who were at that time established as heirs-at-law of the third parentela, lost their status as heirs.

As a consequence:

- No US citizen was able to raise a legitimate claim to Tote Stadt III [Dead City III], the painting confiscated by the New York District Attorney’s Office, and in the absence of request or jurisdiction, the painting was therefore to be released.

- An administrator was appointed for the now heirless estate of Fritz Grünbaum and had the task of finding the heirs-at-law so that these persons could receive the estate of Fritz Grünbaum.

Berlin Charlottenburg District Court appointed Attorney Otari Narssia D - 10623 Berlin, Knesebeckstrasse 30 as the estate administrator for file no. 63 VI 103/98. In cooperation with the estate administrator, BÜRO FÜR GENEALOGIE found Mr. Leon Fischer in New York and Mr. Milos Vavra in Prague as heirs-at-law of the second parentela after Fritz Grünbaum. BÜRO FÜR GENEALOGIE has been supporting them in the assertion of their inheritance claims since 2001. With their decision of November 18, 2010, the Commission1 appointed by the Austrian Federal Minister for Education, Arts and Culture, Dr. Claudia Schmied, under the chairmanship of the former Minister Dr. Nikolaus Michalek concluded that, with regard to the works of art currently held by the Leopold Museum Private Foundation and which were owned by Fritz Grünbaum until 1939, an offense as defined in Section 1 Subsection 1 of the Austrian Art Restitution Law would also not have been committed if these had been federal state property. This decision was based on the Fritz Grünbaum Dossier compiled by Dr. Sonja Niederacher, dated June 30, 2010. She was jointly commissioned by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture and the Leopold Museum Private Foundation. Through the omission of evidence and poor representation of the evidence put forward, this Dossier led the Commission to the erroneous conclusion that divestment of the collection as defined in Section 1 of the Annulment Act cannot be established. This document serves as a rebuttal of the errors and omissions made in the compilation of the said Dossier – and presupposes knowledge of the Dossier to avoid repetition.

1 Members: Head of department Dr. Harald Dossi, President University Professor Clemens Jabloner, Vice President retired Dr. Manfred Kremser, University Professor Franz Stefan Meissel, retired ambassador Dr. Eva Nowotny, University Professor Helmut Ofner, Emeritus University Professor Theo Öhlinger, Emeritus University Professor Peter Rummel, Ambassador Dr. Ferdinand Trauttmannsdorff.

4

KEY BIOGRAPHICAL DATA Fritz Grünbaum was a Jew. He was born on April 4, 1880, in Brno as the oldest of three siblings, the son of Wilhelm Grünbaum (art dealer, †1902) and Regina Saxl (†1921).

Following his Law Studies in Vienna from 1899 – 1903, he was a cabaret artist, libretto writer and theatre director in Berlin and Vienna in the 1920s and 1930s.

In June 1934, Der Stürmer – the most widely read National Socialist newspaper – dedicated an article to Fritz Grünbaum, which was written in strong Nazi language.

Fritz Grünbaum was taken into protective custody some 11 days prior to the annexation of Austria on May 22, 19382. (Appendix A) In May 1938, he was deported to Dachau after an unsuccessful attempt to flee. He attempted to commit suicide on New Year’s Eve 1940. He

died in Dachau on January 14, 1941 – of the TB he contracted in Buchenwald, according to the death certificate.

Fritz Grünbaum was married to Elisabeth Grünbaum née Herzl (* April 28, 1898), in what was his third marriage. The couple lived in the 4th Viennese district, at Rechte Wienzeile 29/11 from 1925. At the end of October 1938, their apartment was Aryanized and in the next few years Lilly Grünbaum had to live at the following addresses:

Oct. 29 1938 – April 15 1939: 19th district, Hofzeile 27/2/4

April 17 1939 – Nov. 26 1941: 19th district, Kaasgraben 15

Nov. 27 1941 – Aug. 8 1942: 1st district, Werdertorg. 5/2/4a

Aug. 8 1942 – Oct. 5 1942: 1st district, Marc Aurelstr. 5/7

On October 5, 1942, Lilly Grünbaum was arrested by the GESTAPO and deported to Maly Trostinec with transport no. 44, where she was killed on October 9, 19423.

2 Letter from ITS [international Tracing Service] Bad Arolsen, dated December 20, 2007. 3 The Central Database of Shoah Victims' Names, http://www.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/IY_HON_Welcome

Figure 1: Fritz Grünbaum at the Concentration camp 1939 

5

THE PROPERTY DECLARATION FILES

The theft of the Grünbaum’s property is well documented in two of the Jewish Property Declaration Office (VVSt.) files held in the Austrian State Archive (ÖStA), Archive of the Republic (AdR) section under the file numbers VA (list of assets) 34.662 and 44.614. (Appendix B)

The following is a detailed analysis of these two files, which comprise 49 pages.

Like all Jews, Fritz Grünbaum was also obliged to disclose his assets as of April 27, 1938. As an inmate of Dachau, the locality alone made it impossible for him to fulfill this obligation imposed by the National Socialist rulers. He had to grant his spouse Lilly with a special power of attorney to conduct all matters relating to the asset declaration and also to act as his legal representative in all his affairs. A certified copy of this authorization is deposited in the files. Lilly Grünbaum had to use this many times.

The documents prove that Fritz Grünbaum

- was a prisoner for political reasons and because he was Jewish, - granted the power of attorney to his wife under duress, - had no possibility of exerting any influence on the implementation of this power of attorney.

All actions performed by Lilly Grünbaum on the basis of this power of attorney were necessary

- in line with the inhumane legal provisions depriving Jews of their rights, or - within the scope of efforts to / hoping to save Fritz Grünbaum’s life, or - in order to prevent the assets being seized by the National Socialist henchmen - and so were enforced.

Sales, donations or transfer of goods – be it verbally or in writing – took place on the sole basis of this enforced power of attorney. The granting of this power of attorney is a legal act as defined in Section 1 of the federal law concerning the annulment of legal transactions and other legal acts which were concluded during the NS regime in Austria [Nichtigkeitsgesetz – Bundesgesetz vom 15. Mai 1946 über die Nichtigerklärung von Rechtsgeschäften und sonstigen Rechtshandlungen, die während der deutschen Besetzung Österreichs erfolgt sind], also known as the Annulment Act, in accordance with Federal Law Gazette (BGBl.) No. 106/1946. All legal acts based on such an invalidated power of attorney are equally invalid.

Figure 2: List of assets (VA) 44.614 Fritz Grünbaum, page 7

6

THE THEFT The systematic dispossession of the Grünbaum’s is evident in the following diagram, which is based on a quantitative analysis of the two Property Declaration Office files.

It is very clear that the art collection is still recorded a long time after the temporary export permit expired. It can be understood from the unused export permit from the (Austrian) Federal Office for the Preservation of Monuments, dated September 8, 1938, that the collection was not dispatched from Vienna.

7

 THE GILDEMEESTER ORGANIZATION Lilly Grünbaum was anxious to ensure that she and her husband could emigrate. Her efforts are evident from the report on changes to their assets as per June 30, 1939:

 Figure 4: – List of assets 34.662 Lilly Grünbaum, page 6 Furthermore, I have had to spend money on attorney fees, medicals expenses, regular invoices for purchases and preparation costs for emigration, relocation costs with the shipping company to a total amount of around RM 7,000.00.

Payment of relocation costs with the shipping company Schenker & Co should be seen in the context of the Gildemeester Organization for Assistance to Emigrants (see the Gildemeester Aktion stamp on the form of January 27, 1939 in Lilly Grünbaum’s file, list of assets, among others).

 Figure 5: List of assets 34.662 Lilly Grünbaum, page 15 Reference is made to the details in the Historikerkommission (commission of historians) report4 on the Gildemeester organization, volume 20-2. Moreover, I quote from an extremely simplified explanation on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_Gildemeester#Der_Beginn_der_.E2.80.9EAktion_Gildemeester.E2.80.9D [translation]:

"Inclusion in the Gildemeester Aktion followed a specific protocol. First, Jewish citizens wishing to emigrate turned to the Gildemeester assistance office, where the passport applicants were then referred to the law firm Gallop and later to the law firm Rajakowitsch. Prior to this, the persons wanting to leave the country had to agree to hand over 10% of their assets to the Emigration Fund. Afterward, the bank registered the assets in an inventory list – which was much more detailed than those held by the Property Registration Office. In addition to the assets, the financial requirements up to and for the course of the trip had to be disclosed as did any taxes due. Following these lists and a credit check by the bank, the passport applicants were invited to sign – provided that the bank considered their assets to be sufficient – and thereby hand over their assets to the bank in trust. Furthermore, the passport applicants committed themselves to transferring 10% of their assets to the Gildemeester Fund. A further 5% was charged for administrative and implementation costs. Any third-party expenses were added to this. It could take several months from the initial application until inclusion in the Fund, but ultimately the Gestapo

4 Theodor Venus, Alexandra-Eileen Wenck: “Die Entziehung jüdischen Vermögens im Rahmen der Aktion Gildemeester. Eine empirische Studie über Organisation, Form und Wandel von ‘Arisierung’ und jüdischer Auswanderung in Österreich 1938-1941.“

8

decided on this inclusion. Once the passport applicants’ inclusion had been confirmed by the Gestapo, they were subsequently protected by the Gestapo. Management and liquidation of the passport applicants’ assets were the sole responsibility of the bank concerned and its employees. All other tasks such as freeing prisoners, passports, visas, preparation for emigration, etc. were taken care of by the Gildemeester assistance office. The Central Office for Jewish Emigration established at the end of August 1938 directed the “religious Jews” to the IKG (Israelite Community) and the Palestine Office, while “non-religious Jews” were sent to the Gildemeester Aktion. In the fall of 1938, Adolf Eichmann brought both organizations together as regards administration of emigration opportunities under the authority of the Central Office in Vienna, in the former residence of the Rothschild family. The Gildemeester fund was dissolved in March 1939 and transferred to the Vienna Emigration Fund.”

More can be read in this regard in a report on the assets as per June 30, 1939, in the property declaration file for Fritz Grünbaum:

 Figure 3: List of assets (VA) 44.614 Fritz Grünbaum, page 3

I n v e n t o r y

of the assets of Franz Friedrich Israel G r ü n b a u m, currently in protective custody in Weimar-Buchenwalde concentration camp, as per June 30, 1939, with reference to the asset declaration of April 27, 1938 and the notice of change as given at the beginning of February 1939 as a result of the first submission to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration.

With regard to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration, reference is again made to the work of the Historikerkommission (commission of historians)5, volume 20-2. For a better understanding of this criticism, I also quote from an extremely simplified article on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentralstelle_f%C3%BCr_j%C3%BCdische_Auswanderung_in_Wien [translation]:

“The Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Vienna was an SS agency, which was established in August 1938 to accelerate the forced emigration of Jewish Austrians. Issues regarding citizenship, the law relating to foreign nationals, taxation on foreign currency exchange and assets were all coordinated under this objective. It was the sole authority authorized to immediately grant exit permits to Jews from Austria (1938-1941), with immediate effect.

5 Gabriele Anderl, Dirk Rupnow, with editorial assistance from Alexandra-Eileen Wenck: “Die Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung als Beraubungsinstitution.“ Vienna, 2002.

9

The director Adolf Eichmann, who was posted from Berlin to Vienna, and his colleague Alois Brunner stipulated emigration quotas. During the reign of the Nazi Party, the Vienna Israelite Community was held responsible for ensuring that these quotas were met. These state exit permits stopped with a decree on October 18, 1941, in which Himmler forbade giving "Jews" permission to emigrate throughout the Reich. The systematic deportation of Jews “to the east”, to extermination camps like Auschwitz or Treblinka, had begun."

According to the Historikerkommission (commission of historians) report, volumes 22-1 and 20-1: Die Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung als Beraubungsinstitution, Nationalsozialistische Institutionen des Vermögensentzuges 1 [The Central Office for Jewish Emigration as a thieving institution, National Socialist Institutions for the divestment of assets 1], page 7, it is unanimously agreed that the records of the Vienna Central Office for Jewish Emigration were destroyed at the end of the war.

10

The records of the Foreign Exchange Control Office also no longer exist6. (Appendix C) This is all the more significant because it is evident from the report on the status of assets as per June 30, 1939, that a substantial portion of Fritz Grünbaum’s assets had already been frozen through security order7 Dev.Si 858/38/40 of July 15, 1938. Without this file (comparable with a court guardian’s file in terms of the significance for our understanding of the management of assets), it is only possible to infer the text of the security order, the details of the freeze, the control and the course of events.

 Figure  7: List of assets (VA) 44.614 Fritz Grünbaum, page 3 Cash and securities were secured by security order of the Vienna Foreign Exchange Control Office, line 858/38-90 of August 3, 1938; from that date on, these assets can only be disposed of with the consent of the Vienna Foreign Exchange Control Office.

6 Confirmation from the Austrian State Archives (ÖSTA) on February 26, 2008, that no records from the foreign exchange control office have survived. 7 From January 1, 1937 (in legal force from the end of March 1938 in Austria), the foreign exchange control offices were given permission by the regional finance president to impose restrictions on a person’s disposal of their assets – so-called security orders – where movement of assets was suspected (Section 37a of the Amendment of the Foreign Exchange Control Law [Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes über die Devisenbewirtschaftung] from December 1, 1936) (Appendix D). For example, the foreign exchange control offices could require monies to be paid into a frozen account or that disposal of certain assets such as property, securities, bank balance and investments be subject to foreign exchange control approval. See http://www.lostart.de/Content/051_ProvenienzRaubkunst/DE/Zeittafel.html (German only). Refer also to the Historikerkommission report, volume 20-2: Die Entziehung jüdischen Vermögens im Rahmen der Aktion Gildemeester, Eine empirische Studie über Organisation, Form und Wandel von "Arisierung" und jüdischer Auswanderung in Österreich 1938-1941. Nationalsozialistische Institutionen des Vermögensentzuges 2 [Divestment of Jewish assets within the scope of the Gildemeester organization, an empirical study on the organization, type of and changes in “Aryanization“ and Jewish emigration in Austria 1938-1941, National Socialist Institutions for the divestment of assets 2], from page 288 [translation]:

Section 59 of the Law, which offered the opportunity for so-called security orders to be issued by the foreign exchange control offices if there was “sufficient reason to suspect” that the person concerned was attempting to “withdraw assets from foreign exchange control” (Section 59). The foreign exchange control offices made frequent use of this authorization in particular against Jewish citizens who had announced their intention to emigrate. 729 security orders were brought against bank balances, securities accounts and safe-deposit boxes.

11

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER FOR THE ASSETS OF FRITZ AND LILLY GRÜNBAUM

In connection with security order Dev.Si 858/38/40 of July 15, 1938, the letter of January 31, 1939, from the attorney Dr. Ludwig Rochlitzer8 gains particular significance. He describes himself as the receiver for the assets of Fritz and Lilly Grünbaum, as appointed by the Vienna Foreign Exchange Control Office, and takes the total amount of RM 6,100.00 for himself and the Munich attorney Dr. Alexander Bayer9 as a fee from the Grünbaums’ assets. This amount is equivalent to purchasing power of about €26,108.0010 in today’s terms. By way of comparison, let us remember that Fritz Grünbaum’s art collection was valued at RM 5,791.00. The amount of remuneration suggests that the position as official receiver was held for a long time, which also included control of small sums for daily requirements, as indicated by the phrase “Further, you also have to settle the

cemetery invoice of RM 238 and a number of smaller invoices. [Weiters

haben Sie die Friedhofsrechnung per RM 238,-- und etliche kleinere Rechnungen zu begleichen]“ In the light of this restriction, it is inconceivable that Lilly Grünbaum could have deposited the art collection with Schenker & Co for emigration and entered into the corresponding financial commitment all by herself.

8 Dr. Ludwig Rochlitzer, * August 25, 1880 in Voitsberg/Steiermark. According to the Regional Civil Court of Vienna, Department 48, No. 48 T 3854/47-5, it was held as proven that he perished during an air raid on March 12, 1945 in the Viennese 1st district, Führichg. 10/3. His records were destroyed during this bombardment. 9 It is not known what tasks Dr. Alexander Bayer performed. 10 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsmark [translation]: Conversion to equivalent purchasing power Note on conversion (purchasing power) according to Hamburg State Archive and the Federal Statistical Office in 2000: * 1 Reichsmark (1924-1936) = 3.32 Euro; equivalent to 3.97 Euro today * 1 Reichsmark (1937/38) = 3.58 Euro; equivalent to 4.28 Euro today

Figure 8: List of assets (VA) 34.662 Lilly Grünbaum, page 29

12

 

STORAGE OF THE COLLECTION WITH SCHENKER & CO

On September 8, 1938, an employee of the shipping company Schenker & Co went to the Federal Office for the Preservation of Monuments to obtain an export permit for the art collection on behalf of Lilly Grünbaum.

The accompanying inventory is neither written in her handwriting nor is it signed by her.

During the period for which the export permit is valid, Lilly Grünbaum lost her apartment in the Viennese 4th district, Rechte Wienzeile, on October 29, 1938.

The material assets listed in the inventory of the collection were secured through their delivery to Schenker & Co and the official receiver was able to carry forward the value of the collection in his reports.

Whether these measures took place solely to secure the inventoried assets or were within the scope of the Gildemeester Aktion, Lilly Grünbaum did not have any opportunity to exert influence on movement of the collection.

Schenker & Co was not a private company but rather a 100% subsidiary of the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railway) – that is a Nazi entity, which had already been Aryanized in 1931 in Germany.

Figure 9: List of assets (VA) 34.652 Lilly Grünbaum’s handwriting, page 11

Figure 10: Inventory as appendix to an application for an export permit for the art collection in the Federal Office for the Preservation of Monuments No. 5501/1938

13

FROZEN AND PROCESSED Following initial declaration of the assets, reports on the respective status of assets from

November 12, 1938 January 27, 1939 and June 30, 1939

can be found in the property declaration files. Vermögensbekenntnis [Asset Declaration] forms are enclosed with the reports of January 27 and June 30, 1939. There are dramatic differences between the forms completed for these two dates.

The Asset Declarations for January 27, 1939 show the amount of RM 11,273.-- under VI. Other assets (cash, bank balance, securities, paid-up share capital) for Fritz Grünbaum. The following breakdown of this total is provided in the corresponding report:

Figure 11 – List of assets 34.662 for Lilly Grünbaum, page 15  

Figure 12 – List of assets 34.662 for Lilly Grünbaum,page 18

14

 Figure 13 – List of assets 34.662 for Lilly Grünbaum, page 20 LIST OF ASSETS of Franz Friedrich Grünbaum, currently in Buchenwald concentration camp near Weimar, correct as of January 25, 1939: I. Cash RM 3,725.-- II. Bank balance, Creditanstalt, Wiener Bankverein VI. Linke Wienzeile “ 254.-- III. Securities: 7 Österreichische Baulose 33.-- IV. Pictures and prints “ 5,791.-- V. Jewelry 750.-- VI. Books 720.-- Total RM 11,273.--

The following Asset Declaration forms for June 30, 1939, show the remaining assets under VI. to be worth RM 8,370.--.

The inventoried value of Fritz Grünbaum art collection is accounted for with RM 5,791.--

15

The corresponding report on the status of assets as of June 30, 1939, shows the breakdown of this total of Fritz Grünbaum’s assets (RM 8,370.--) and therefore also reveals the value of the collection.

Figure 16 – List of assets 44.614 for Fritz Grünbaum, page 3 1.) Cash RM 1,826.-- 2.) Securities: unchanged 7 Österreichische Baulose “ 33.-- 3.) Pictures and prints “ 5,791.-- 4.) Books “ 720.-- Total RM 8,370.-- The following endorsements were added on both Asset Declarations: “Lebt” [living] and “19. Juli 1939” [July 13, 1939]. Further they were both stamped with Gesperrt durch Vermögensanmeldung [frozen by property declaration] and Erledigt [processed]. There were no further transactions within the file after these endorsements. The files were crossed out and filed away.

Figure 14 – List of assets 34.662 for Lilly Grünbaum, page 3

Figure 15 – List of assets 44.614 for Fritz Grünbaum, page 12

16

The closing symbol (cross) used by the officer responsible for the file leaves no doubt that the work has been completed, as the planned divestment of Fritz and Lilly Grünbaum’s assets has been implemented. In the meantime, on April 5, 1939, Lilly Grünbaum had lost the first accommodation after Aryanization of her marital apartment, in the 19th district, Hofzeile 27, and was living in the 19th district, Kaasgraben 15.

In the dossier, it is – misleadingly – indicated that a sale of Fritz Grünbaum’s collection via Vugesta – Verwertungsstelle für jüdisches Umzugsgut der Gestapo [the Gestapo Office for the Disposal of the Property of Jewish Emigrants] could not be determined.

However, it should be noted that Vugesta was only established in 1940, that is 14 months after the property declaration files for the Grünbaums were closed and 24 months after export for the collection was approved for a period of three months by the Federal Office for the Preservation of Monuments.

At the point in time when Fritz Grünbaum’s collection was deposited with Schenker, the issue of unpaid containers had not yet arisen for the shipping company.

If the issue of unpaid storage costs had applied for the container in which Fritz Grünbaum’s collection was held then Schenker would have had access/control of the deposited goods pursuant to ABGB – Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [the Austrian Civil Code] and would have sold them.

It was precisely this right to take action as practiced by the shipping companies that led to Vugesta being established in 1941 – because the National Socialist regime did not tolerate the profit of such actions (sale of containers) remaining with the private shipping companies.

After the annexation of Austria, the National Socialist regime required some 16 months to transfer the Grünbaums’ assets of RM 75,814.20 (equivalent to purchasing power of €324,484.78) to the Deutsche Volkskörper [German People’s Body] by July 19, 1939. Fritz Grünbaum died 18 months later as a result of the torture of imprisonment in the concentration camp. As the assets had already been Aryanized some one and a half years earlier, there were no probate proceedings due to a lack of assets. The phrasing in the Dossier is [translation]:

“When Fritz Grünbaum died in 1941, there were no probate proceedings because, according to the widow who would inherit, there was no estate; the art collection was also not mentioned in the registration of his death.11”

indicating the possibility that Lilly Grünbaum could have kept quiet about the value (and thereby the existence of the collection).

It is not mentioned in the Dossier that, on the occasion of the handover to the Vienna City and Provincial Archive, the probate file was set aside to be destroyed and only the marginal sleeve was preserved.

Another 19 months later, on October 9, 1942, Lilly Grünbaum was killed in Maly Trostinec. Probate proceedings after her only took place as a result of the application to have her declared dead, brought by Emil Rosner, a purported cousin of Fritz Grünbaum, in 1963.

11 District court (BG) 1 15 A 341/41, Fritz Grünbaum

17

RECOGNITION OF DAMAGES BY THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA The dossier completely ignored the fact that the Republic of Austria had recognized the divestment of Fritz Grünbaum’s art collection in the following two rulings by the National Fund:

- EE Leon Fischer August 23, 1941, of November 5, 2008 (Appendix E) and - EE Milos Vavra October 2, 1941, of August 13, 2007 (Appendix F).

Among the losses of Fritz Grünbaum, the amount of USD 35,677.-- is defined as damages12 under the sub item Movable Property, defined as paintings, graphics, jewelry, cash and books (analogous to point IV on the Asset Declaration, “Other assets, in particular capital assets”). In the ruling13 EE Milos Vavra October 2, 1941, of August 13, 2007 it is stated: 1. Losses of Franz Friedrich Grünbaum, born on 7 April 1880 The applicant is entitled to an inheritance share of 50%. Franz Friedrich Grünbaum was the great-uncle of the applicant. The late Franz Friedrich Grünbaum predeceased his wife Elisabeth Grünbaum. They did not have any children. Franz Friedrich Grünbaum was the uncle of Marta Bakalova. The family relationship of Franz Grünbaum to Marta Bakalova, the applicant's mother, and subsequently to the applicant is verified by the inheritance documents submitted to the General Settlement Fund. There are no further descendants known to the General Settlement Fund. Consequently, the applicant inherits half of the estate of Franz Grünbaum. 1.1. Movable Property: paintings and graphics, jewelry, cash, book The applicant has chosen the claims-based process. The claim is accepted in the claims based process. The loss is assessed at US$ 35,677.00. Taking into account the applicant's inheritance right the claim amounts to US$ 17,838.50. In the ruling EE Leon Fischer August 23, 1941, of November 5, 2008 it is stated: 2. Losses of Franz Friedrich Grünbaum, born on 7 April 1880 The applicant is entitled to an inheritance share of 50%.Franz Grünbaum was the husband of Elisabeth Grünbaum, who was the great-aunt of the applicant. Elisabeth Grünbaum's parents had two further descendants, namely Max Herzl and Mathilde Lukacs. Max Herzl was the grand-father of the applicant. Max Herzl left one child named Renee Fischer who is the deceased mother of the applicant. Pursuant to the last will of the applicant's mother Renee Fischer, the applicant shall be her sole heir. The applicant's grandmother Gisela Herzl has declared her daughter Renee Fischer and the applicant as her equal and only heirs in accordance with her last will. There is one great-nephew of Franz Grünbaum, namely Milos Vavra. No further descendants are known to the General Settlement Fund. Consequently, the applicant inherits half of the estate of Franz Grünbaum.

12 Compensation Fund Act Section 11. (1) Condition for obtaining a benefit from the Fund is that the beneficiary submits a statement waiving upon receipt of such benefit for him (her) and his (her) heirs any claims against Austria and/or Austrian companies resulting from or in connection with the period of the national socialist regime or the second world war. (2) Such waiver does not exclude that applicant files an action for restitution in kind of an exactly identified piece of art against Austria and/or Austrian companies or an action for restitution in kind against Länder or municipalities, to the extent they have not exercised the possibility pursuant to Section 38. Such statement does not comprise any waiver to rights from former settlements achieved before courts in the United States of America. [Federal Chancellery translation from www.ris.bka.gv.at] 13 The original rulings were prepared in the English language because the heirs of Fritz Grünbaum do not speak German.

18

2.1. Movable Property: paintings and graphics, jewelry, cash, book The applicant has chosen the claims-based process. The claim is accepted in the claims-based process. The loss is assessed at US-$ 35,677.00.Taking into account the applicant's inheritance right the claim amounts to US-$ 17,838.50. As the heirs after Fritz Grünbaum were able to sufficiently document the loss of the collection, the Application Committee accepted recognition of the losses in the claim-based process14.

14 Applicants who were not able to evidence or supply prima facie evidence for specific claims pursuant to the standards of evidence of the claim-based process could file applications to the Application Committee in equity proceedings.

19

THEORIES AS TO THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE ART COLLECTION AFTER 1939 The unresolved fate of the collection between June 30, 1939, and May 3, 195215, has given rise to much speculation. However, none of the theories circulated explain the central question “How and in what way was Eberhard W. Kornfeld able to deal in approximately ¼ of Fritz Grünbaum’s collection and channel this into the international art market?” and so there is no rebuttal of this part of the Dossier.

MATHILDE LUKACS       The most common theory, which is portrayed as fact in the Dossier, is that the part of the collection dealt in by Eberhard W. Kornfeld was smuggled16 out of Vienna and into Switzerland before 194517 by Fritz Grünbaum’s sister-in-law Mathilde Lukacs. This has already been dismissed by the Commission led by Dr. Nikolaus Michalek due to substantial parts being irrelevant.

Irrespective of the fact that Mathilde Lukacs was not, and never was, legitimately entitled to dispose of items from Fritz Grünbaum’s estate, it should be noted that:

- She was 62 years old at the end of the war, marked by persecution and in poor health18 - She was not able to move back into the apartment she had before the war - She was 69 years old in 1952 at the time of initiating business relations with Galerie

Kornfeld; her husband Sigmund Lukacs was 6½ years older than her - From 1945-1955, Vienna was the capital city, divided into four zones, of an occupied

Austria, which was also divided into zones. It is not conceivable that Ms. Mathilde Lukacs was in a position to smuggle the collection out of Austria. Nonetheless, the art market readily accepted this rumor so that it could conduct business transactions involving the collection of Fritz Grünbaum.

15 Initial contact in writing from Mathilde Lukacs, as shown by Eberhard Kornfeld. 16 No further export permit from the Federal Office for the Preservation of Monuments for Mathilde or Sigmund Lukacs other than that of June 27, 1938 17 It can be ruled out that Mathilde Lukacs took over the pictures before 1945 due to her own persecution and emigration on August 12, 1938 – that is, according to the files, before the export permit was applied for by Schenker on behalf of Elisabeth Grünbaum and before the inventories of assets were subsequently submitted by Elisabeth Grünbaum. (Translation of the Michalek Commission’ decision of November 18, 2010, page 12) 18 Letter from Sigmund Lukacs to the Austrian Social Insurance Authority for Business of September 28, 1959 (Appendix G)

Figure 17 – Mathilde Lukacs, approx. 55 years, from the entry to Belgium 1938

20

Fritz Grünbaum’s collection (or parts thereof) must have survived unscathed in Vienna at the end of the Second World War. There must have been persons who

– ascribed value to the collection, – knew that the artworks belonged to Fritz Grünbaum, – wished to realize these and – had the logistic capabilities to smuggle the collection out of occupied Vienna

and occupied Austria. It can be ruled out that Mathilde Lukacs had primary knowledge of the depot storing the artworks. She was interned in an “old people’s home” in Belgium during the Nazi era. She seemed better suited to give the apparent legitimation for sale of the works of art from Grünbaum’s collection than Fritz Grünbaum’s sister19, who was living behind the “Iron Curtain” in former Czechoslovakia.

It was known that Mathilde Lukacs was his sister-in-law and had survived the Holocaust in Belgium. This was stated in an article dated August 17, 1945, in the New York newspaper Aufbau20. (Appendix H)

Mathilde Lukacs died on December 15, 1979, at the age of 96. She left only ATS 43,644.00 (€3,171.73). Her estate did not contain any works of art, be it from her own collection exported to Belgium in 1938 or from Fritz Grünbaum’s collection. (Appendix I) In this regard, the Dossier does not mention an expert report examining questioned documents of November 7, 2005, compiled by the sworn and certified court expert for handwriting comparison Christian Farthofer, 1113 Vienna, Am Hofgartel 16/1/4. (Appendix J) The experts report is based on copies21 of the written correspondence provided by Eberhard W. Kornfeld between Mathilde Lukacs and himself from the period 1952-1956. On page 14 of this report, the expert states [translation:] “… there are…in addition to minor partial similarities in form – a number of variant and/or non-verifiable forms of writing both in the general characteristics of the handwriting and in the level of special characteristics, which casts grave concerns as regards its authenticity” and on page 15 the expert expresses sincere doubt that all of the signatures originated from one person (meaning Mathilde Lukacs). The fact that this was not taken into consideration is evident of the selective choice of materials for the Dossier in favor of the Leopold Museum Private Foundation.

19 Alzběta Zozuli di Salino née Grünbaum,*: Dec. 23,1885 - †: Oct. 21, 1977 in Pilsen 20 [Translation:] “Aufbau has recently received more reports about the deaths of two well-known German-Jewish artists. The first is from Karl Schnog, the German writer liberated from Buchenwald. The second is sent to us by Grünbaum’s sister-in-law, Ms. Mathilde Lukacs, from Brussels. It is taken from a letter addressed by a former fellow prisoner of the Grünbaum, Ernst Federn (Brussels) to Lilly Grünbaum née Herzl, the wife of the cabaret artist, who was deported from Vienna to Poland in October 1942.” 21 Eberhard W. Kornfeld prevented the report being completed with the original correspondence; although the relevant permission from the authorities already existed within the scope of the Bakalar vs. Fischer and Vavra proceedings, 05-cv-03037-WHP, at the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

21

Figure 18 – Egon Schiele, 1917, Seated Woman with Bent Left Leg

BAKALAR VS. FISCHER AND VAVRA PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK The ruling by the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit22 in the Bakalar vs. Fischer and Vavra proceedings, 05-cv-03037-WHP, at the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK The Dossier, dated June 30, 2010, contains a reference to the Court of Appeals’ ruling of September 2, 2010. (Appendix K with translation) This marginal mention of the ruling does not even begin to do justice to the significance of this legal decision for the entire problems relating to asserting the claims of Holocaust victims.

Moreover, the now repealed decision is analyzed on several pages in the Dossier.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals was communicated to Dr. Sonja Niederacher on September 3, 2010, and the translation thereof supplied on September 12, 2010. The supplementary questioning of the author occurred in the meeting of the committee led by Dr. Nikolaus Michalek on September 29, 2010 and [translation:] “did not result in any facts relevant to a legal assessment of the case beyond the content of the Dossier.”

REPLICATION:

The Bakalar vs. Fischer and Vavra proceedings, 05-cv-03037-WHP, at the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, were initiated by David Bakalar in 2005 after Dr. Gabriel Lansky, attorney, informed Sotheby’s that a Schiele drawing “Sitzende mit angezogenem linken Bein” [Woman Seated with Bent Left Leg], dated 1917, belonged to Fritz Grünbaum’s collection and was being claimed by his heirs.

The buyer of the artwork then withdrew from the purchase and Sotheby’s froze the drawing. David Bakalar sued for damages of USD 650,000.00 and to be determined the rightful owner of the drawing.

In 2008, after 8000 documents had been exchanged and following a three-day hearing, the court of first instance ruled that David Bakalar was the rightful owner of the disputed drawing. David Bakalar had already retracted the claim for damages shortly prior to the ruling as being futile.

22 There are currently twelve general courts of appeal or circuit courts, that is their competence is geographically defined rather than by a specific subject matter. The twelve courts each have jurisdiction for a circuit (hence the name circuit court, often shortened to just circuit). Eleven of these are numbered (the court is then called, for example, United States Court of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit). The Court for the Tenth Circuit (in New York) has jurisdiction for the federal states of Connecticut, New York and Vermont. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals

22

THE APPEAL RULING

The appeal was brought on October 9, 2008. The court’s ruling is summarized in the following extract from an INTERNATIONALnews article, dated September 7, 201023. (Appendix L) The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week ruled in Bakalar v. Vavra, 08-5119-cv, that

Southern District Judge William H. Pauley erred in applying Swiss law as opposed to New York law in determining ownership of the work.

The panel's ruling vacates Pauley's finding that David Bakalar, an American art collector, became the rightful owner of "Woman Seated with Bent Left Leg (Torso)" when he bought the drawing from a New York gallery in 1963 for $4,300. The New York gallery had acquired the black crayon and water-based paint drawing four months earlier from a Swiss gallery. In 2004, Bakalar sold the drawing at an auction conducted by Sotheby's in London for $675,000. Sotheby's put the sale on hold after the heirs to Austrian art collector and cabaret performer Franz Friedrich "Fritz" Grunbaum stepped forward to claim ownership of the piece. Grunbaum was arrested by the Nazis as he fled Vienna in 1938 and died at Dachau in 1941. The two heirs, Czech citizen Milos Vavra and New York resident Leon Fischer, traded lawsuits with Bakalar in 2005, with both sides seeking to be declared the rightful owner. In declaring Bakalar to be the owner, Judge Pauley applied Swiss law, under which Bakalar, as a good-faith buyer, would acquire title to the work after five years without a claim being asserted, even if the drawing had been stolen. New York law on the issue is very different: under no circumstances can a thief pass good title and a person from whom property was stolen has a claim superior to a good faith purchaser. Writing for the circuit, Judge Edward R. Korman, sitting by designation from the Eastern District of New York, concluded that Pauley had relied on the wrong test in choosing to apply Swiss law. The panel remanded the case to Pauley for further proceedings, and, "if necessary, a new trial."

and continues

New York has a "compelling interest" preserving the integrity of its art market as its state Court of Appeals has stated on several occasions, Korman wrote. For instance, in Guggenheim Foundation v. Lubell, 77 N.Y.2d 311 (1991), former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler wrote for a unanimous Court, "New York enjoys a worldwide reputation as a preeminent cultural center. To place the burden of locating stolen artwork on the true owner…would, we believe, encourage illicit trafficking in stolen art." By comparison, Korman described the Swiss interest as being "tenuous." Application of New York law might cause New Yorkers to take a closer look at the work's provenance, and that in turn, he reasoned, "might adversely affect the extra-territorial sales of artwork by Swiss galleries." For choice of law purposes, that Swiss interest, he concluded, must give way to New York's "significantly greater interest" in preventing the state "from becoming a marketplace for stolen goods."

On the question of Bakalar's ownership, Korman noted that the record indicated that Grunbaum was forced to execute a power of attorney giving his wife control of his artwork four months after he was arrested by the Nazis and imprisoned at Dachau.

23 Copyright 2010. ALM Media Properties, LLC.

23

Under Uniform Commercial Code §2-403(1), which has been adopted in New York, status as a good faith buyer only attaches if a transfer of property is "voluntary," he wrote. In Grunbaum's case, the circumstances "strongly suggest he executed the power of attorney with a gun to his head," Korman said. If that was so, he wrote, under New York law "any subsequent transfer was void." "[Mr.] Bakalar's suggestion that the power of attorney constituted a voluntary entrustment to property to [Mr. Grunbaum's] wife is a proposition that remains for him to prove." "Unless he does so," Korman added, even if Grunbaum's wife, Elizabeth, transferred ownership to her sister to prevent the work from falling into the hands of the Nazis "she could not convey valid title to the artwork."

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION TO REMAND TO THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE The Court of Appeals placed the burden on the claimant David Bakalar to prove that the drawing was not stolen as otherwise, pursuant to New York Law, none of the persons subsequently in possession of the drawing could obtain title based on purchase in good faith. The text of the ruling reads as follows, on page 18: Our reading of the record suggests that there may be such evidence, and that the district judge, by applying Swiss Law, erred in placing the burden of proof on the Grünbaum heirs in this regard. Indeed, as discussed earlier, if the district judge determines that Vavra and Fischer have made a threshold showing that they have an arguable claim to the Drawing, New York law places the burden on Bakalar, the current possessor, to prove that the Drawing was not stolen. Further, the three-judge panel recognized that Fritz Grünbaum never, of his own free will, intended to transfer title to the drawing. The text of the ruling reads as follows, on page 23: Grünbaum never voluntarily intended to pass title to the Drawing. On the contrary, the circumstances strongly suggest that he executed the power of attorney with a gun to his head. Nevertheless, the district judge, relying on U.C.C. § 2-403(1), concluded that “Galerie St. Etienne was a seller with voidable title to the Drawing, having acquired it from Galerie Gutekunst in 1956,” and that Bakalar, a good faith purchaser for value, acquired good title to the Drawing. 2008 WL 4067335, at *6. While the district judge did not identify the defect in the title acquired by Galerie Gutekunst, which rendered voidable the title it passed to Galerie St. Etienne, his conclusion that the title was voidable implicitly recognizes that there was some legal defect in the passage of title to the Drawing as it made its way from Grünbaum to the Galerie Gutekunst. Otherwise, the district judge would have had no basis to characterize as “voidable” the title the latter conveyed to the Galerie St. Etienne. This characterization, however, ignores the fact that, if the power of attorney signed by Grünbaum was involuntary, any subsequent transfer was void and not merely voidable.

24

SUMMARY OF THE REBUTTAL OF THE DOSSIER The Dossier on Fritz Grünbaum’s art collection, dated June 30 2010, compiled by Dr. Sonja Niederacher, who was jointly commissioned by bm:ukk and the Leopold Museum – Private Foundation, led the Commission chaired by Dr. Nikolaus Michalek to the erroneous conclusion that divestment of the art collection as defined in Section 1 of the Annulment Act cannot be established. Crucial evidence was not taken into account and historic material was misrepresented in the compilation of the Dossier. It is manifestly clear from the files of the Jewish Property Declaration Office concerning Fritz und Lilly Grünbaum that:

1. Fritz Grünbaum granted the power of attorney in favor of his wife Lilly under duress, 2. Fritz Grünbaum did not have any possibility at all of exerting any influence on the

implementation of this power of attorney, 3. Based on security order Dev.Si 858/38/40 of July 15, 1938, Dr. Rudolf Rochlitzer was

appointed the official receiver for Fritz and Lilly Grünbaum’ assets, 4. Lilly Grünbaum was subject to the Gildemeester organization, 5. The official receiver’s actions and the art collection’s route from Fritz Grünbaum cannot be

documented fully, without any gaps, without the destroyed files from the Vienna Central Office for Jewish Emigration and the Foreign Exchange Control Office,

6. Only the official receiver could have deposited Fritz Grünbaum’s collection with Schenker & Co – a Nazi entity – in order to secure the inventoried assets,

7. By July 19, 1939, that is 14 months before Vugesta was established, 18 months before the death of Fritz Grünbaum and 18 months before the deportation and murder of Lilly Grünbaum,

Fritz and Lilly Grünbaum’s entire assets were frozen and the transactions in the files relating to divestment of assets had been processed.

As such, divestment of the art collection exists as defined in Section 1 of the Annulment Act. This was already established by the Austrian National Fund in its rulings of August 13, 2007 and November 5, 2008 in regard to Leon Fischer and Milos Vavra.

The Dossier is incomplete and disregards crucial facts, including among others:

the report compiled by the Austrian handwriting expert Christian Farthofer on the correspondence between Mathilde Lukacs and the art dealer Eberhard W. Kornfeld,

recognition of Fritz Grünbaum’s losses, including the art collection, by the Austrian National Fund

the findings of the New York Court of Appeals, and therefore clearly weights in the interest of the Leopold Museum Private Foundation, which refuses to return the artworks from Fritz Grünbaum’s collection. The Fritz Grünbaum Dossier should be an instrument for Dr. Nikolaus Michalek’s Commission in order to determine the historical truth but it does not fulfill this task.

25

THE WORKS FROM FRITZ GRÜNBAUM’S COLLECTION IN THE LEOPOLD

MUSEUM – PRIVATE FOUNDATION The Dossier arbitrarily divides the works of art from Fritz Grünbaum’s collection into three sections and

refers to the search reports on the Lost Art Internet Database24. On the basis of the Dossier, the Commission led by Dr. Nikolaus Michalek only dealt with three works of art from Fritz Grünbaum’s collection. In fact, Eberhard Kornfeld himself lists 116 works (of which 69 by Egon Schiele) from Grünbaum’s collection, which his gallery dealt in.

This list is included in the summary of facts dated April 16, 1998, which the law firm Bratschi Emch & Partner sent to Mr. Thomas Buomberger25 on behalf of the Galerie Kornfeld. (Appendix M) In analogy to the Court of Appeals ruling of September 2, 2010, in Bakalar vs. Fischer and Vavra in New York, not only can 1. Egon Schiele: “Tote Stadt” [Dead City] III, LM Inv. No. 460, N 94; OK 140, L 182, JK 213

2. Egon Schiele: “Andacht” [Devotion], LM Inv. No. 2311, JK 1418

3. Egon Schiele: Akt mit orangefarbenen Strümpfen [Nude with orange stockings], LM Inv. No.1429, JK 1488 be assigned to Fritz Grünbaum’s collection (these are mentioned as property of Fritz Grünbaum is several historical sources), but also the following works of art

4. Egon Schiele: Selbstdarstellung, grimassierend [Self portrait, grimacing], LM Inv. No. 2312, JK 705

5. Egon Schiele: “Rote Bluse” [Red blouse], LM Inv. No 1433, JK 1394

6. Egon Schiele: “Mädchen” (Akt mit gelbem Tuch) [Girl (Nude with yellow cloth)], LM Inv. No. 2381, JK 1278

7. Egon Schiele: Sich umarmende Mädchenakte [Nude girls Embracing], LM Inv. No. 1426, JK 1606

8. Egon Schiele: Selbstdarstellung mit Umhang [Self portrait with cape], LM Inv. No. 2312, JK 70, which, according to Eberhard Kornfeld, have the same provenance as “Die Tote Stadt” [Dead City] III – that is, Fritz Grünbaum. The Leopold museum Private Foundation has the burden to prove that these pictures, the divestment of which during the Nazi period is widely proven, are not looted art. The Dossier does not show these pictures to have been owned by anyone other than Fritz Grünbaum in 1938. Fritz Grünbaum’s collection was divested as a result of persecution. Fritz Grünbaum was killed.

24 The Lost Art Internet Database is run by the Koordinierungsstelle Magdeburg, a central organization set up by the German Federal and State Government. The database is a registry of cultural objects and lost cultural property that was relocated, moved or seized, especially from Jewish owners, as a result of persecution under the Nazi dictatorship and due to the events of the Second World War. Germany’s central office for the documentation of lost cultural property, 25 Thomas Buomberger: Raubkunst – Kunstraub. Die Schweiz und der Handel mit gestohlenen Kulturgütern zur Zeit des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Zurich 1998.

26

Furthermore, it is documented that Eberhard W. Kornfeld also dealt in the following Schiele artworks, which are held at the Leopold Museum 9. Egon Schiele: Zwei stehende weibliche Akte [Two female nudes standing], LM Inv. No. 2351, JK 1084.

10. Egon Schiele: Liegende mit hochgeschobenem Hemd [Reclining female with raised chemise], LM Inv. No. 1409, JK 1550

11. Egon Schiele: Hockender Akt, Selbstbildnis [Squatting nude, self portrait], LM Inv. No. 2363, JK 2482

12. Egon Schiele: Liegende mit erhobenem rechten Bein [Reclining female with raised right leg], LM Inv. No. 1395, JK 1579

13. Egon Schiele: Kauernder Mädchenakt [Cowering nude girl], LM Inv. No. 2363, JK 2482

14. Egon Schiele: Drei weibliche Akte [Three female nudes], LM Inv. No. 2316, JK 511, Reverse 513

The Dossier fails to explain the provenance of the aforementioned pictures back to 1938. These pictures could also originate from Fritz Grünbaum’s collection. Lost Art supports this view. In particular, it is the case that the artwork 15. Egon Schiele: “Umarmung” [Embrace], LM Inv. No. 2376, JK 1147 belonged to Fritz Grünbaum. It cannot be ruled out that this is the very same picture that appears under No. 36.236 in Eberhard W. Kornfeld’s books as an inventory purchase from Mathilde Lukacs on December 7, 1955. A detailed description of the picture and of the owners after the Erich Lederer mentioned in the Dossier could provide clarification. The Dossier also fails to provide these details.

27

DEMAND Following supplementary questioning of historians with knowledge of divestment of assets under the Nazi regime, for example among the staff of the National Fund and the Historikerkommission (commission of historians), the Commission led by Dr. Nikolaus Michalek ought to review its decision of November 18, 2010. Vienna, January 24, 2011 Herbert Gruber

APPENDICES

26

A Letter from ITS [international Tracing Service] Bad Arolsen, dated December 20, 2007

B VAEV [property declaration] files for Lilly and Fritz Grünbaum

C Confirmation from the Austrian State Archives (ÖSTA) on February 26, 2008, that no

records from the foreign exchange control office have survived.

D Amendment of the Foreign Exchange Control Law [Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes

über die Devisenbewirtschaftung] from December 1, 1936

E Ruling by the General Settlement Fund regarding Leon Fischer

F Rulin g by the General Settlement Fund regarding Milos Vavra

G Extract from Austrian Social Insurance Authority for Business (SVA der gewerblichen

Wirtschaft) files, letter from Sigmund Lukacs dated 1959, in which he requested to be

admitted to the SVA old people’s home.

H Der Aufbau: Article on the death of Fritz Grünbaum, dated August 17, 1945

I Probate file for Mathilde Lukacs, 2 A 847 BG Döbling

J Expert report examining questioned documents of November 7, 2005

K Bakalar vs. Fischer and Vavra – ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,

with German translation thereof

L INTERNATIONALnews article, dated September 7, 2010, on the ruling by the Court of

Appeals in New York, with German translation thereof

M Summary of facts sent by Bratschi Emch & Partner to Mr. Thomas Buomberger on

behalf of Galerie Kornfeld, dated April 16, 1998

26 On the enclosed CD-ROM or http://artstolenfromfritzgrunbaum.wordpress.com/.