51 Spring 2026 Sometimes, involved parties complained that the Commission investigated parts of the facts on its own (which it is permitted and required to do according to its procedural rules) but did not share its findings with the opposing party to hear their views on these findings before rendering a decision – another blatant violation of due process, should this have actually occurred. In the first and only case before the Advisory Commission involving a private owner, a foundation that had proactively undertaken provenance research and had approached the claimant with its findings, the Commission’s chairman considered it appropriate to subsequently urge the foundation via the media to follow the Commission’s – non-binding (!) – recommendation to pay a rather large sum for compensation. The foundation had difficulties in raising the money. Later, when the proceedings were continued based on new facts, the Commission substantially increased the originally recommended amount of compensation. At the same time, it no longer deducted the expenses incurred over decades for maintaining the object in question, a Guarneri violin, without providing any reason. This looks quite a bit like a punishment for the foundation’s reluctance to follow the Commission’s initial – non-binding and therefore non-enforceable – recommendation. In another case, a member of the Commission behaved in an openly biased manner by writing in the chat of the video hearing during the COVID Pandemic (probably erroneously), addressed to all participants, that the matter was clear to her “after such a brilliant pleading”25 of the claimant's lawyer, without even waiting to hear the assessment of the responding party. That latter party’s complaint of bias was nonetheless rejected.26 Whether the challenged member was involved in this latter decision is not clear from the published documentation. A challenged member of a tribunal or panel should of course have abstained from deciding about its own impartiality, and this should have been well documented, for obvious reasons. At the end, the controversial decision (on flight goods) was reached by a majority of just one vote so the vote of the member in question was decisive for the outcome. Most recently, the Commission employed a long-standing successful lawyer for one of the two sides as legal advisor to its office. A legal advisor at the office of a decision-making body is typically entrusted with preparing and overseeing the proceedings, recording the substantive discussions and drafting the reasons for the decision. This is needed especially since the members of the Commission have so far worked on a pro bono basis. Finally, with only two Jewish members out of a total of ten, the Advisory Commission’s composition raised serious concerns in terms of representation and balance. Against this background, there was broad consensus that reform was necessary. V. The New “Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property” How does the new Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property27 now address these needs for reform and what are the details of its work?28 To ensure that the arbitration proceedings are based on a valid arbitration agreement, all German state owners of cultural property agreed to issue binding and permanent “standing offers”29 to conclude the agreement. Such an offer is addressed to all potential claimants and includes all cultural objects held by the current holder of cultural requirement to be heard obliges the court to take note of and consider the submissions of the parties to the proceedings.” See also in the context of interest here, Weller, Just and Fair Solutions? Fundamentals of a Restitution Culture for Works of Art and Cultural Property Confiscated During Nazi Persecution, in: Gephart/Witte (eds.), COMMUNITIES AND THE(IR) LAW, Frankfurt am Main 2023, 251-278, 272 et seq. 25. Translation by the author. 26. See https://www.duesseldorf.de/fileadmin/Amt41-Zoll/kulturamt/pdf/Provenienzforschung/20210226_Beschluss_zur_ Befangenheitsruege.pdf 27. The new website of the Court is being built at https://schiedsgerichtsbarkeit-ns-raubgut.de/de 28. Details in “Strengthening the Advisory Commission,” supra note 7, at 78-81, margin nos. 168–194. 29. For the template of this Standing Offer, see https://kulturstaatsminister.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Aufarbeiten/ Verwaltungsabkommen_Schiedsgerichtbarkeit/Verwaltungsabkommen_Schiedsgerichtbarkeit_barrierefrei/Muster_ stehendes_Angebot_DEU_bf.pdf
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=