53 Spring 2026 holder may conduct provenance research and amicably negotiate with the claimant. If the current holder does not react to the claimant’s initial notification of the claim, the claimant may start the arbitral proceedings after three months. Thus, there is no longer a deadlock if a museum obstructs or impedes the negotiations. If the current holder does respond but does not take any action to investigate the case, the claimant may start the arbitral proceedings after a period of six months. A claimant who wishes to initiate the formal arbitration proceedings after the preliminary procedure must submit a statement of claim to the Arbitral Institution (“Schiedsstelle”) and appoint two arbitrators from a pool of 36 arbitrators. One of the arbitrators has to have legal expertise and the other must have expertise in Holocaust studies and/or provenance research.41 The respondent will do the same. These four arbitrators will jointly agree on a fifth and presiding arbitrator from that pool. All 36 arbitrators in the pool were jointly selected by the Jewish and the German State sides. The German State pays for all five arbitrators. The claimant does not bear any costs of the arbitral tribunal, but, as before, is responsible for any costs that may arise from retaining a lawyer or other expenses related to preparing the case. There is no requirement for the claimant to be represented by a lawyer. At all stages of the proceedings, the arbitral tribunal is supposed to seek to reach an amicable settlement. As before, the parties are free to negotiate a settlement at any time, before and during the proceedings. The arbitral tribunal must present a comprehensive account of the persecution suffered by the aggrieved party under the Nazi regime. Thus, the suffering and the injustice inflicted upon the aggrieved party will be precisely documented. The arbitrators are bound by a statutory duty of impartiality, and all arbitral awards are to be published. The arbitral tribunal may investigate the case on its own initiative and solicit expert opinions, e.g., on any remaining points in the provenance. An arbitral award will, by statutory law, have the same status as a judgment rendered by a state court. Thus, the claimant can enforce it unilaterally. In case of serious errors of the arbitral tribunal, the award can be challenged before state courts in setting-aside proceedings. The Assessment Framework very clearly expresses the overall objective of the entire proceedings: Bearing in mind the horrors of the Nazi regime and the lasting impacts of its vast and immeasurable injustice, Germany acknowledges its historical responsibility to ensure justice for the victims and subsequent generations. … Acknowledging injustice, ensuring compensation and achieving Rechtsfrieden [peace in respect to the legal dimension of the dispute] are the guiding principles of every examination and decision. The rules are specifically designed to produce just and fair solutions in light of these acknowledgments, i.e., in cases where cultural property was taken as a result of Nazi persecution. The rules fully exclude the general civil law (including adverse possession, good faith acquisition and prescription) and establish a special evidentiary law implementing Article 4 of the Washington Principles. For example, there is a new presumption of original ownership based on possession, and, to a certain extent, former possession indicates continued possession and thus ownership. However, this presumption does not apply in cases where possession is in the hands of an art dealer, as possession here typically changes quickly. Further, there is a broad presumption that any loss arising from sales or other transactions by the persecuted owner was due to Nazi persecution. Only limited grounds for rebuttal are available. For art dealers, this presumption is modified. In case of “flight goods,” there is no presumption in place at all (as was the practice previously). Instead, the case needs to be evaluated individually, and the Assessment Framework provides certain examples of indications of involuntary loss but does not exclude taking others into account. 41. For the list of arbitrators designated for this pool, see https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/meilensteinauf-dem-weg-zur-schiedsgerichtsbarkeit-ns-raubgut-ausschuss-verstaendigt-sich-im-kanzleramt-aufschiedsrichterverzeichnis-und-praesidium-2385176
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=