Liechtenstein v. Germany
For the last 10 years, Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein has been suing Germany in various courts - including the German Federal Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the International Court of Justice – in an attempt to recover a painting seized from the Prince's father by Czechoslovakia at the end of WWII. So far his efforts have not born fruit.
The painting, Szene an einem römischen Kalkofen (“A Roman Lime Quarry”) of Pieter van Laer, had formed part of his family's art collection since at least 1767. Until the end of the Second World War the painting had been in one of the family's castles on the territory of the now Czech Republic. In 1946 the former Czechoslovakia confiscated the painting under the Beneš Decrees.
During World War II, Czechoslovakia was an allied country and a belligerent against Germany. After the war it seized German and Hungarian property located on its territory as reparations. Czechoslovakia applied those decrees not only to German and Hungarian nationals but also to other persons allegedly of German or Hungarian origin or ethnicity. For this purpose it treated the nationals of Liechtenstein as German nationals. The property of these Liechtenstein nationals seized under these decrees has never been returned to its owners nor has compensation been offered or paid. The application of the Beneš decrees to the Liechtenstein property remained an unresolved issue between Liechtenstein and Czechoslovakia until the dissolution of the latter, and it continues to be an unresolved issue as between Liechtenstein and the Czech Republic, on whose territory the vast majority of Liechtenstein property is located.
Under the Convention on the Settlement of Matters arising out of the War and the Occupation, signed at Bonn on 26 May 1952, Germany agreed that it would "in the future raise no objections against the measures which have been, or will be, carried out with regard to German external assets or other property, seized for the purpose of reparation or restitution, or as a result of the state of war".
In 1951 the Bratislava Administrative Court dismissed the appeal lodged by Prince Hans Adam's father finding him to be a person of German nationality within the meaning of the provision in Article 1 §1(a) of Decree no. 12.
In 1991 the municipality of Cologne obtained the painting as a temporary loan from the Brno Historical Monuments Office in the Czech Republic. Prince Hans Adam II the applied to the Cologne Regional Court for an interim injunction ordering the municipality of Cologne to hand over the painting at the end of the exhibition. The injunction was granted and a hearing was held. The Prince submitted that the painting had not been subject to expropriation measures in the former Czechoslovakia and that in any event such measures were invalid or irrelevant on account of violation of the ordre public of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Brno Historical Monuments Office argued that the applicant's father had lost his ownership of the painting as a result of the confiscation in 1946 and that the lawfulness of this confiscation had been confirmed by the Bratislava Administrative Court in its decision of 21 November 1951.
In 1995 the Cologne Regional Court rejected the Prince's claim. Under the Convention on the Settlement of Matters arising out of the War and the Occupation, signed at Bonn on 26 May 1952, Germany agreed that it would "in the future raise no objections against the measures which have been, or will be, carried out with regard to German external assets or other property, seized for the purpose of reparation or restitution, or as a result of the state of war". In the court's view, the Settlement Convention precluded German courts from taking jurisdiction over the case.
In 1996 the Cologne Court of Appeal upheld the lower court. In the court's view, the Settlement Convention was the procedural consequence of the notion that the legal relations resulting from the liquidation of German property abroad by foreign powers for the purpose of reparation were “final and unchallengeable” for the Federal Republic of Germany and the private persons concerned.
In 1998 the German Federal Constitutional Court refused to hear the Prince's appeal. In 2001 the European Court of Human Rights found no violation of the Prince's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. At that point, Liechtenstein filed an application with the International Court of Justice generalizing the Prince's claim to all Liechtenstein assets seized by Czechoslovakia after the war. The gist of the claim is that Liechtenstein was recognized as a neutral country by all belligerents in WWII and that property of Liechtenstein nationals should not have been seized as reparations. Arguments before the ICJ concluded in June 2004 and a decision could appear at any time.
Sources :
Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany (42527/98) [2001] ECHR 463 (12 July 2001)
The proceedings as well as the full transcripts of the hearings held before the International Court of Justice can be found on the Court's website ( www.icj-cij.org ). The court issued a decision in this case on February 10, 2005. Click on “Decisions”, go to the year 2001, and then click on the hyperlink for the case concerning Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany).
A Trojan Horse for Sudeten Claims? On Some Implications of the Prince of Liechtenstein v. Germany , 13 European J. Int'l L. 513 (2002)
Martin Bailey, The World's Second Greatest Private Art Collection , The Art Newspaper 2002