[MSN] Fears over Holocaust era claims.

[Museum Security Network Mailinglist]

Fears over Holocaust era claims 

 

Original article: www.ejpress.org/article/11816 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
 
By Oliver Bradley Updated: 22/Nov/2006 15:23 
 
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
 
BERLIN (EJP)--- Martin Stern, a British businessman and philanthropist, is
challenging the biggest representative for restitution claims, the Jewish
Claims Conference to be more transparent in its dealings with restitution
issues. 

Stern is deeply involved with real estate, Jewish and Zionist causes. He
works in London and spends his weekends in his apartment in Jerusalem. 

His casual meeting with a Swiss banker in Villar, a prestigious resort in
the Swiss Alps, started the machinery of Holocaust claims. The banker told
Stern an interesting tale. His bank, Union des Banques Suisses (USB),
computerised its business in 1987 and discovered many accounts dormant since
1939. 

The bank manager came to the conclusion that some 45 million Swiss francs
(30 million dollars) of deposits probably belonged to the Jews who had died
during or after the war. Stern convinced the banker to go public about the
existence of the secret dormant accounts. 

Holocaust claims - in particular for looted art, real estate, bank accounts
and insurance policies - have skyrocketed ever since. 

As the German Ministry of Culture held Monday a conference about how museums
should react to recent sales of works of art returned to heirs, EJP spoke to
Martin Stern, who outlined his concern that exorbitant legal fees have
forced heirs to sell art works at auction thus depriving any museum the
chance to hang them. 

EJP: In 1996 you initiated the Holocaust Era Insurance process, when did
your interest in properties and looted art in Germany start? 

Martin Stern: As you correctly state, the insurance process started in 1996.
As far as I know, in the last month the 50,000th cheque was paid out to
beneficiaries and heirs of Holocaust Era Insurance Claims. This figure
includes payments for actual policies, around 20,000, and the symbolic
humanitarian payments of 1,000 dollars each. 
I have followed the restitution of German property since the early 1990's.
But since 2001, my fears have grown as to what has occurred in the process. 

EJP: What triggered the fears you refer to? 

Martin Stern: I read a detailed article in the Wall Street Journal which
gave a summary of the number of properties returned to heirs as of that
time, in 2001. This article referred to 98,000 claims lodged by the Claims
Conference for the return of property. At the time of the publication of the
article, 53,000 claims had been heard by the German Courts. Of these, 8,000
had been ruled upon in which ownership of the properties was given over to
the Claims Conference. 

EJP: Why did this bother you? 

Martin Stern: I had received numerous approaches from heirs of Insurance
Policies, all of whom I assisted probono. Many of these very same claimants
told me that their families owned property in Germany .They insisted it was
impossible to obtain a list of the properties handed to the Claims
Conference by the German Courts. Lists were available of Swiss and British
insurance policies as well as bank accounts in several European countries.
Some of these lists were more extensive than others. Nevertheless, the
ongoing complaint was the lack of transparency as to German properties it
held title to by the Claims Conference. They refused to make public what
they had claimed they had received in the name of the heirs. 

EJP: You are well aware that there were numerous heirs who did receive
compensation from the Claims Conference. Why do you paint such a negative
picture about this organisation? 

Martin Stern: To the best of my knowledge, all those who were entitled to
recoup their properties, after years of negotiations, received financial
compensation from the Claims Conference. I am not aware of a situation where
a claimant was actually given his property back by the Claims Conference.
This leaves us with several open questions. If all 8,000 properties, or the
vast majority of them, were sold, then how was the process done? 

EJC: What are you suggesting? 

Martin Stern: Were there public tenders, ie were properties valued by
certified auditors in order to determine the true value of each property?
Let us bear in mind that the East Berlin, Leipzig and Dresden property
markets were booming in the early to mid:90s when many of these claims were
filed. Were any properties sold to the interested parties. Furthermore, how
could 8,000 properties be sold in such a small geographical area, after
reunification, without causing a complete collapse of the local property
market? Imagine the sheer quantity of properties that were reputedly up for
sale! 

EJP: What action did you take to try to help potential heirs and claimants? 

Martin Stern: I approached the British Government and the Board of Deputies
of British Jews for assistance with the hope that they would be able to
persuade the Claims Conference (of which the Board of Deputies is a Member)
to publish the list of the properties it held title to. With the additional
intervention of the German Foreign Ministry, the Claims Conference agreed to
make a list of property it held available for a limited period of 6 months. 

EJP: Why, in your opinion, was the publication period limited to such a
short time and why was this list not available on line in 2006? 

Martin Stern: This is the crux of the matter. Let us not forget the figure
of 8,000 was correct back in 2001. Since then, thousands of more property
cases have been heard by the German courts and the exact figure ruled as
giving ownership to the Claims Conference seems to be unknown. We are thus
in an area of secrecy with no transparency whatever. 

In an Israeli Parliament committee session several years ago on this
subject, the then treasurer of the Claims Conference, Mr Moshe Zanbar,
informed the claimants that the Claims Conference only considered heirs
through the second generation. When I asked Zanbar if this meant
grandchildren would not be considered heirs, he stated that the Claims
Conference had projects it needed to fund and therefore, they had to set a
time limit. I can only hope his use of the terminology was meant
erroneously. 

We are entering frightening territory because if this has been the Claims
Conference's policy, at any time, then it means that it was changing the
internationally recognised legal term for "heirs". I can only add that I am
now suspicious as to the Claims Conference's definition of "properties". 

EJP: What are you referring to? Are properties not obviously all real
estate? 

Martin Stern: In normal circumstances I would have said you are correct but
there have been constant rumours that since 1996 the Claims Conference has
also received to its ownership works of art. 
This has not been confirmed :or for that matter formally denied. I have not
seen any announcement from the Claims Conference stating lists of Works of
Art in its possession and requesting heirs to come forward. In light of Mr
Zanbar's definition of an heir in the Israeli Parliament, maybe they do not
feel they have any duty to look for heirs. 

If they have held art since 1996, the time of the Mauerbach art auction in
Austria, then I feel we are all entitled to know what has been transpiring
here. With the current fear of every museum in Europe that pictures on their
walls are at risk of being returned to their original owners, how could this
scenario be morally explained? Such an action could increase cases of
anti:Semitism across Europe. I only hope that these issues are but rumours. 

EJP: The German Ministry of Culture this week held a conference about how
museums should react to recent sales of works of art returned to heirs. How
do you feel this should move forward? 

Martin Stern: The British Government has a similar problem. We require a
means to compensate legitimate heirs without causing increased anti-Semitism
[that might stem from the art world]. Defined financial sanctions against
those whose claims are proven to be frivolous could only be an interim
solution. The matter is urgent.