2023-12-01 11:50:00
In November, the Potsdam Regional Court ruled in a dispute over a painting that disappeared from Germany during World War II. We are talking about Rubens’ painting “Tarquin and Lucretia”. This work by the Flemish painter, measuring 1.87 by 2.14 m, is estimated at 75 million euros and is currently (most likely) in Russia.
“Tarquinius and Lucretia” is the subject of long disputes between the Russian and German sides. And the controversy began from the moment it became known that the painting had been found and was in the possession of a Russian businessman. Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schröder even discussed the fate of the masterpiece during negotiations. We talked, we talked, but we didn’t decide anything concrete. The painting did not return to Germany.
The story resurfaced again just a few days ago – when a German court rejected the claim of Russian entrepreneur Vladimir Logvinenko, filed by him in 2021. The Russian decided to seek recognition of his ownership rights to the painting “Tarquin and Lucretia” in a German court. But I didn’t achieve it. The court ruled: “The plaintiff is not the owner of the painting.” When DW asked why Logvinenko’s claim was rejected, the court explained: “After receiving a legal opinion under Russian law, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not the owner of the painting… since he did not acquire ownership as a result of legal transactions or through a bona fide acquisition and did not acquire ownership rights by virtue of acquisitive prescription.”
Why did the Russian Logvinenko, who apparently still has the painting at the moment, even file a lawsuit, and in Germany? Why did he need confirmation from the German court of his ownership rights to the canvas?
Who owns the scandalous picture?
Logvinenko’s interests are represented by the law firm Unger from Berlin. Its representatives did not respond to DW’s request (at the time of publication of this material).
But we received a response from the Foundation for Prussian Palaces and Gardens of Berlin-Brandenburg (Prussian Palaces and Gardens Berlin-Brandenburg Foundation), whose employees are convinced that the owner of the painting is the foundation. “Dated 1610/1611, the canvas “Tarquin and Lucretia” by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) before its disappearance during the Second World War belonged to the collection funds exhibited in the Picture Gallery in Potsdam, in the Sanssouci Palace. Presumably, this work was at one time acquired by the Elector of Brandenburg Frederick William I or the King of Prussia Frederick I. First it hung in the Berlin Palace (Berliner Schloss), from 1790 – in the New Palace in Potsdam, and from 1930 – in the Picture Gallery. Like other works from art gallery, this painting was evacuated to Castle Rheinsberg in 1942. Since the end of the war, it was considered missing. It became one of the most significant losses of our fund and for a long time was put on the international wanted list through Interpol channels.”
Art gallery in the Sanssouci Palace. Potsdam, 2021Photo: Michael Nitzschke/imageBROKER/picture alliance
As the Foundation for Prussian Palaces and Gardens of Berlin-Brandenburg emphasized, we are in no way talking about a painting “from Russia”, we are talking about a painting from the collections of the Art Gallery, of which the foundation is the owner: “We do not have information about where the painting is is kept today. According to the latest data, it is owned by a Russian citizen, who wanted to obtain recognition of himself as its owner in court. The foundation objected. On November 14, 2023, the Potsdam Regional Court in its decision followed the argument of our foundation. Is the painting still in the possession of the Russian citizen , we don’t know.” As the fund emphasized, further steps are currently being developed.
Comment from a German lawyer
DW turned to a famous German lawyer whose specialty is art objects. Hannes Hartung already examined the case of Rubens’ painting in his dissertation. Stolen cultural property is his specialty. The Munich specialist was the first lawyer to represent the interests of Cornelius Gurlitt.
“The Rubens painting is obviously still in the possession of a Russian businessman,” Hannes Hartung of the law firm THEMIS Hartung Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH says in an interview with DW. “And he filed a lawsuit in the Potsdam Regional Court because he is seeking recognition of his ownership rights to this work of art. Why? The painting “Tarquin and Lucretia” is still listed on all lists of lost cultural property. There is a database Lost Art (Lost Art-ID56420, current status of the application issued in 2001: Verlustumstand gemeldet als Kriegsbedingt verbrachtes Kulturgut. – Ord.). This is a government database. There are also private ones, such as Art Loss (this is the largest private database of stolen art objects. – Ord.). It is absolutely impossible to sell such a painting to a Russian owner. As long as this painting is wanted as ‘stolen art’, there will be no buyer on the legal market.”
According to the German lawyer, the dispute over the recognition of property rights raises a lot of questions – precisely because this is trophy art. And it was stolen from the museum. Hannes Hartung suggests that lawyers could have advised the Russian entrepreneur to go to the German court at this stage. “Many people hope that they can defend in court the acquisition of ownership rights by prescription and defend that the painting was acquired with the best intentions, and as a result receive recognition of their property rights,” notes the Munich lawyer.
Recalling the time when the painting was found (and this was more than 20 years ago), the German lawyer says: “We all hoped that an agreement could be reached with this person on the return of Tarquin and Lucretia back to Germany. Unfortunately, all German “The Russian discussion about trophy art has long been frozen. In 2006-2007 there was still a fairly open dialogue. Now, due to the political framework, we have an extreme deterioration. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, there is no more dialogue between Russia and Germany, the door is closed.”
The claim of a Russian businessman in the current situation can only mean one thing: that he has a potential buyer outside of Russia. “Absolutely, he needs the so-called “Persilschein” or “certificate of trustworthiness”, but he will not receive it,” the lawyer from Munich is sure. “He can only receive such a certificate from the owner of the painting, from the Potsdam foundation, which, of course, insists on return of the canvas to Germany.”
What could be the end of this scandalous story?
According to a famous German lawyer, “the Russian miscalculated, believing that he could sell the painting at a large profit.” This is impossible with trophy art. Why can’t the painting, for example, stay in Russia and delight the Russian public, for example, in the Hermitage, of which Logvinenko was a great friend in the early 2000s?
Let us recall that at one time it was as a result of an examination of the Hermitage, where the painting was being restored, that the assumption arose that we were talking about a painting by Rubens that had disappeared from a German museum. German experts were invited to Russia – a restorer and the then director of the museum from Potsdam. Convinced of the authenticity of the canvas, they returned to Germany. Museum director Gerd Bartoschek filed a statement with the Potsdam police in which he accused Logvinenko of attempting to sell stolen goods, but the charges were later dropped. The painting itself was even exhibited in the Hermitage – in the Rubens Hall. However, the German side does not know what condition it is in now and where it is located.
The German lawyer believes that the Potsdam court made an absolutely correct decision. According to him, if the plaintiff seeks to appeal the court’s decision, it is unlikely that the next instance court will make a different decision on this issue. If the plaintiff loses, he will have to bear all costs associated with the process. Moreover, as soon as the painting comes under the jurisdiction of a European court, the painting may be confiscated. A very problematic situation, emphasizes lawyer Hannes Hartung.
Despite the complexity of this dispute, the German lawyer hopes that it will be possible to find a common language with the Russian entrepreneur. However, at the moment there is nothing to indicate that the painting will be returned to Germany.
See also:
#history #painting #Schroeder #Putin #argued