AbstractIn the Netherlands, as in many other jurisdictions, claims to Nazi-looted art forma ‘grey category’ where positive law is at odds with ethical norms. Dutch private law, like other civil law... Show moreAbstractIn the Netherlands, as in many other jurisdictions, claims to Nazi-looted art forma ‘grey category’ where positive law is at odds with ethical norms. Dutch private law, like other civil law systems, is characterised by a strong protection of legal security and the interests of new possessors, leaving little scope for title claims based on a loss which occurred longer than 75 years ago. On the other hand, the Dutch Restitutions Committee (the ‘Restitutiecommissie’) has recommended the return of almost 600 works of art to Nazi victims or their heirs since its establishment in 2002. How can this apparent contradiction be explained? How is a ‘claimant-unfriendly’ legal reality brought into line with international soft law instruments like the 1998 Washington Principles? And what is the relevance of the special Dutch post-War legislation that was adopted with an eye on the restoration of individual rights that were lost as a result of Nazi looting, today? These questions are addressed in this article. To that end, as an introduction to the topic, section 1 renders a brief historical overview of Nazi looting in the Netherlands and the organisation with regard to recovery and restitution in the post-War period. Section 2 deals with the post-War legal framework that may be of relevance for artefacts that were looted or sold in the Netherlands during the Nazi period. Furthermore, section 3 deals with the legal framework for claims regarding artefacts that, today, are found within the Dutch jurisdiction, addressing both the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ law regulations (i.e. black-letter law and the ‘ethical’ model of the Dutch Restitutions Committee). Section 4 concludes with some final remarks. Show less
