via facsimile: 011-43-1-533-7797

Fr. Bundesministerin Elisabeth Gehrer
Minoritenplatz 5
A-1010 Wien

Re: Estate

Sehr geehrte Frau Bundesministerin:

 I would like to express to you once again our profound disappointment with your approval of the Beirat's decision, as well as the decision-making process that led to this unfortunate result.

 Having investigated the matter further, I am now convinced that crucial information was withheld from most of the Beirat members.  I have sent you by express mail some of the relevant documents which I urge you to review personally. Many of these documents were not presented to the Beirat. There are hundreds of other important documents which were never seen or discussed by anyone on the Beirat.

 I could have presented these documents to the Beirat, had I been allowed to address its members or had I been informed that the Beirat would challenge and disagree with your determination in February that "Der Konnex der Überlassung der Klimt-Bilder an die Österreichische Galerie mit der Erteilung von Ausfuhrbewilligungen ist evident."  But we were completely excluded from the process. When I met with Dr. Wran in May, he was almost completely unaware of the underlying facts of the case, and could not (or would not) discuss them with me.  Prof. Bacher also would not discuss any particular issues at this meeting, stating only that he wished to respond to my comments; but I never received his response. When I spoke with Dr. Kremser by telephone on June 9, he also refused to discuss the matter with me, claiming that he was prohibited from doing so by the self-imposed rules of the Beirat.  Just today (July 1) I received a copy of Dr. Kremser's written legal argument dated June 10, which was apparently shown to the Beirat without giving us any opportunity for rebuttal.

 I know of no decision-making process in any democratic country which can deprive people of their property in this manner. I urge you personally to investigate the matter and contact members of the Beirat (especially the ones not employed by the government) to discover for yourself how ill-informed they were of the documents, facts and legal issues of this case.

 You might ask them the following questions:

 (1) If the Klimt paintings were neither the subject of a "Rückstellungsverfahren" nor a "Verfahren nach dem Ausfuhrverbotsgesetz," then why did Dr. Garzarolli of the Österreichische Galerie write to Dr. Demus of the Bundesdenkmalamt on April 2, 1948 discussing Klimt's Häuser in Unterach am Attersee and asking him for "eine verzögernde Behandlung" of the consideration of export permits for the Bloch-Bauer collection "aus taktischen Gründen"?

 (2) Why did Dr. Demus telephone Dr. Rinesch after receiving Dr. Garzarolli's April 2 letter to inform Dr. Rinesch of the Österreichische Galerie's desire to keep a number of paintings by Danhauser, Pettenkofen, Neder, Ranflt, Nigg and Fendi and to discuss "die Angelegenheit der Klimt-Bilder und des Legats Adele B.B."? Does the Beirat think this "discussion" with Dr. Demus had nothing to do with Dr. Rinesch's decision several days later to agree to donate the Klimt paintings to the Österreichische Galerie?  (See Dr. Rinesch's April 11, 1948 letter to Robert Bentley.)

 (3) If the Österreichische Galerie had a valid legal claim to the paintings dating from 1925, why after receiving copies of the probate files from the Finanzprokuratur did Dr. Garzarolli write Prof. Grimschitz on March 9, 1948 harshly criticizing his failure to obtain any notarized or personal statement from Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer?

 (4) Why did Dr. Garzarolli write to Dr. Demus on July 21, 1949, reversing his previous position and supporting the issuance of export permits for Waldmüller's Ochsengespann im Wienerwald and Eybl's Porträt eines jungen Mannes?  Why did Dr. Garzarolli state that the heirs' donation of the Klimt paintings "[hat] eine Lage geschaffen, die die österr. Galerie in die Lage versetzt, dieses Legat tatsächlich zu erhalten"?

 (5) If Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer always ("stets") wanted to give the Klimt paintings to the Österreichische Galerie, then why did he write in his second-to-last will dated October 8, 1942:

 Im Besitze meinen geistigen Kräfte, frei von jedem Zwange, bestimme ich im Falle meines Ablebens wie folgt:

 Zu meiner Universalerbin bestimme ich miene Nichte Louise Baronin Gutmann geborene Bloch-Bauer und im Falle sie die Erbschaft nicht antreten könnte ihre beiden Kinder Nelly und Franz zu gleichen Theilen.  Ich hinterlasse ihr meinen gesamten Besitz in Bankguthaben, [unlesbar] Gelde, Effecten, überhaupt Alles was ich bei meinem Ableben besessen habe. . . .

 In ungerechten Weise hat man mir in Wien eine Steuerstrafe von einem Millionen Mark vorgeschrieben und mir meinen gesamten Besitz in Wien beschlagnahmt und veraüssert. Diese Steuer hatte ich nicht zu zahlen sondern die Akt. Gesellschaft für Zuckerindustrie in Bruck a.d. Leitha. Meine Erbin soll die gesammte Gesellschaft resp. ihren Rechtsnachfolgen auf Rückvergütung diesem Million Mark und Zinsen klagen und diesen Betrag für sich verwenden. --  Alle Steuern hatte die Gesellschaft zu zahlen niemals ich.  Auskunft resp. Zeugenschaft geben: Dr. Führer, Dr. Kammann, Direktor Pfeiffer etc. etc. . . .

 Diese Testament habe ich eigenhändig geschrieben und unterschrieben.  Alle früheren Testamente erkläre ich für ungültig.

 Minister Gehrer, the members of the Beirat will not be able to answer any of the questions posed above, because they did not even consider them, and in most cases did not even know of the underlying facts and documents.   The Beirat did not receive a copy of Ferdinand's 1942 will (which I sent to Prof. Bacher last year), or the numerous documents evidencing the plundering of Ferdinand's estate by the Nazis, in complicity with Prof. Grimschitz, Dr. Ernst and others representing the Austrian museums. The Beirat received none of the documents related to Dr. Rinesch's efforts to obtain restitution and export permits for the rest of the Bloch-Bauer collection. They did not know how involved Dr. Garzarolli was in this process, nor how much Dr. Demus and the Bundesdenkmalamt relied on his opinion.  (He even was asked to approve the deal for the porcelain in 1949.)

 The Beirat obviously did not consider how necessary it was for Dr. Rinesch to appease Dr. Garzarolli if he was to obtain export permits for other paintings (as Dr. Demus certainly made clear in his April telephone conversation). They did not know, for example, that Dr. Demus and Dr. Garzarolli required the heirs to apply for export permits for the entire collection at one time, and refused to make a decision until all of the artworks were returned from Germany and examined by the Österreichische Galerie. Thus, they could not have known that Dr. Rinesch's decision to donate the Klimt paintings, which was made without the informed consent of the heirs and at the same time that he submitted his request for export permits for the rest of the collection, was part and parcel of the whole restitution and export process that existed at that time.

 It is also absolutely wrong to conclude that the new legislation that you proposed was not intended to apply to the Klimt paintings, as the legal-sounding explanations in the press imply.  Your law was intended to return all artworks that were donated by exiled Jewish families under duress during the process of applying for and receiving export permits for their collections.  The Klimt paintings absolutely belong in that category, and the Beirat cannot deny this fact.

 My clients and I look forward to hearing your response to these urgent matters.  Please advise me as soon as possible how you intend to proceed.

   Very truly yours,

   E. Randol Schoenberg

bcc: Maria Altmann

 Francis Gutmann

 George Bentley

 Trevor Mantle

 Stephen D. Alexander, Esq.

Home