via facsimile

Sektionschef Dr. Rudolf Wran

Bundesministerium für Unterricht

und kulturelle Angelegenheiten

Minoritenplatz 5

A-1014 Vienna, Austria

Re:  Bloch-Bauer Estate

Dear Dr. Wran:

 Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with me during my stay in Vienna. I very much appreciate the attention you and Dr. Freund are giving to the Bloch-Bauer case.  I am confident that Dr. Bacher will be able to finish his work in the very near future and that the matter will be ready for a decision at the next meeting of the Beirat on June 28, 1999.

 It was my understanding from our discussion that the Beirat intended to select an attorney to determine the heirs who are entitled to recover property under the new law.  I hope to hear from you soon regarding the name of the attorney and expect that he or she will be in touch with me to discuss any issues that might arise. I see no reason why the necessary opinion cannot be finalized before the next meeting of the Beirat, so that you can accomplish your goal of having a final resolution of the Bloch-Bauer case before the end of July.

 I have heard that the Bloch-Bauer case was discussed briefly at the meeting on May 10, and that there was some argument made by the representative of the Finanzprokurator, Dr. Manfred Kremser, with regard to the opinion by Dr. Andreas Lintl which I sent you (and which I thank you for distributing to the members of the Beirat).  As I understand it, Dr. Kremser is of the opinion that the Austrian Gallery was entitled to inherit the Klimt paintings upon Ferdinand's death.  This is despite the fact that in 1926 both Gustav Bloch-Bauer and the Probate Court concluded, without any objection from the Austrian Gallery, that the paintings were not Adele's property and that Ferdinand was not legally bound to fulfill her wishes.

 I would very much appreciate if you or Dr. Kremser would write me in the near future to tell me what was discussed and the arguments that were made at the May 10 meeting. As you can imagine, it is difficult for me to respond to such arguments since we are not permitted to participate in the discussions of the Beirat.  Because so many of the members of the Beirat are not attorneys, it seems to me that if legal arguments such as these are made, we should at the very least be given an opportunity to respond to them (preferably before they are presented to the Beirat so there is less chance of confusion). I am confident that Dr. Lintl's conclusion is the correct one, and that we would be able to explain this to Dr. Kremser and the Beirat if we were given an opportunity before the next meeting.

 As a lawyer, I understand that arguments can be found to defend any position, and that the Finanzprokurator has been required in the past to make such arguments, even against the valid claims of exiled Austrian citizens. But does Austria really want to take such an aggressive and litigious approach once again?  I certainly do not believe that is Minister Gehrer's intent, or the intent of the legislators who passed the new law.  In my view, Minister Gehrer's goal of a "reinen Tisch" can only be accomplished if the Beirat recommends the return of artworks unless it is convinced beyond all doubt that the artworks were properly obtained by the federal museums.  I do not think that you will find that Dr. Kremser's argument meets this high standard.

 Once again I thank you for your attention to this important matter and look forward to hearing from you soon.

   Very truly yours,

   E. Randol Schoenberg

cc:    Mrs. Maria Altmann

 Bundesministerin Elisabeth Gehrer

Home