In February journalist Geert Sels revealed in De Standaard that 78 looted works of art returned to Belgium after the war remain unpublished.
This led to questions in parliament. Below is the exchange in parliament translated from the Dutch by Google Translate (see original questions here)
https://www.vlaamsparlement.be/commissies/commissievergaderingen/1121478/verslag/1123854
Jean-Jacques De Gucht (Open VLD)
The Netherlands pursuant database Origins Unknown 1621 paintings before which the country does not know to whom they belong because the owners are deceased, have fled or did not report. There are also works that were shipped after the war by mistake from Germany to the Netherlands.
Many art collectors in the Netherlands and Belgium were forced to offer their property for sale to middlemen acting on behalf of individuals within the Nazi regime. It also happened that the Nazis stole the work directly or confiscated from prisoners or the persecution of the Jews.
Netherlands has set up an independent advisory committee which includes advises the Minister on claims to objects in the national collection and works of art owned by the state at the local level, the provincial level and so on.
Our country pursued this matter earlier research. I refer to the Commission for the compensation of the members of the Jewish Community of Belgium, which has terminated the investigation and handling of the applications for compensation on December 31, 2007. The secretariat of the commission also put stop work. The succession is assured from January 1, 2008 by the services of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister and today under the Federal Science Policy.
Today I learn from the press that many of the 78 paintings who returned after the war from Nazi Germany and are in our museums have no conclusive provenance. Unlike our neighboring countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, the documents were taken into custody, never made public.
Minister, what is your reaction to the recent revelations which indicate that we are a significant number of the 78 paintings who returned after the war have no clear origin?
Are there cultural moment in museums, cultural institutions and public buildings of the Flemish Community who returned after World War II to our country but in fact have their origins in other countries? Can you possibly explain?
Are you willing to go to the Dutch example and as I have already argued, to set up a website where all suspicious pieces are clearly displayed? If not, why not, since there are clearly problems with the origin of several pieces? If yes, please explain in detail regarding the timing and content?
Chairman
Gatz minister has the floor.
Minister Sven Gatz
Mr De Gucht, I have read with interest the article Art das Reich. I liked it, probably like many of you, interesting reading, which to reflect on.
I welcome this question, outlining the larger framework. Thanks to the many and hard work of the Study of Jewish property and compensation committee of the Belgian government to compensate the Jewish community in Belgium and abroad during the 90 losses for the major financial she suffered during the occupation in Belgium .
With the payment of the final compensation in the course of the work of the committees were established and the transfer of the latest resources from the compensation to the Jewish community in Belgium, in 2008 came an end to the responsiveness and handling claims of Jewish victims of World War II. When the compensation paid slew partly on shortly after the end of World War II from Germany to Belgium returned art.
Most of these works were then auctioned publicly, some were entrusted to Belgian museums. From the museums entrusted artworks came pretty much from the collections of antique dealers who more or less had made common cause with the Germans and German art sold at public or semi-public collectors.
In Public Kunstbezit Flanders (OKV) is done including the story of the unsuccessful attempts of these dealers to get reimbursed by them when selling art on the grounds that they were forced to sell.
Belgium, however, endorsed in 1998. The Washington Principles on Nazi-confiscated Art. It is eleven non-binding principles, summarized, tantamount to states, to the extent possible and within their own legal system, should take initiatives to facilitate the restitution of stolen works of art by the Nazis. Sell under duress is then treated in the same furnace.
In Belgium, use the public authorities as a principle that if it can be shown that the artwork was stolen by the Nazis and was acquired forcibly through a sale to be returned to work or that alternatively pay a compensation to the descendants of the Benade... (for more, please consult the original Dutch article)