Moral, legal imperatives affecting restitution of looted art

Law360 Canada (January 23, 2026, 10:09 AM EST) --

James Palmer

As someone involved in the field of art restitution, I often marvel at the different types of responses that we receive once we advise someone that the artwork in their possession was looted during the Holocaust and must now be returned to its rightful owners. Possessors who find themselves in this predicament range from private individuals to corporations and foundations, but most institutional possessors are clearly museums, which range from small regional ones in Western and Eastern Europe to the most prominent ones in Europe and the United States.

While almost all of the directors of these museums recognize the moral and legal importance of restitution, many go to great lengths to avoid restitution by trying to convince themselves, and the general public, that “looted artworks are much better off being in museums where everyone can enjoy them” with the implication being that the public desire to view wonderful works of art trumps the rights of the families of despoiled victims. This simplistic, binary view of the world avoids examining the most relevant facts; namely that most artworks in museums are kept in storage, well away from public view and that restituted artworks of importance almost always end up back in prominent museums, even after they have been returned to their rightful owners.

In reference to the first issue, a report for the International Council of Museums (ICOM) notes that nearly 70 per cent of surveyed museums exhibit less than 15 per cent of their collections, which implies that the majority display only a small fraction of their holdings.​ In fact, sector studies and professional articles often state that an average of approximately three to five per cent of museum collections are on view, with roughly 90 to 97 per cent in storage. Naturally, very large institutions with millions of objects, such as national museums, may have closer to one to five per cent of their holdings on display due to space limits and conservation needs, while small museums with more modest collections can occasionally display a higher share but will still keep most of their holdings in storage for rotation, research and preservation.

In relation to the second issue, that of the ownership and accessibility of the artwork once it has been restituted, many examples help to illustrate the true nature of this phenomenon. For example, the painting Le Père (1911) by Marc Chagall, was restituted by Mondex Corporation with the help of its French attorneys at Pinsent Masons. In this instance, the French ministry of culture, in collaboration with the National Museum of Modern Art in France (MNAM) held a restitution ceremony on April 1, 2022, at the Musée d’art et d’histoire du Judaïsme (MAHJ) in Paris. Very soon after this restitution was completed, Mondex, with the cooperation of the painting’s new owner, arranged for this painting to be on long-term loan to the Jewish Museum of New York. The loan of this painting by its new owner provided several benefits — it could now be enjoyed by the American public and visitors to New York; the loan also enhanced the painting’s value, and the new owner could enjoy the prestige and pride of having participated in what was certainly a generous gesture.

Similarly, Mondex arranged for the restitution of two artworks for the heirs of Jacob Lierens titled Still life with glass stand and musical instrument by Jan Davidsz. de Heem (circa 1665) and the Banquet Scene with Musicians and Shuffleboard Players in an Interior (1628) by Dirck Hals and Dirck van Delen. The former was on long-term loan to the J. Paul Getty Museum in California and is expected to be exhibited elsewhere, while the latter was purchased by the Frans Hals Museum of the city of Haarlem in the Netherlands.

In another high-profile case, the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer by Gustav Klimt (1907) was restituted in 2006 by Austria to Maria Altmann and other heirs of Ferdinand and Adele Bloch-Bauer and was then sold to Ronald Lauder who placed this beautiful painting on permanent public display at the Neue Galerie in New York, where it remains accessible to the public, together with several other restituted artworks including the famous Portrait of Wally (1912) by Egon Schiele.

While it’s understandable that museum directors feel attached to the looted artworks in their possession, it is still surprising to continue to hear some of them refer to the losses they experience when returning a stolen artwork, rather than the appreciation of the often decades-long loan they enjoyed between the time it was looted and the time it had to be returned to its rightful owners. Certainly, one of the tenets of a democratic society is the freedom and right to enjoy one’s own property. Perhaps through discussions and awareness of the facts of these issues, we can all enjoy a much better understanding of the moral and legal imperatives involved to allow claimants to enjoy justice, closure and healing.

James Palmer established Mondex Corporation in 1993. Driven to do work of meaning, in 1998, encouraged by the Washington Principles, James worked to develop Mondex’s expertise to include the restitution of looted art and other cultural property. Since then, Mondex has cooperated with ministries of culture in the Netherlands, France, Germany and Poland to help shape their restitution policies. James completed his studies at the Canadian universities of York, Laurentian and Western, as well as the University of Nice in France and Heriot-Watt University in Scotland. He holds an honours BA and an MBA, and currently acts as a consultant for Mondex. The author would like to thank Dr. Waldemar de Boer for his contribution to this article.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.