1. The committee recommends using the same points of departure for the art trade as those laid down in Recommendations No. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of April 2001 with regard to private art property.

2. The committee recommends there where the recommendations refer to loss of property or transactions by Jewish dealers in the Netherlands during the period from the occupation of the Netherlands in 1940 onwards, to have the same recommendations apply to loss of property or transactions by Jewish dealers in Germany as of 1933 and in Austria as of 1938.

3. If there are enough indications that a work of art does not belong to an art dealer’s trading stock, but to his private collection requests for restitution will be dealt with according to the standards for private art property.

4.The committee recommends that if in a declaration form after the war the transfer of artworks from the property of an art dealer has been qualified as theft or confiscation, and nothing has been discovered which refutes this the qualification concerned should be accepted. If no declaration form was made or there is only a internal declaration form, clues which make it highly probable that the case concerns theft or confiscation must be considered a reason for restitution, whereby with regard to Jewish art dealers the threatening general circumstances must be taken into account.

5.The committee recommends viewing the qualification binding in all cases in which the art dealer himself, his heirs or an immediate representative appointed by him or his heirs has filled in ‘voluntary sale’, unless very clear clues are submitted which make it probable that a mistake was made when the form was filled in or that the filling in of the form took place under disproportionately burdening circumstances.

6. In all cases in which after the war the party involved, his heirs or his immediate representative appointed by him or his heirs have filled in the qualification ‘involuntary sale’ on a declaration form and there are no indications that contradict this qualification, such a qualification should be accepted. In all cases in which such a declaration form is missing, clues - which make it highly probable that coerced sale took place – serve as the point of departure for the restitution policy. Clues indicating involuntary sale in any case include the threat of reprisal and the promise of the provision of passports or safe conduct as part of the transaction. Involuntary sales are also taken to mean sales by Verwalters or other managers not appointed by the owner from the stocks under their management in as far as the original owners or their heirs have not fully benefited from the transaction and have explicitly waived their rights after the war.