Spring naar content
Recommendation regarding Citroen

Citroen

Report number: RC 1.217

Advice type: NK Collection

Advice date: 17 April 2026

Period of loss of ownership: 1940-1945

Original owner: private individual

Location of loss of ownership: in the Netherrlands

NK 937 – Glazed earthenware plate with polychrome decoration featuring a reclining deer (photo: RCE)

  • NK 937

Recommendation regarding Citroen

The State Secretary for Education, Culture and Media (hereinafter referred to as the State Secretary) asked the Restitutions Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) to issue advice about an application for the restitution of fourteen plates that are part of the Netherlands Art Property Collection (hereinafter referred to as the NK Collection). The Netherlands Cultural Heritage Agency [Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed] (hereinafter referred to as the RCE) represented the State Secretary in this case.
The restitution application was submitted by AA and BB (hereinafter referred to as the Applicants). The Applicants are the only two grandchildren of Abraham Citroen (1885-1942).

The application concerns the following fourteen earthenware and porcelain plates registered under nine NK numbers (hereinafter also referred to as the Plates):

  • NK 309 A to C: Three glazed earthenware plates with polychrome decoration of floral motifs;
  • NK 313 A to C: Three Delft glazed earthenware plates with polychrome decoration featuring a flower basket and other floral motifs;
  • NK 314 A to B: Two plates of Chinese or Japanese porcelain with polychrome decoration with floral motifs;
  • NK 315: Deep Delft earthenware plate with polychrome decoration of a bird on a branch;
  • NK 316: Glazed earthenware plate with polychrome decoration of floral motifs and insects;
  • NK 317: Delft earthenware plate with polychrome decoration with floral motifs and a bird;
  • NK 318: Delft earthenware plate with polychrome decoration with floral motifs and a bird;
  • NK 322: Glazed earthenware plate with polychrome decoration featuring a river landscape;
  • NK 937: Glazed earthenware plate with polychrome decoration featuring a reclining deer.

  1. The Application

In a letter dated 20 June 2024 the RCE, on behalf of the State Secretary, asked the Committee for advice about the application for restitution of the Plates. This was prompted by the restitution application by the sisters AA and BB of 23 May 2024.
The restitution application was submitted after the RCE had told the Applicants on 26 October2023 about information relating to the Plates arising from research conducted by the RCE as part of the Programme to Accelerate WWII Restitution Policy (2022-2025).

2. The Procedure and the Applicable Assessment Framework

Three Committee members told the Applicants in a discussion on 26 Augustus 2024 in The Hague and in a letter of 15 October 2024 about the Committee’s assessment framework. There was a second discussion, also in The Hague, on 3 March 2025 On that occasion the three aforementioned Committee members were joined by a fourth. Minutes of this discussion were sent to the Applicants.
The first discussion was prompted by the Committee’s observation, shortly after receipt of the restitution application, that the Applicants were in all likelihood not to be regarded as heirs of Abraham Citroen pursuant to inheritance law, and that for this reason, after taking the request under consideration, the Committee would have to advise rejection of the application. This was addressed with the Applicants during the first discussion. They were also asked whether they wished to withdraw the application for that reason. In addition, alternative options for the return of the Plates outside the scope of the formal restitution procedure were reviewed with the Applicants. In that connection, it was pointed out that consultation with the legal successor pursuant to inheritance law, the widow of Karel Adolf Citroen, might lead to the return of the Plates. In this regard, the Committee members present offered to assist the Applicants, if desired, for example by contacting the notary before whom the will of the Applicants’ father had been drawn up. During that conversation the Applicants rejected that offer as well as the idea of consulting the legal successor pursuant to inheritance law. Afterwards the Committee offered the Applicants time and scope to reflect on what had been discussed during the meeting.
During the second discussion the Applicants were told once again that, according to the Committee’s assessment framework, a recommendation can only be made in regard to restitution to the original owner’s heirs pursuant to inheritance law. During the meeting with the Committee, the Applicants again indicated that they wanted to stand by their application for restitution of the Plates.

On 20 May 2025 the Committee told the Applicants and the RCE that it was taking the request for advice under consideration. The Applicants and the RCE were told about the Restitutions Committee’s procedure and regulations at the same time. The Committee took note of all the documents submitted by the Applicants and the RCE. It sent copies of all documents to the Applicants and the RCE. The Committee furthermore submitted research issues to the Restitution of Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War Expert Centre of the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies (hereinafter referred to as the ECR). The ECR communicated its findings to the Committee in an investigation report.

Chronological Overview

  • In an e-mail of 23 May 2024, the Applicants asked the State Secretary to restitute the Plates.
  • On 20 June 2024 the RCE, on behalf of the State Secretary, asked the Committee to advise about the Applicants’ request.
  • Prior to considering the request, the Committee took the initiative to arrange a meeting on 26 August 2024 between a Committee delegation and the Applicants. The course of the procedure and the most probable outcome of this case were discussed. The discussion was informal and no minutes were written.
  • On 15 October 2024 the Committee sent a letter to the Applicants in response to an email that the Applicants had sent to the Committee on 30 September 2024.
  • On 3 March 2025 there was a second discussion between the Applicants and the same Committee delegation as there had been on 26 August 2024 plus one further Committee member. Minutes of this meeting were made and were sent to the Applicants on 17 April 2025.
  • In a letter dated 5 March 2025 to the Applicants, the Committee responded to earlier correspondence from the Applicants regarding the manner in which they had experienced the second discussion. In addition, the Applicants were told about the progress of the case.
  • On 20 May 2025, the Committee started to handle the request for advice and submitted a number of research questions to the ECR.
  • In a letter of 20 May 2025, the Applicants and the RCE were told about the research questions submitted to the ECR and the Committee’s procedure and regulations.
  • The results of the investigation were recorded by the ECR in a draft investigation report that was sent to the Applicants and the RCE on 9 July 2025 for additional information and/or comments. There were responses to this draft report by the Applicants on 21 July 2025 and by the RCE on 6 August 2025 with a few factual comments. Various corrections and additions were made to the draft investigation report as a result of these responses.
  • Op 7 August 2025 the ECR sent the Committee an amended version of the draft investigation report together with the responses of the Applicants and the RCE.
  • The Committee discussed the draft investigation report with the ECR during the meeting of 25 August 2025. As a result, various corrections and additions were made to the report.
  • The Committee received the final investigation report from the ECR on 17 September 2025.
  • The final investigation report was sent to the Applicants and the RCE on 6 October 2025 together with an invitation to a hearing on 26 January 2026.
  • The Applicants responded to the final investigation report on 14 November 2025 with several questions. The RCE responded to the final investigation report on 14 October 2025 with a few factual comments
  • The hearing took place in The Hague on 26 January 2026.
  • A verbatim report of the hearing was sent to the Applicants and the RCE on 23 March 2026.
  • The Committee sent its draft advice to the Applicants and the RCE on 25 March 2026.
  • The RCE stated on 26 March 2026 that it did not have any comments of a factual nature on the draft advice.
  • On 15 April 2026 the Applicants responded to the draft advice with a number of additions and corrections they wanted, as well as a reflection on the Committee’s performance in general and in regard to the present request for advice.

3. Establishing the Facts

The Committee establishes the following facts on the grounds of the research conducted by the ECR and the RCE.

Abraham Citroen’s family
Abraham Citroen, born in Amsterdam on 14 August 1885, was a Jewish jeweller with a shop at Kalverstraat 1 in Amsterdam. In 1924 he took over the family firm, which had been founded in 1859, from his father. Abraham was the fourth generation of Citroen jewellers.
He was married to the Jewish Chane Ptasznik, who was born in Zabno (Poland) op 21 June 1885. The marriage produced two children: Karel Adolf Citroen born on 12 February 1920 and Thea Citroen born on 10 November 1921.
In 1938, after the death of Abraham’s mother, the Citroen-Ptasznik family moved into the home above the jewellery shop at Kalverstraat 1 (in Amsterdam).

Persecution of Abraham Citroen’s family
During the Second World War Abraham Citroen was affected by the anti-Jewish measures taken by the occupying forces. On 17 June 1941 a German administrator (Verwalter) took over the management of his business.

As a result of the second Liro regulation, he was obliged to surrender valuable possessions at the robber bank Lippmann, Rosenthal & Co. in Sarphatistraat in Amsterdam (hereinafter also referred to as Liro-Sarphatistraat), which had been established by the occupying forces for that purpose. The surviving list of people who had to surrender possessions at Liro-Sarphatistraat includes Abraham Citroen under serial number 1757, with administration number 3025 (also designated as the main account or household effects number [H.R. Number]) and the address Kalverstraat 1 (ground floor).

Abraham and Chane (Anna) Citroen-Ptasznik were arrested by the security service (Sicherheitsdienst) and transferred to Westerbork transit camp. They were deported shortly afterwards to Auschwitz, where they were murdered on or around 31 August 1942.
Their daughter Thea Citroen had already been deported from Westerbork to Auschwitz on 21 July 1942. She was murdered there on 24 July 1942.
The only member of the family to avoid persecution was their son Karel Adolf Citroen, who escaped to Switzerland on 1 December 1941. From there he travelled to the United Kingdom, where he joined the Royal Navy in 1943 as a German-English decoder. He returned from the UK in December 1945. He found that the family home above the shop at Kalverstraat 1 in Amsterdam had been ransacked.

The Plates
The number 3025 was found on the underside of 13 of the 14 Plates, demonstrating that these Plates were among the possessions Abraham Citroen surrendered at Liro-Sarphatistraat, to which – as described above – administration number 3025 was assigned. The number is not visible on one of the Plates (NK 314-B), but it is a pendant of Plate NK 314-A, on which the number has been noted. There is no reason to assume that Plate NK 314-B has a different provenance.
It is not known when Abraham Citroen acquired the Plates. The Applicants submitted a list of valuations concerning objects that had belonged to the estate of Abraham Citroen’s mother, the widow Suzanne Citroen-Fedder, who died in 1937.
The ECR stated the following in the investigation report: ‘Various types of porcelain dishes, plates and vases are referred to on the said list. The descriptions are so brief that individual objects cannot be identified with certainty, but several descriptions could well correspond to the 14 plates from the NK Collection. It is therefore perfectly possible that some or all of the claimed plates originate from the estate of Suzanne Citroen-Fedder described on the list.’
The looting institution Liro-Sarphatistraat liquidated virtually all the goods surrendered to it during the years of occupation. Initially the proceeds were booked to individual accounts. This was changed at the end of 1942, and everything was booked to a summary account. This resulted in the loss of the administrative link between balances and the identity of the original owners of the liquidated goods. Liro-Sarphatistraat was placed under the management of the Dutch government after the liberation. This looting organization had appropriated the name of a bona fide Jewish bank, and therefore the name was changed Liquidation of Sarphatistraat Branch (Liquidatie van Verwaltung Sarphatistraat – LVVS). At the request of government officials, the summary account was unravelled using surviving documentation, and the former accounts of individual rightful claimants were reconstructed. The Applicants submitted an overview of Abraham Citroen’s Liro account that had been reconstructed on the basis of their family archive. This overview states that the equivalent value of 15 Plates was booked on Abraham Citroen’s individual account. Ultimately the officials managing LVVS were able to pay 90% of the surplus balance to the individual accounts of the rightful claimants. This involved payment of a share in the liquidation balance, rather than compensation for the appraised or current value. In their written response to the draft opinion, the Applicants commented that it had not become clear ‘to what extent the rightful claimants in the 1950s were aware of this difference between payment and compensation’. They assume that their father Karel Adolf Citroen ‘no longer considered himself to be the owner [of the heirlooms] from the moment of the payment’.
On 19 May 1951 the Jurisdiction Division of the Council for the Restoration of Rights ruled that the ‘Jewish population group had not lost ownership through the surrender of its possessions’ and that ‘neither the conversion into cash by investment or reinvestment, nor the aggregation of all this into a sum that could no longer be individualized, could yield no title of acquisition of property ownership for the occupier’ but had become ‘the collective property of the dispossessed or their successors’.
After the war, some of the goods liquidated in the Netherlands by Liro-Sarphatistraat during the occupation were found at the Lempertz auction house in Cologne. The Plates were among them. It is known that Lempertz purchased objects on a large scale from Liro-Sarphatistraat during the occupation. There are no indications that Lempertz acquired the Plates through other means, so a purchase at Liro-Sarphatistraat is obvious.
The goods found at Lempertz were seized and probably returned to the Netherlands in July 1948, where they were put under the management of the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (Stichting Nederlands Kunstbezit, SNK). Until now the Plates have been part of the NK Collection.

Abraham Citroen and succession
According to a certificate of inheritance issued on 19 February 1954 by Jakob van Hasselt, then a notary in Amsterdam, Karel Adolf Citroen is the sole and exclusive authorized and entitled person to dispose of all that belongs to the estates of his sister Thea Citroen and of his parents Abraham Citroen and Chane Ptasznik.
Karel Adolf Citroen was first married to Ms W.M. Pasma, from which marriage two children were born, namely the Applicants.
That marriage ended upon the death of Mrs W.M. Citroen-Pasma on 10 November 1994, after which Adolf Citroen remarried to CC. No children were born during this second marriage.
The Applicants were excluded by their father as heirs to his estate. As a result of this exclusion the Applicants cannot be regarded as direct legal successors of their father pursuant to the law of succession and indirect legal successors of their grandparents pursuant to the law of succession.

4. Substantive Assessment of the Restitution Application

The Committee finds that the requirements in section 1 a to e of the assessment framework have been met and that the application is therefore eligible for substantive handling. Pursuant to section 2 of the assessment framework, the Committee must assess whether it is highly plausible that the Applicants are the original owners of the Plates or their legal successors pursuant to inheritance law (hereinafter referred to as the ownership requirements).

Ownership requirements:

The ECR investigation makes it clear that the Plates were surrendered by Abraham Citroen at Liro-Sarphatistraat. The administrative number or H.R. Number 3025 put on the Plates, which corresponds to the name and address details of Abraham Citroen, constitutes the most important evidence for this. The Committee furthermore considers it plausible that the Plates were acquired by Abraham Citroen from his mother’s estate.
Based on the foregoing, the Committee concludes that it is highly probable that Abraham Citroen was the original owner of the Plates.
Based on what was above under ‘Abraham Citroen and succession’, the Committee has to conclude however that the Applicants are not legal successors pursuant to inheritance law of their grandfather Abraham Citroen.

It follows from section 2 of the assessment framework that if it is not highly probable that the Applicants are the original owners or their legal successors pursuant to inheritance law, the Restitution Commission advises rejecting the restitution application.

The Applicants’ position and views

 Shortly after the request for advice was received, it became clear to the Committee that the Applicants are not legal successors pursuant to inheritance law of Abraham Citroen. The appendices to the request for advice revealed the Applicants’ high degree of involvement in their family’s wartime history and with the Plates as a tangible reminder. This prompted the Committee to invite the Applicants to a meeting before taking the request under consideration. A Committee delegation received The Applicants and explained the procedure to be followed and the assessment framework. The expected negative outcome of the request for advice was discussed, as were the options available to the Applicants to secure the return of the Plates through other channels. These themes were subsequently brought to the Applicants’ attention again in a letter from the Committee.
During the discussion the Applicants emphasized how important the emotional and symbolic value of the Plates is to them. They are a tangible reminder of their grandparents for them. The Applicants wrote the following in a note they submitted during the meeting: ‘We see ourselves as the sole moral heirs of our grandparents and implore the granting of our request to return this stolen heritage after 80 years to the direct descendants of the Citroen-Ptasznik family.’
At the end of the discussion on 26 August 2024, the Committee offered the Applicants time to consider the next steps. After a follow-up meeting on 3 March 2025, the Applicants told the Committee that they wish to stand by their restitution application.
A hearing took place on 26 January 2026 after the ECR investigation report was ready in its final form. It was attended by the four Committee members who had also participated in the discussion on 3 March 2025, the Applicants, and representatives of the RCE and the ECR. The Applicants emphasized how important the Plates are to them on this occasion too. The Applicants contend that the Plates have regained their identity through the recent investigation and that, for them, the objects symbolize deprivation of the rights of people who were murdered for who they were.
In their written response to the draft advice the Applicants noted that they had ‘repeatedly, from the beginning of the proceedings, urged and implored the Restitutions Committee to apply section 5 [of the assessment framework].’ Section 5 reads: If the particulars of a case are such that there is compelling reason to do so, the Restitutions Committee is entitled, by way of exception, to depart from one or more elements of this assessment framework in order to achieve a just and fair solution as referred to in principle 8 of the Washington Principles.

Restitutions policy

The Restitutions Committee was established in 2001. This was done in keeping with the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art of 3 December 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Washington Principles), which was signed by 44 countries including the Netherlands.
The goal of the Committee’s assessment framework, which is included as an appendix to the Decree Establishing the Restitutions Committee, is to achieve a just and fair solution when handling restitution applications as referred to in principle 8 of the Washington Principles. In principles 5 ff the Washington Principles address the ‘pre-War owners’ and ‘their heirs’.
The assessment framework also proceeds from this premise by, among other things, defining ‘restitution’ as, insofar as relevant here, ‘return to the original owner or to their successors pursuant to inheritance law’.

Conclusion with regard to the restitution application

The Committee has weighed the ownership requirements (i.e. the provisions of section 2 of the assessment framework) against the Applicants’ suggestion that in this case there are compelling reasons as referred to in section 5 of the assessment framework to depart from the assessment framework and in so doing from the requirements laid down in section 2 of the assessment framework that it is highly likely that the Applicants are the original owners or their legal successors pursuant to inheritance law.
In the Committee’s opinion there are no compelling reasons for such a departure, given the following.

A person’s heirs/legal successors pursuant to inheritance law are determined by law. Succession in the Netherlands takes place on the basis of intestacy or by virtue of a last will and testament. Karel Adolf Citroen made use of this latter possibility by departing from the laws of descent and distribution in his will and excluding his children, the Applicants, as heirs.
The Committee takes the view that it should not infringe the freedom of a person to determine for themselves who their legal successor or successors pursuant to inheritance law are by departing from the general rule regarding the ownership requirements in section 2 of the assessment framework. On these grounds the Committee will therefore recommend rejection of the Applicants’ restitution application.

5. Recommendation

The Restitutions Committee advises the Minister of Education, Culture and Science to reject the Applicants’ restitution application.

Adopted on 17 April 2026 by A.I.M. van Mierlo (Chair), D. Oostinga (Vice-Chair), J.F. Cohen, S.G. Cohen-Willner, J.J. Euwe, C.J.H. Jansen, and A. Marck and signed by the Chair and the Vice-Chair.

(A.I.M. van Mierlo, Chair)                     (D. Oostinga, Vice-Chair)