The reason for the request for a revised recommendation is a letter from the applicant to the Minister for OCW dated 29 March 2010, in which, based on alleged new factual material, he requests the Minister to reconsider his decision to reject the application for restitution in accordance with the recommendation RC 1.50. Further to this request, the Minister requested the Committee to issue a revised recommendation based on the information put forward by the applicant in his letter of 29 March 2010.
In response to alleged new facts put forward by the applicant, the Committee has prepared a summary of the source material included in the applicant’s letter of 29 March 2010, some of which was not yet on record. This summary has been included in a draft report of 20 June 2011, which on 6 July 2011 was sent to the applicant for comment and to the State Secretary with a request to provide additional factual material. The latter responded on 14 July 2011 that he had no additional facts to bring to the Committee’s attention. On 25 November 2011, after the response term had been extended four times, the applicant replied through his representative, G.J.T.M. van den Bergh, supporting his request with a relevant explanation. This response has been included as an appendix to the final report on RC 4.119. Whilst handling this case, the Committee also conducted research of its own, in particular at the Netherlands Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, NIOD (hereafter referred to as: NIOD), the relevant results of which were reported to the applicant, most recently in a letter dated 22 June 2012. The Committee also consulted documents provided by the applicant in previous restitution cases (RC 1.1.8 and RC 1.50).
The case was heard on 25 April 2012 in the presence of the applicant, his wife, art dealer E.J.M. Douwes (in part), the applicant’s representatives G.J.T.M. van den Bergh and E.S. Wagner as well as a delegation of the Committee. On this occasion, E.J.M. Douwes provided an explanation concerning documents from his archive and the applicant clarified his views. Various additional documents were also submitted during the hearing of the case, including a statement dated 17 April 2012 by Mr P. Knolle, head of collections of Rijksmuseum Twenthe (consideration 4k). In connection with the investigation of the facts, the chair announced at the hearing that the Committee would be talking to Dr M. de Keizer, senior researcher at the NIOD, about the significance of a document submitted by the applicant (consideration 4g).
Subsequently, on 3 and 4 May 2012, the applicant submitted further documents plus an explanation, including a statement concerning the document in question drawn up by Dr De Keizer in consultation with the applicant’s representative on 3 May 2012.
On 4 May 2012, the discussion between the Committee and Dr De Keizer took place, on which occasion she provided additional information and an explanation of the statement given to the applicant. A report was made of this discussion which, after it was approved by Dr de Keizer, was sent to the applicant in a letter dated 7 June 2012 together with the results of the further investigations conducted by the Committee following the discussion. The applicant responded to this in a letter dated 14 June 2012, in response to which the Committee sent him additional investigation results on 22 June 2012. On 1 August 2012 the applicant commented on this information and included several new documents.
The applicant’s explanation, taken into consideration in the Committee’s assessment, includes the information he provided in a letter dated 29 March 2010, an email dated 8 July 2011, a letter dated 25 November 2011, a letter dated 3 May 2012, an email dated 4 May 2012, the information and supplementary documents submitted during the hearing on 25 April 2012, and his letters dated 14 June and 1 August 2012. The relevant responses of the applicant and the detailed investigation results of the Committee were included as appendices to the initial investigatory report in this case, following which the report was adopted on 6 September 2012.
NK 1756 and NK 2727 are also part of an application for restitution regarding art dealership Katz (RC 1.90-B). If necessary, the Committee weighs up double claims. In light of the following considerations, such an assessment does not appear relevant to this recommendation.