The Museum of Fine Arts (MSK) in Ghent, Belgium, has refused to return a Nazi-looted painting to the heirs of its original Jewish owner, arguing that adequate compensation was already provided decades ago. The decision involves Gaspar de Crayer's "Portrait of Bishop Triest," created around 1627-1630, and has sparked significant controversy among Jewish advocacy groups who are demanding the artwork's restitution.

The museum's position stems from findings by an independent commission that was appointed by the city of Ghent one year ago to investigate the painting's origins. The commission concluded that the artwork was originally sold by Samuel Hartveld, a Jewish art dealer from Antwerp, under extreme duress following Germany's occupation of Belgium in 1940. Two years after the forced sale, German authorities reportedly sold the painting to René Van de Broek, an Antwerp-based art restorer, who subsequently sold it to the city of Ghent in 1948, shortly after World War II ended.

Crucially, the commission's research revealed that Ghent later provided financial compensation to Hartveld and his family for their wartime losses. This discovery forms the cornerstone of MSK's current argument that the painting should remain in its collection permanently. The museum declined to respond to requests for comment from ARTnews regarding their decision and the ongoing controversy.

However, Hartveld's heirs, backed by prominent local Jewish advocacy organizations, are strongly contesting the museum's decision. They point to a critical statement in the provenance committee's findings that raises serious doubts about whether Hartveld actually received the full purchase price of 200,000 francs, as initially reported by the Belgian newspaper De Standaard. The descendants argue that this uncertainty undermines the museum's entire justification for keeping the artwork.

The committee's belief that Hartveld had been adequately compensated appears to rest on their assessment that he and the restorer René Van de Broek likely managed certain paintings jointly. According to the committee's report, this business relationship created what they called a "factual presumption" that Hartveld must have believed he had been sufficiently compensated for his losses. Critics argue that this reasoning is speculative and insufficient to deny restitution.

While the committee ultimately recommended against providing additional compensation to Hartveld's heirs, they did acknowledge the moral dimensions of the case. The committee called for what they termed "moral redress" by ensuring that any future publications or exhibitions featuring the painting would acknowledge the "unacceptable act of spoliation" that occurred during the Nazi occupation.

Two prominent Jewish organizations, the European Jewish Association (EJA) and Jewish Information and Documentation (JID), have filed formal appeals demanding restitution. In their appeal, these groups emphasized that "international standards, specifically the Washington Principles and the Terezin Declaration, are clear: when spoliation is established, restitution must follow, regardless of any alleged later payments." They argue that the museum's position violates established international guidelines for handling Nazi-looted artwork.

However, the legal and practical reality is more complex than the advocacy groups suggest. While establishing spoliation is certainly significant, it does not automatically mandate restitution under Belgian law or the broader international framework that governs Nazi-looted art cases. The Washington Principles and the Terezin Declaration, though widely respected and followed by museums worldwide, are non-binding agreements that encourage "just and fair solutions" when Nazi spoliation is determined. This umbrella term encompasses various remedies, including both financial settlements and alternatives like full restitution, shared ownership, or long-term loans.

Interestingly, this is not the first time Hartveld's heirs have pursued restitution claims for artworks that were seized by German forces in Antwerp in 1940. They previously filed a successful claim with Tate Britain in London concerning "Aeneas Fleeing Burning Troy with His Family" by Henry Gibbs, which was also part of the collection confiscated by the Germans. In that case, the Tate ultimately agreed to return the painting to the family, creating a precedent that the heirs hope will influence other institutions.

The contrasting outcomes between the Tate Britain case and the current situation in Ghent highlight the inconsistencies that often arise in Nazi-looted art disputes. While some institutions have adopted more generous restitution policies, others, like MSK Ghent, maintain stricter standards that prioritize evidence of previous compensation arrangements. This case underscores the ongoing challenges faced by Holocaust survivors' families and Jewish communities in recovering cultural property that was stolen during World War II, even when the historical record clearly establishes the circumstances of the theft.