Puede usar las teclas derecha/izquierda para votar el artículo.Votación:1 estrella2 estrellas3 estrellas4 estrellas5 estrellas (1 votos, promedio: 5.00 sobre 5)
LoadingLoading...

Culture

A US court rules Thyssen’s ownership of the Pissarro

Madrid / The US Court of Appeal has determined that the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation is the legitimate owner of Camille Pissarro’s painting “Rue Saint-Honoré in the afternoon. Effect of rain ”(1897), which will continue to be exhibited at the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza.

This has been reported by the museum, which explains that this decision resolves the case by confirming the decision of the District Court that determined, after a trial, that the Foundation was the legitimate owner of the painting.

The painting is a Parisian street scene painted in 1897 by Pissarro, which has been on display in the museum since 1992 and which the Spanish State acquired as part of the Baron Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza collection.

The demand

The original lawsuit was filed in 2005 by photographer Claude Cassirer, a resident of La Mesa (California), who discovered five years before that the painting was exhibited in Madrid.

Cassirer, who died in September 2010 at the age of 89, appealed to the Californian courts to demand that the Fundación Colección Thyssen-Bornemisza and the Kingdom of Spain hand over the Pissarro to him.

After his death, his heirs kept the case open, considering that the work belonged to Lilly Cassirer Neubauer, grandmother of Claude Cassirer, a Jewish woman who managed to flee Nazi Germany and was forced to dispose of the painting for $ 360, in marks. Germans, in their attempt to obtain a visa to leave the country.

A compensation of 120,000 marks

After the war, Lilly Cassirer sued the work in court and the German federal government recognized it as its legal owner and gave her 120,000 marks as compensation.

The painting was located in the United States in 1951, when it was purchased by the art collector Sydney Brody. Later, it was acquired by Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza in 1976.

According to the Thyssen Museum, the plaintiffs did not reveal that Lilly Cassirer Neubauer had been compensated for the loss of the painting by the German State in 1958, as she had requested, for the value of the work on the market at that time.

“We are pleased with the unanimous confirmation of the Court of Appeal on the recognition of the legitimate property of the Foundation of the Pissarro painting,” said the managing director of the Fundación Colección Thyssen-Bornemisza, Evelio Acevedo, thanking all the institutions that They have supported them in this litigation and have praised the work of their lawyers, Nixon Peabody in the United States and Pedro Alemán Abogados in Spain.

The Thyssen Museum recalls that in April 2019, a Los Angeles District judge established that when the Spanish State bought the painting from Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza in 1993, it was unaware of what had happened to it during World War II.

And now, he adds, the Court of Appeal has unanimously rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments and further contends that the District Court applied the correct standard when judging the historical evidence, a court that confirmed that Baron Thyssen did not know the story. of the painting when he acquired it in 1976 from a reputable gallery in New York City.

For its part, the firm B. Cremades y Asociados, in person at the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit on behalf of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Spain and the Jewish Community of Madrid, has indicated that this decision may be appealed in cassation to the Court Supreme of the USA.

In addition, the Cremades office highlights that in the ruling the Court of Appeals criticizes the Spanish State for “breaching” its commitments on confiscated art under the Washington Principles and the Terezin Declaration as they are not binding and believes “a pity that a country and a government can pretend to be moralistic in their statements, but not be bound by those statements. (July 19, 2020, EFE / PracticaEspañol)

(Automatic translation)

News related in video (June 2013):


Comprensión

Lee la noticia y responde a las preguntas

Congratulations - you have completed Lee la noticia y responde a las preguntas. You scored %%SCORE%% out of %%TOTAL%%. Your performance has been rated as %%RATING%%
Your answers are highlighted below.
Question 1
Principalmente, el texto habla...  
A
de cuándo una obra de Pissarro fue comprada por el Estado español.
B
de una exposición sobre la obra de Pissarro en el Museo Thyssen.
C
del fallo de un tribunal de EE.UU. sobre el legítimo propietario de una obra de Pissarro.
Question 2
En el texto se dice que...  
A
ese tribunal estadounidense no considera que la Fundación Colección Thyssen-Bornemisza sea la legítima propietaria de esa obra.
B
el Tribunal de Apelación de EE.UU. aún no ha determinado quién es el legítimo propietario de esa obra de Pissarro.
C
ese tribunal dictó que la Fundación Colección Thyssen-Bornemisza es la legítima propietaria de ese cuadro.
Question 3
Según el texto...  
A
ese cuadro se seguirá exponiendo en el Museo Thyssen solo si los familiares de L. Cassirer lo autorizan.
B
ese cuadro de Pissarro se seguirá exhibiendo en el Museo Thyssen.
C
pronto esa obra de Pissarro dejará de estar expuesta en el Museo Thyssen.
Question 4
Sobre Lilly Cassirer se dice que...  
A
recibió una compensación económica hace más de medio siglo por haberse visto obligada a vender ese cuadro.
B
ya había vendido ese cuadro de Pissarro antes de que comenzara la Segunda Guerra Mundial.
C
fue quien vendió esa obra de Pissarro al barón Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza.
Question 5
Según el texto...    
A
el Tribunal Supremo de EE.UU. también considera que la Fundación Colección Thyssen-Bornemisza es la legímita propietaria.
B
los familiares de L. Cassirer han anunciado que recurrirán al Tribunal Supremo de EE.UU.
C
ese cuadro fue comprado por el Estado español a principios de la década de los noventa.
Question 6
Tras leer el texto entendemos que...  
A
fue Lilly Cassirer quien presentó esa demanda en un tribunal de California.
B
un familiar de L. Cassirer fue el que presentó esa demanda hace más de una década.
C
el Gobierno federal de Alemania fue el que pidió al barón Thyssen-Bornemisza que devolviera esa obra a L. Cassirer.
Question 7
Tras ver el vídeo entendemos que...  
A
Pissarro tuvo más fama que Monet.
B
Pissarro siempre ha sido el pintor impresionista más reconocido.
C
se realizó una exposición con obras de Pissarro que hasta ese momento nunca se habían exhibido en España.
Question 8
Según el vídeo...  
A
Pissarro solía pintar a los parisinos disfrutando de un día en el campo.
B
Pissarro pintó cuadros en los que aparecen campesinos.
C
no es cierto que Pissarro fuera más "tranquilo" que Monet.
Once you are finished, click the button below. Any items you have not completed will be marked incorrect. Get Results
There are 8 questions to complete.

Noticias al azar

Multimedia news of Agencia EFE to improve your Spanish. News with text, video, audio and comprehension and vocabulary exercises