Digital Editions
Newsletters
Subscribe
Digital Editions
Newsletters
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Law
news

US Supreme Court declines to review a challenge to the National Gallery's ownership of a Matisse

Grandchildren of muse depicted in 1908 painting exhaust their US appeals

Nancy Kenney
19 March 2019
Share
Matisse's Portrait of Greta Moll (1908) National Gallery

Matisse's Portrait of Greta Moll (1908) National Gallery

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a ruling that rejected a claim to a 1908 portrait by Matisse owned by the National Gallery in London.

Three grandchildren of Greta Moll, the muse depicted in the portrait, had argued that the painting was taken in violation of international law and demanded that the National Gallery pay $30 million in compensation for the painting or return it. But last September, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York affirmed a lower-court decision that the National Gallery and Britain were immune from the jurisdiction of US courts because the lawsuit did not meet the conditions set by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Now that the Supreme Court has refused to review the case, the descendants have exhausted their appeals in the US court system. In a statement, the National Gallery welcomed the news that its “lawful ownership is confirmed” and emphasised that the museum bought the painting “in good faith” in 1979.

The painting was originally purchased from Matisse by Oskar Moll, the husband of Margarete Moll, also known as Greta, and taken to Germany. The couple were living in Berlin after the Second World War when, fearing the upheaval of the postwar partition of the city, they decided to send the portrait abroad to protect it from looting.

In demanding the work’s return, the heirs had argued that Portrait of Greta Moll was illegally sold by a former art student to whom the painting had been entrusted for safekeeping. The portrait changed hands several times before it was acquired by the National Gallery.

According to court documents, the three grandchildren—Oliver Williams, Margarete Green and Iris Filmer—first pressed their case for the painting’s recovery in 2011, but the National Gallery declined to return it. In 2015, they sought a review by the Spoliation Advisory Panel, a British government body investigating Holocaust-era art claims, but the government said the panel lacked jurisdiction because the Nazi era ended in 1945, two years before the portrait was sold in Switzerland.

The heirs then filed suit against the National Gallery and the UK in the US.

LawRestitutionNational GalleryHenri MatisseUS Supreme Court
Share
Subscribe to The Art Newspaper’s digital newsletter for your daily digest of essential news, views and analysis from the international art world delivered directly to your inbox.
Newsletter sign-up
Information
About
Contact
Cookie policy
Data protection
Privacy policy
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscription T&Cs
Terms and conditions
Advertise
Sister Papers
Sponsorship policy
Follow us
Instagram
Bluesky
LinkedIn
Facebook
TikTok
YouTube
© The Art Newspaper

Related content

News
7 November 2015

Matisse portrait claim rejected by National Gallery

Greta Moll’s heirs argue painting was “misappropriated” in 1947

Martin Bailey
Restitutionarchive
1 February 2010

Restitution case targets Thyssen museum

But it may not be legally possible to sue Spain in the US courts

Martha Lufkin
Nazi lootnews
2 June 2020

US government recommends that the Supreme Court hear German museums’ appeal on Guelph Treasure claim

The solicitor general’s recent filing suggests the Nazis’ looting of Jewish collections in Germany was a domestic rather than international crime

Martha Lufkin
Lawnews
11 September 2018

Court rejects claim to Matisse owned by National Gallery

Rebuffing heirs, an appeals panel in New York says the court lacks jurisdiction

Nancy Kenney