The Long Road Home:Cassirer v Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation and Ethical Art Repatriation
- Lucy Sagoo
- 10 hours ago
- 5 min read
In the late 17th Century, French Danish painter Camille Pissarro made new contributions to both the Impressionist and Neo-Impressionist styles. Having learned the craft from many great painters of the time, Pissarro created an array of landscapes that have endured to this day. In 1897, he created one of his most memorable pieces: Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon, Rain Effect. Staring out of the window of his hotel during a Paris winter, Pissarro captured the magic and gloom of a bustling street in the Belle Epoque era.
In 1900, two brothers, Paul and Bruno Cassirer, owned an art gallery in the heart of Berlin, Germany. As one of the largest, and perhaps the first, major art galleries to portray famous artists like Van Gogh, they were contacted directly by Pissarro’s agent, Paul Durand-Ruel. The brothers purchased a few Pissarro pieces, and when the gallery was shuttered, Lilly Cassirer inherited these paintings. Lilly Cassirer, a German and Jewish woman, was a part of a very well-known Jewish family forced to escape from Germany leading up to World War II.
In 1939, Lilly Cassirer was required to surrender her Pissarro painting to Nazi officers as part of a “sale” transaction, to which she was denied any form of payment. After the war, Cassirer was compensated in a settlement by the German government who believed the painting to be either heavily damaged or lost. However, the painting was instead sold, changing hands several times throughout the United States. It was eventually purchased by Baron Thyssen-Bornemysza and kept in Switzerland from 1976 to 1922. In 1993, Spain bought Baron’s collection, and the painting has been on display in the Thyssen-Bornemisza National Museum since. Notably, the painting is no longer on display due to its legal notoriety.
Claude Cassirer, Lilly’s grandson, found the painting in the Museum in 2001 and asked for it to be returned to the family where he believed it belonged. He filed a claim in the U.S. District for the Central District Court in 2005 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FISA). A legal battle – not yet concluded – has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Claude’s son David Cassirer took over the case when his father died in 2010.
Initially, the legal arguments Cassirer and his lawyers chose to pursue for the family’s claim were (1) to sue the Museum due to a violation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and (2) to assert the Museum never formally owned the painting because it was an invalid sale under the expropriation exception of the FSIA and California property law. First, the District Court is able to review the case because of a carve out in the FSIA which allows cases against foreign nations to be heard where the property was stolen because it is “in violation of international law.” However, the second argument is more controversial. In Spain, public possession of another’s property is considered a transfer of title after 6 years– even if that piece was stolen. In California, the law is different. Once property is improperly acquired – such as via theft – formal and fully recorded title is untransferable in perpetuity as the chain of title has been broken. This unrecorded transfer occurs even if a purchase after the theft is in good faith. In fact, owning personal property that is stolen is considered a crime under the California Penal Code section 496. The District Court charged with answering this question, and due to a carve-out in the FSIA which allows cases against foreign nations to be heard where property was stolen “in violation of international law,” they are able to make that determination. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3). Federal Courts in the state of California have gone back and forth for years regarding their determination to which law is best applied. Past rulings by California federal courts have reinforced the strength of good faith acquisition defenses under Spanish legal systems. Spanish law, which has governed in the last few appeals of the case, recognizes acquisition through adverse possession even in cases involving looted art, provided the possessor acted in good faith. Cassirer v Kingdom of Spain, 2006. This underscores the importance of jurisdiction and applicable law in art restitution cases.
In March 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, overturning the past rulings, and remanding the case to be heard again in the 9th Circuit court in the Northern District of California under California law. Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., No. 24-652, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1007 (Mar. 10, 2025). Last year, California passed Assembly Bill 2867, which intends to reunite Holocaust victims, survivors, and families with their stolen possessions. This legislation requires courts to use California law in cases heard in the state regarding families attempting to recover stolen art. This law significantly changes the landscape for families in the same situation as the Cassirer’s.
The remanding of the Cassirer decision by the Supreme Court marks a notable moment in the evolving legal landscape surrounding cultural property and Holocaust-era restitution claims. While this case has not yet resulted in the return of the Pissarro piece to the Cassirer family, the litigation has undoubtedly highlighted many key issues which could shape future disputes over contentious ownership and art looted by the Third Reich during World War II.
Beyond legal doctrine, the Cassirer case reignites a long-debated ethical issue over how to adequately resolve historical injustices involving stolen cultural property. The denial of restitution in past cases involving art with clear Nazi-era provenance issues have appeared to contradict broader international norms and declarations. These include the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art (1998). These principles are certainly not as legally binding as a Supreme Court ruling, but these principles advocate for "just and fair solutions" in restitution cases and encourage restitution or compensation.
David Boies, lawyer for the Cassirer family, in response to the ruling, said, “We hope Spain and its museum will now do the right thing and return the Nazi-looted art they are holding without further delay.” However, the Spanish government and the Thyssen Museum refuse to concede, stating, “The Foundation, as it has for the past 20 years, looks forward to working with all concerned to once again ensure that its ownership is confirmed with the painting remaining on public display in Madrid.”
Although the Foundation has prevailed several times before this final remand, the case has drawn international attention, placing renewed pressure on museums to take proactive and empathetic approaches to provenance research. Many institutions, particularly in Europe and North America, are reexamining their collections, as well as their art acquisition practices. The public scrutiny and reputational hazard associated with retaining contested works can be a positive motivator for voluntary restitution or settlement projects, even absent any legal responsibility.
With the Cassirer case hitting year nineteen in 2025, the ongoing litigation still holds massive implications for both holocaust survivors and their families. California courts, once again on the precipice of empathetic reform, will determine how much longer the road is for the Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon, Rain Effect by Pissarro to reach its home.
*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.