Wish You Were Here: Professor Weller’s Introduction of the New Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property

April 7, 2026

 By Savannah Weiler and Amanda Buonaiuto

On Wednesday the 28th of January, Bonn University’s Professor Matthias Weller hosted an online presentation introducing the new German Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property. As of the 1st of December 2025, this new Court of Arbitration has come in to replace the previous German Commission (Limbach Commission).

Background: The Washington Principles, HEAR Act, and Germany’s Federal Government Scientific Study

Professor Weller started his presentation by providing a brief background on previous pieces of legislation and guidelines that formed inspiration for this new Court of Arbitration. To no surprise, the 1998 Washington Principles, as well as its 2024 revised Best Practices, and the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act, were important touch-points from which experts pulled their recommendations in a scientific study commissioned by the German Government, which was later submitted to the Parliament and became the “Court of Arbitration for Nazi-looted Cultural Property.“

Weller commented that particularly the Principles n°.8^[1], 9^[2], 10^[3] and 11^[4] established the basis on which the rules of procedure for the new Court of Arbitration were formed. The core “anti-litigation message” of Principle n°. 11 was highlighted, stating that Germany has taken this “anti-litigation message” in the most literal sense, with a deliberate focus on remedying restitution claims through alternative dispute resolutions.

Furthermore, Professor Weller pointed out that the new Court of Arbitration fulfilled Principle n°. 10, once its representatives^[5] have a balanced membership.They come from diverse relevant professional backgrounds, such as (art) historians, provenance researchers and lawyers.

Key Points to Take Away: What Makes this Court Unique?

Continuing his presentation, Professor Weller underscored a few key points, divided into three different categories: Administrative Agreement, Rules of Procedure, and Assessment Framework. He initiated those points by mentioning that the formation of the new Court of Arbitration is unique, since it is the first time globally that a legally binding framework and body particularly designed to decide on the fate of Nazi-looted art is created.^[6]

Weller also explained how the chosen 36 members of the pool of arbitrators were selected and that the entire mechanism was negotiated with Jewish entities in the field (including the Jewish Claims Conference and Central Council for the Jews in Germany).

Another key statement from the new court is that institutes in Germany with publicly owned collections should submit “standing offers” to their municipalities, in which they declare themselves open to restitution claims and proceedings regarding any artworks they hold in their collection, allowing claimants to unilaterally initiate arbitration proceedings after this offer^[7]. However, since the Arbitration Tribunal is an intra-federal agreement with similar status to an international treaty, it can’t make museums legally obliged to submit such offers.

According to the Professor, most representatives of all municipalities have pledged their commitment to having all institutions with publicly held art collections submit offers. As of the date of the zoom event on 28 January, there were around 200 standing offers already submitted, a number deemed insufficient by both Weller and attendees. The relative low amount can be attributed to many museums still going through Germany’s notoriously long-winding bureaucratic process.

Furthermore, Weller mentioned that if a claimant wishes to present a case for restitution of an artwork from an institution that has not yet submitted a standing offer, the Court of Arbitration through its Service Desk will urge for submission, quoting their previous commitment to doing so.

Once a standing offer has been accepted and a claimant has requested an arbitration proceeding, the dispute goes through five arbitrators, selected by the claimant and the holder, who then produce a decision (arbitral award), which has the same status as a court judgment, being enforceable and legally binding .^[8] All the decisions will be publicized, contributing to the task of documentation and memorialisation of the victims of the Holocaust, Weller adds. It is also important to note that the Professor mentioned that the primary remedy sought by the Tribunal is restitution, and direct compensation will not be available.

Another key point addressed is that the new court works with reduced standards of proof, including a new presumption of ownership based on actual or former possession of the object (unless the object was a commercial commodity in the hands of a dealer). Also, there will be no good faith defence, acquisitive prescription or a time bar on presenting cases to the Court of Arbitration.

In order to close this part of the presentation, it was indicated how the costs of this new court will be divided. Since in the preamble of the Administrative Agreement of the Arbitration Tribunal, the German Government fully acknowledged their historical responsibility in the tracing and restitution of Nazi-looted cultural property, Weller stated that the German State will bear the cost of it. However, each party will be responsible for their own legal fees.

Concerns Raised and Discussions with the Audience

Throughout his presentation Weller raised numerous points of concern, mentioning where he wished the Court of Arbitration would work by different rules of procedure. With the aim of closing the event, he opened the floor for questions and comments, and an hour-long rich discussion took place among the attendees. Weller welcomed all input, stating that this event would be one of many other opportunities to discuss revisions and amendments on the Court of Arbitration, which would formally be presented after three years of incorporation of the new system or after the publication of ten arbitral awards, whichever comes first.^[9]

One of the concerns raised in the discussion was about the efficacy of the standing offers. Museums’ commitment to submitting standing offers have a minimal validity of five years, after which institutions have the option to revoke them. Therefore, the effectiveness of the new Court of Arbitration if museums were at first not legally required to submit their standing offers, and that they were then after five years able to pull out of the agreement was questioned.^[10] Would this mean that with enough delays and administrative waiting times, museums would be able to sidestep their commitment to producing standing offers, and legally exonerating them from restituting works in their collections?

Concerning the eligibility of claimants, another discussion sparked. The new court has varying eligibility for claimants. Weller noted that art collectors and dealers’ heirs who had their works looted are not eligible to submit claims, while heirs of those who had their artworks seized as collateral for bank loans now find themselves in a lot more favourable positions regarding their right to claim restitution.^[11]

Professor Weller concluded the discussions by reflecting on whether it might have been preferable for Germany to adopt restitution legislation rather than establishing a new Tribunal. Germany has a federalism system, which was created as a reaction to the Nazis’ totalitarian regime as a cautionary precaution, which makes it more difficult to adopt sweeping changes in the law, Weller adds.

Conclusion

The event was a valuable opportunity to truly understand, discuss, and process what the change from the Limbach Commission to the new Court of Arbitration means for restitution disputes , both in Germany and globally.

Will the world now be perfect? This was the final question raised by the Professor. During the whole event, Weller made clear that this new Court of Arbitration is just another step in a long road of amendments, revisions and trial and error, where experts are invited into the discussion to make it more productive and relevant to claimants’ needs.^[12] Hence, the short answer to this question is: “unfortunately not, but steps toward a better world are being aimed at and taken.”

Now, the most important thing to do is to wait for the court’s three initial years of operation or for ten arbitration awards to be issued, in order to assess whether this model proves more beneficial than the former Commission.

About the Authors

Savannah Weiler is a Dutch graduate who attained her MA in History of Art and Fine Art from the University of Edinburgh in 2025 and later attended a course in Art & Cultural Heritage Law at Oxford University. She has worked in collections care, media outreach, and as a research assistant, where she developed her interest in provenance research and art market studies. This led her to write her dissertation on the impact of World Heritage Listing on the illicit trade of artefacts from the Island of Mozambique. She aims to apply these interests to support increased global cooperation and provenance research within the art market, auction houses and in cultural heritage management.

Amanda Buonaiuto is a Brazilian lawyer with a specialization in Nazi-looted art restitution, earned through her LL.M. at the University of Bonn, Germany. With expertise in provenance research, she is responsible for leading and managing the Nazi-Looted Art Restitution Project for the Center for Art Law.

SuggestedReadings

1. Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, United States Department of State, https://www.state.gov/washington-conference-principles-on-nazi-confiscated-art/ (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).
2. Matthias Weller, The New German “Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property“: Video Presentation, 28 January 2026, 6 p.m. (German Time), (2026), https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/fileadmin/Fachbereich_Rechtswissenschaft/Einrichtungen/Lehrstuehle/Weller/Weller_The_New_Court_of_Arbitration_for_Nazi-Looted_Property-28-01-26.pdf.
3. Matthias Weller, The New German “Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property,” (2026), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sEckct9Jy4.
4. The New Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property – Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft Der Universität Bonn, https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/professur-prof-dr-weller/the-new-court-of-arbitration-for-nazi-looted-cultural-property (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).
5. The Lasting Impact of the Washington Principles and Best Practices for the Restitution of Nazi-Confiscated Art, United States Department of State, https://2021-2025.state.gov/the-lasting-impact-of-the-washington-principles-and-best-practices-for-the-restitution-of-nazi-confiscated-art/ (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).
6. Matthias Weller et al., Stärkung Der Beratenden Kommission: Internationale Wissenschaftliche Studie, (2024), https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/fileadmin/Fachbereich_Rechtswissenschaft/Einrichtungen/Lehrstuehle/Weller/Publications_Research_Project/Weller-Studie-Staerkung_der_Beratenden_Kommission-27-03-24.pdf.
   Also available via https://kulturstaatsminister.de/presse/bund-veroeffentlicht-wissenschaftliche-studie-zur-beratenden-kommission-claudia-roth-wertvolle-impulse-um-reformprozess-voranzubringen.
7. John [R-TX Sen. Cornyn, S.1884 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025, (Dec. 11, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1884.
8. Matthias Weller, Restitution Durch Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Verfassungsblog (2024), https://verfassungsblog.de/restitution-durch-schiedsgerichtsbarkeit/.
9. Matthias Weller et al., Restatement of Restitution Rules for Nazi-Confiscated Art: Eine vergleichende Bestandsaufnahme, in Restatement of Restitution Rules for Nazi-Confiscated Art: Eine vergleichende Bestandsaufnahme (2025), https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111382883/html?srsltid=AfmBOopNNMFkhWOR1555q31kr7fQR6AS8mgGWhVhsOYYHJ-oohWNODgB.
10. LTO, NS-Raubkunst: Wie Deutschlands neues Schiedsgericht arbeitet, Legal Tribune Online, https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/restitution-ns-raubkunst-neues-schiedsgericht-deutschland-wie-es-arbeitet (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).
11. Anastassia Boutsko, Nazi-Looted Art: Can Arbitration Help With Restitution?, dw.com (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.dw.com/en/nazi-looted-art-will-arbitration-tribunals-help-with-restitution/a-71538858.
12. Foundational Documents for the Reform of the Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property, https://kulturstaatsminister.de/aufarbeiten-und-erinnern/aufarbeitung-der-ns-gewaltherrschaft/ns-raubgut/beratende-kommission/grundlagendokumente-zur-reform (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).
13. Beratende Kommission NS-Raubgut | Startseite, https://www.beratende-kommission.de/de (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).
14. Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit NS-Raubgut, Aktuelles | Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit NS-Raubgut, https://schiedsgerichtsbarkeit-ns-raubgut.de/de (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).
15. 2009 Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues, United States Department of State, https://www.state.gov/prague-holocaust-era-assets-conference-terezin-declaration/ (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).

Select References

1. Washington Principle n°. 8: “If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, can be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution, recognizing this may vary according to the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case.” ↑
2. Washington Principle n°. 9: “If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis, or their heirs, can not be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution.” ↑
3. Washington Principle n°. 10: “Commissions or other bodies established to identify art that was confiscated by the Nazis and to assist in addressing ownership issues should have a balanced membership.” ↑
4. Washington Principle n°. 11: “Nations are encouraged to develop national processes to implement these principles, particularly as they relate to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership issues.” ↑
5. “Dr Elisabeth Steiner and Mr Peter Müller were appointed to serve as the Executive Committee for the Court of Arbitration. The following were chosen to serve as arbitrators for a term of five years (in alphabetical order): Dr Julia Bešlin, Prof. Dr Magnus Brechtken, Prof. Dr Stephan Breidenbach, Prof. Dr Michael Brenner, Dr Annette Brockmöller, Peter Clausen, Helmut Dedy, Dr Axel Drecoll, Dr Caroline Flick, Nathan Gelbart, Prof. Dr Beate Gsell, Prof. Dr Isabel Heinemann, Dr Hans-Joachim Heßler, Dr Anja Heuß, Prof. Dr Christiane Kuller, Prof. Dr Benjamin Lahusen, Dr Sophie Lillie, Uwe Lübking, Dr Jürgen Matthäus, François Moyse, Peter Müller, Daniel Neumann, David Nossen, Dr Julien von Reitzenstein, Sebastian Remelé, Dr Jan-Robert von Renesse, Doron Rubin, Prof. Dr Leo Schapiro, Gudrun Schäpers, Dr Iris Schmeisser, Dr Elisabeth Steiner, Prof. Dr Natan Sznaider, Dr Katja Terlau, Prof. Dr Christian Waldhoff, Dr Avraham Weber, Johanna Werner.” See: https://kulturstaatsminister.de/presse/milestone-reached-on-the-way-to-the-court-of-arbitration-for-nazi-looted-cultural-property-committee-agrees-on-an-executive-committee-and-list-of-arbitrators#:~:text=Sie%20sind%20hier:-,Milestone%20reached%20on%20the%20way%20to%20the%20Court%20of%20Arbitration,%2C%20Dr%20Elisabeth%20Steiner%2C%20Prof. ↑
6. Weller, supra note 2. ↑
7. Eligibility: Holocaust victims or their heirs can raise a claim for loss of cultural property due to Nazi persecution between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945, on condition that the object is located in Germany. ↑
8. Id. ↑
9. Id.; Weller, supra note 17. ↑
10. Weller, supra note 2. ↑
11. Id. ↑
12. Id. ↑