As long as the question remains unresolved as to who is rightfully entitled to Cornelius Gurlitt’s legacy, an act of restitution requires the consent of all potential beneficiaries and the approval of the legally appointed trustee (Nachlassverwalter). Without such consent, the trustee is not allowed to restitute an object because this would exceed his legal authority.

Furthermore, for an act of restitution to occur, under German law sufficient documentation must be provided proving the claimant’s right of inheritance and power of attorney. Further information is available from the Commissioner for Culture and the Media.

Contesting a will requires a formal application for a certificate of inheritance (Erbschein) in favour of the legal heirs. Thereupon the probate court examines, among other things, the validity of the will in a non-public process. An appeal can be filed against the findings of the probate court. If the probate court does not change its findings, the case is handed to the highest court at the state level, the "Oberlandesgericht". This is what happened with the will of Cornelius Gurlitt. This means that the identity of the final heir(s) as upheld by law will not be disclosed until the final decision is made. As long as the heir remains unknown, the trustee of the estate (Nachlassverwalter) as determined by the probate court remains in place.

It is the trustee’s role to secure the estate for the heir(s). Therefore, the trustee cannot on principle give away items in the estate. He can only do so if all potential heirs give their consent. This requires a formal agreement between all parties involved and the approval of the probate court. 

The Taskforce office is made up of six members, including the head of the Taskforce, the scientific coordinator and the representative of the State of Bavarian. It holds a temporary office in Berlin. The office contains sufficient space to hold meetings and for individual researchers to work. 

The working language is English. The final provenance reports are drafted in German and, where necessary, a working English translation is provided for the relevant claimants. However, the binding version is the German one.

The sole responsibility lies with the head of the Taskforce. 

All the works from the so-called ‘Schwabing (Munich) Art Trove’ and the ‘Salzburg find’ were in the possession of a private individual. The Taskforce is solely entrusted with the task of determining whether any of the artworks were seized or appropriated as a result of Nazi persecution, and, if so, who was divested of them.

The Taskforce is not, however, free to dispose of the artworks as it sees fit. Nor is it entitled to identify the living heirs of the former victims. The Taskforce therefore does not have the power to make restitution decisions. Neither does it have the authority of a court or board of arbitration. The power of disposition over the artworks lies solely with their owner. Until his death, that right lay with Cornelius Gurlitt.

The agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany, the state of Bavaria, and the Kunstmuseum (Art Museum) Bern Foundation, signed on 24 November 2014, stipulates that the Federal Republic of Germany will take on the task of restituting any works confirmed as Nazi-looted art. As long as inheritance questions relating to Gurlitt’s estate remain unresolved with the will having been contested, the trustee appointed by the probate court exercises power of disposal over all works of art.

Any restitution is currently only possible with the joint consent of the Federal Government of Germany, the Kunstmuseum Bern, and the possible legal heirs or beneficiaries, with the subsequent approval of the probate court.

The Taskforce was set up to determine whether works of art found in Cornelius Gurlitt’s possession are Nazi-looted art, i.e., expropriated from their rightful owners by the Nazis , and if so, who specifically was divested of them.

If the history of an artwork can be traced in full throughout the period 1933 to 1945 and it becomes clear that it was not seized or expropriated as a form of state-sponsored persecution, then the provenance of the work prior to 1933 and after 1945 will be left unexplored and the work will be removed from the Lost Art database.

The research staff of the Taskforce are connected via a password-protected virtual platform. This intranet contains all sources relevant to the investigation. This system enables several researchers to work from different locations at the same time on the same artwork. So-called object records are being drafted for every piece of art under investigation, listing the state of the work accomplished so far, the archives, museums and other places of research visited and by whom, literature analysed and all further steps to be taken.

Thus, every researcher is kept completely informed and duplicate research avoided. 304 object records are at the Taskforce’s disposal. However, in all these cases no final result has been reached and further research is necessary. Whether or not the research will be conclusive remains to be seen. In order to agree on a final provenance report, the draft is discussed by all of the Taskforce members prior to its release. At regular intervals, the Taskforce members convene to discuss individual steps and differing opinions, to propose suggestions for research approaches, and to agree on the next steps to be taken.

The majority of the artworks in the Munich art trove are works on paper, i.e. prints - woodcuts, engravings, and etchings - and drawings. Watercolours and gouaches also form part of the artworks found in Cornelius Gurlitt’s possession.

Especially in the case of prints, for which dozens, sometimes even hundreds of copies were made of the same edition or picture, it can be extremely difficult to identify a specific sheet with certainty because the sheets were often not numbered.

Traditionally, provenance research was used to assist in the determination of the authorship of a work and to establish the influence of an artwork on other artists; it helped in constructing the history of art collecting.

The main focus has been on what provenance research adds to the knowledge of the artwork in question, whether it enhances its value and significance, and not on whether or not the subsequent ownership of a particular artwork was in accordance with the law.

Provenance research as we understand it today, establishing legal ownership, does have due diligence standards, and these standards are often incorporated in due diligence guidelines of museums, auction houses, and even state organizations dealing with provenance research.

However, these standards relate to the way research is carried out, for example that all relevant digital databases should be consulted, catalogue entries should be double checked, historical events should be investigated, etc.

Another question is whether there is a generally accepted format for an object database. The answer is no, because all specific research and types of art objects require a specially adapted object database. Using so-called object records tailored to the research aims of the Taskforce has enabled us to develop an internal standardized procedure to document provenance research.

While the recto (front) of the artwork contains important clues as to the work’s creator through the style, subject, and possible signature, the verso (back) of the artwork often contains clues that help trace its provenance. These can be customs stamps, gallery labels, exhibition marks, handwritten inscriptions of any kind, etc.

The verso may also contain clues showing that the work was once inventoried at a Central Collecting Point (CCP) or was confiscated from a public museum under the Nazi’s ‘degenerate art’ campaign.

The original works of art are not on display. For conservation and security reasons, access to them has been restricted to the minimum necessary for provenance research. Each artwork has been individually wrapped and is stored under environmentally controlled conditions.

Researchers use high-resolution photographs to view the works. The photographs were commissioned for the express purpose of the investigation. A viewing of the trove would only be possible with the consent of the owner - which is not the Taskforce.

As long as the inheritance issues surrounding each work remain unresolved, consent can only be given by the trustee of the Gurlitt estate (Nachlassverwalter) or all possible beneficiaries. 

The Taskforce currently has 15 members from Austria, France, Hungary, Israel, Poland, the United States and Germany.

This international network of provenance researchers, museum experts, contemporary historians, and legal experts guarantees objectivity and the highest level of expertise, with each member being a respected expert in his or her field.

The international members pool their experience, their knowledge, and the different perspectives of their various fields to give a structure to this complex research task. They are supported by additional, external experts in provenance research who are entrusted with specific research tasks at home and abroad on a case-by-case basis. 

The Taskforce is dedicated to transparency and openness. Moreover, the Taskforce would only suggest publishing information that has been checked for accuracy and in a form that is helpful for possible claimants and would not cause confusion and more uncertainty.

The Taskforce is also obliged to respect the victims’ and third parties’ rights of publicity which set legal restrictions on publishing data on internet websites and databases. Any such publication has to be subjected to careful scrutiny. Any suspicion that individual rights might be violated prohibits publication. The atrocities of the Nazi regime cannot be redeemed by exposing to the public victims who did not directly give or only indirectly gave their consent to publication.

Also, it must to be emphasized that Cornelius Gurlitt was a private person. Information about his possessions were only to be made public with his consent and after his death by agreement with his heir(s). The publication of the stock-books was only allowed by an agreement between the then heir apparent with the Free State of Bavaria and the federal government of 24 Nov. 2014.

Even then, the personal rights of Mr. Gurlitt and third parties had to be preserved. The protection of personal data and rights is enshrined in the German constitution.The other records, such as the correspondence, are now being digitized and reviewed for publication in such a way as to observe these legal requirements.

By signing the agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany and the Free State of Bavaria on 7 April 2014, Cornelius Gurlitt formally acknowledged the Washington Principles as they apply to his artworks - above all with regard to restitution.

This was a unique step. Privately organized institutions and private individuals are not bound by these principles, but may undertake them voluntarily. In doing so, Cornelius Gurlitt waived all rights based on the German statute of limitations, these rights being contradictory to the Washington Principles.

Thus Cornelius Gurlitt, as a private individual, set a precedent for others. 

Provenance research – particularly in the case of the artwork found on the premises of Cornelius Gurlitt – is a difficult and time-consuming undertaking.

Without an inventory or any reliable documentation on these pieces of art, researchers have faced manifold problems from the outset. The Taskforce must locate and analyse an array of historical sources. Since Hildebrand Gurlitt made so many of his purchases during the Second World War and often abroad, foreign archives, mainly in France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Israel, and the United States, must be examined in addition to German-held sources.

However, many relevant documents were destroyed either purposefully by the Nazis or in the bombing and the chaos of the Second World War. Moreover, some important sources are in private hands and not always accessible to researchers.

Many art dealers at that time were very discreet in their business and often had no desire to make their business records public, even after a considerable lapse of time. In the case of competing claims on the same work, there is an acute need for the research to be particularly thorough and the findings unambiguous. By substantiating one claim, the Taskforce rejects the others.

Due to a lack of sufficient evidence and the often complex circumstances under which works of art were seized or forcibly bought from their rightful owners as a form of state-sponsored persecution, it will be very difficult, if not impossible to come up with conclusive statements on a large number of works from the Gurlitt art trove, despite intensive research.

Unlike tracing the provenance of an object held in a museum, library, or archive, the artworks found on Cornelius Gurlitt’s premises were disorganized and not properly catalogued. For the Taskforce and its research, there was no pre-existing inventory on which the investigation could be based.

In Munich the customs officers had seized stock-books and a variety of correspondence addressing family and business matters. It was only after Cornelius Gurlitt’s death that the Taskforce was allowed by the then heir apparent (when declaring its acceptance of the inheritance on Nov. 24. 2014) to post the stock-books on the Lost Art database in a way that would not interfere with the rights of privacy or property rights of third parties.

The correspondence is currently being indexed and digitized in a research project launched in September 2014 by Munich’s Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte (Central Institute for Art History) in association with the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute of Contemporary History). It is being prepared for publication on the condition that no third-party rights are infringed.
Further records found in the Munich apartment are being evaluated in the same manner for possible publication. Only recently have other records, e.g annotated auction catalogues from the Munich apartment which had not been seized by the prosecution officers, been transferred to the Taskforce.

In February 2014 numerous records were removed from the Salzburg house on the authorisation of the legal conservator (Betreuer) appointed by a Munich court in December 2013 to look after Cornelius Gurlitt’s personal and financial matters. These records fill 17 boxes and include books, annotated catalogues, photographs, correspondence from various people etc. The records were transferred in 2014 by the authorisation of the legal conservator to a third person for further research.

Cornelius Gurlitt died in May 2014. It was only in February 2015 that the Taskforce was informed about these boxes by the court-appointed trustee of the late Gurlitt’s estate (Nachlassverwalter); it received them in March 2015.

The Taskforce relied on being informed immediately by the probate court and later the trustee about any newly discovered records or documents concerning the artworks in Gurlitt’s possession, since the continuity of the Taskforce’s research had been specified in an agreement by Cornelius Gurlitt with the federal government and the Free State of Bavaria signed on April 6, 2014.
The records and other materials of these 17 boxes are now being registered and scientifically evaluated, and made ready for digitization. Hildebrand Gurlitt’s records, however, so far shed little light on the provenance of individual artworks. His legacy of documents is also fragmentary. Moreover, much of the information to be extracted from these documents does not stand up to critical scrutiny. For instance, some of his statements made to Allied Forces authorities after World War II on alleged losses of artworks were clearly false. Some shipping lists relating to Hildebrand Gurlitt’s extensive commercial activities in France have survived. Yet, these lists often lack an exact description of the artwork and frequently only state the number of objects or the weight of the works transported.

In identifying works, researchers face a particular challenge as the "Schwabing (Munich) Art Trove" contains a great number of prints. Thus, one has to assume that there are multiple copies of each of these works of art in existence. The task of matching an artwork in Mr. Gurlitt’s former possession with a specific claim of a victim can prove to be very difficult, if not entirely impossible.

Every effort to trace the origin of all the artwork found in Cornelius Gurlitt’s homes is part of Germany’s obligation to attempt – though on a small scale -to redress the National Socialists’ policy of cultural annihilation carried out during the genocide. Thus, even without a specific claim or any preliminary research or extensive supporting documentation filed, the provenance of the artwork is being researched. Individuals who lack the means or desire to commission lawyers and art experts to act on their behalf, but who nevertheless present the Taskforce with questions about the whereabouts of works of art, are not being treated differently from any claimant who files well-prepared documentation for a specific piece of art.  

The Taskforce’s first priority was to process works for which claims had been submitted by survivors of the Holocaust.
As a second step, works that were comparatively well documented were examined. Works of particular art-historical importance were also prioritised, even if no one had actually laid claim to them, because in these cases information assisting provenance research is more easily obtainable.

At the same time, a far-reaching investigation was initiated in archives in Germany and abroad into the financial system behind the purchasing and moving of art during the Nazi era. It was under this system that Hildebrand Gurlitt operated and was able to build his collection of artwork.

The work started with the artwork discovered in Cornelius Gurlitt’s Munich apartment. These works first had to be thoroughly examined, attributed to the artists who created them when possible, and categorized: Works that belonged to the Gurlitt family, works that were expropriated from German museums by the Nazis in the course of the ‘degenerate art’ operation, works that are suspected of having been looted as a result of Nazi persecution. This latter group has been published on the Lost Art database.

The Taskforce has always been aware that the works classified as ‘degenerate art’ may also include works that were acquired by the museums after 1933 and had previously belonged to Jewish owners or works that came to the museums on loan from private individuals.

The term ‘degenerate art’ was used by the Nazis to describe works of contemporary art that did not conform to the Nazi ideology and taste.

In 1937 the Nazi regime started an operation of the same name: artworks, which were considered degenerate were confiscated from public collections and displays. If sufficient evidence is available to prove that the museums acquired these artworks before the Nazis came to power in 1933, one can conclude that their acquisition was not facilitated by Nazi persecution.

Therefore it is important to identify the museums that previously owned the artworks and their dates of acquisition. However, after the operation of 1937 one can assume that public museums and exhibition halls were reluctant to acquire such art that might make them victim to removal and seizure by the Nazi authorities.  In the event that no further indications of reasonable doubt are found, e.g. that a piece of art might have been on loan to a specific museum, these artworks will not be kept under suspicion of being looted art.

As for the artworks found in Salzburg, the heir apparent at that time, the foundation Kunstmuseum Bern, had their experts check which artworks were part of the category of “degenerate art”. The Kunstmuseum has not submitted these artworks to the Taskforce for review. However, no final decision on the review can be made as long as Cornelius Gurlitt’s will is still being contested.

Cornelius Gurlitt has been recognised as the owner of 276 works of art from the Munich art trove, which are under no suspicion of formerly having been expropriated either because they were created after 1945, were made by members of the Gurlitt family, or were directly dedicated or given as a gift by the artist to a member of the family. The Salzburg art trove has still to be reviewed. 

The Taskforce has received about 300 letters, and new queries are still coming in. Roughly 200 of these concern specific artworks. Some enquiries are of a general nature, whilst others state concrete restitution claims, at times supported by detailed documentation.

The Taskforce processes all enquiries as potentially legitimate claims—including general requests and those with few supporting documents. It is the aim of the Taskforce to carefully and thoroughly investigate enquiries from victims of the Nazi regime and their descendants who may not have the financial or legal means to hire art experts or lawyers to prepare their claims.

In some cases, claimants have since broadened their original claims to include other works from the trove, and other types of correspondence have also been received including questions for academic research, offers of assistance, and enquiries from various authorities.

Final reports have been completed to date on the provenance of three artworks from the Schwabing (Munich) find (Matisse - Lostart-ID 477894 , Liebermann - Lostart-ID 477892 , Spitzweg - Lostart-ID 477912)  and of one piece from the Salzburg find (Pissarro; La Seine vue du Pont-Neuf) .

To ensure the highest degree of transparency, reports are made available to the public, whenever legally possible, provided that this does not affect any third parties’ rights of publicity, in particular claimants and their families. In the case of over 200 of the 499 artworks posted on the database Lost Art, the research carried out thus far has not been sufficient to determine whether a work was confiscated as a result of Nazi persecution; therefore, further research is required. 

The ‘Schwabing (Munich) art trove’ refers to the 1224 artworks seized in 2012 by the public prosecutor’s office in Augsburg, Bavaria, from the apartment of Cornelius Gurlitt. His residence was located in the Schwabing borough of Munich. This trove comprised 1224 works of art. A further 34 objects were discovered in his Munich apartment only after his death in May 2014 - in total: 1258 works of art. 

276 of these works are attributed to the Gurlitts’ legitimate private collection. 231 of the artworks were seized in the 1930s as part of the Nazi’s ‘degenerate art’ operation, meaning they were removed from German public museums and displays because they were not compatible with the ideology of the Nazi regime.  Some of these works might turn out to have previously belonged to Jewish owners and have been on loan or expropriated as a result of Nazi persecution, before becoming part of public museum collections. The provenance of the remaining works – i.e. 499 pieces of art - is unknown.

These works, in addition to some of the ‘degenerate artworks’ may thus potentially be Nazi-looted art seized or expropriated from the original Jewish owners. These 499 works are posted on the online database Lost Art .