Paris court orders return of Pissarro stolen from French banker in 1941

A Paris court has ordered the restitution of The Port of Dieppe, a painting by Camille Pissarro, to the descendants of Salomon Flavian, a Jewish banker and art collector. The ruling, reported by Le Figaro on Thursday, determines that the work was confiscated by Nazi officers in 1941. The court found that the Flavian family provided sufficient evidence to prove the seizure and noted that Salomon Flavian made substantial efforts to recover the piece after World War II.

The legal decision invalidates all sales of the painting since its original theft. This includes a transaction that occurred at a Sotheby's auction in London on June 25, 2024. At that event, the painting sold for £1.2 million, or 5 million NIS. The work had not appeared on the market for years prior to that auction. The court statement explained that Sotheby's silence prevented the heirs from asserting their right to restitution against the subsequent purchaser.

Under the order, Sotheby's must disclose the full identity of the 2024 buyer to the Flavian descendants within two months. If the auction house fails to meet this deadline, it will incur a fine of 3,550 NIS for every day of delay. The current owner of the painting is required to return the work to the family of the original owner, regardless of where it is currently located.

The court cited the April 21, 1945, ordinance concerning the restitution in kind of looted property to victims or their heirs. The ruling stated that the auction house's conduct contravened the primary objective of that law. The decision aims to restore the artwork to the heirs of the victim of the spoliation.

Mondex Corporation consultant James Palmer told ARTNews that an appeal will be filed immediately. Palmer countered the Flavian family's claim by pointing to the archives of dealer Paul Rosenberg and the 1939 Pissarro catalogue raisonné. He stated that these records identify British artist and collector Edward Le Bas as the owner of the painting from 1939 to the early 1950s.

Palmer argued that the court did not comment on these facts, suggesting they received no significant consideration in the judicial assessment. He noted that France currently lacks a formal restitution framework, which disadvantages both the state and claimants. The Art Newspaper reported that the legal action was led by Gilles and Nicholas Flavian without the consent or involvement of other relevant family members.

Palmer expressed confidence that the Court of Appeal will reach a different conclusion once the complex provenance research evidence is properly understood. The appeal process will determine if the 2024 sale stands or if the painting moves back into the hands of the Flavian heirs.