Paris Court Orders Return of Pissarro Painting to Heirs of Jewish Banker
A 1941 Nazi confiscation was central to the ruling, which also invalidates a 2024 London sale and mandates that Sotheby's identify the current buyer.
By Ricardo Alvarez ·
A Paris court has ordered that a Camille Pissarro painting be returned to the descendants of Salomon Flavian, a Jewish banker and art collector. The ruling, reported by Le Figaro on Thursday, determines that the work, titled The Port of Dieppe, was confiscated by Nazi officers in 1941.
The court accepted evidence that the Flavian family made substantial efforts to recover the artwork after World War II ended. Consequently, the judges declared all subsequent sales of the painting null and void. This includes a sale that took place in London on June 25, 2024.
The painting had been out of circulation for years before appearing at a Sotheby's auction in London in 2024. It sold for 1.2 million pounds, which is approximately 5 million New Israeli Shekels. The current owner, who purchased the work at that auction, is now required to return it to Flavian's heirs.
The court directed Sotheby's to 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 face a fine of 3,550 New Israeli Shekels per day. The ruling stated that Sotheby's silence prevented the heirs from asserting their right to restitution from the subsequent purchaser.
The legal action was led by Gilles and Nicholas Flavian. The Art Newspaper reported that other relevant family members were not contacted or involved in the consent process for the lawsuit.
James Palmer, a consultant for Mondex Corporation, told ARTNews that an appeal will be filed immediately. Palmer argued that archives from dealer Paul Rosenberg and the 1939 Pissarro catalogue raisonné identify British artist Edward Le Bas as the owner of the painting from 1939 to the early 1950s.
Palmer noted that France lacks a formal restitution framework, a fact he believes disadvantages both the state and claimants. He stated that the court did not comment on these provenance facts, a flaw he expects the Court of Appeal to correct.
