Musées Nationaux Récupération - MNR works

Published in Patrimoine séquestré. (Dé)possessions des biens culturels dans les révolutions et les conflits (eds. Vincent Négri and Léa Saint-Raymond), 2025.

I. The emergence of MNRs

During the German Occupation, the ERR (Einsatzstab Reichsleiters Rosenberg für die besetzten Gebiete — Reichsleiter Rosenberg's Task Force for the Occupied Territories), acting under the direct authority of Alfred Rosenberg and under pressure from Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, a voracious collector, officially and systematically supervised the confiscation of public and private collections in France. Both ideologically and in practical terms, the Nazis attached as much importance to artistic and cultural looting as to military victories or territorial conquest. 

On 1 November 1940, Rosenberg requisitioned the Jeu de Paume as a central depot, together with six rooms belonging to the Department of Near Eastern Antiquities of the Louvre, before directing the works - most of them taken from dispossessed Jewish owners - to various destinations in Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe^[1].

At the request of Jacques Jaujard, Director of the French National Museums, Rose Valland remained at the Jeu de Paume, at times at great personal risk, officially as a museum officer, and unofficially tasked by Jaujard with reporting to him on the Germans' activities. It was thanks to the detailed records she compiled, noting all the information she could gather on site, that the locations where the Germans had stored hundreds of thousands of spoliated works of art were later identified^[2].

The first meeting of the newly created Commission de récupération artistique (CRA) took place on 17 September, 1944, and Rose Valland was appointed its Secretary-General^[3].

The Jeu de Paume, described as a "gare de triage" (clearing house) for works spoliated during the Nazi Occupation, then became the Commission's headquarters, its administrative centre and the place where the first convoys of works of art returning from Germany were received^[4].

Decree No. 49-1344 of the Minister of National Education dated 30 September 1949 brought the work of the CRA to an end. From 1 January 1950, the Office des biens et intérêts privés (OBIP) took over all outstanding operations and dealt with all new cases. The question then arose as to the fate of some 15,000 works returned from Germany that had not been reunited with their owners and remained in the possession of the now-defunct CRA. 

The decree provides that « Une commission présidée par le directeur général des Arts et Lettres procèdera à un choix des œuvres d’art retrouvées hors de France, qui n’auraient pas été restituées à leur propriétaire. Les œuvres d’art choisies par la commission seront attribuées par l’Office des biens et intérêts privés à la direction des Musées de France […]. Ces œuvres seront exposées […] et inscrites sur un inventaire provisoire qui sera mis à la disposition des collectionneurs pillés ou spoliés jusqu’à expiration du délai légal de revendication. » (A commission chaired by the Director General of Arts and Letters shall select works of art recovered outside France that have not been returned to their owner. The works of art selected by the commission shall be allocated by the Office des biens et intérêts privés to the Direction des Musées de France. These works shall be exhibited and entered in a provisional inventory, which shall be made available to spoliated collectors until the expiry of the statutory claim period.)

Once the selection has been made, the OBIP transferred the 12,463 works not retained to the Domaines for sale by public auction. Those sales were, however conducted without a catalogue, thereby permanently hindering the identification of the works concerned.

As for the 2,143 selected by the commission, the OBIP entrusted them to the Direction des Musées Nationaux so that they would first be exhibited at the Musée de Compiègne for possible identification by their owners and, after 1954, deposited in national museums and recorded in a special inventory under the acronym MNR ("Musées nationaux de récupération"). ‍

Strictly speaking, “MNR” originally referred to the inventory-number prefix used for old master paintings entrusted to the Louvre’s Paintings Department (roughly half of the recovered works). By extension, and for convenience, it has come to designate all works selected by the commission de choix and entrusted to museums for safekeeping, although each category has its own prefix (for example "OAR" for art objects, "RFR" for sculptures, etc.)^[5].

To dispel any doubts as to title, a governmental decree stipulated that the MNR works did not belong to the museums and could therefore never be incorporated into their permanent inventories or collections. The decree of 30 September 1949 specified that the Louvre and other museums were merely "détenteurs précaires" (precarious custodians) of those works,^[6] whilst also making them responsible for their preservation.

II. Attempt to define the legal status of MNRs

In 1992, the Direction des Musées de France sent a discreet note to the Ministry of Justice seeking clarification as to the legal status of these thousands of works and the limitation period applicable to claims for their recovery. For its part, the Ministry of Culture interpreted the provisions of the decree of 30 September, 1949 by considering that the administration's obligation only lasts « jusqu'à l'expiration du délai légal de revendication » (until the expiry of the statutory claim period), thereby allowing a transition from a de facto situation - the return of works recovered in Germany after the conflict - to a legal situation, namely the transfer of title to the State. That interpretation, however, ran counter to the restitution principle set out in the London Declaration of 5 January 1943 and reaffirmed in subsequent restitution instrument.^[7].

In a reply forwarded by Jacques Sallois, then head of the Direction des Musées de France (DMF), to DMF officials,^[8] the Ministry of Justice emphasised that the right of ownership, not being subject to limitation, could not be curtailed in any way. Accordingly, the museum holding an MNR work could only be its détenteur précaire (precarious custodian). « Cette qualité de détenteur précaire ou de possesseur pour le compte d’autrui l’empêchera toujours d’acquérir la propriété de ces biens par prescription » (This status of precarious owner or possessor for the benefit of others will always prevent it from acquiring ownership of these goods by prescription.)^[9].

1. The status issue viewed through the lens of civil law

The MNR do not fit neatly into any of the categories defined by the French Civil Code: their regime lies somewhere between dépôt (deposit) and séquestre (sequestration).

Article 1915 of the Civil Code provides that « le dépôt, en général, est un acte par lequel on reçoit la chose d'autrui, à la charge de la garder et de la restituer en nature » (deposit, in general, is an act by which one receives another person's property, undertaking to keep it and return it in kind). Given their provenance, however, it is clear that MNR works were not voluntarily handed over by their owners. 

Some MNR could, by contrast, fall within the notion of dépôt nécessaire (necessary deposit), which Article 1949 describes as « été forcé par quelque accident, tel qu'un incendie, une ruine, un pillage, un naufrage ou un autre événement imprévu » (being compelled by an accident, such as a fire, collapse, looting, shipwreck or other unforeseen event", a category into which looting and spoliation might arguably fall).

That said, the status of certain MNR must be distinguished from necessary deposit and is better approached through the concept of séquestre (sequestration): a form of deposit involving safekeeping and return similar to deposit, but relating to property that is intrinsically disputed^[10].

Sequestration is a measure in rem: it affects the property of the dispossessed owners, not the owners themselves. The sequestration of spoliated property partakes of the logic of deposit in that it rests on the actual placing of certain assets in the hands of a third party, with a view to their protection. It therefore targets the property alone because of the risk threatening it, without affecting the owner's legal capacity, which remains intact. 

Thus, whether by way of deposit or sequestration, the State services are required to safeguard the property and, where appropriate, to administer it to the extent required by the nature of the property and the scope of their mandate.

However, where sequestration is statutory or judicial, the depositor or debtor is deprived of the powers conferred on the sequester, which makes it necessary for the legislature or the court to define with precision the scope of the sequester’s powers and, above all, the modalities for returning sequestered property.

In that respect, while Article 5 of the decree of 30 September 1949 provides that MNR works must be exhibited and that an inventory of recovered works must be made available to dispossessed owners, the text does not set out the practical modalities for their restitution.

2. The status issue viewed through the lens of administrative law

Article 2 of the decree of 30 September 1949 provides that « L'office des biens et intérêts privés prendra en charge, à partir du 1er janvier 1950, toutes les opérations laissées en suspens et traitera, conformément aux dispositions qui le régissent, toutes affaires nouvelles qui auraient été de la compétence de la commission de récupération artistique. Pour ces opérations et affaires, la direction des services des bibliothèques de France et la direction des musées de France lui apporteront leur concours technique lorsqu'il estimera ce concours nécessaire. » (As of 1 January 1950, the Office of Private Property and Interests will take charge of all transactions left pending and will deal, in accordance with the provisions that govern it, any new matters that may have been within the competence of the commission de récupération artistique. For these operations and businesses, the Department of Library Services in France and the Department of Museums in France will provide technical assistance when it considers this assistance necessary.)

In a landmark decision of 30 July 2014, the Conseil d'État, asked to rule on the lawfulness of a decision by the Minister for Foreign Affairs rejecting a request for the restitution of three MNR works, took the opportunity to address the status of the MNR from the standpoint of administrative law^[11].

After examining the London Declaration of 5 January 1943, the Ordinance of 12 November 1943 on the nullity of acts of spoliation carried out by the enemy or under its control, the Ordinance of 9 August 1944 restoring republican legality, the Ordinance of 14 November 1944 giving first effect to the Ordinance of 12 November 1943, and the Ordinance of 21 April 1945 giving second effect to the Ordinance of 12 November 1943 and providing for restitution to victims of such acts of property that they had been the subject of dispositions, the Conseil d'État held:

« Considérant qu’il résulte de l’ensemble des dispositions concernant les œuvres répertoriées MNR que l’État n’a pas entendu s’en attribuer la propriété, ni par suite les incorporer au domaine public ; qu’il s’en est seulement institué le gardien à fin de restitution aux propriétaires spoliés par les actes de la puissance occupante, et à leurs ayants droit en mettant en place un service public de la conservation et de la restitution de ces œuvres ; que les autorités compétentes sont tenues de restituer les œuvres aux propriétaires légitimes, puis à leurs ayants droit, sur leur demande, »

‍(Considering that it follows from all the provisions concerning the works listed MNR that the State did not intend to assign ownership of them, or therefore incorporate them into the public domain; that it only established itself as their guardian in order to return them to the owners spoliated by the acts of the occupying power, and to their successors in title by establishing a public service for the conservation and return of these works; that the competent authorities are required to return the works to the legitimate owners, then to their successors in title, at their request)

By this decision, the Conseil d'État affirmed the existence of a mission in the general interest carried out by a State administrative service, aimed at restoring the right of legitimate owners^[12]. It is noteworthy that the decision refers only to acts of the occupying power, whereas numerous spoliations were also carried out under the approximately 150 antisemitic laws enacted by the government of Marshal Pétain and under the aegis of the Commissariat général aux questions juives (CGQJ), responsible for the “Aryanisation” of Jewish property.

The deposit takes on an administrative character once it falls within the remit of a dedicated public service, thereby ensuring the effectiveness of custody.^[13]. The restitutive purpose of that service also provides a safeguard in light of European instruments, in particular Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to property.

This entails a set of obligations governing property entrusted to a public service, drawing both on the Code Civil rules applicable to depositaries and on the duties incumbent on the Administration in safeguarding public property, particularly movable property forming part of the public domain. Under Article 1927 of the Code Civil, « le dépositaire doit apporter, dans la garde de la chose déposée, les mêmes soins qu'il apporte dans la garde des choses qui lui appartiennent » (The depositary must take the same care of the deposited property as it takes of property belonging to it). The administration is therefore subject to an obligation to protect the MNR in its custody equivalent to the protection it must afford to movable property within the State's public domain.

Accordingly, the exclusion of MNR deposits from the sphere of public ownership is explained by the administrative courts’ focus on the purpose of the State’s conservation of such works, which is not an act of appropriation.This is why the principle of inalienability of the public domain, which might otherwise have prevented restitution, is avoided by excluding the works from any form of public ownership. The notion of "dépôt administratif" (administrative deposit) thus constitutes a derogatory regime extending certain features of public-domain protection beyond the confines of public ownership. 

The neutralisation of imprescriptibility is, moreover, an essential feature of any recognition of an administrative deposit^[14]. A sequestration measure must always be confined to what is strictly necessary to achieve its aim, being the restitution to the dispossessed owners or their successors in title in the case of the MNR. 

Finally, the State can only be a depositary if it is not the owner, since the civil-law concept of deposit excludes appropriation. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the deposit, and thus the strict restitution requirement, the framework governing spoliated property had to neutralise acquisitive prescription, which would otherwise have resulted in public appropriation followed by automatic incorporation into the movable public domain. To preserve the deposit-like nature of the scheme, the legislature and the regulatory authority therefore had to neutralise the ordinary rule of acquisitive prescription applicable to movables (Article 2276 of the Code Civil)^[15]).

The MNR category, insofar as it operates as a form of sequestration, thus creates a holding situation amounting to a legal standstill. Yet that sequestration is necessarily accompanied by an administrative measure linked to the public-service mission with which the State is entrusted: restitution to the legitimate owners.

This raises the question of how the State services have fulfilled that mission and the means deployed to meet their obligations to identify the beneficiaries of the public service, namely the dispossessed owners of their successors in title, and to take the initiative in the restitution process.

Two observations follow. First, all trace has been lost of some 12,463 objects returned from Germany for restitution to their dispossessed owners, but entrusted in 1949 by the OBIP to the Domaines for sale by public auction and dispersed without catalogues. Second, the delay in carrying out the necessary research has led to a considerable number of MNR works still not being restituted, at a time when provenance traces and the possibility of identifying successors in title are diminishing.

It is therefore necessary to examine how the management of the MNR and restitution practices have evolved since the end of the conflict. 

III. Management of the MNR and the evolution of restitution procedures

From the late 1950s to the mid-1990s, the restitution of works of art spoliated between 1933 and 1945 was largely passed over in silence. More generally, the provenance of museum holdings, whether MNR works or works forming part of public collections, was not a central concern, and it is striking that only six MNR works were restituted between 1954 and 1993.

This silence regarding the looting of works of art contributed to a broader amnesia and called into question the public-service dimension of the MNR works as administrative deposits or administrative sequestrations. As if in a vast shadow theatre, the impression is that provenance research was to remain confined to a handful of experts at the Quai d’Orsay, or to a small number of individuals such as Rose Valland, who is known to have been increasingly marginalised.^[16].

1. The shift in the mid-1990s

The shift occurred in the mid-1990s, following renewed historiographical research made possible in particular by the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the opening of new archives.^[17].

Two books contributed to the renewed focus on the looting of works of art in territories occupied by the Germans during the Second World War. In September 1995, an American edition of Le Pillage de l’Europe - Les Œuvres d’Art volées par les nazis (the plunder of Europe: works of art stolen by the Nazis) by the American art historian Lynn Nicholas was published. In the same year, the Cuban journalist Hector Feliciano published in France Le Musée Disparu (the disappeared museum), the result of an eight-year investigation seeking to trace works and art objects stolen by the Nazis and by Wehrmacht soldiers as the troops advanced and as German occupation extended across conquered European territories.

The issue of the spoliation of works of art gained momentum as part of a broader reassessment of France’s role during the Second World War, reflected in particular in President Jacques Chirac’s landmark speech acknowledging France’s responsibility in the deportation of Jews on 16 July 1995. It was in this context that the “Mission d’étude sur la spoliation des Juifs de France” was launched in 1997 under the chairmanship of Jean Mattéoli, and conducted extensive investigations into the various forms of antisemitic spoliation. As regards the MNR, the Mattéoli Commission noted in its report that the Administration, and in particular the Direction des Musées de France, should devote greater efforts to identifying their owners.^[18].

That mission led, in particular in 1999, to the creation of the Fondation pour la mémoire de la Shoah and the Commission pour l’indemnisation des victimes de spoliation intervenues du fait des législations antisémites en vigueur pendant l’Occupation (CIVS).

At the political level, the speech delivered by Aurélie Filippetti in March 2013^[19], on the occasion of the restitution of several works to the heirs of spoliated owners marked a significant turning point. Advocating a proactive approach, the Minister of Culture announced the creation of a working group tasked with conducting provenance research on a set of 163 MNR works entrusted to museums for safekeeping.

In October 2015, the Service des Musées de France circulated to all museums holding MNR works a major instruction signed by the Minister of Culture, Fleur Pellerin, intended to reiterate the rules governing their management.^[20]. This instruction was completed in May 2017 by her successor Audrey Azoulay.^[21].

However, over the same period, notwithstanding significant private initiatives, provenance research did not intensify to a level commensurate with the stated political commitment to the restitution of the MNR. 

2. Successive reforms of restitution procedures

A first reform of the procedure for identifying successors in title of dispossessed owners and for the restitution of MNR works was developed following the submission of a report by David Zivie, [22] commissioned by Audrey Azoulay, then Minister of Culture. A decree of 1 October 2018^[23] conferred jurisdiction on the Commission pour l'indemnisation des victimes de spoliations (CIVS) “pour proposer au Premier ministre, de sa propre initiative ou à la demande de toute personne concernée, toute mesure nécessaire de restitution ou, à défaut, d’indemnisation, en cas de spoliations de biens culturels intervenues du fait de législations antisémites en vigueur pendant l’Occupation, notamment lorsque ces biens ont été intégrés dans les collections publiques ou récupérés par la France après la Seconde Guerre mondiale et confiés depuis lors à la garde des musées nationaux” (to propose to the Prime Minister, of its own initiative or at the request of any person concerned, any measure necessary for restitution, or failing that compensation, in cases of spoliation of cultural property resulting from antisemitic legislation in force during the Occupation, in particular where such property has been incorporated into public collections or recovered by France after the Second World War and has since been entrusted to national museums for safekeeping).

On 17 May 2019, an order of the Ministry of Culture[24] created “une mission de recherche et de restitution des biens culturels spoliés entre 1933 et 1945 coordonne la politique publique visant à identifier et restituer ces biens, notamment ceux qui ont été spoliés du fait des mesures antisémites, que ces biens aient été spoliés en France, ou qu’ils se trouvent sur le territoire national” (a mission for the research and restitution of cultural property spoliated between 1933 and 1945 coordinates the public policy aimed at identifying and restituting such property, in particular property spoliated as a result of antisemitic measures, whether the spoliation took place in France or whether the property is located on the national territory). The mission was placed under the direction of David Zivie, author of the above-mentioned report. “Elle assure les recherches permettant l’identification des biens culturels spoliés conservés par les institutions publiques, de leurs propriétaires et de leurs ayants droit. Elle assure l’instruction des cas de spoliations de biens culturels mentionnés à l’article 1-1 du décret n° 99-778 du 10 septembre 1999 modifié… Dans ce cadre, elle assure… la recherche des propriétaires de ces biens et de leurs héritiers” (conducts the research enabling the identification of spoliated cultural property held by public institutions, its owners and their successors in title; examines cases of spoliation of cultural property referred to in Article 1-1 of Decree No. 99-778 of 10 September 1999 as amended… and, in that context, undertakes the search for the owners of such property and their heirs).

In spring 2023, a framework bill was introduced in Parliament with the aim of allowing works shown to have been spoliated between 1933 and 1945 to be removed from the national collections, notwithstanding the principle of inalienability applicable to property in the State’s public domain. The law, adopted unanimously by Parliament on 22 July 2023 and published in the Journal Officiel on 23 July 2023,^[25], provides that "la personne publique se prononce sur le déclassement, après l’avis d’une commission administrative, placée auprès du Premier ministre, compétente en matière de réparation des préjudices consécutifs aux spoliations de biens intervenues du fait des persécutions antisémites. Cet avis porte sur l’existence d’une spoliation et ses circonstances…" (The public person pronounces (On decommissioning) after the opinion of an administrative commission, placed under the Prime Minister, competent to compensate for damages resulting from the plunder of property resulting from antisemitic persecutions. This opinion focuses on the existence of a plunder and its circumstances)

Following the enactment of that law, the CIVS underwent a further reform by virtue of a decree dated 5 January 2024. The decree, “pris pour l’application de l’article L. 115-4 du code du patrimoine… poursuit deux objectifs. D’une part, il abroge et remplace le décret n° 99-778 du 10 septembre 1999… qui devient la commission pour la restitution des biens et l’indemnisation des victimes de spoliations antisémites, dénommée CIVS. D’autre part, il crée… la procédure à suivre pour aboutir à la sortie des collections publiques, en vue de leur restitution, de biens culturels pour lesquels une spoliation a été établie” (adopted for the application of Article L. 115-4 of the Heritage Code… pursues two objectives: first, it repeals and replaces Decree No. 99-778 of 10 September 1999…, thereby transforming it into the “commission pour la restitution des biens et l’indemnisation des victimes de spoliations antisémites”, known as CIVS; second, it establishes in the regulatory part of the Heritage Code the procedure to be followed in order to remove from public collections, for the purposes of restitution, cultural property in respect of which spoliation has been established).^[26]

3.The role of case law in the renewed focus on restitution, application of the Ordinance of 21 April 1945 

French courts have heard requests for the return of works of art stolen during the Second World War and have issued several emblematic decisions based on Ordinance No. 45-770 of 21 April 1945. The Federico Gentili di Giuseppe case is the first case brought before a French court on the basis of this text, in the resurgent movement initiated in the late 1990s.

Following the Administration’s refusal, as early as 1951, to return to the family five works from the Gentili di Giuseppe collection deposited at the Louvre under the MNR designation,^[27] the heirs brought a claim before the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris in 1998, relying on Ordinance No. 45-770 of 21 April 1945, which provides for the nullity of acts of spoliation carried out by the enemy or under its control and orders restitution to victims of property that has been the subject of acts of disposition. Although the first-instance judge had declined to characterise as spoliatory the auction sale of Federico Gentili di Giuseppe’s collection organised at the Hôtel Drouot in Paris between May and June 1941, the Cour d'appel de Paris held in a judgment of 2 June 1999^[28] that there was a link between the heirs’ absence as a consequence of the racial legislation they had been forced to flee, the placing of Federico Gentili di Giuseppe’s property under judicial administration, and the public sale of the collection. The dispersal of that collection, while ostensibly lawful, nonetheless met the definition of spoliation set out in the Ordinance of 21 April 1945.

The Cour d'appel therefore ordered the Louvre to restitute to the collector’s heirs the five MNR works held in its collections, pursuant to Décret n° 49-1344 du 30 septembre 1949 relatif à la fin des opérations de la commission de récupération artistique.

However, one may question whether it is necessary, as a precondition to the restitution of MNR works, to obtain a judicial finding that the sale was null and void under the Ordinance of 21 April 1945. From the standpoint of sequestration, the issue is not so much the validity of the public auctions organised at Drouot in April and May 1941, as the restitution to their owners of works held by the Louvre as a détenteur précaire, whether or not the spoliation falls within the definition adopted by the Ordinance of 21 April 1945^[29].

The rejection of the claim in effect rendered the Louvre a perpetual détenteur précaire of property entrusted to it under a statutory sequestration arising from the Second World War and from the antisemitic regime imposed by the government of Marshal Pétain between June 1940 and August 1944. 

Where dispossessed owners are identified with certainty, should restitution of the relevant MNR works not follow as a matter of course? 

Similarly, Article 68 of Law No. 2016-925 of 7 July 2016 on freedom of creation, architecture and heritage^[30], allows the Government to submit to Parliament every year a report on MNR works that might be incorporated into the national collections where it cannot be established that they were the subject of spoliation. That provision appears to undermine the principles flowing from the 1943 London Declaration and the very rationale of administrative deposit as a public service, since it permits the incorporation of MNR works into the national collections, in contradiction with the status of those works as analysed above.

The example of the deposit of masterpieces from the Prado Museum in Geneva in 1939, at the time of the Spanish Civil War, had already demonstrated the importance of providing, from the outset of any sequestration, for the conditions of restitution. In February 1939, as the Spanish Republic stood on the brink of collapse, an international committee comprising nine representatives of the principal European museums, including the Musée d’art et d’histoire de Genève, concluded with the Spanish Republicans an agreement to evacuate Spanish works to the headquarters of the Société des Nations in Geneva.^[31]. The Société des Nations undertook to return them to the lawful government once peace was restored. Pursuant to that agreement, as soon as General Franco's victory was recognised, the works were formally restituted to Franco's ambassador in Bern. 

Where sequestration aims to protect property with a view to restitution, it is therefore essential, from the moment the sequestration is put in place, to specify the conditions and modalities for the return of the property placed under sequestration.

That said, the use made of a work by the museum with which it has been deposited may, over time, be relied upon to justify the substitution of financial compensation in place of physical restitution. The restitution framework does not in all cases require the material return of the work, which allows the State to propose compensation in order to retain the work within public collections, as provided for by the law of 22 July 2023.

In addition, it could be envisaged that works which have not been reunited with their owner despite thorough provenance research could be incorporated into public collections, provided that the memorial corpus constituted by the MNR group is preserved. That group comprises works recovered in Germany and returned to France for the purpose of restitution to dispossessed owners. Preservation could be achieved by retaining the MNR designation when such works are entered into public inventories.