English Translation

On 26 August 1955, the Federal Minister of Finance issued a decision on the appeal against the decision, in so far as he ruled in the case in a meritorically manner. However, the request was rejected because it came to the conclusion that the sale to Adolf Hitler was "at that time regarded by Jaromir Czernin as advantageous and only from today's point of view as a failed speculation." Therefore, the sale was not to be regarded as a withdrawal. A complaint lodged against this decision by Jaromir Czernin was dismissed as unfounded by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) on 30 June 1960. After the death of Jaromir Czernin, the painting was claimed for a Nicolas Karger living in New York in 1980 against the Federal Ministry of Science and Research, because the actual painting had been "notarized" by Jaromi Czernine in 1938. This desire was not followed by the German Federal Ministry for Science and Science. In 1986, a later wife, divorced by Jaromir Czernin, filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Austria at the Landesgericht Innsbruck on the basis of the claim that Jaromi Czernine had handed over the painting to her on 26 December 1954. The financial procurator requested the rejection of the lawsuit, and subsequently "eternal rest of the proceedings was agreed upon. Finally, this former wife offered the purchase of the present painting from the Kunsthistorisches Museum around ATS 60 million. The purchase offer was rejected by the Kunsthistorisches Museum with a letter dated 17 October 1986. It should be noted that Jaromir Czernin's claims for provision were met by the Supreme Restitution Commission of 14 May 1949, by the order of the Supreme Reserve Commission of 18 December 1953, and by the judgment of the Administrative Court of 30 December 1953. In the respective proceedings, the content of the proceedings was examined whether the sale to Adolf Hitler on 4 October 1940 was a withdrawal, i.e. whether the sales had been made under coercion and persecution. The Advisory Council has already held that the binding effect of previous final administrative or judicial decisions (in particular the