Landmark ruling on Nazi-era art spoliation issued in France

Melina Wolman of Pinsent Masons in Paris was commenting after French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) held that the 1942 auction sale of artworks belonging to the Parisian lawyer and art collector Armand Dorville was spoliative, even though the sale was organised by the executor of the estate. 

Reversing the burden of proof, the French Supreme Court considered the appointment of a provisional administrator during the auction sale – and not before – for the purpose of Aryanisation of property, was an exorbitant measure of common law (“mesure exorbitante de droit commun”) depriving the heirs of the benefits of the sale, removing their consent, even if the sale was initiated by the heirs and carried out with their participation.

Dorville died in July 1941 without children. In his will, Dorville named his heirs and appointed a friend as executor. In June 1942, the executor organised a public auction in Nice of 445 artworks from Dorville’s collection. Some heirs attended and exercised their right to withdraw 46 pieces. 

This sale coincided with the fact that on 24 June 1942, while the auction was underway, the Commissariat-General for Jewish Affairs, established by the Vichy government that operated in southern parts of France during World War II semi-independently of the Nazi German occupiers, issued an order appointing a provisional administrator to manage the estate’s assets. This order applied retroactively. The administrator seized all proceeds from the sale and later resold 12 of the works withdrawn by the heirs. The heirs only recovered those sums after the war. 

In 2019, Dorville’s descendants petitioned the Commission for the Compensation of Victims of Spoliation (CIVS), seeking annulment of the auction. They relied on the 21 April 1945 Restitution Ordonnance, which declares null and void any acts carried out “as a consequence of measures exorbitant to ordinary law” imposed by the Vichy or the occupying forces. The heirs also requested restitution of 12 works acquired by the state at the auction and nine others purchased later.

In 2021, the CIVS declared itself incompetent to annul the sale, reasoning that it had occurred without violence or coercion. The CIVS nevertheless recommended, on grounds of equity, that the 12 works bought by the state be returned, subject to the legal barrier of inalienability being lifted. Inalienability is a principle that means that where there is a law that prevents it, an individual or the state cannot dispose of the property at issue.

This recommendation led to the Act 2022-218 of 21 February 2022, which temporarily derogated from the principle of inalienability of public collections and allowed restitution of the 12 works, completed in May and June 2022. 

The heirs continued their legal battle to annul the 1942 auction. Their claim was dismissed by the Paris Judicial Court on 10 January 2023 and again on appeal on 5 December 2025. The Paris Court of Appeal held that, although the appointment of a provisional administrator was an exorbitant measure, it had not altered the auction initiated by the heirs, who it considered were able to exercise their rights. 

The Cour de Cassation disagreed and overturned that ruling. 

It held that under Article 1 of the 1945 Ordonnance, any act of disposition concerning property, rights, or interests carried out without the owner’s consent – even with their material participation – is null and void if done as a consequence of measures exorbitant to the law in force as of 16 June 1940, when the Vichy regime was established, under texts issued by the Vichy or the Nazi occupiers. This, it said, includes the appointment of a provisional administrator under a 1941 Act targeting Jewish-owned businesses and assets. 

The Cour de Cassation clarified that when an act is initiated by the owner, it must still be deemed to result from such a measure if the administrator’s appointment causes dispossession, affects the conditions of the transaction, removes the ability to withdraw, and negates genuine consent. The only exception is where evidence shows the administrator’s appointment had no effect until the act was fully executed. 

The court also noted that while the 1945 Ordonnance remains unchanged in substance, subsequent legislation has facilitated administrative and amicable restitution of spoliated property. These include the Decree 99-778 of 10 September 1999 establishing the CIVS, amended by the Decree 2024-11 of 5 January 2024 implementing the Act 2023-630 of 22 July 2023. These allow, after commission review, derogation from inalienability to remove cultural property from the public domain for restitution to rightful owners. 

These developments, the court noted, align with international commitments since the 1998 Washington conference principles on Nazi-confiscated art, which were reaffirmed in 2024 recommendations and earlier declarations at Terezin in June 2009 and Vilnius in October 2000. These principles advocate fair and just solutions for Holocaust victims and their heirs, embracing a broad concept of spoliation that includes seemingly legal sales when, “given the historical and legal circumstances of each case, the sale of artworks and cultural property by a person persecuted during the Holocaust between 1933 and 1945 may be considered equivalent to an involuntary transfer of ownership”. 

Applying these principles, the Cour de Cassation ruled that appointing a provisional administrator for Aryanisation purposes during a transaction – such as a public auction – constitutes dispossession, alters the conditions of the sale, removes any real ability to withdraw, and negates consent, even if the sale was initiated by the heirs and carried out with their participation. It considered that such an act must therefore be deemed to result from an exorbitant measure, unless proven that the administrator’s appointment remained entirely without effect until completion.

“These criteria will now serve as guidance and are expected to influence how lower courts and courts of appeal adjudicate restitution cases, thereby easing the burden on claimants seeking recovery,” Melina Wolman of Pinsent Masons said.

That specified, the court found that the Paris Court of Appeal failed to draw the legal consequences of its own findings: the Court of Appeal had acknowledged that the administrator did not halt the auction but ensured it proceeded under conditions aligned with Aryanisation goals, confiscated all proceeds, and later undermined the heirs’ withdrawal rights on certain works. The appointment, it considered, was therefore not without effect. 

Wolman said: “Beyond its immediate impact – a success and a relief for the Dorville heirs – the decision signals the Cour de Cassation’s willingness to enable restitution of spoliated property by adopting a constructive interpretation of both domestic and international instruments. The explicit reference to non-binding international principles – such as the Washington conference principles and subsequent declarations – is an encouraging sign for all stakeholders involved in the restitution process. It demonstrates that the French Supreme Court is aligning its jurisprudence with global standards aimed at achieving fair and equitable solutions for Holocaust victims and their heirs.”