# Altmann v Austria: A Restitution Case End to End > Maria Altmann won in the US Supreme Court in 2004, but the Court decided only that Austria could be sued. Ownership of the five Klimts was settled by three arbitrators in Vienna in 2006. > The Study - 2026-08-02 > Canonical HTML: https://iconotheca.com/study/altmann-v-austria-a-restitution-case-end-to-end/ ## Key points - Adele Bloch-Bauer's will of 19 January 1923 asked her husband to bequeath the Klimts to the Austrian Gallery; Ferdinand owned them, never executed a transfer, and the Supreme Court's statement of facts records him as their sole legitimate owner until his death. - Austria's own restitution committee rejected the claim to the five paintings in 1999, holding that Adele's will created a binding obligation. - The Supreme Court's decision of 7 June 2004 resolved only that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applied retroactively, so Austria could be sued; it decided nothing about ownership. - Austrian court fees are proportional to the value in dispute, and roughly USD 350,000 remained payable even after a partial waiver, which is why the claim was brought in California. ## A request, not a bequest ## Fuehrer, and then the export permit ## 1998: the archive opens, Austria says no, and Vienna is priced out ## What the Supreme Court decided, and what it did not ## Three arbitrators in Vienna decided the thing itself ## What the market did with them, and how to read the figures Altmann is remembered as a Klimt case and it is a forum case. The merits were essentially fixed by 1948 and fully knowable by 1999: a testatrix asked, an owner never gave, and a lawyer without authority signed. What consumed the following seven years was finding a tribunal that would hear the claim and a rule of immunity that would let that tribunal be reached. Anyone assessing a restitution claim should spend the first day on the merits and the next month on the forum, because that is roughly the proportion in which the two decide the result. ## Questions **Did the US Supreme Court order Austria to return the Klimts?** No. The 2004 judgment held only that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 applies to conduct predating its enactment, so Austria's claim of immunity failed and the suit could proceed. Ownership was decided in January 2006 by a three-member arbitral panel in Austria, after the parties agreed in May 2005 to end the American litigation. **Why did Maria Altmann not simply sue in Austria?** Austrian court costs are proportional to the value of the recovery sought, which on these paintings meant several million dollars in filing costs. The court granted a partial waiver leaving roughly USD 350,000 payable, and the Austrian government appealed against that waiver. She dismissed the Austrian suit and filed in California. **What did Adele Bloch-Bauer's will actually say?** The Supreme Court's statement of facts records that her will asked her husband, after his death, to bequeath the paintings to the Austrian Gallery. She did not own them. Ferdinand never executed any document transferring ownership and, on that account, remained their sole legitimate owner until his death in 1945. **Was the 1948 donation document a forgery?** Nothing in the public record supports that. What the record establishes is narrower and sufficient: the Gallery told the family's lawyer, incorrectly, that Adele had bequeathed the paintings; the lawyer then signed a document acknowledging Ferdinand's asserted wish; and he had no authority from Maria Altmann to negotiate for her or to let the Gallery take the works. ## Sources - [1] Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (statement of facts, holding, concurrences and dissent). - [2] ArThemis, Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva, 'Six Klimt paintings - Maria Altmann and Austria' (chronology, arbitration, reported sale figures; note the 2004 arbitration dates in this entry appear to be erroneous). - [3] Opinio Juris, 'Altmann Wins Battle for Klimt Paintings', 17 January 2006 (contemporaneous report of the arbitral award and the panel's composition). - [4] Kommission fuer Provenienzforschung, Austria (Art Restitution Act 1998; Advisory Board recommends to the responsible federal minister). - [5] Commission for Looted Art in Europe, 'Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art' (non-binding preamble; the principles say nothing about court fees or forum access).