So, do I understand correctly, that they won the Supreme Court case but this did not resolve the problem or dispute in getting the paintings back?
From what I understand the only way the Supreme Court helped was that it opened the door to them being able to go for arbitration; or maybe they always could have gone that route regardless, in which case the Supreme Court decision did not help them at all?
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I have read I would say that the U.S. Supreme Court decision did help. To file suit in Austria required a huge amount of money to be put forward (a percentage of the possible value of the settlement). This would be over one million dollars. Maria's lawyer took the case to the U.S. courts because profits from the paintings were being made in the U.S. (selling posters, etc.) The Austrian authorities had refused to consider a deal and fought Maria at every turn for many years. The U.S. ruling led to an agreement of arbitration in Austria where the ruling also went in favour of the family. Over time the justice of art restitution also became a factor in swaying opinions.
share[deleted]
"I guess if arbitration failed again they could've sued in the US like they originally planned to."
I think maybe not. Once you agree to binding arbitration, I think that's it. Both sides agree to the decision one way or the other. Period.
I have seen enough to know I have seen too much. -- ALOTOshare
The Supreme Court decision -- giving Maria the right to sue in U.S. federal court -- gave Randy the leverage to get Austria to agree to arbitration. If the Supreme Court had ruled against her, she and Randy would have had no options, since suing in Austria was unfeasible. Arbitration wouldn't have been an option, since Austria would have had no reason to agree to it. So the Supreme Court decision definitely helped Maria.
shareThanks
share