DistantNews
Support us
Mauritshuis wins legal battle: Heirs denied return of Bredius art collection
🇳🇱 Netherlands /Culture & Society

Mauritshuis wins legal battle: Heirs denied return of Bredius art collection

From NRC Handelsblad · () Dutch

Translated from Dutch, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources Outcome reported
  • The Mauritshuis museum in The Hague does not have to return 25 artworks from the Abraham Bredius legacy to his heirs, a court ruled.
  • The heirs claimed the museum violated Bredius's will by not permanently displaying all works, including five Rembrandts.
  • The court found Bredius's testament ambiguous and noted that rotating works between display and storage was common practice even during his directorship.

The Mauritshuis museum in The Hague is not obligated to return 25 artworks from the collection of art connoisseur Abraham Bredius to his heirs, the The Hague District Court has ruled. The court dismissed all claims made by the heirs, who had sued the state and the museum over its exhibition policies.

not crystal clear

— The courtThe court's assessment of the wording in Abraham Bredius's testament regarding the exhibition of artworks.

The heirs, three descendants of Joseph Kronig, Bredius's protégé and housemate, argued that the museum breached the terms of Bredius's will by not permanently exhibiting all 25 works bequeathed to the museum. They specifically demanded the Mauritshuis permanently display five Rembrandt paintings and other works from the collection.

However, the court found that the relevant clause in Bredius's 1946 testament, written in French, was not "crystal clear" and could be interpreted in multiple ways. While the heirs interpreted the phrase "devront rester exposés exclusivement dans ledit Musée" (must remain exclusively exhibited in said Museum) as a mandate for permanent display, the judges suggested it could also mean that if the works were exhibited, it must be at the Mauritshuis.

must remain exclusively exhibited in said Museum

— Abraham Bredius's testamentThe specific French clause from Bredius's will that was central to the legal dispute.

The court acknowledged Bredius's concern about damage to his paintings if they were loaned to other museums. Nevertheless, it noted that rotating works between public display and storage was a common practice even during Bredius's own tenure as director of the Mauritshuis from 1889 to 1909. The court cited a 1895 report detailing such a rotation, motivated by the possibility of "better pieces" taking their place.

their places could be taken by better pieces

— Court rulingThe court cited a 1895 report explaining the rationale behind rotating artworks.

Despite the ruling, the Kronig family intends to appeal the decision. They maintain that a significant portion of the collection has been inaccessible to the public for years and has been "moved outside the original museum context." Otto Kronig stated their aim is not to reclaim the artworks but to ensure that "a final wish must be respected." Their lawyer, Gert Jan van den Bergh, views the court's decision as setting a precedent that a testament is only binding until a museum deems it impractical, making a further court hearing necessary.

a final wish must be respected

— Otto KronigOne of the heirs stated the family's motivation for pursuing the legal action.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by NRC Handelsblad in Dutch. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog