1. When and where was the painting stolen, and what proof exists of such ?
a. The painting was stolen in 1979
b. The painting was stolen in Paris in Paola Modiano’s flat
c. German Court a copy of the denunciation to the French Police (annex 1) and also a copy (we have other relevant documents) of the private correspondence (dated 1979) between my Grandmother and prof. Bianca Riccio, a renowned Italian art historian, regarding the theft (annex 2). Please note that the painting was published since the ‘20s in all the catalogues (Morassi, Pallucchini -) as belonging to Modiano collection (even in the Museum’s catalogue Modiano Collection is quoted).
2. When was it identified in the Museum’s collection?
a. In 2001 (notwithstanding the previous –1979- denunciation to French Authorities and to Interpol), thanks to Fabrizio’s ability. We have provided to the Court a copy of the relevant denunciation to the Italian Carabinieri (signed by my late Grandmother – born in 1908 – and prof. Bianca Riccio annex 3)
3. When did the lawyers request its return to the Ferrari family?
a. In 2001 prof.avv. Gabriele Crespi Reghizzi, an internationally renowned Italian lawyer, tried a friendly approach to the Museum.
4. What was the reply from the Museum…where did they say they obtained it from?
a. The reply was that we were boasters
b. In front of the Court the Museum declared to have purchased the painting form m.me Grati Baroni, for what we know, just a common art merchant (prof. P. Rosenberg, former director of Louvre etc etc declared to the Court’s expert, Prof. Dr. Jan Kelch the former director of the Gemäldegalerie Berlin, that he never heard about that lady).
c. The Museum does not know the exact provenience of the painting (excluding my Family and m.me Grati Baroni, of course)
5. What is their argument for not returning it?
a. Good faith in the purchase (note that the museum was not able to produce the export papers of the painting which would prove that the transport of the painting from France to Germany – pending a denunciation of thefts in front of the French Authorities – was duly made, nor was any proof furnished during the proceeding that the export turnover tax undisputedly required had been paid).