Dear members of the public,
dear website visitors,

The matter at hand goes back to the period immediately after 1945, as it relates to a situation that arose within the Soviet occupation zone during the years just after the end of the Second World War. During that period, the Soviet occupation forces expropriated hundreds of thousands of people in the territory without compensation. The government of the GDR undertook further expropriations. These also affected the Hohenzollern family, which lost a large share of its private assets during this time. Today, public authorities as well as aggrieved parties and/or their heirs now face the task of dealing with the aftereffects of these expropriations.
Legal provisions were adopted for this purpose during and after Germany’s reunification. These provisions are set out in the Law on the Settlement of Open Property Issues (Vermögensgesetz – VermG) of 1990 and the Indemnification and Compensation Act of 1994 (Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz – EALG). The law distinguishes between immovable assets, such as real estate, and movable property, which also includes works of art.
After reunification, several thousands of claimants, including the Hohenzollerns, exercised comparable rights. Prince Louis Ferdinand Sr. did so as well in the 1990s. The proceedings have been pending for over 25 years now.

In the case of real estate or land, EALG provides for certain compensation based on a
specific scale of assessment. When applying this scale, the calculation of the potential compensation is not based on the present-day market value of the expropriated real estate. Rather, officials use the value assessed in 1935 as the basis of the calculation. In the case of the real estate expropriated from the House of Hohenzollern, this assessed value in the Federal State of Brandenburg is approximately DM 42 million. Based on the statutory regulation, however, it is not a matter of compensating the assessed value or the market value – which would exceed the assessed value several times over. The law yields a theoretical compensation figure of EUR 1.2 million. The amount was calculated by the relevant authority. Furthermore, the law offers expropriated parties the opportunity to reacquire land used for agriculture and forestry, provided that the land has not already been disposed of by the state.

The law adopted in 1994 also provides for the return of movable property, insofar as the items were located on the respective premises. Essentially, any movable property subject to this law must be returned.

The family has on multiple occasions stated publicly in clear terms, however, that it is not interested in exercising such rights to the fullest extent as part of a broad settlement. In cooperation with the involved institutions and state authorities, the House of Hohenzollern is seeking to lay down binding terms for how the affected movable property will be handled, for example, with regard to aspects of preservation, and where items will ultimately be located. The interests of all parties involved must be considered here.

It is true that after the abolition of the monarchy and the founding of the Weimar Republic there was a debate surrounding how the assets belonging to the Hohenzollerns should be handled. Initially, all of the family’s assets were seized. It was not until 1926 that an
agreement was reached between the State of Prussia and the House of Hohenzollern, the outcome of which was a clear separation between state assets and assets belonging to the family’s private estate. An agreement – passed legislatively by the Prussian state parliament – specified exactly which assets were to be considered property of the state and which belonged to the family’s private estate. Restitution was subsequently granted for the seized assets falling into the category of private property. Everything else remained in possession of the State of Prussia.

The majority of what was designated as the family’s private property in 1926 was located in the part of Germany that became the Soviet occupation zone in 1945. The uncompensated expropriations that occurred in the Soviet occupation zone subsequently affected thousands of families, including the Hohenzollerns, who lost the vast majority of their private property as a result. Contrary to claims that have been made publicly, the family is not seeking compensation a second time. Rather, like so many others, it is merely asking for lost assets to be returned. This request was made on the basis of the legal framework that was established through legislation after Germany’s reunification.

In principle, the Indemnification and Compensation Act (EALG) does set out rules governing the return of real estate. The means for doing so are highly restrictive.
To the extent that the matter relates to the family’s right of residence at properties formerly belonging to it, it should be noted that the settlement agreement reached in 1926 granted the right of residence at Cecilienhof Palace for a period limited to three generations. Irrespective of that agreement, a similar proposal was made by Brandenburg’s government in the 1990s after reunification. The government in Potsdam as well as the Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation Berlin-Brandenburg made specific proposals as part of a compromise to transfer properties (back) to the family. During the GDR era, there were specific deliberations as to whether to offer the family a right of residence at Cecilienhof Palace. In other words, the issue concerning the right of residence has not been “fabricated” by the family.

In this context, Prince Georg Friedrich has stated publicly on multiple occasions since July this year that reaching a comprehensive settlement will not hinge upon the matter of right of residence.

The relevant questions of ownership have been unresolved for decades, meaning that the first task is to establish legal certainty. Once that has occurred, this still poses no “danger” for museums. Prince Georg Friedrich has repeatedly emphasised that the family is aware of its cultural responsibility and indicated that he would like to leave the items at their present locations, particularly if they are on public display. In this regard, the restitution of famous works of art is not an issue either.

Some people in the media have written that these claims will result in the closure of at least two museums. This allegation lacks any factual basis. On the contrary, the Hohenzollern family has long been a major lender to prominent museums in Brandenburg and Berlin and would like this to remain so.

The Hohenzollern family is seeking a comprehensive, amicable settlement. This would ensure legal and planning certainty for everyone as well as lay a foundation for lasting, productive cooperation, which is why Prince Georg Friedrich is seeking such a settlement. In his view, it will ensure, among other things, that prominent works remain accessible to the public.
It should be noted here that it was and continues to be state institutions that have advocated for the idea of a Hohenzollern museum and have continued developing previous concepts for the museum site(s). It was only later that the project was proposed to the family, which has embraced and supported it ever since.
Pieces that are particularly relevant to the public could be put on display in a permanent exhibit, and the respective institutions as well as the family could place items on loan for this purpose. Obviously, this type of long-term project only makes sense if the parties involved are committed to a permanent exhibit of this sort. The family certainly is willing.

The Hohenzollern family played a special role in Prussia’s and Germany’s history for several centuries. The academic literature on the topic would likely fill entire libraries, and it goes without saying that this history is a topic of discussion within the family as well. Due to the nature of the matter, the discussion is unavoidably self-critical and sometimes controversial. More than forty years ago, Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia already began exploring the subject of individual family members’ influence and roles during the Weimar Republic and the “Third Reich”. The book was re-released most recently in 2003 in a revised and expanded edition. No other academic study of comparable depth has been published on the topic to date. Prince Louis Ferdinand Sr. was at one point a patron to the publication of a biography of the Crown Prince written by Klaus W. Jonas. The work, which provides critical insights about the eldest son of the Emperor, still remains the most comprehensive biography of the Crown Prince.

The pending proceedings have once again brought about a critical discussion of this topic. Four expert opinions have been submitted, some of which arrive at very different conclusions concerning the historical role and significance of the Crown Prince, as well as the motivations behind and consequences of his actions. Two expert opinions were commissioned by Brandenburg’s former Minister for Finance (The Left party). Based on well-documented sources, parts of which were already included several years prior in the aforementioned publication, they conclude that the Crown Prince did make a “significant contribution” to the rise of the National Socialist regime. These experts’ reasoning would rule out any claim to compensation.

Two expert opinions commissioned by the family contradict these findings. Based on new sources and knowledge that had previously not been considered, they conclude that the facts at hand do not satisfy the criteria defining a “significant contribution” and would therefore justify the claim for compensation.

The family is committed to an open discussion about its history and acknowledges the critical aspects as well, which is also why the party experts commissioned by the Federal State of Brandenburg were granted access to the family’s archives at Hohenzollern Castle.
By the same token, the family is committed to an unbiased exploration of historical topics, and it goes without saying that it places its full trust in resolving the matter through proceedings under the rule of law. The family is optimistic about the outcome of these proceedings.

The family is one of the largest private lenders to the museums in Brandenburg and Berlin, which means it has already been part of many successful projects in partnership with public cultural institutions. The family is eager to continue this work as part of its cultural responsibilities.

In confronting its own history, the family finds, if nothing else, that promoting the European idea is one of the most salient endeavours of our time. The family is rising to this challenge through its work with youth, organising relevant events and exhibitions, as well as loaning works to institutions in neighbouring European countries and other projects.

Prussian history has been influential in ways that go far beyond our national borders. For instance, if one were to project a map of Prussia at the height of its power onto a map of present-day Europe, it becomes apparent that numerous European countries have a direct link to Prussian history or even have a Prussian past. The family consciously seeks to promote the European idea by supporting exhibition projects though the loaning of items to neighbouring European countries. This is one mission of the envisaged Hohenzollern network, which will be developed across Europe in cooperation with various state institutions.

The family has not contested any cases of critical reporting whatsoever. That would not even be possible under press law. It has merely defended itself against misinformation. Especially in the context of such an intense and controversial discussion, it is important that all parties be furnished with accurate information and have the ability to form an opinion based on these facts. Numerous judicial rulings throughout Germany have consequently shown that the actions taken by the family to counter misinformation have been in the public interest.

It is totally inaccurate to speak of “closed-door negotiations”. The media first reported that the various parties were engaged in talks several years ago. Furthermore, the usual confidentiality provisions apply to this case, in particular Article 30 VwVfG and Article 5 VwVfG, which entitle every citizen to confidentiality during administrative procedures. The fact that these are not “closed-door negotiations” is further underscored by the fact that agreements resulting from negotiations must still be approved by the state parliaments.