Voorbeelden van het gebruik van Claimed painting in het Engels en hun vertalingen in het Nederlands
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Computer
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Official/political
-
Programming
It is not known when and from whom the Bouman-Slingenbergs obtained the currently claimed painting.
A post-war overview concerning'Irrtümliche Restitution nach Holland' from the Federal Archive in Koblenz states the following in relation to the provenance of the currently claimed painting.
The currently claimed painting is listed in the auction catalogue of May 1943 under number 56 and illustrated on plate XII.
including the currently claimed painting.
The Committee did research on the back of the claimed painting but found no further provenance information.
Semmel of Berlin on the catalogue from the auction of 21 November 1933 mentioned in consideration 5 relates to the currently claimed painting.
On 3 April 1944 Pieter Menten sold the claimed painting to the Sonderauftrag Linz(Special Mission Linz)
The application for restitution was prompted by the posting of the currently claimed painting on the website of the Origins Unknown Agency(hereafter referred to as the'BHG'),
The card system referred to in consideration 4 contains an index card concerning the currently claimed painting on which is written, probably in Heppner's handwriting,'Prov.
There is no evidence to suggest that the currently claimed painting by Koekkoek(NK 2064) was the property of Simon Dotsch The applicants have also been unable to furnish the Committee with further information.
The claimed painting is not referred to by name in the rights restoration authorities' file on Rothstein,
Available archival records provide sufficient basis to assume that Heppner bought the claimed painting on 29 April 1941
The claimed painting was returned to the Netherlands after the Second World War
In so far as it could be determined what proportion of the 5,000 DM relates to the currently claimed painting, any possible repayment of this sum is a matter between Glaser's heirs and the German State.
If the Museum were to lose the currently claimed painting, it would lose that which distinguishes it from other major Dutch 17th-century art collections,
the Committee finds that the Pantheon article from 1930 cannot be regarded as grounds for identifying the currently claimed painting as a painting from Semmel's collection.
Unlike the applicants, the Committee does not regard the reference to the artist Duyster in the Pantheon article as an indication that the currently claimed painting was part of the Semmel collection.
On 14 November 1956 the aforementioned J. Jolles wrote the following about the currently claimed painting in a letter to this ministry.́This painting had been
The grandchildren maintain that the four claimed paintings now belong to them by right of succession.
None of the artworks referred to corresponds with any of the currently claimed paintings.