Among these was a painting by Rembrandt, described at the time as Portrait of Raman, in which Posse was greatly interested but which he could not buy because of an acute shortage of Swiss money. Aalbers wanted to use this knowledge to develop a solution. What if landscapes were given a more significant role as a link between the municipality and its residents? If landscapers and residents cooperated, condoned by the municipality? She started the Nieuwe Hovenier project, aimed specifically at neighbourhoods that stood to benefit most from this approach, like priority or deprived neighbourhoods.The criteria for restitution have therefore not been met. With regard to the Göring works, the title to which can be considered proven to a high degree, the Committee must decide whether the loss of possession of these works was involuntary as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. The documentation found during the investigation indicates that after the German invasion of the Netherlands, the Katz brothers remained very active on the art market.These works are NK 2603, NK 2823, NK 1815, NK 2633, NK 2172, NK 2207, NK 2655, NK 2711 and NK 3292. The Zilvermeertje, a pond in Venlo, is smack in the middle of a neighbourhood, enclosed by busy streets and tall apartment blocks. Up until a few years ago, the space around the pond was difficult to access, which kept it from being an attractive feature of the neighbourhood. Nowadays, it is a green, open park with vegetable patches and a meeting place for the neighbourhood. Once a month, residents join landscapers as they plant, hoe and trim to maintain the park. To help us understand how this change came about, Carmen Aalbers tells the story of a collaboration between research and practice. Contact Us Hovenier Arnhem Email: [email protected] Phone: +31266690422 Meester B.M. Teldersstraat 7 Arnhem, Gelderland, NL 6842 CT Residents get more exercise and may be less lonely. Neighbours that hardly knew each other now build up a connection. On top of that, social control will increase, too.’ They believe this will positively impact the welfare and social cohesion of the neighbourhood, which may, in turn, increase safety in the area.They concluded that the brothers had indeed supplied paintings to the Germans. Nathan Katz was said to have acted as ‘Sachverständiger’ for the Germans, for which he received a salary. It was not possible to ascertain whether these activities were conducted voluntarily. Within the Special Criminal Jurisdiction this was regarded as a complicated case. The investigation should therefore focus on the period before the liquidation of Firma D. Katz in February 1941.During his stay in Switzerland, Nathan Katz offered financial support to stateless refugees.After the group with Benjamin Katz had left the Netherlands, a few family members remained behind, among whom was Eva Katz-Franken, the brothers’ mother. A brother of Nathan and Benjamin, Simon Katz, also stayed behind in the Netherlands, with his wife Roosje. As agreed, they initially received protection against deportation but at the end of 1943 they were arrested on the orders of the SD and taken to Westerbork. After a lengthy discussion, Seyss Inquart and Naumann eventually agreed to exempt Nathan and Benjamin’s aged mother from wearing the Star of David and allow her to stay in Dieren. The four remaining members of the family stayed in Westerbork but ‘werden jedoch wie die Frederiks-Juden behandelt, vom Abtransport zurückgestellt’. They would be given permission to emigrate ‘wenn die Einreise für ein anderes Land beschafft worden ist’.During this investigation it emerged that various objects were also being claimed in other cases that have been brought before the Committee. The recommendations in these claims have been deferred and the claims were investigated in conjunction with each other. Partly in connection with the delay in other cases, the Committee decided on 18 August 2008 to split RC file 1.90 into two sub-files, viz. RC 1.90A and RC 1.90B.The Committee closed RC file 1.90A with a negative recommendation dated 1 July 2009. This recommendation concerned 31 works of art, which, after investigation, were found not to have belonged to art dealership Firma D. Katz or N.V. The Committee refers for this to its recommendation regarding Katz with file number RC 1.90A.Arnhem !5e0!3m2!1sen!2sjp!4v1769134291589!5m2!1sen!2sjp" width="600" height="450" style="border:0;" allowfullscreen="" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer-when-downgrade">As Benjamin Katz himself said after the war, although the Katz brothers had to work under pressure as a result of the general exigencies of war, Miedl did not bring any pressure to bear on them during these transactions (see above, consideration 13, and Historical Overview under c). The next question the Committee has to answer is whether the title to the claimed works of art has been proved with a high degree of probability and there are no indications to the contrary. The Ekkart Committee’s eighth recommendation from 2001 includes this as a condition for restitution.The largest transaction with Miedl took place on 2 August 1940, but transactions did take place after that too. In the context of this recommendation, the Committee regards the works in question as a single category. These works will hereafter be referred to as ‘Miedl works’ and have been included in list I. The Committee refers to the Historical Overview under c. Nathan and Benjamin Katz, of Jewish descent, were the only partners in the partnership set up by them in 1930, Firma D. Katz of Dieren, in name a continuation of the art dealership set up by their father.The statements made by Dr Hans Schneider, Prof. J.G. Van Gelder and Benjamin Katz quoted under B, letter n, do not hold enough weight to conclude otherwise. The investigatory report on which this recommendation is based was adopted on 17 December 2012. Under B below is an overview of the established relevant facts. This overview is a summary of the Committee’s investigatory report, which will not be published in connection with privacy-sensitive information and the Committee’s duty of confidentiality with regard to data from various non-public archives.