The decision on Authenticity
What’s important with this case is how the judges reached their verdict on the authenticity of the paintings. The first important aspect here is the fact that the Appeal Court recognized the subjective nature of the evidence it was presented with; recognizing that, due to the nature of authenticating a painting, experience and feeling play a significant role for the experts in their decision-making process. This is of importance because it is a recognition of the fact that in a court of law, where objective facts are usually the foundation for any proceedings, the inherently subjective nature of authentication research based on stylistic grounds does meet the necessary evidentiary requirements of the court.
Sadly, this recognition is completely nullified by the discarding of the conclusions of the experts based on the actions of the suing party Meijering. The Court of Appeal makes the peculiar decision that Meijering’s withdrawal of five paintings from the dispute (of which the same experts had also stated they were fake) creates a reason to doubt his claim. The court concluded that the withdrawal of the five paintings showed, that there had apparently been doubts about the authenticity of the five withdrawn paintings, even though they had also been declared false by the experts. This undermined the trustworthiness of the experts’ conclusions insomuch that they were not followed by the Court of Appeal. This line of reasoning is puzzling, as the competence of the experts and the soundness of their conclusions were not judged by their own merits, but by the actions of Meijering and his legal council. This line of reasoning is dangerous, as not the experts themselves but the parties then gain control over the competence of the experts, which undermines the experts’ professional status and academic research.
The Judges did, however, follow the conclusions of expert 2, Milko den Leeuw of Atelier voor Restauratie & Research van Schilderijen (A.R.R.S.) on the authenticity of two paintings, namely Pic de Luc and Het Reitdiep, both supposedly painted by Jan Altink, but in fact forgeries alledgedly made by Van L. Den Leeuw found the pigment CI Pigment Yellow in both paintings, which wasn’t introduced to the market until the late 1950’s. This means that the paint wasn’t yet available at the time the paintings were supposed to have been painted by Altink. Expert 2 and 1 give several other reasons for the painting being inauthentic, based on further technical examination. The court dismisses these reasons, but follows the conclusion of expert 2 based on the found yellow pigment, and therefore declares the two previously mentioned paintings inauthentic.
The Court of Appeal ended its verdict by stating that only the dispute on authenticity had been concluded. The height of the damages and compensation to be paid by Van L. were referred back to the Assen Court.
 Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, 24 juli 2012, ECLI:NL:GHLEE:2012:BX2307, r.o. 22.
 Idem., Ibid, r.o. 32, Ibid., Intermezzo.
 Ibid., r.o. 21-29.
- Statement Corrie Zwaneveld-Snippe (22-04-2010)
- Answer and Reply Appeal (28-09-2010)
- Research Report Forensicon (19-01-2011)
- Witness-statements (08-02-2011)
- Interlocutory (1-11-2011)
- Statement Lammert Muller (22-12-2011)
- Second Statement Lammert Muller (30-12-2011)
- Statement Willem Dijkema (02-01-2012)
- Second Statement Corrie Zwaneveld-Snippe (24-01-2012)
- Statement Jan Zwaneveld (24-01-2012)
- Judgement of the Leeuwarden Court of Appeal for the Public (24-07-2012)
- Judgement of the Leeuwarden Court of Appeal for the Parties (24-07-2012)
- Final Judgement Leeuwarden Court of Appeal (30-10-2012)
The website’s controller has carefully compiled the contents of this website in accordance with their current state of knowledge. Access to and use of this website, as well as web sites related or connected to this by links, are at the user’s own risk and responsibility. Damage and warranty claims arising from missing or incorrect data are excluded. The website’s controller bears no responsibility or liability for damage of any kind, also for indirect or consequential damages resulting from access to or use of this website or websites related or connected to this by links. The website can contain links (cross references) to websites that are run by third parties. The website’s controller takes no responsibility for the content of these other websites.