isnt the next level up from the Czech justice system Strasbourg?

The key here is, ''direct''lineage and US versus European restitution laws...if the US rule on restitutions somewhere else in the world, everybody can rule against the US , even from some kangaroo court and exact restitution using basically any evidence and local procedures not allowed in the US. And since when is an indirect lineage relation allowed to claim inheritance rights?Then there is the thing about Fagan, who was disbarred in New York for unethical dealings etc who is still taking this clown seriously?

Czech Holocaust restitution claim filed with US court

 Theft does not convey title – there is no doubt about that. Everything said in this commentary is essentially right and, yes indeed, the ''direct lineage'' requirement of the Czech Act No. 212/2000 Coll. on "mitigation certain property-related injustices caused by the Holocaust..." is the major problem in this particular case and not only in this one, of course... Furthermore, it is one of the several problems that lies with this law and that goes directly against the essence of it. Requiring ''direct lineage'' while claiming that the sense of all this is to redress the "property-related injustices caused by the Holocaust" is indeed preposterous, if not outright on the verge of denying that the Shoah (Holocaust) was genocide. In this context everyone should also be reminded that Holocaust denial is a serious criminal offense in a number of European states, including the Czech Republic. There are several other inaccuracies in your commentary, which I think should be pointed out:1. It is not about the US vs. EU legislation pertaining restitution, as (unfortunately) there is no such thing as a uniform EU legislation of this kind;2. Within the confines of the international law it is indisputable that no state can rule against another state just because of its legislation (that would simply break all principles of sovereignty);3. Inheritance is by no means the same as restitution. While the inheritance law is quite strict and clear, the definition of who may or may not be recognized as a lawful restitution claimant is, as explained here above (see the direct lineage stipulation in the Act No. 212/2000 Coll.), discriminatory and contradicting the sense of redressing the injustices of the past.For exact wording see the Section 3, par. 1 of the law here:http://www.restitution-art.cz/english/main.html“(1) Works of art seized between 29 September 1938 and 4 May 1945 from natural persons in consequence of transfers or devolutions of title annulled by Decree of the President of the Republic No. 5/1945 or Act No. 128/1946, owned by the State on the effective date of this Act, shall be transferred free of charge to the natural person who owned them prior to the seizure, and if the natural person has in the meantime deceased, to his/her spouse or to his/her descendants, if the original owner and his/her spouse have in the meantime deceased.”I wish Mr. Klepetar and his brother, as well as to their other relatives, the best and hope that the lawsuit, which they have filed in the US, will reopen a serious debate about the crying need to amend the present legislation pertaining restitution in the Czech Republic. At this point it is also important to say that the ‘direct lineage’ is not the only problem. There is an equally serious conflict with the laws pertaining the protection of cultural heritage on the basis of which many successful claimants cannot obtain exportation licenses for the restituted movables and thus they essentially cannot enjoy their property. Another conflict lies with the privacy protection laws that are, more often than not, used as a basis for denying access to relevant archival documents and other types of primary evidence, which would allow the claimants, attorneys and researchers to establish provenance looted works of art and other cultural property and/or to identify those assets that are still missing.