Yes. As a lawyer, I'd suggest that this is the threshold question -- whether or not the art was in fact stolen or unlawfully confiscated. I couldn't read the NY Times article cited by Jan Meisels Allen since I'm not a subscriber. But other news reports (which should be taken with a grain of salt) suggest that the three-judge panel rejected the claim because the claimant hadn't established that the museum knew that ithe painting was "stolen" when it acquired it. The reports also suggest that the panel applied Spanish law, rather than international conventions on Nazi-looted property. Whether the panel addressed the threshold question of whether the art WAS "looted" is not indicated in the press reports. This case is likely to proceed further.
Stephen Katz