Restitution of Looted Art: What About Access to Justice?

Evelien Campfens

Abstrakt

international conventions clearly establish the rule that misappropriated artefacts should be returned, the situation with respect to losses that predate these conventions is highly fragmented. The question of whose interests are given priority in title disputes that regard such losses – those of the former owner or a new possessor – vary per jurisdiction. Given the fragmented situation, international soft-law instruments promote an ethical approach and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a way of filling this “gap”. A lack of transparent neutral procedures to implement and clarify soft-law norms has proven problematic in this regard. The questions raised in this paper are: why is ADR necessary; and what about guarantees in terms of access to justice in such an “ethical” framework? Two recent initiatives are discussed in this article: the European Parliament resolution of 17 January 2019 on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars; and the newly established Court of  Arbitration for Art in The Hague.

Słowa kluczowe: looted art, restitution claims, alternative dispute resolution, European regulation, Nazi-looted art, Court of Arbitration for Art (CAfA), human rights
References

Amsterdam District Court, Judgment of 12 December 2018, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:8919.

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports, 2007, p. 43.

Bandle A.L., Theurich S., Alternative Dispute Resolution and Art-Law – A New Research Project of the Geneva Art-Law Centre, “Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology” 2011, Vol. 6(1).

Besluit adviescommissie restitutieverzoeken cultuurgoederen en Tweede Wereldoorlog [Decree establishing the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War], 16 November 2001, WJZ/2001/45374(8123).

Beurden J. van, Treasures in Trusted Hands: Negotiating the Future of Colonial Cultural Objects, Sidestone Press, Leiden 2017.

Campfens E., Nazi-looted Art: A Note in Favour of Clear Standards and Neutral Procedures, “Art Antiquity and Law” 2017, Vol. 22(4).

Campfens E., Sources of Inspiration: Old and New Rules for Looted Art, in: E. Campfens (ed.), Fair and Just Solutions? Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-looted Art Disputes, Eleven International Publishing, The Hague 2015.

Campfens E., The Bangwa Queen: Artifact or Heritage?, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2019, Vol. 26.

Campfens E., Whose Cultural Heritage? Crimean Treasures at the Crossroads of Politics, Law and Ethics, “Art Antiquity and Law” 2017, Vol. 22(3).

Campfens, E. (ed.), Fair and Just Solutions? Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-looted Art Disputes, Eleven International Publishing, The Hague 2015.

Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 616 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010).

Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, 737 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2013).

Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, No. 05-CV-03459 (C.D. Cal. 2019),

Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, No. CV 05-3459-JFW-E (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Chechi A., The Settlement of International Cultural Heritage Disputes, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014.

Chechi A., Velioglu E., Renold M.-A., Case 14 Artworks – Malewicz Heirs and City of Amsterdam, Platform ArThemis, December 2013, http://unige.ch/art-adr [accessed: 23.04.2019].

Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47.

Constitutional Court, Plenary Chamber (Republic of Colombia), Judgment SU-649/17 of 19 October 2017.

Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 14 May 1954, 249 UNTS 240.

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 14 November 1970, 823 UNTS 231.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948, 78 UNTS 277.

Cornu M., Fromageau J., Wallaert C., Dictionnaire comparé du droit du patrimoine culturel, CNRS Editions, Paris 2012.

Cornu M., Renold M.-A., New Developments in the Restitution of Cultural Property: Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2010, Vol. 17(1).

Court of Appeal (France), 1st Division, Section A, C. Gentili di Giuseppe e.a. v. Musee du Louvre, 2 June 1999.

David L. de Csepel et al. v. Republic of Hungary et al., No. 10-1261 (ESH), Memorandum Opinion, US Dist. (C.D. Columbia, 14 March 2016).

Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (Recast), OJ L 159, 28.05.2014.

European Parliament resolution of 17 January 2019 on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars (2017/2023(INI)), P8_TA-PROV(2019)0037, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2019-0037+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN [accessed: 23.04.2019].

Fiorentini F., A Legal Pluralist Approach to International Trade in Cultural Objects, in: J.A.R. Nafziger, R.K. Paterson (eds.), Handbook on the Law of Cultural Heritage and International Trade, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2014.

Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act, 16 December 2016, PL 114-319.

Gazzini I.F., Cultural Property Disputes: The Role of Arbitration in Resolving Non-Contractual Disputes, Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, NY 2004.

German Museums Association, Guidelines on Dealing with Collections from Colonial Contexts, July 2018.

Hickley C., Dutch Policy on Nazi-loot Restitutions Under Fire, “The Art Newspaper”, 21 December 2018, https://www.lootedart.com/news.php?r=TETJ4L309041 [accessed: 23.04.2019].

High Court (United Kingdom), City of Gotha e.a. v. Sotheby’s and Cobert Finance SA, Judgment of 9 September 1998.

Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act of 2016 (S.2763), 114th Congress (2015-2016), 2nd session, 1 April 2016.

Interhandel case (Switzerland v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, 1959 ICJ 6.

Jayme E., Human Rights and Restitution of Nazi-Confiscated Artworks from Public Museums:  The Altmann Case as a Model for Uniform Rules?, “Uniform Law Review” 2006, Vol. 11(2).

Joint Declaration [of Germany and the US] Concerning the Implementation of the Washington Principles from 1998, 26 November 2018, https://www.lootedart.com/web_images/pdf2018/2018-11-26-gemeinsame-erklaerung-washingtoner-prinzipien-engl-data. pdf [accessed: 6.12.2018].

Kowalski W.W., Art Treasures and War, Institute of Art and Law, Leicester 1998.

Kowalski W.W., Restitution of Works of Art Pursuant to Private and Public International Law, “Recueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international de La Haye” 2002, Vol. 288.

Kunstrückgabegesetz [Art restitution act], BGBI I No. 181/1998, http://www.provenienzforschung. gv.at/empfehlungen-des-beirats/gesetze/kunstruckgabegesetze [accessed: 23.04.2019].

Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar v. Elicofon, 678 F.2d 1150 (2d Cir. 1982).

Landesgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 2 November 2016, Az.: 2-21 O 251/15. Law No. 59 of the Military Government in Germany, US Zone, in: United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany, Court of  Restitution Appeals Reports, 1951.

Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam, 362 F. Supp. 2d 298 (D.D.C. 2005).

Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam, 517 F. Supp. 2d 322 (D.D.C. 2007).

Marck A., Muller E., National Panels Advising on Nazi-looted Art in Austria, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany – A Brief Overview, in: E. Campfens (ed.), Fair and Just Solutions? Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-looted Art Disputes, Eleven International Publishing, The Hague 2015

Maria V. Altmann v. Republic of Austria et al., 142 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

Maria V. Altmann v. Republic of Austria et al., 317 F. 3d 954 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended, 327 F. 3d 1246 (2003).

Mejía-Lemos D., The “Quimbaya Treasure,” Judgment SU-649/17, “American Journal of International Law” 2019, Vol. 113(1).

Nafziger J.A.R., The Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material, “Chicago Journal of International Law” 2007, Vol. 8(1).

Noce V., Paris Court Orders US Collector to Turn over Pissarro Painting, “Art Newspaper”, 3 October 2018, https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/paris-court-orders-us-collector-to-turn-over-pissarro-painting [accessed: 30.04.2019].

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 8 February 2018, Az.: 1 U 196/16.

Palmer N., Waging and Engaging – Reflections on the Mediation of Art and Antiquity Claims, in: M.-A. Renold, A. Chechi, A.L. Bandle (eds.), Resolving Disputes in Cultural Property, Schulthess, Zurich 2012.

Pell O.C., Using Arbitral Tribunals to Resolve Disputes Relating to Holocaust-looted Art, in: International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (ed.), Resolution of Cultural Property Disputes: Papers Emanating from the Seventh PCA International Law Seminar, May 23, 2003, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2004.

Pettersson E., Spanish Museum Can Keep Nazi-Looted Masterpiece, Judge Rules, “Bloomberg News”, 1 May 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/spanish-museum-can-keep-nazi-looted-masterpiece-judge-rules [accessed: 1.05.2019].

Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 14 May 1954, 249 UNTS 358.

Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 20 March 1952, ETS 9.

Quinn A., French Court Orders Return of Pissarro Looted by Vichy Government, “The New York Times”, 8 November 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/arts/design/french-court-pissarro-looted-nazis.html [accessed: 16.01.2019].

Regulation concerning Article 21 of Law KB E 100 “Koninklijk Besluit Herstel Rechtsverkeer”, as published in the Dutch Staatscourant (Offical Gazette) of 27 December 1950, no. 251, p. 5.

Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annex to the Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 29 July 1899, 32 Stat. 1803.

Renold C. et al., Case Six Klimt Paintings – Maria Altmann and Austria, Platform ArThemis, March 2012, http://unige.ch/art-adr [accessed: 23.04.2019].

Renold M.-A., Cultural Co-ownership: Preventing and Solving Cultural Property Claims, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2015, Vol. 22(2-3).

Republic of Austria et al. v. Maria V. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (U.S. 2004).

Resolution 1205 of the Council of Europe “Looted Jewish cultural property”, 5 November 1999, https://www.lootedart.com/MG7Q8X93594 [accessed: 23.04.2019].

Sarr F., Savoy B., The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational Ethics, November 2018, http://restitutionreport2018.com/sarr_savoy_en.pdf [accessed: 23.04.2019]

Schönenberger B., The Restitution of Cultural Assets, Eleven International Publishing, Berne 2009.

Shyllon F., The Rise of Negotiation (ADR) in Restitution, Return and Repatriation of Cultural Property: Moral Pressure and Power Pressure, “Art Antiquity and Law” 2017, Vol. 22(2).

Simon v. Republic of Hungary, No. 14-7082 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Slimani S., Theurich S., The New ICOM-WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation Program, in: M.-A. Renold, A. Chechi, A.L. Bandle (eds.), Resolving Disputes in Cultural Property, Schulthess, Zurich 2012.

Supreme Court (the Netherlands), Land Sachsen, Judgment of 8 May 1998, ECLI:NL:HR: 1998:ZC2644.

Terezin Declaration, 30 June 2009, https://www.lootedartcommission.com/NPNMG 484641 [accessed: 23.04.2019].

The Restitutions Committee, Binding opinion in the dispute on restitution of the painting entitled Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well by Bernardo Strozzi from the estate of Richard Semmel, currently owned by Museum de Fundatie, Recommendation no. RC 3.128 of 25 April 2013.

The Restitutions Committee, Binding opinion regarding the dispute about restitution of the Painting with Houses by Wassily Kandinsky, currently in the possession of Amsterdam City Council, Recommendation No. RC 3.141 of 22 October 2018.

The Restitutions Committee, Binding opinion regarding the dispute about the return of the painting Madonna and Child with Wild Roses by Jan van Scorel from the collection of Richard Semmel, currently in the possession of Utrecht City Council, Recommendation No. RC 3.131 of 25 April 2013.

The Restitutions Committee, Goudstikker, Summary No. RC 1.15, https://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en/summary_rc_115.html [accessed: 12.05.2019].

Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Association Survival Interantional France v. S.A.R.L. Néret-Minet Tessier Sarrou (2013), No. RG 13/52880 BF/No. 1.

Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Bauer e.a. v. B. and R. Toll, Judgment of 7 November 2017, No. RG 17/587/35, no. 1/FF.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 13 September 2007, UN Doc. A/RES/61/295 (2007).

UNESCO General Conference, 20th Session, Statutes of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation, adopted by 20C/Resolution 4/7.6/5, Paris, 24 October – 28 November 1978.

UNESCO, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO, Paris, 1970), May 2015.

UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, 24 June 1995, 34 ILM 1322.

United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 21, Right of Everyone to Take Part in Cultural Life (art. 15, para. 1a of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), 21 December 2009, E/C.12/GC/21.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 67/80, 12 December 2012, A/RES/67/80.

United States v. Portrait of Wally, 663 F. Supp. 2d 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Cassirer v Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, Nos. 15-55550, 15-55977, 15-55951.

Vilnius Forum Declaration, 5 October 2000, http://www.lootedart.com/MFV7EE39608 [accessed: 23.04.2019].

Vrdoljak A.F., International Law, Museums and the Return of Cultural Objects, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006.

Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, 3 December 1998, https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rt/hlcst/270431.htm [accessed: 16.01.2019].

Woodhead C., Nazi Era Spoliation: Establishing Procedural and Substantive Approaches, “Art Antiquity and Law” 2013, Vol. 18(2).

Woudenberg N. van, Nafziger J.A.R., The Draft Convention on Immunity from Suit and Seizure for Cultural Objects Temporarily Abroad for Cultural, Educational or Scientific Purpose, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2014, Vol. 21(4).

Wuerth I., An Art Museum Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Lawfare, 2 January 2017, https://www.lawfareblog.com/art-museum-amendment-foreign-sovereign-immunities-act [accessed: 23.04.2019].

Zhang Y., Customary International Law and the Rule Against Taking Cultural Property as Spoils of War, “Chinese Journal of International Law” 2018, Vol. 17(4).

Czasopismo ukazuje się w sposób ciągły on-line.

Pierwotną formą czasopisma jest wersja papierowa.