Rethinking EU Cultural Property Law: Towards Private Enforcement

Name: Rethinking EU Cultural Property Law: Towards Private Enforcement
Brand: Nomos
Price: 56.1 EUR
Availability: OnlineOnly

Matthias Weller(Autor*in)

Nomos (Verlag)

1. Auflage

Erschienen am 18. Juli 2018

174 Seiten

E-Book

PDF mit Adobe-DRM

Systemvoraussetzungen

978-3-8452-9014-0 (ISBN)

56,10 €inkl. 7% MwSt.

Systemvoraussetzungen

für PDF mit Adobe-DRM

E-Book Einzellizenz

Als Download verfügbar

Beschreibung

Weitere Details

Weitere Ausgaben

Person

Inhalt

Cover
Part I: Study on the European added value of legislative action on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars with special regard to aspects of private law, private international law and civil procedure
Executive Summary
Chapter 1 - Terms of Reference
I. Mission: Tackling legal uncertainty within the civil law dimension of cross-border restitution claims by EU legislative action
II. Overall objective: Improving "private enforcement" against looting of art and cultural property
III. Reason: Limited scope and success of public enforcement
IV. Caveats: Procedural and material justice of civil law
V. Incomplete history of public and private "partnership" in the protection of cultural property
VI. Support for a comprehensive regulatory framework by the United Nations
VII. Focal points of an effective private enforcement for claims for restitution of looted cultural property by EU legislative action
Chapter 2 - On the scale of illicit trade with Looted Cultural Property
I. The global art market: Up to USD 57 billion per annum?
II. Illicit trade: Up to USD 8 billion per annum?
III. ILLICID: A German pilot project for investigating the illicit art market
IV. Figures from Databases in the field
1. INTERPOL
2. Art Loss Register
3. Lost Art Database (Nazi Looted Art)
4. Central Registry of Information on Looted Cultural Property 1933 - 1945 (Nazi Looted Art)
V. Many more recent signs of concern
1. UN Security Council Resolution 2347 (24 March 2017)
2. Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee of the US House of Representatives (23 June 2017)
3. FBI Report "Art Theft" (3 May 2017)
4. Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property (3 May 2017)
5. European Commission Proposal for a Regulation on the import of cultural goods (July 2017)
VI. Recommendations
Chapter 3 - Focal Points of Private Law
I. International jurisdiction for the restitution of cultural property
1. General observations on the EU system of international jurisdiction for civil matters
2. Need for a special ground of jurisdiction based on the location of movable cultural property
3. Legislative Reaction of the EU: Article 7 no. 4 Brussels Ibis Regulation
4. Issues in relation to Article 7 no. 4 Brussels Ibis Regulation
a. Definition of "cultural property"
b. Fragmentation
(1) Status quo
(2) Different results without reason
(3) In particular: Similar but not identical definition of cultural object under the UNIDROIT Convention and Article 7 no. 4 Brussels Ibis Regulation
c. Declaratory Relief
5. Recommendation and Policy Options
a. Option 1: Introducing jurisdiction in rem for movable property
b. Option 2: Using the definition of cultural property of Article 2 UNIDROIT Convention in Article 7 no. 4 Brussels Ibis Regulation
c. Option 3: Spelling out the definition of Article 2 of Directive 2014/60/EU directly in Article 7 no. 4 Brussels Ibis Regulation
d. Option 4: Updating the reference in Article 7 no. 4 Brussels Ibis
II. Immunity for cultural property on loan in foreign states
1. Context
2. Fundamental distinction: Legislative immunity granted by a state and immunity from seizure under customary public international law
3. Case studies
a. Exhibition "Treasures of the Sons of Heaven" at Bonn, Germany
b. Exhibition "DYNAMIK! Kubismus / Futurismus / KINETISMUS" at the Belvedere, Austria
c. Exhibition "From Russia" (Pouchkin Museum Moscow) in London
d. Exhition from the Stedelijk Museum of Amsterdam to New York ("Malevich case")
4. State legislation ("anti-seizure legislation")
a. Fragmentation in the EU and beyond
b. Unclear relation between national anti-seizure statutes and Directive 2014/60/EU
c. Exception for Nazi Looted Art?
5. State Immunity under Public Customary International Law
a. Legal Foundation
(1) Treaty Law
(2) Customary International Law
b. Conclusion: Rule of customary international law exists, but uncertainties remain
6. Recommendations
a. Joint Declaration on immunity from seizure for cultural property of foreign states on loan for the purpose of cultural exchange in other states
b. Harmonization of state legislation on legislative immunity
c. Clarifying the relation between anti-seizure legislation of the Member States and Directive 2014/60/EU
III. Choice of law
1. Different concepts in the legal regimes on property law
2. Choice of law issues
a. Design elements of a choice of law rule for the acquisition of cultural property
b. Recommendation: Harmonized choice of law rule along the lines of Article 90 of the Belgian Code of Private International Law
c. Application of foreign public law
3. Recommendation
IV. Substantive Law
1. Fundamental differences in the substantive laws of the Member States
2. Recommendation and Policy Options
a. Policy Option 1: Encouraging the remaining EU Member States to accede to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention
b. Policy Option 2: Incorporating Chapter II of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention into EU secondary law (e.g. as new part of Directive 2014/60/EU)
c. Policy Option 3: Adopting Articles VIII.-3:101 and VIII.-4:102 DCFR
d. Policy Option 4: Introducing a general prohibition of sale and acquisition for stolen and illegally exported/imported cultural property
V. The special issue of Nazi Looted Art
1. No retroactive legislation
2. Sales law for transactions in the future
a. Case study: The auction of Lodovico Carraci's "St. Jerome" (Max Stern Gallery) by Lempertz
b. Recommendation: Defining the sellers due diligence and the buyer's remedies under a European sales law when Nazi looted art is sold
3. Property law in respect to Nazi looted art
a. Invalidity of "foiced sale" transactions from 1933 to 1945
b. Validity of "non-forced sale" transactions from 1933 to 1945
c. Burden of proof for invalidity of transaction during 1933 to 1945
d. Valid post-war good faith acquisition / prescription in many (not all) cases
e. No retroactive legislation on good faith acquisitions / prescription in the past
f. Case study: The Schwabing Art Trove ("Gurlitt case")
g. Recommendation: No retroactive legislation
4. Just and fair solutions beyond the law
a. Background
b. Increasingly diverging and contradictory restitution recommendations
c. Recommendation: (Non-binding) Restatement of Restitution Principles
VI. Complementary Measures
1. Cross-linking provenance research amongst local and national institutions and entities
2. Common Cataloguing System / Object IDs
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution
4. EU Agency on Cultural Property Protection
Chapter 4 - European Added Value by Proposed Measures
Part II: Conclusions of the European Added Value Assessment (Christian Salm)
Introduction
The illegal art market, legal challenges and indicators on the amount of restitution claims
EU Policy Context
Weaknesses in the existing EU legal system
Possible EU legislative action
European Added Value
Part III: Draft Opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education
Part IV: Amendments
Bibliography
A. Secondary Sources
B. Legislative and Governmental Materials
C. Treaties/Conventions
D. EU instruments
E. National legislation
F. Cases

Systemvoraussetzungen

Als PDF speichern Als Link merken