Paul is a highly experienced, creative and tenacious litigator
paul.russell@russell.nl +31 20 301 55 55On 16 July 2019, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal rendered an interlocutory judgement in the matter of the Crimean gold. The Allard Pierson Museum has rightly refused to hand over the treasures to the Crimean museums or the Ukrainian State. It is still unclear who should receive the Crimean artefacts. This shall be decided by the Court of Appeal and not the Ukrainian courts.
In the spring of 2014, there was an exhibition on Crimean treasures in the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam. As Russia had seized Crimea during the exhibition, there were two parties that demanded that the artefacts would be handed over to them afterwards, the State of Ukraine and the Crimean museums. Therefore, the museum withheld the artefacts until it was clear who the owner was.
In the first instance the Amsterdam District Court had decided that the artefacts were to be handed over to Ukraine pursuant to the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transport of Ownership of Cultural Property. The Ukrainian court then had to decide on who the owner is.
The Court of Appeal ruled differently on this than the Amsterdam District Court. The UNESCO Convention is not applicable. This is because the cultural properties were exported lawfully. As Ukraine is not a Member State of the EU, it cannot appeal to EU rules which state that late returns are also unlawful exports. That means that it is not clear yet whether the Crimean gold must go back to Ukraine.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal now has to decide whom the artefacts have to be handed over to. It will do so pursuant to Ukrainian law. In order to do so, the Amsterdam Appeal Court first needs more information from the parties. Although it is clear that the artefacts are owned by the State of Ukraine, the museums in Crimea state that they are entitled to receive them. This is what is stated in the loan agreement and, moreover, they claim a right under operational management. The final judgment will therefore follow later.
However, another issue has already been definitively resolved. The Allard Pierson Museum rightly refused to hand over the Crimean treasures. After all, it was – and is – unclear to whom it should do this. Therefore, the museum does not have to pay damages, as is claimed by the Crimean museums. If the artefacts have to be handed over to the State of Ukraine, it will have to pay compensation to the museum for the conservation. As the Allard Pierson Museum has not claimed that from the museums in Crimea, they will not be required to pay a fee when the artefacts are handed over to them.
Would you like more information on this case, please contact Mr Paul W.L. Russell, LL.M. (06 – 53 39 08 83), international art law expert. He is independent and not involved in this case. He has already spoken about this issue before, for example for BNR Nieuwsradio.
Why is the District Court of the opinion that the artefacts held by the Allard Pierson museum must be handed over to Ukraine? Does this mean the Crimea museums will definitely not get the works of art?
Paul W.L. Russell, LL.M., specialist in Art & Law, pursued in the programme “Spitsuur” by BNR News Radio the question where the Crimea art treasures should be returned to – Ukraine or Russia?
The use of general terms and conditions is something companies can no longer do without. Contracting parties refer to their own general terms and conditions in small print, often containing favorable clauses for their own benefit. But what is the power of general terms and conditions? And what should be considered when using them?
In his interview on “Hidden Gems – Treasured artwork adds to allure of Netherlands”, Reinier Russell talks about how artworks still reflect the spirit of the Golden Age and where they can be found.
A new EU regulation requires anyone wishing to import cultural goods into the EU to have an import license or submit an importer’s declaration. When is which type of document required? How does it affect art dealers, galleries, auction houses and collectors, both inside and outside the EU?
An African mask that was sold for 150 euros fetched 4.2 million euros at an auction. Were the French sellers able to undo the sale? How would this case have ended in the Netherlands?