Publication date: 16 July 2019
On 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?read on
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?read on
Russell Advocaten has for the 17th consecutive year in a row been included in The Legal 500. We are pleased with the recognition for the quality of our legal services by experts and clients. Please read what they say about us:read on
The Dutch restitution policy returns to its original principles and is rightly becoming more generous. Cases that have already been settled can also be resubmitted. What will change in the policy?read on
The sale of a drawing by Rubens, owned by Princess Christina, at an auction in New York caused great indignation and a discussion about the policy for cultural heritage in the Netherlands. This resulted in two advice committees, the Pechtold Committee and the Buma Committee. The latter has issued an interim opinion, that, if adopted, could have serious consequences for art collectors and art dealers in the Netherlands.read on
Russell Advocaten noticed in its proceedings before the Dutch Restitutions Committee that the committee increasingly attached importance to the interest of the current owners. This is contrary to the Washington Principles. The committee appointed to evaluate Dutch restitution policy agrees with us in its “Striving for Justice” report.read on
Even if the Restitutions Committee recommends to return looted art, it is not certain that the work of art will actually return to its rightful claimants. It could be that the work of art is irreplaceable and indispensable to Dutch cultural heritage and may not leave the Netherlands.read on
At the online symposium of the Vereniging Kunst Cultuur Recht on the Heritage Act and the protection of cultural goods, Paul W.L. Russell, LL.M. threw a few stones into the pond. How useful are protective measures to keep cultural heritage in the Netherlands without making underlying purchase funds directly available? Is the designation procedure necessary?read on