INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND ILLICIT TRAFFIC OF CULTURAL PROPERTY

1. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND ILLICIT TRAFFIC OF CULTURAL PROPERTY Berlin, November 1, 2010 Manlio Frigo Università degli Studi, Milano

2. IllicitTraffic, an attempt of definition • Importation, exportation or transfer of goods in violation of nationalor internationallaw rulesaimedatensuring: • the protection of the ownership of cultural property; • the conservation of itsintegrity; • the conservation of the links with a State or a territorial community.

3. Remarks • The notion of illicittrafficconcerns: • 1.stolen cultural property • 2. cultural propertyillicitlyexported (in violation of the relevantnationallegislation) • 3. cultural propertylawfullyexportedbutnot re-importedwithin the due date in the territory of the State of origin; • The illicitcharachterisdetermined : • 1. by the domesticapplicable law • 2. by international law

4. The nationallevel: domesticlegislations’ approach • 1.Restrictive legislations v. Liberal legislations; • 2. Impact of law rules concerning the movement of goods: • possession vaut titre principle • nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet principle • 3. Impact of conflict of law rules (private int. law) : • law applicable to the contract • law applicable to the property rights (ius in re)→ (lex rei sitae)

5. Restitution: the application of ordinaryrules on movement of goods and itsunsatisfactory performance/1 • Application of the lex rei sitae: different outcomes in similar situations: • Republic of Ecuador v. Danusso (Tribunal Turin, 22 february 1982); • French Ministry of Culture v. Italian Ministry of Culture and De Contessini (Italian Court of Cassation, 23 november 1995)

6. Restitution: the application of ordinaryrules on movement of goods and itsunsatisfactoryperformance/2 • Purchase a non domino: different outcomes in similar situations, common law Countries case law: • Winckworth v. Christie (1980, QBD); • Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar v. Elicofon (1981, Eastern D.C., New York); • Islamic Republic Iran v. Berend (2007, QBD); • Islamic Republic Iran v. Barakat (2007, CA);

7. The internationallevel: cooperation • Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of ArmedConflict (The Hague, 1954), UNESCO; • Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris, 1970, UNESCO); • Convention On Stolen od IllegallyExported Cultural Objects (Rome, 1995, UNIDROIT); • Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (Paris, 2001, UNESCO, article 14); • European Convention on the OffencesRelating to Cultural Property (Delphes, 1985, Council of Europe); • European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) (La Valetta, 1992, Council of Europe);

8. The European Union level • Regulation 116/2009 (formerly3911/92) on the Export of Cultural Goods:aimedatensuringthat export of cultural goods from the EU territory are subject to uniformcontrols; • Directive 93/7 on the Return of Cultural Objects UnlawfullyRemoved from the Territory of a Member State:establishes a restitution procedure for cultural objects.

9. The 1954 Hague Convention • The first multilateral treaty dedicated to the protection of cultural property and to their restitution in case of armed conflict; • The Convention and its 1954 and 1999 Protocols prevent the exportation of cultural property from an occupied territory and provide for the return of such property to the previously occupied territory; • In force since 1956 • 123 States Parties (I Protocol 100, II Protocol 58)

10. The paradox of the 1954 Hague Convention • The Greek-OrthodoxAutocephalous Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg, (US Court of Appeals [7th circuit], 27 October 1990); • The Greek-OrthodoxAutocephalous Church of Cyprus v. Lans (District Court of Rotterdam, 4 February 1999); • Isrestitution of cultural propertyjeopardized by internationalconventions?

11. The 1970 UNESCO Convention • In force since 1972 • 120 States Parties • Aims at protecting «cultural property», i.e. “property which on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science» and which belongs to the categories of article 1;

12. The 1970 UNESCO Convention • The States Parties undertake: • To take the necessarymeasures, consistent with nationallegislation, to preventmuseums and similarinstitutionswithintheirterritory from acquiring cultural propertyoriginating in another State Party whichhasbeenillegallyexportedafter the entry into force of this Convention (article 7.a); • To prohibit the import of cultural propertystolen from a museum or a religious or secular public monument or similarinstitution in another State Party after the entry into force of this convention (article 7.b.1); • At the request of the State Party of origin, to take appropriate steps to recover and returnanysuch cultural propertyimportedafter the entry into force of the convention (article 7.b.ii) and to admitactions for recoveryof lost or stolenitems of cultural propertybrought by or on behalf of the rightfulowners (article 13.c).

13. The 1970 UNESCO Convention • Consistency with nationallegislations of the States Parties; • The convention isbasicallyconceivedas an instrumentbound to spread itseffectsat a dipl0matic level; • Non self-executingcharacter of itsrules (Italian Court of Cass. 24 Nov. 1995 - Cour d’Appel Paris 5 avril 2004, Cour de Cass., 20 September 2006, Républiquefed. de Nigéria c. de Montbrison); • Difficulties in grantingjudicialrestitutionwhen the applicable law givesprotection to the bona fidepurchaser (France, article 2279 c.c., Italy, article 1153 c.c.).

14. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention • In force since 1998 • 30 States Parties • Departure from ordinary rules granting protection to the bone fide possession (articles 3, 4, 5); • Uniform law rules concerning lapse of time (déchéance) (3 years, articles 3, 5) and of statute of limitations (prescription) (50 years, articles 3.3, 5.5); • Creation of an autonomous title of jurisdiction (article 8);

15. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention • Restitution of stolen cultural objects to the owner (articles 1.a, 3, 4); • Return of cultural objects illicitly removed to the State (articles 1.b, 5, 6); • Reversal of the burden of proof of good faith; • The proof of «due diligence» when acquiring the object gives right to payment of «fair and reasonable compensation» (articles 4, 6).

16. The combined multiple action • Multilateral International Conventions (UNESCO, UNIDROIT); Role of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation • European Union law rules; • Police cooperation (data banks, inventories); • Bilateral International Conventions; • National Legislations; • Codes of Ethics.

17. The combined multiple action • BilateralConventions: (articles 9, 15 1970 UNESCO Convention) • U.S.-Peru 1997, amended 2002 • U.S.-Canada 1997 • U.S.-Bolivia, 2001, renewed 2007 • U.S.-Italy, 2001, renewed 2006 • U.S. –Nicaragua,2000,renewed 2005 • U.S.-Cyprus ,2002 • Switzerland-Peru, 2006 • Switzerland-Italy, 2006 • Switzerland, Greece, 2006 • Cambodia, Thailand, 2000 • Italy-China, 2006

18. The combined multiple action • National Legislations: • Italian Landscape and Cultural Heritage Code (Legislative Decree 22 January 2004, n° 42), article 67: possibility of loans to foreign museums, in application of cultural agreements, for a 4 years period;

19. The combined multiple action • Codes of Ethics: • ICOM Code of Ethics, 2004 (International Council of Museums); • CINOA Code of Ethics (International Confederation of Art and Antique Dealers), 2006; • Guidelines on Loans of Antiquities and Ancient Art, AAMD, 2006 (Association of Art Museum Directors); • International Code of Ethics for Archivists, ICA, 1996 (InternationaCouncil on Archives);

20. Università degli Studi - Milano Merci de votre attention THANK YOU