Fight against illicit traffic of cultural property in South-East Europe. Gaziantep, Turkey, 19-21 November 2012 Link: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/venice/about-this-office/single-view/news/building_capacities_for_the_fight_against_the_illicit_trafficking_of_cultural_property_ in_south_east_europe/

1. NATIONAL SYSTEMS OF
PROTECTION OF CULTURAL
HERITAGE: COOPERATION AT
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
LEVELS
Manlio Frigo
University of Milan

2. Illicit Traffic, an attempt of definition
 Importation, exportation or transfer of goods in
violation of national or international law rules aimed at
ensuring:
 the protection of the ownership of cultural property;
 the conservation of its integrity;
 the conservation of the links with a State or a territorial
community.
2

3. Remarks
 The notion of illicit traffic concerns:
 1. stolen cultural property
 2. cultural property illicitly exported (in
violation of the relevant national legislation)
 3. cultural property lawfully exported
but not re-imported within the due date in the
territory of the State of origin;
 The illicit character is determined :
 1. by the domestic applicable law
 2. by international law
3

4. The national level: domestic
legislations’ 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)
4

5. Restitution: the application of ordinary
rules on movement of goods and its
unsatisfactory performance/1
• Application of the lex rei sitae: different
outcomes in similar situations:
5

7. Tribunale Torino, 1982
Rep. Ecuador c. Danusso

8. Cass. 1995,
French Ministry of Culture v. De
Contessini

9. Restitution: the application of ordinary
rules on movement of goods and its
unsatisfactory performance/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);
9

10. The European Union level
 Regulation 116/2009 (formerly 3911/92) on the Export
of Cultural Goods: aimed at ensuring that export of
cultural goods from the EU territory are subject to
uniform controls;
 Directive 93/7 on the Return of Cultural Objects
Unlawfully Removed from the Territory of a Member
State: establishes a restitution procedure for cultural
objects.
10

11. The 1970 UNESCO Convention
 Consistency with national legislations of the States Parties;
 The convention is basically conceived as an instrument
bound to spread its effects at a dipl0matic level;
 Non self-executing character of its rules (Italian Court of
Cass. 24 Nov. 1995 - Cour d’Appel Paris 5 avril 2004, Cour de
Cass., 20 September 2006, République fed. de Nigéria c. de
Montbrison);
 Difficulties in granting judicial restitution when the
applicable law gives protection to the bona fide purchaser
(France, article 2279 c.c., Italy, article 1153 c.c.).
11

12. 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).
12

13. 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/contractual
agreements;
• National Legislations;
• Codes of Ethics.
13

14. The combined multiple action
 Bilateral Conventions : (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
 France-South Korea, 2010
 Germany-Turkey, 2011
14

15. 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;
• British Statute 2009 [Holocaust-Return of Cultural
Heritage-Act] made it possible the deaccessioning upon
approval by the Spoliation Advisory Panel→2010 Return to
the Archdiocese of Benevento of a missal of the XII century
.
15

16. 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 (Internationa Council on Archives);
16

17. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION
• UNIDROIT→ Questionnaire 2012
• EU→3 Reports on application Directive 93/7
• UNESCO→2012 Report of Secretariat on
implementation 1979 UNESCO Convention
17

18. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION
• UNESCO, some statistics:
• 27 reports in 1978 - 48 reports in 2011
• 1978= 38 ratifications – 2011=120 ratifications
• Reports include third States
• 44,7% in 1978 – 37,5% in 2011
18

19. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION
• 1. Implementation in the national legal system
and organization of services
• 2. Inventories and identification
• 3. Measures taken to prevent illicit excavations
• 4. Measure taken to control export and import of
cultural property
• 5. Implementation through bilateral agreements
• 6. Educational means and raising of public
awareness
• 7. Cooperation with other international agencies
19

20. 1. Inventories and identification
• Are there generally accepted
criteria/standards?
• How many States can refer to a system of
classification, inventory, identification of items
forming part of the cultural heritage?
20

21. 2. Measures taken to prevent illicit
excavations
• Some domestic legislations consider that
cultural objects not yet discovered lies with
the public authorities;
• Expert Committee on State Ownership of
Cultural Heritage appointed by UNESCO &
UNIDROIT→Model Provisions on State
Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Property
(2011).
21

22. 3. Measure taken to control export
and import of cultural property
• Project by the ILA Cultural Heritage Law
Committee↓
• Reports on Export control systems at
national level (2012)
22

23. 4. Cooperation with other
international agencies
• INTERPOL
• UNESCO Resolution June 2012→UNIDROIT
23

24. THE EUPHRONIOS KRATER
MET
24

25. Red figure duck askos
CLEVELAND
25

26. Campanian bird askos
CLEVELAND
26

27. VENUS OF MORGANTINA
GETTY
27

28. CONCLUSIONS
• Agreements/contracts of cultural cooperation:
• Use of the alternative instruments for the
settlement of disputes;
• No implications from the diplomatic viewpoint;
• No assumptions of responsibility;
• Statement of the good faith principle in the
implementation of the agreements;
• Statement of ethical principles.
28

29. Thank you for your attention