# data[].attributes.body
A type of "alternative dispute resolution" in which parties agree to be bound by the decision of an impartial arbiter in an attempt to resolve the matter without litigation. Arbitration can be both legally binding and non-binding.

Arbitration is distinct from mediation in that mediators attempt to find a compromise while arbiters are removed from the process of reaching a settlement.

# data[].attributes.body
A type of "alternative dispute resolution" that involved the use of a conciliator: a 3rd party that attempts to repair a broken relationship between two disputing parties.

Unlike arbitration, conciliation has no legal standing and the conciliator does not offer an opinion. Unlike mediation, conciliation is primarily focused on mending a broken relationship between parties, perhaps in advance of mediation.

# data[].attributes.body
Negotiations conducted between states or through the intervention of a state party or a state representative in negotiations. This may take the form of a state working towards its own claim or interests regarding the return of cultural property or aiding in the return request of one or more of its citizens. In some situations, the support of a state or state-to-state intervention is required as part of a return request.

# data[].attributes.body
Adjudication is the resolution of a return dispute through a court ruling. "It implies a hearing by a court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved".

# data[].attributes.body
A form of "Alternative Dispute Resolution" where a 3rd party helps to resolve a dispute using various negotiating techniques which emphasise dialogue and compromise. Mediators help negotiate a settlement and are seen as quicker, cheaper, and (at times) more conciliatory than the pathway through the courts.

# data[].attributes.body
A blanket term for a number of activities which are aimed at resolving a dispute over a cultural object. For us, it will mean dialogue focused on resolving a return request without the use of a formal mediator, arbiter, or conciliator and without the intervention of a state. In other words: two parties sitting down at the table together.

# data[].attributes.body
Catch-all for the other legal or extra-legal cultural property may be returned, including (for example) spontaneous return without the need for negotiation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Winkworth V. Christie Manson and Woods Ltd (1980)

# data[].attributes.subject
Winkworth V. Christie Manson and Woods Ltd (1980)

# data[].attributes.body
Japanese Netsuke collection that was stolen in England, sold in Italy, and offered for sale again in England at auction. The English judge ruled that Italian law was applicable in this case and
that the Italian buyer, then, had good title to the netsuke. They were NOT returned. There is no record of any non-judicial negotiations or alternative dispute resolution attempts in this case.
See: ArThemis entry on the case

# data[].attributes.headline
Western Prelacy of the Armenian Church of America and the J. Paul Getty Museum

# data[].attributes.subject
Western Prelacy of the Armenian Church of America and the J. Paul Getty Museum

# data[].attributes.body
Concerning a thirteenth century illustrated manuscript by an Armenian, T'oros Roslin. 1915- in Marash in the possession of Prince Asadur Agha Sourenian, whose family loaned it to Dr H Der Ghazarian after his deportation. 1920- Dr Der Ghazarian fled Marash leaving the manuscript behind, which was found by a local who attempted to sell it. The dealer cut out eight folios of Canon Tables later purchased by the Getty in 1994. The remaining manuscript was presented to Mesrob Mashtots Matendaran, Armenia in 1980. 2006- the Armenian church discovered the missing canon tables and their location at the Getty. The Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, acting on behalf of the Armenian Orthodox Church, filed against the Getty for the folios. 2011- the court ordered them to work with a mediator after the Getty refused a return.

Although the mediation attempt in 2012 was initially unsuccessful it set the path for a mutual settlement in 2015, months before the case was due in court. Resolution: Getty acknowledged Western Prelacy's ownership and paid attorney's fees in exchange for the donation of the Canon Tables to the Getty. The folios were later reunited with the manuscript for exhibition. ArThemis case file

# data[].attributes.headline
Jiroft Collection- Iran v. Bakarat Galleries Ltd.

# data[].attributes.subject
Jiroft Collection- Iran v. Bakarat Galleries Ltd.

# data[].attributes.body
Collection of Iranian antiquities that were illicitly excavated between 2000-2004 offered for sale by Bakarat Galleries in London. Iran sues for return in a 'conversion' case. Court of Appeals established that Iranian law clearly claims all cultural property, whether excavated or not, in State possession or not, as property of the State.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jiroft Collection - Iran v. Barakat Galleries - Centre du droit de l'art

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran sued the London-based Barakat Galleries seeking the restitution of a collection of eighteen carved jars, bowls and cups which had been illicitly excavated in the Jiroft region, in Southeast Iran, and subsequently exported abroad.

# data[].attributes.headline
Euphronios Krator and other Archaeological Objects- Italy and MET

# data[].attributes.subject
Euphronios Krator and other Archaeological Objects- Italy and MET

# data[].attributes.body
After the raid on Giacomo Medici the Italian Authorities were able to prove the illicit origin of the Euphronios Krator, which had controversially been acquired by the MET, and were eligible to make a claim of ownership. In an out-of-court settlement, the Italian Ministry of Culture and the MET agreed that the items would be returned in exchange for a 40+ year long loan and research exchange agreement. It was also stated that future issues regarding items exchanged within this program would be settled privately by Arbitration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Case Note - Euphronios Krater and Other Archaeological Objects - Italy and Metropolitan Museum of Art - Centre du droit de l'art

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Euphronios Krater and Other Archaeological Objects - Italy and Metropolitan Museum of Art

# data[].attributes.headline
Sarah Baartman's Remains - France and South Africa

# data[].attributes.subject
Sarah Baartman's Remains - France and South Africa

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah Baartman was a South African slave who had been exhibited in London and Paris as part of a freak show in the early 19th century. After her death, her body was dissected, conserved and put on public display in France until the 1970s. The return of Sarah Baartman's remains was sought through diplomatic channels because the remains were part of the French national collections and considered inalienable. Diplomacy on behalf of the French led to the French Parliament adopting a legislative act enabling the remains to be returned to South Africa.
See: ArThemis entry on the case
Further reading: Sarah Baartman, at rest at last

# data[].attributes.body
Scotland Yard discovered smuggled Chinese artifacts in a harbor raid. The Chinese embassy was contacted and identified over 3000 of the objects, claiming they were looted from the PRC. The two involved British dealers were not sued, as the prosecutors believed the transaction took place in Hong Kong, not the UK. The dealers filed a civil lawsuit to settle the ownership issue, but eventually settled out-of-court with the Chinese government and returned many objects.

# data[].attributes.headline
The head of King Badu Bonsu II (Ghana)- The Netherlands and Ghana

# data[].attributes.subject
The head of King Badu Bonsu II (Ghana)- The Netherlands and Ghana

# data[].attributes.body
King Badu Bonsu II was the leader of the Ahanta tribe and a Ghanaian king who was executed in 1838 by the Dutch, who, at the time, were in control of the Dutch Gold Coast. Following the execution of king Badu Bonsu, the head was taken to the Netherlands, where it was soon lost for more than a century. During a state dinner in October 2008,  Arthur Japin - a Dutch writer -   told both the President of Ghana and Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands about his discovery of the Head of  King Badu Bonsu II at the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC). Shortly after, the return of the head of King Badu Bonsu II to Ghana, was followed by diplomacy on the highest level between the two states. The negotiation between the states led to the return of the head of King Badu Bonsu II to its native country for a proper burial. A promise fulfilled, whereby on July 23, 2009 The Netherlands officially returned the royal head to a delegation of ten Ghanaian kings in a ceremony held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague, The Netherlands.
Note: The forgotten head of King Badu Bonsu II at the Leiden University Medical Center has never been presented as a part of collections to the Dutch state and thus is not classified as an inalienable heritage and so didn't meet with requirements of relevant cultural treaties to keep. It can be assumed that this made diplomacy concerned the return of the head easier and fast in this case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TELECHARGER COMME PDF
Citation: Seth Médiateur Tuyisabe, Alessandro Chechi, Marc-André Renold, " Affaire Tête du roi Badu Bonsu II - Ghana et Pays-Bas ", Plateforme ArThemis (http://unige.ch/art-adr), Centre du droit de l'art, Université de Genève.
En 1838, Badu Bonsu II, roi des Ahanta du Ghana, est condamné à mort par les autorités coloniales néerlandaises. Il sera pendu et décapité. Sa tête sera transportée aux Pays-Bas et conservée dans du formol. Celle-ci sera découverte de facon fortuite en 2002 au Centre médical universitaire de Leiden. Par la suite, un accord de restitution de cette tête sera signé à La Haye entre les gouvernements néerlandais et ghanéen ainsi qu'un représentant de la tribu Ahanta.
Colonialisme

En 1838, les têtes de deux émissaires néerlandais du général Jan Verveer sont retrouvées suspendues au trône du roi Badu Bonsu II.[1] En guise de représailles, le roi est condamné à mort. Il est pendu et décapité. Sa tête est conservée dans du formol et transportée aux Pays-Bas pour y être étudiée. Elle est ensuite oubliée dans les collections du Centre médical universitaire de Leiden.[2]

En 2002, dans le cadre de recherches pour un roman historique, Arthur Japin découvre la tête dans les collections du Centre médical universitaire de Leiden. Il souhaite voir la tête restituée au Ghana. Le Centre s'y oppose.

En 2008, le président ghanéen John Kufuor effectue une visite officielle aux Pays-Bas. Au cours d'un dîner de circonstance, en présence du président et de la reine Beatrix, Arthur Japin leur communique l'affaire de la tête. Dès lors, commence la négociation des autorités ghanéennes pour obtenir la restitution de la tête.[3]

En juillet 2009, une cérémonie de conclusion d'un accord de restitution est organisée par le gouvernement néerlandais à La Haye en présence du représentant du Ghana aux Pays-Bas et d'une délégation de la tribu Ahanta.[4]

Retour au début
Voie diplomatique - Négociation - Accord transactionnel

Le processus de restitution a été initié suite à la visite du président ghanéen John Kufuor aux Pays-Bas. Les négociations entre les gouvernements néerlandais et ghanéen se font par l'intermédiaire du représentant ghanéen aux Pays-Bas, M. Adio Amin.

Le gouvernement néerlandais a su convaincre le Centre médical universitaire de Leiden de restituer la tête.

La communauté de la tribu Ahanta, qui a appuyé cette demande de restitution, a été associée au processus. Elle a été représentée par Nana Etsin Kofi II.[5]

Retour au début
Deaccession - Inaliénabilité - Propriété - Responsabilité internationale des Etats

La tête du roi Badu Bonsu II, conservée dans un bocal de formol, peut être qualifiée de reste humain. En ce sens, l'article 1 de la Convention UNESCO 1970 considère " comme biens culturels les biens qui, à titre religieux ou profane, sont désignés par chaque État comme étant d'importance pour l'archéologie, la préhistoire, l'histoire, la littérature, l'art ou la science, et qui appartiennent aux catégories ci-après: (a) collections et spécimens rares [...] d'anatomie; objets présentant un intérêt paléontologique; [...] (c) le produit des fouilles archéologiques (régulières et clandestines) et des découvertes archéologiques; [...] (f) le matériel ethnologique ". De plus, les restes humains sont classés par le Code de déontologie de l'ICOM dans la catégorie de matériel culturel sensible (article 2.5). Le Code prescrit que leur conservation doit se faire dans le respect et en accord avec les intérêts et croyances de la communauté d'origine. Les articles 3.7 et 4.3 abondent dans ce sens. Le Code recommande également que lorsqu'un bien met en jeu les intérêts d'une communauté existante, ses vœux doivent être respectés. Les articles 6.2 et 6.3 sont pertinents en matière de retour et de restitutions. Ils préconisent, d'une part, le dialogue et les démarches en vue du retour et, d'autre part, la restitution lorsque la communauté d'origine le requiert dans le cas où, notamment, un bien a été exporté ou transféré illicitement.

Deux questions principales se posent dans cette affaire: qualifier juridiquement le contexte prévalant au Ghana en 1838 d'abord et déterminer ensuite la licéité de l'acquisition de la propriété de la tête du roi Badu Bonsu II et de l'exportation de cette tête vers les Pays-Bas.

Le droit au butin de guerre a longtemps été une pratique internationale reconnue et acceptée dans le contexte des conflits armés et des cas d'occupation.[6] Le contrôle exercé par les puissances européennes en Afrique prend diverses formes et dénominations: l'occupation effective, le protectorat, le mandat.[7] Bien que les faits et le contexte historique du cas d'espèce soient peu clairs, la situation coloniale peut être qualifiée de cas d'occupation ou de situation de conflit armé.[8]

En Europe, la pratique du butin de guerre prend fin dans la pratique au début du 19e siècle suite à la période des guerres napoléoniennes et au Congrès de Vienne de 1815. Progressivement s'érige en principe de droit coutumier l'interdiction de la confiscation et de la réquisition de la propriété privée par la puissance adverse.[9] De l'avis général, le droit au butin de guerre est aboli à cette époque et de nombreux traités de paix conclus au début de ce siècle prévoient la restitution de biens culturels saisis.[10] Par ailleurs, la Convention de La Haye de 1899 sur les lois et coutumes de la guerre cristallise des principes similaires issus de la pratique.[11] Les articles 42 ss. de la Convention régissent les cas d'occupation et interdisent explicitement le pillage et la confiscation de la propriété privée. Cette Convention stipule que le droit de la famille, des individus et des convictions religieuses doit être respecté. Son article 56 régit les biens culturels et leur confère la protection de bien de propriété privée. Ainsi, les restes humains peuvent être considérés comme relevant de la propriété privée, du patrimoine de la famille ou d'une communauté. Bien que la question de savoir s'il s'agit de biens culturels au sens de la convention reste ouverte, il n'en demeure pas moins que des droits et une protection leur sont conférés.

Dans cette affaire, il semble que la décapitation du roi Badu Bonsu II relève davantage des représailles suite à l'assassinat des émissaires néerlandais que des conséquences d'une sanction résultant d'un procès équitable. Pour autant, la confiscation et l'exportation de la tête restent problématiques. Ainsi, si on admet l'application du droit international aux cas d'occupation coloniale, les obligations et devoirs des acteurs de ce droit s'étendent aussi aux territoires africains, en particulier l'interdiction de la confiscation des biens privés. Toutefois, que la fin de la ius preadea soit reconnue et que l'interdiction de la confiscation des biens de l'adversaire forme une coutume internationale ne signifient pas pour autant que la restitution des biens confisqués en découle de facto.[12]

Par ailleurs, la restitution a posteriori de la tête peut soulever la question de l'inaliénabilité des collections nationales.[13] Dans beaucoup de pays, un éventuel retour nécessiterait que le bien culturel faisant l'objet d'une demande de restitution soit déclassé des collections nationales. Dans cette affaire, la question de l'inaliénabilité ne semble pas s'être posée. En effet, on peut supposer que la tête du roi Badu Bonsu II oubliée dans les collections du Centre médical universitaire de Leiden n'ait jamais présenté un intérêt pour l'Etat néerlandais et n'ait ainsi pas été classée comme patrimoine inaliénable.

Retour au début
Restitution sans condition

Un accord de restitution a été signé entre les gouverments néerlandais et ghanéen, notamment par le ministre des affaires étrangères M. Maxime Verhangen, le chargé d'affaires ghanéen aux Pays-Bas M. Adio Amin, ainsi qu'un représentant de la tribu Ahanta.

Suite à la conclusion de cet accord, la tête du roi Badu Bonsu II a été restituée à la tribu Ahanta au Ghana. Une cérémonie traditionnelle Ahanta a eu lieu en l'honneur du défunt roi, au ministère des affaires étrangères des Pays-Bas à La Haye.

Retour au début

L'affaire en question est caractéristique de la problématique de la restitution des biens acquis durant la période coloniale.[14] Plusieurs obstacles se profilent d'emblée: la qualification juridique de la situation d'occupation coloniale et la détermination de la base juridique pour assurer la restitution de la tête du roi Badu Bonsu II. Sommes-nous dans un cas d'occupation, de conflit armé, voire même de succession d'un Etat?

Les principes généraux du droit et la coutume internationale posent quelques principes pertinents. La coutume comme source de droit international repose sur la pratique générale des Etats (usus) et l'acceptation de cette pratique comme exprimant une obligation juridique (opinio juris).[15]

Il peut sembler paradoxal d'accepter l'existence d'un principe de droit international coutumier réprimant la pratique du butin de guerre au début du 19e siècle d'une part et parallèlement de justifier une politique de conquête coloniale brutale au mépris de ce même droit d'autre part. Devrait-on en conclure que durant la période coloniale, l'application du droit international était limitée à l'Europe et que les territoires africains étaient des espaces de non-droit ? On en doute. Les traités de partage des territoires conclus entre les puissances et les fondements régissant les rapports de ces mêmes puissances dans les conquêtes du continent ont été organisés et arbitrés à la lumière du droit international coutumier ou conventionnel, que ce soit au travers de traités bilatéraux ou multilatéraux formels ou d'ententes informelles.[16] Les cas de délimitation des frontières coloniales sont un exemple qui plaide en faveur de l'application du droit international sur les territoires africains durant la période coloniale. En effet, l'appréciation d'un tracé frontalier colonial contesté doit se baser sur des titres, des instruments juridiques auxquels le droit international confère une valeur juridique intrinsèque.[17] Ainsi, à la lumière des différentes décisions de la Cour internationale de justice en la matière, on en conclut que le droit international prévalait et régissait les rapports des puissances coloniales sur les territoires occupés.[18] Par conséquent, si le droit s'applique, les effets des droits et obligations qui en découlent opèrent notamment en matière des biens culturels et du patrimoine privé. Le fait que des Etats n'aient pas respecté le droit international existant, notamment le droit coutumier qui interdisait le butin de guerre, ne remet pas en cause l'existence et la pertinence de ce droit.

Ayant dit ceci, il importe néanmoins de distinguer d'un côté l'existence d'un droit coutumier interdisant le butin de guerre et la confiscation des biens de l'adversaire et d'un autre côté une obligation de restitution qui en découle. Une obligation coutumière de restitution des biens culturels qui serait le résultat d'un comportement répété (usus) et d'une conviction (opinio juris) ne semble pas avérée.[19] L'on a pu observer une pratique de restitutions conventionnelles dans les traités de paix notamment ainsi qu'une coutume locale prévalant dans certains régions uniquement,[20] mais tout ceci n'est pas la preuve d'une uniformité de la pratique, ni de sa généralisation à même de fonder une coutume générale internationale en matière de restitution des biens culturels confisqués ou spoliés. Ainsi, aussi paradoxal que cela puisse paraître, il semble que les Etats, acteurs du droit international prévalant à l'époque du cas étudié, aient reconnu une coutume interdisant la pratique du butin de guerre sans pour autant y adjoindre une obligation de restitution des biens.[21] Dans le cas d'espèce, il sera possible de constater une violation d'une coutume internationale sans pour autant qu'elle ait pour conséquence une obligation de restitution du bien culturel confisqué.

Nonobstant les limites du droit, l'histoire a prouvé que la volonté politique peut surmonter la rigidité juridique en apportant des solutions et réparations équitables dans le domaine des biens culturels. Ainsi, on peut citer en guise d'exemple les mesures et principes adoptés et mis en œuvre dans le cadre des spoliations de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.[22] Dans ce contexte, des considérations allant au-delà des particularités des droits nationaux ont parfois pris le pas. L'équité et l'éthique peuvent prévaloir afin de réparer les dommages subis. La restitution et la réparation ont été souvent préférées pour réparer l'injustice.[23] Par conséquent, on peut se demander pourquoi une telle approche n'a pas été adoptée pour les cas de spoliation de la période coloniale.

Il n'en demeure pas moins qu'à l'heure actuelle, d'autres solutions plus effectives sont envisageables. Les modes alternatifs de résolution des différends en matière de biens culturels prennent ici toute leur importance. Face aux impasses juridiques d'une part et aux finalités davantage pragmatiques de ces méthodes d'autre part, elles permettent d'aboutir à des résultats considérés par les parties comme plus justes et plus équitables. Les négociations portant sur le retour ont certes comme point de départ les souhaits des parties, mais la constellation et les interactions qui les caractérisent sont multiples. Le résultat d'une négociation peut être le fait de plusieurs facteurs comme les démarches des communautés ou des Etats d'origine, la mobilisation de la société civile, les considérations morales et éthiques, les tractations politiques et diplomatiques.

Néanmoins, l'argumentaire qui structure les négociations n'est pas pour autant dénué de fondement juridique. En effet, celui-ci s'inspire du droit national ou international et surtout de la soft law. Dans ce contexte, s'appuyer sur une institution neutre peut s'avérer pertinent. Ceci permettrait d'aboutir à des solutions plus justes et plus équitables et de consolider une pratique en matière de résolution des différends se basant davantage sur les principes d'un régime de droit international public des biens culturels en progressive formation.[24]

Retour au début
a. Doctrine

Campfens Evelien, " Sources of inspiration ", in Fair and Just Solutions? Alternative to Litigations in Nazi Looted Art Disputes, The Hague International, 2015, pp. 13-41.

Carducci Guido, " L'obligation de restitution des biens culturels et de sobjets d'art en cas de conflit armés ", in Revue générale de droit international public, Tome CIV, Editions A. Pedone, Paris, 2000, pp. 289-392.

Carducci Guido, La restitution internationale des biens culturels et des objets d'art volés ou illicitement exportés: Droit commun, Directive CEE, Conventions de l'Unesco et d'Unidroit, Paris, L.G.D.J., 1997.

Daillier Patrick, Forteau Mathias, Pellet Alain, Droit international public, 8e éd, Paris, L.G.D.J., 2009.

Jahannot-Gradis Christiane, Le patrimoine culturel matériel et immatériel: Quelle protection en cas de conflit armé?, Genève, Schulthess, 2013.

Kolb Robert, Ius in bello: le droit international des conflits, 2e éd., Bâle, Helbing Lichtenhahn, 2009.

Maia Catherine, Kolb Robert, Le statut international de la province angolaise du Cabinda à la lumière du droit international public, Paris, Editions A. Pedone, 2015.

Renold Marc-André, " Le droit de l'art et des biens culturels en Suisse: questions choisies ", in Revue de droit suisse, 129 II (2010/1), pp. 137-220.

Renold Marc-André, " La Convention de l'Unesco de 1970 et sa mise en application: données de bases ", in La Convention de l'Unesco de 1970 et sa mise en application, Zurich, Dike, 1997, pp. 117-124.

Renold Marc-André, Chechi Alessandro, " Just and Fair Solutions: An Analysis of International Practice and Trends ", in Fair and Just solutions? Alternative on Litigations in Nazi Looted Art Disputes, The Hague International, 2015, pp. 187-201.

Siehr Kurt, " Rechtsfragen zum Handel mit geraubten Kulturgütern in den Jahren 1935-1950 ", in Commission Indépendante d'Experts Suisse - Seconde Guerre mondiale (éd.): la suisse, le national-socialisme et le droit, vol. 2, Zurich, Chronos, 2001, pp. 125-203.

Thürer Daniel, Haldemann Frank, Commission Indépendante d'Experts Suisse - Seconde Guerre Mondiale: La suisse, le national-socialisme et le droit, vol. 2, Zurich, Chronos, 2001.

b. Décisions judicaires

Arrêt de la Cour international de justice du 22 décembre 1986, différend frontalier (Burkina /Mali), C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 554, disponible en ligne: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/69/6447.pdf (consulté le 2 décembre 2015).

c. Législation

Convention concernant les mesures à prendre pour interdire et empêcher l'importation, l'exportation et le transfert de propriété illicites des biens culturels, conclue le 14 novembre 1970, RS 0.444.1 (cité: Convention UNESCO 1970).

Convention de La Haye sur les lois et coutumes de guerre, conclue le 29 juillet 1899, RS 0.515.111.

d. Documents

Code de déontologie de l'ICOM, 2013.

Verhangen Maxime, Speech by Verhagen at transfer of the remains of King Badu Bonsu II, 23 juillet 2009, disponible en ligne: https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-foreign-affairs/documents/speeches/2009/07/23/speech-by-verhagen-at-transfer-of-the-remains-of-king-badu-bonsu-ii (consulté le 28 octobre 2015).

e. Médias

Ambassade de France à La Haye, Presse néerlandaise du vendredi 24 juillet 2009, disponible en ligne: http://www.ambafrance-nl.org/Presse-neerlandaise-du-vendredi-24,11132 (consulté le 28 octobre 2015).

Cessou Sabine, " Les Pays-Bas rendent la tête d'un roi ghanéen ", in Libération, 9 janvier 2009, disponible en ligne: http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2009/01/09/les-pays-bas-rendent-la-tete-d-un-roi-ghaneen_301289 (consulté le 28 octobre 2015).

Popham Peter, " Bring us the head of King Badu Bonsu, said Ghana - and the Dutch said yes ", in Independent, 23 octobre 2011, disponible en ligne: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/bring-us-the-head-of-king-badu-bonsu-said-ghana-ndash-and-the-dutch-said-yes-1760710.html (consulté le 28 octobre 2015).

Schaffener Claire, " Les Pays-Bas rendent au Ghana la tête du roi Badu Bonsu II ", in Afrik.com, 24 juillet 2009, disponible en ligne: http://www.afrik.com/article17227.html (consulté le 28 octobre 2015).

[1] Cessou, " Les Pays-Bas rendent la tête d'un roi ghanéen ", in Libération.

[2] Schaffner, " Les Pays-Bas rendent au Ghana la tête du roi Badu Bonsu II ".

[3] Popham, " Bring us the head of King Badu Bonsu, said Ghana - and the Dutch said yes ".

[4] Ambassade de France à La Haye, Presse néerlandaise du vendredi 24 juillet 2009.

[5] Verhangen, Speech by Verhagen at transfer of the remains of King Badu Bonsu II, 23 juillet 2009.

[6] Renold, " Le droit de l'art et des biens culturels en Suisse ", pp. 201-202 ; et Carducci, " L'obligation de restitution des biens culturels ", p. 294 ss.

[7] Daillier, Forteau, Pellet, Droit international public, p. 590 ss.

[8] Kolb, Ius in bello, pp. 72-78.

[9] Carducci, " L'obligation de restitution des biens culturels ", p. 295.

[10] Jahannot-Gradis, Le patrimoine culturel matériel et immatériel, pp. 57-63.

[11] Convention de 1899 sur les lois et coutumes de guerre, RS 0.515.111.

[12] Voir Carducci, " L'obligation de restitution des biens culturels ", p. 289 ss ; et Carducci, La restitution internationale des biens culturels, p. 125 ss.

[13] Renold, " Le droit de l'art et des biens culturels en Suisse ", pp. 195-198.

[14] Carducci, La restitution internationale des biens culturels, p. 129 ss.

[15] Kolb, Ius in bello, pp. 53-56; Carducci, " L'obligation de restitution des biens culturels ", p. 296.

[16] Maia, Kolb, " Le statut international de la province angolaise du Cabinda ", 2015, p. 28 ss.

[17] Voir arrêt de la Cour international de justice du 22 décembre 1986, différend frontalier (Burkina /Mali).

[18] Daillier, Forteau, Pellet, Droit international public, p. 519 ss.

[19] Carducci, " L'obligation de restitution des biens culturels ", p. 296 ss.

[20] Ibid., p. 315.

[21] Ibid., p. 289 ss.

[22] Campfens, Fair and Just solutions?, pp. 13-14.

[23] Siehr, " Rechtsfragen zum Handel mit geraubten Kulturgütern in den Jahren 1935-1950 ", pp. 327-328.

[24] Renold, Chechi, " Just and Fair Solutions: An Analysis of International Practice and Trends ", pp. 188-200.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tête du roi Badu Bonsu II - Ghana et Pays-Bas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
En 1838, Badu Bonsu II, roi des Ahanta du Ghana, est condamné à mort par les autorités coloniales néerlandaises. Il sera pendu et décapité. Sa tête sera transportée aux Pays-Bas. Par la suite, un accord de restitution de cette tête sera signé à La Haye entre les gouvernements néerlandais et ghanéen ainsi qu'un représentant de la tribu Ahanta.

# data[].attributes.body
A case where both parties involved managed to settle their case before the beginning of the trial.

# data[].attributes.headline
Auschwitz Suitcase – Pierre Lévi Heirs and Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Oswiecim and Shoah Memorial Museum Paris

# data[].attributes.subject
Auschwitz Suitcase – Pierre Lévi Heirs and Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Oswiecim and Shoah Memorial Museum Paris

# data[].attributes.body
An interesting case involving three parties - two museums and an individual.  This disagreement was about a suitcase that was on loan from Auschwitz to a museum in Paris.  It just so happened that the son of the (now deceased) owner of the suitcase happened upon it in the Paris exhibit.  An attempt at settlement failed, which lead to the involvement of governments, which in turn lead to a court settlement.  The suitcase will be on long term loan to the museum in Paris, but the museum in Auschwitz retains ownership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download as pdf
Citation: Anne Laure Bandle, Raphael Contel, Marc-André Renold, "Case Auschwitz Suitcase - Pierre Lévi Heirs and Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Oswiecim and Shoah Memorial Museum Paris," Platform ArThemis ( http://unige.ch/art-adr), Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva.
After an initial unsuccessful attempt to negotiate the dispute regarding a suitcase between the heirs of the Holocaust victim Pierre Lévi and the Auschwitz Birkenau State Museum in Oswiecim, the heirs decided to file a restitution claim against the Museum. The parties eventually settled with the help of the Shoah Memorial Museum in Paris and agreed to a long-term loan of the suitcase at the Shoah Memorial Museum.
Nazi looted art

2004: A suitcase from the collection of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum was loaned to the Shoah Memorial Museum in Paris for a permanent exhibition "The Fate of Jews from France during World War II". Both museums agreed in writing that the suitcase shall be returned to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum by 30 June 2005. The suitcase is labeled as "suitcase belonging to Pierre Lévy, deported from France to Auschwitz".

February 2005: During a visit of the Paris exhibition, Michel Lévi-Leleu, retired engineer, and his daughter, Claire, discovered that the exhibited suitcase undoubtedly belonged to his father, Pierre Lévi, as it was tagged with his father's name, the last address of his family in Paris and his father's prisoner reference.

Following the exhibition: With the agreement of the Shoah Memorial Museum, Michel Lévi-Leleu made the request to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum via the Parisian museum that the suitcase shall remain in Paris permanently, as he did not want it to "repeat the journey that it had already made to Auschwitz".

28 February 2005: Both parties exchanged letters. The Auschwitz Museum insisted on the importance of the suitcase for the history and proof of existence of the Auschwitz camp. The director of the Museum, Piotr Cywinski, feared a "risk of precedent" - that the return of the suitcase might generate many other restitution claims. A letter from the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs and president of the International Auschwitz Committee was sent to the former Minister of Social Affairs and Health and president of the European Parliament, Simone Veil, as well as to Michel Lévi-Leleu. The director of the Shoah Memorial Museum, Jacques Freidj, intervened in order to obtain an amicable settlement.

August 2005:The International Auschwitz Council[1] approved the extension of the loan for another 6 months until January 2006. At the end of the loan, no other agreement had been reached.

December 2005: Michel Lévi-Leleu brought an action for restitution against the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum before the Tribunal de grande instance in Paris. The court ordered for the immediate confiscation and sequestration of the suitcase by the Parisian authorities pending a final court decision on the matter. The settlement efforts between the two Museums were subsequently interrupted. In the meantime, the suitcase was still on view at the Shoah Memorial Museum.

The Tribunal refused an interim injunction for the return of the suitcase to Poland at the end of the Paris exhibition.

4 June 2009: A settlement ended the lawsuit between the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and Michel Lévi-Leleu.

II. Dispute Resolution Process

Judicial claim - Negotiation - Settlement agreement

First negotiations between Michel Lévi-Leleu and the two Museums failed and were then followed by a trial in Paris. The President of the Shoah Memorial Museum acted unsuccessfully as an intermediary as he tried to convince the parties to settle. The parties seemed to be deadlocked in their positions.

Michel Lévi-Leleu contended against the return of the suitcase from Paris to Auschwitz, where the awful events took place. The International Auschwitz Council in turn insisted on reassembling everything left from the camp as an "inviolate and integral"[2] whole, as communicated by a letter of the Council's chairman sent to Michel Lévi-Leleu.[3]

Both parties ultimately settled before the "Tribunal de Grande Instance" in Paris rendered a decision.

Throughout the lawsuit, theAuschwitz-Birkenau State Museum was represented pro bono by two lawyers from Gide Loyrette Novel as well as by a partner in Warsaw.

Ownership

Michel Lévi-Leleu filed a claim with the Parisian Tribunal de grande instance claiming ownership to the suitcase. An option for the Auschwitz Memorial Museum under French law could have been to assert acquisitive prescription (art. 2258 French Civil Code)[4], which requires a continuous possession as owner of the chattel (art. 2261 French Civil Code)[5]. Such an acquisition of property regarding the suitcase was not at stake here, as the Museum always considered that the object had belonged to Pierre Lévy.

Loan

According to the settlement, the suitcase will be loaned to the Shoah Memorial Museum in Paris on a long-term basis where it was exhibited at the time of its discovery by Michel Lévi-Leleu. In turn, he renounced all claims and the suitcase remains in the property of the Auschwitz Birkenau State Museum.

Coming to terms with history: In the present case, Michel Lévi-Leleu's request did not substantiate the common conflict in Nazi-Looted art claims between individual and collective ways to reappraise the past. Michel Lévi-Leleu had not demanded the restitution of the suitcase or a monetary compensation. Instead, he requested that it had to be publicly shown in a specific location, namely in Paris as a replacement for Auschwitz-Birkenau.

In view of the relatively weak ethical and legal claim the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum could possibly assert, their insistence against a return of the suitcase seems surprising.

Mainly, the Museum was against the return as it feared that similar suits would emerge emptying the musuem of all its exhibited objects. The Museum's reasoning, the restitution might cause a "risk of precedence" may most probably miss the point, given the objects at stake (low value, owners difficultly traceable, etc.). The Museum justifies holding these objects as it is an institution devoted to the memorial of the murders committed in the concentration camps during World War II.

Interestingly, the parties seek guidance and help within their own government (state representatives), as their dispute is converted into a political conflict.

While the Shoah Memorial Museum has acted as an intermediary, its objectivity may be questionable. It may in fact have a personal interest in the long-term exhibition of the suitcase and in the publicity generated by the case.

a. Bibliography

Anton, Michael, ed. Internationales Kulturgüter - Privat - und Zivilverfahrensrecht. Vol. 3 of Rechtshandbuch Kulturgüterschutz und Kunstrestitutionsrecht, 1-2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.

Hess, Burkhard. "Der Kunstrechtsstreit im Internationalen Zivilprozessrecht: Aktuelle Entwicklungen und grundsätzliche Fragestellungen." In Kunst im Markt - Kunst im Recht, Tagungsband des Dritten Heidelberger Kunstrechtstags, edited by Matthias Weller, Nicolai Kemle, Thomas Dreier, and Peter Michael Lynen, 109-120. Baden-Baden: DIKE Verlag AG, 2010.

b. Media

Mandelbaum, Yaël and Manoushak Fashahi. "Une valise en partage." Documentary, in France Culture, Champ libre, June 18, 2010. Accessed June 6, 2011. http://www.franceculture.com/emission-sur-les-docks-champ-libre-44-une-valise-en-partage-2010-06-18.html.

Ceaux, Pascal. "Valise... Diplomatique. " L'Express, August 12, 2009. Accessed March 9. 2011, http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/valise-diplomatique_779927.html.

Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Press Communiqué. "Settlement Reached over Auschwitz Suitcase." June 4, 2009. Accessed March 9, 2011. http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/ index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=630&Itemid=8.

Riding, Alain. "The Fight Over a Suitcase and the Memories It Carries." New York Times, September 16, 2006. Accessed March 9, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/arts/design/16ridi.html.

Ceaux, Pascal. "Soixante ans de douleur dans une valise." Le Monde, September 2, 2006, 3.

Lodkowski, Mariusz. "Battle over a suitcase from Auschwitz." Sunday Times, August 13, 2006. Accessed March 9, 2011. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article607646.ece.

Bremner, Charles and Roger Boyes. "Son Sues Auschwitz for father's suitcase." Times, August 12, 2006. Accessed June 6, 2011. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article1084430.ece.

[1] The International Auschwitz Council advises the Auschwitz Birkenau State Museum in its various activities, including on questions concerning Holocaust memorabilia. For more information, see "The International Auschwitz Council," Memorial and Museum - Auschwitz-Birkenau website, accessed February 5, 2012, http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=278&Itemid=14.

[2] Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Press Communiqué, "Settlement Reached over Auschwitz Suitcase," June 4, 2009, accessed March 9, 2011, http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=630&Itemid=8.

[3] Ibid.

[4] "La prescription acquisitive est un moyen d'acquérir un bien ou un droit par l'effet de la possession sans que celui qui l'allègue soit obligé d'en rapporter un titre ou qu'on puisse lui opposer l'exception déduite de la mauvaise foi."

[5] "Pour pouvoir prescrire, il faut une possession continue et non interrompue, paisible, publique, non équivoque, et à titre de propriétaire."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Auschwitz Suitcase - Pierre Lévi Heirs and Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Oswiecim and Shoah Memorial Museum Paris

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After an initial unsuccessful attempt to negotiate the dispute regarding a suitcase between the heirs of the Holocaust victim Pierre Lévi and the Auschwitz Birkenau State Museum in Oswiecim, the heirs decided to file a restitution claim against the Museum.

# data[].attributes.headline
Inakayal Human Remains – Argentina, Museo de La Plata and Tehuelche People

# data[].attributes.subject
Inakayal Human Remains – Argentina, Museo de La Plata and Tehuelche People

# data[].attributes.body
Inakayal, an immutable leader of the Tehuelche people (indigenous group from Patagonia) refused to relinquish his indigenous identity & culture, and was imprisoned by the Argentinian army in 1884. He was then brought to the museum (1885) to be studied as a rare specimen of his people, and subsequently died (1888). His remains were kept by the museum, including bones and some soft tissue, as well as some of his family member's remains. In 1970 the community requested return of the remains but the museum resisted until1994 when the bones were returned and 2004 when rest of the remains were returned. This is perhaps classed as 'Diplomacy' based on a human rights lawyer acting on behalf of Tehuelche introducing
(necessary) legislation and increasing pressure on the museum until it reversed it's refusal to return. It is also noted that the museum never engaged in the negotiation process (they must have been very reluctant indeed.)  'The Inakayal case has had a profound impact on Tehuelche people.'
https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/inakayal-human-remains-2013-argentina-museo-de-la-plata-and-tehuelche-people#!prettyPhoto[pp_gal]/0/

# data[].attributes.body
Expressionist artist George Grosz’s three paintings, “Poet Max Hermann-Neisse”(1927), “Self-Portrait With Model” (1928) and the watercolor “Republican Automatons” (1920) were the subject of dispute between Grosz’s legal heirs and the Museum of Modern Art. The paintings were lost following the flight of the artist and his art dealer from Nazi Germany. The paintings were lost in the course of Nazi persecution. After failing to come to an agreement through negotiation in 2005 and 2006, the plaintiffs filed suit in April 2009. The MOMA moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the three year statute of limitations had expired, holding the clock began upon the MOMA’s first 2005 statement of refusal. The plaintiffs argued that the clock should begin at the more concrete 2006 refusal by the MOMA. The court and a subsequent appeal favored the MOMA’s motion to dismiss.
https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/three-grosz-paintings-2013-grosz-heirs-v-museum-of-modern-art

# data[].attributes.body
Items were removed from Boğazköy, Turkey by the German Archaeological Institute (1910). They were sent to Germany to be cleaned, restored and catalogued (1917) including the Boğazköy Sphinx. Many of the items were returned, but those that remained were housed in two museums in Berlin. Turkey filed a restitution request (1986) with the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of İllicit Appropriation (ICPRCP.) The ICPRCP offers a framework for negotiations, believing that each claim needs individual consideration. Germany returned a number (7,400) of items, but not the sphinx.

Germany and Turkey began talks regarding the return of the sphinx and after almost 20 years the ICPRCP encouraged both sides to reach a settlement which was done in 2011 and the Boğazköy Sphinx was returned to Turkey as a “voluntary gesture of friendship” in 2011.

During this process, Turkey made strong overtures that scientific projects within Turkey would be disrupted. A political manoeuvre involving manipulation to strong arm Germany into returning the original Boğazköy Sphinx. There was a suggestion that a copy be sent to Turkey.

Legally, no written documentation was available to prove ownership of the Boğazköy Sphinx, even though the place of origin was undisputed. In conclusion Germany by stating this was a “voluntary gesture of friendship” rather than a “return” allowed themselves to be in some manner exonerated from being accused of a wrongful removal and all the legal steps that may imply.
https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/bogazkoy-sphinx-2013-turkey-and-germany?searchterm=Boğaz
Note: Turkey is still (rightly or wrongly,) using these political manoeuvres and manipulation tactics with archaeological sites, excavations and artefacts when it suits them, ie: depending on which countries are "out of favour."

# data[].attributes.headline
St. Agatha Statue – St. Martin’s Church and Private Person 

# data[].attributes.subject
St. Agatha Statue – St. Martin’s Church and Private Person 

# data[].attributes.body
In November 2012, Sotheby’s offered at auction a meter-tall statue of St. Agatha, by the Dutch sculptor Jan van Steffieswert (1465-1530). It was stolen in 1976 from St. Martin’s Church, in Gronsveld, the Netherlands. With three weeks between the auction announcement and the sale, the Church chose to repurchase the statue. After 37 years of transferring between Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and England, and other recovery attempts failed, the work returned to St. Martin’s in May 2013.

The ‘solution’, from Sotheby’s perspective was to waive the commission fee, however this did not affect the vendor’s profit.  Sotheby’s had no interest in resolving the theft through court action, which raises issues with how they handle known stolen works of art. The church did get their statue back
https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/st-agatha-statue-2013-st-martin2019s-church-and-private-person

# data[].attributes.headline
Landscape with Smokestacks – Friedrich Gutmann Heirs and Daniel Searle

# data[].attributes.subject
Landscape with Smokestacks – Friedrich Gutmann Heirs and Daniel Searle

# data[].attributes.body
The heirs of Friedrich and Louise Gutmann, filed a claim against the art dealer Daniel Searle, the owner of the painting “Landscape with Smokestacks”. The painting was allegedly looted by the Nazis during the Second World War. After four years of litigation, the parties agreed to share the ownership of the painting.

Adopted solution:
The Gutmann heirs and Searle agreed to equally divide the ownership of the painting. Searle then transferred his share to the Art Institute of Chicago, where he was a Trustee. In turn, the Art Institute bought the heirs’ interest at fair market value, as assessed by an independent expert.

Copied from https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/landscape-with-smokestacks-2013-friedrich-gutmann-heirs-and-daniel-searle

# data[].attributes.headline
Ancient Manuscripts and Globe - Saint Gall and Zurich

# data[].attributes.subject
Ancient Manuscripts and Globe - Saint Gall and Zurich

# data[].attributes.body
Thanks to the Swiss Confederation who acted as a mediator, the dispute between the Cantons of Zurich and Saint-Gall over cultural objects displaced during the religious wars of 1712 was ultimately settled in 2006 by an inventive agreement.

Adopted solution:
The mediation agreement provides the following settlement:
1. Mutual acknowledgment: Saint-Gall accepts Zurich’s ownership; Zurich in return recognizes the importance of the objects for Saint-Gall’s cultural identity
2. Loan:  Zurich offers Saint-Gall an unpaid and indefinite loan regarding 35 manuscripts
3. Copy: Zurich approved the production of an exact replica of the cosmographical Globe at its own expense and to donate it to Saint-Gall

Copied from
https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/ancient-manuscripts-and-globe-saint-gall-and-zurich

# data[].attributes.headline
200 Paintings – Goudstikker Heirs and the Netherlands

# data[].attributes.subject
200 Paintings – Goudstikker Heirs and the Netherlands

# data[].attributes.body
The art collection of Jacques Goudstikker was acquired by the Nazi commander Hermann Göring under suspicious circumstances during the Second World War. After the war, a large part of the collection was recovered and returned to the Netherlands where it was labelled “Dutch national property”. The first part of these items was bought back by Goudstikker’s wife in 1952. The Dutch Government returned the second part – 200 paintings – to Goudstikker's only surviving heir in 2006 based on a recommendation of the Dutch Restitution Committee.

Copied from
https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/200-paintings-2013-goudstikker-heirs-and-the-netherlands

# data[].attributes.body
In 1985, British singer Boy George purchased an 18 th century Cypriot icon from an art dealer in London, apparently in good faith. The gold-leafed Greek Orthodox icon depicts Jesus Christ Pantokrator and was believed looted from the Church of St. Charalambos (Neo Chorio-Kythreas) in northern Cyprus during Turkish invasion, July & August 1974.
The Cypriot Bishop Porfyrios of Neapolis, assistant Bishop to the Archbishop of Cyprus within the Greek Orthodox church, noticed the icon during a television interview conducted at the singer's home.
He contacted Boy George’s Cypriot composer John Themis who organised a meeting. Boy George immediately agreed to the icon's return and it was handed over during an official ceremony at the Cypriot Church of Saint Anagyre in north London, then transferred to Cyprus.
Boy George did not request financial compensation, but that the icon be returned to the Church of St. Charalambos when it is liberated from Turkish occupation. The Bishop gifted him a smaller icon in return.
There are questions as to whether the singer did in fact have good title under English law and if he performed sufficient due diligence, especially given it's apparent low purchase price. These questions did not come to the fore given the swift agreement to return.

Negotiation and mediation would seem logical choices for return from private collectors. The process does mean the initial purchase and legal/ethical issues are not necessarily addressed however. It's also dependant on the object becoming visible. Were it not for the TV interview, the return in this case might never have occurred.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download as pdf
Citation: Anne Laure Bandle, Raphael Contel, Marc-André Renold, "Case Cypriot Icon - Boy George and the Greek Orthodox Church in Cyprus," Platform ArThemis ( http://unige.ch/art-adr), Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva.

When the representative of the Greek Orthodox church of Cyprus, Bishop Porfyrios, watched a television interview with the British singer, Boy George, he discovered that an 18 th century Cypriot icon was hanging in the singer's living room. The artefact depicting Jesus Christ Pantokrator was displayed in the Cypriot Church of St. Charalambos, before it was allegedly looted during the Turkish invasion of 1974. At the request of the Bishop, Boy George immediately agreed to return the artefact and received a gift in return.

Spoils of war

In 1985, Boy George, a British singer officially named George O'Dowd, purchased allegedly with good faith an 18th century Cypriot icon from an art dealer in London. The gold-leafed Greek Orthodox icon depicts Jesus Christ Pantokrator and has been looted from the Church of St. Charalambos in Neo Chorio-Kythreas in northern Cyprus during the Turkish invasion of July and August 1974.[1]

In early 2011, the Cypriot Bishop Porfyrios of Neapolis, assistant Bishop to the Archbishop of Cyprus within the Greek Orthodox church, happened by chance to be watching an interview of Boy George in his living room, where the icon was hanging. By means of further investigations, the Bishop recognized that the icon was an artefact that had been stolen in the Church of St. Charalambos almost 30 years ago. He contacted Boy George's Cypriot composer John Themis to ask for its return. The singer agreed right away. The official handing over ceremony took place at the Cypriot Church of Saint Anagyre in north London, before the icon was transferred to Cyprus.

II. Dispute Resolution Process

Negotiation - Settlement agreement

When seeking for the return of the icon, the Bishop of the Greek Orthodox church of Cyprus personally contacted Boy George's friend and composer, also of Cypriot origin, John Themis. During a personal meeting between the singer and the Bishop, appropriate certifications for the ownership of the icon by the Church of Cyprus were presented to Boy George and both parties orally agreed to a settlement.[2]

Ownership

Although no legal questions were officially raised during negotiations, a hypothetical legal issue may have been the title of ownership to the icon. In particular, one may ask as to whether the prominent issue of a good or bad faith acquisition of stolen or illegally exported artefacts requires a certain level of due diligence when purchasing art.[3] However, given that Boy George purchased the object in London, he may not have acquired the property title under the scheme of an acquisition of property in good faith (Nemo dat quod non habet rule under English law).

Unconditional restitution - Symbolic gesture

Without hesitation, Boy George agreed for the artefact to be returned to "its original rightful home"[4]. He has not asked for any monetary compensation. He expressed, however, the wish for the icon to return to its original iconostasis in the Church of St. Charalambos when it is liberated from Turkish occupation.[5]

In return and as a sign of gratitude, the Bishop Porfyrios donated another smaller icon to the singer.

Very unbureaucratically and rapidly, the singer and the Bishop found an understanding for the return of the icon. According to a subsequent interview[6], Boy George was not surprised to hear about the Bishop's request, and agreed for its repatriation straight away.

Despite the singer's exemplary reaction when confronted with the restitution request, the icon's acquisition in the 80s may remains questionable in view of several practical grounds. In fact, certain aspects could have encouraged Boy George to proceed to further verifications, including the relatively low price he paid for it, and his awareness about possessing a "special" piece of art from the 18th century.[7] One may also query on the completion of the purchasers due diligence. In fact, while the awareness for illicitly removed and traded cultural property has greatly developed in the last 20 years, the key international policy frameworks were already put into place at the time of the purchase, and the Turkish systematic plundering of 1974 in Cyprus was wide-spread news.

Overall, the case highlights the actual consequences of illicitly removed cultural property during an armed conflict which occurred almost 40 years ago. Despite Turkey's accession in 1965 to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property During Armed Conflict and its Protocols and to the overall awareness which has arisen for matters of illicitly traded and exported cultural property since the enactment of the UNESCO Convention of 1970 (ratified by Turkey in 1981), the policies have not prevented the Turkish military from destroying and dismembering a large number of historic monuments and religious sites during its invasion of 1974.[8] Notably, several orthodox churches had been plundered and their icons removed.[9] Without surprise, the Greek Orthodox Church in Cyprus has, ever since the invasion, addressed several restitution requests to purchasers of such icons, including Boy George. However, not all of them have met with similar sympathy. In the very prominent case, Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts Inc[10], the United States District Court of the State of Indiana examined the church's claim in replevin in a comparative analysis of both American and Swiss law.[11] As hypothetically broached above[12], the court questioned under Swiss law the bona fide acquisition of the icon by the last owners, considering that the art dealers had not properly exercised due diligence verifications on the icon to exclude all possible doubts on the provenance of the mosaics. The church's claim was ultimately granted, given that an acquisition even in good faith is not valid under U.S. law.In another case disputed in The Netherlands[13], the Church's restitution claim failed at the Dutch Civil Code provisions regarding the good faith acquisition of title to the icon, as pled by its Dutch owners. Following years of campaigning by the Cyprus government and the Church of Cyprus, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued Resolution 1628 in 2008[14] urging both Turkish and Cypriot authorities to undertake all necessary measures for the preservation and restoration of all historic and religious monuments in Cyprus.[15]

a. Bibliography

Matyk, Stephan. "The Cypriot Icons in The Netherlands (Lans Case)." In Witnesses to History - Documents and Writings on the Return of Cultural Objects, edited by Lyndel V. Prott, 386 - 387. Paris: UNESCO, 2009.

Matyk, Stephan. "The Restitution of Cultural Objects and the Question of Giving Direct Effect to the Protocol of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1954." International Journal of Cultural Property 9 No. 2 (2000): 341 et seqq.

Prott, Lyndel V. "Cultural Heritage Law: The Perspective of the Source Nations." Art Antiquity and Law Vol. 5 Iss. 4 (December 2000): 333 - 342.

Renold, Marc-André. "Stolen Art: The Ubiquitous Question of Good Faith." In Witnesses to History - Documents and Writings on the Return of Cultural Objects, edited by Lyndel V. Prott, 309 - 313. Paris: UNESCO, 2009.

b. Court decisions

Authocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Lans, District Court of Rotterdam, Case number 44053, Roll number Ha Za 95-2403, Ruling: February 4, 1999.

Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts Inc, 717 F.Supp. 1374 (1989) Federal Supplement law reports US); 917 F.2d 278 (7th Cir. 1990) (Federal Reporter 2nd series US).

c. Legislation

d. Media

Contel, Raphael, Alessandro Chechi and Marc-André Renold. "Case Mosaics - Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg", Platform ArThemis (http://unige.ch/art-adr), Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva, January 2012.

Michaels, Sean. "Boy George Returns Lost Icon to Cyprus Church." The Guardian, January 20, 2011. Accessed January 6, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jan/20/boy-george-icon-cyprus-church.

"Boy George Returns Christ Icon to Cyprus Church." BBC News, January 19, 2011. Accessed January 6, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12228059.

"Boy George, the Cypriot Bishop and the stolen icon of Christ." BBC Radio 5, Interview, January 19, 2011. Accessed January 6, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00dcfwc.

The Law Library of Congress - Cyprus. "Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law." April 2009, prepared by Theresa Papademetriou. Accessed January 6, 2011, http://www.loc.gov/law/help/cyprus_final_rpt.pdf.

[1] Many Cypriot artefacts disappeared during the invasion and were subsequently sold on the black market; see Sean Michaels, "Boy George Returns Lost Icon to Cyprus Church," The Guardian, January 20, 2011, accessed January 6, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jan/20/boy-george-icon-cyprus-church.

[2] There was no written agreement; Bishop of Neapolis Porfyrios Papastylianou, Representative of the Church of Cyprus to the European Union, personal communication, March 16, 2012.

[3]See for instance, Marc-André Renold, "Stolen Art: The Ubiquitous Question of Good Faith," in Witnesses to History - Documents and Writings on the Return of Cultural Objects, ed. Lyndel V. Prott (Paris: UNESCO, 2009), 309.

[4] "Boy George Returns Christ Icon to Cyprus Church," BBC News, January 19, 2011, accessed January 6, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12228059.

[5] Bishop of Neapolis Porfyrios Papastylianou, Representative of the Church of Cyprus to the European Union, personal communication, March 16, 2012.

[6] "Boy George, the Cypriot Bishop and the stolen icon of Christ." BBC Radio 5, Interview, January 19, 2011. Accessed January 6, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00dcfwc.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Stephan Matyk, "The Cypriot Icons in The Netherlands (Lans Case)," in Witnesses to History - Documents and Writings on the Return of Cultural Objects, ed. Lyndel V. Prott (Paris: UNESCO, 2009), 386.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts Inc, 717 F.Supp. 1374 (1989) Federal Supplement law reports US); 917 F.2d 278 (7 th Cir. 1990) (Federal Reporter 2 nd series US).

[11] See also Raphael Contel, Alessandro Chechi, Marc-André Renold, "Case Mosaics - Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg", Platform ArThemis ( http://unige.ch/art-adr), Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva, January 2012.

[12] See chapter III above.

[13] Authocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Lans, District Court of Rotterdam, Case number 44053, Roll number Ha Za 95-2403, Ruling: February 4, 1999; see also Stephan Matyk, "The Restitution of Cultural Objects and the Question of Giving Direct Effect to the Protocol of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1954," International Journal of Cultural Property 9 No. 2 (2000): 341 et seqq; Lyndel V. Prott, "Cultural Heritage Law: The Perspective of the Source Nations," Art Antiquity and Law Vol. 5 Iss. 4 (December 2000): 340.

[14] Council of Europe Resolution 1628, para. 11.4, Oct. 1, 2008, accessed January 6, 2011 http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1628.htm.

[15] For a more detailed report of the impact of the Turkish-Cypriot war on the cultural goods, see The Law Library of Congress - Cyprus, "Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law," April 2009, prepared by Theresa Papademetriou, accessed January 6, 2011, http://www.loc.gov/law/help/cyprus_final_rpt.pdf.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cypriot Icon - Boy George and the Greek Orthodox Church in Cyprus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the representative of the Greek Orthodox church of Cyprus, Bishop Porfyrios, watched a television interview with the British singer, Boy George, he discovered that an 18th century Cypriot icon was hanging in the singer's living room. The artefact depicting Jesus Christ Pantokrator was displayed in the Cypriot Church of St.

# data[].attributes.body
The mosaic was previously sold through Christie’s, however the auction house refused to name the buyer and Turkey lost sight of it. Eventually both the Dallas Museum of Art and the Turkish Authorities started investigating/researching the mosaic. It is not clear who reached out but the sides negotiated and signed an MOU which returned the Orpheus Mosaic to Turkey on the condition that Turkey would provide the Dallas Museum with loans, and the Museum would provide expertise. The MOU initiated the “Dallas Museum of Art Exchange Program”.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Orpheus Mosaic - Turkey and Dallas Museum of Art - Centre du droit de l'art

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In December 2012, the Dallas Museum of Art returned to Turkey a fragment of a Roman mosaic. In addition, the parties concluded a comprehensive art exchange program.

# data[].attributes.body
Resolution by conciliation: the town council initially wasn't keen to restitute the painting and eventually decided that ethics would prime in memory of the Nazis' victims.

# data[].attributes.body
A case of misinformation from the Art Loss Register leading to a dispute over ownership. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, in the United Kingdom required a return of the paintings to initial owner.

# data[].attributes.body
A recovery case where France restituted three paintings classified 'National Museum Recovery " to heirs of Nazi victims without any condition nor compensation, following moral duty.