Abstract
This chapter analyses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on matters of cultural goods’ protection. State measures protecting cultural goods usually amount to interferences with private property rights and therefore must comply with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. In a number of judgments, the Court has set out the requirements of the right to property in detail. It has shown itself understanding towards the need for preserving cultural heritage while remaining sensitive to abuses of public power or, more broadly, to ‘bad governance’ in this field. Despite this balanced approach, particular judgments engender criticism as they display implicit biases in the Court’s reasoning, either towards the right holder (applicant bias) or the State (State bias) in question.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For a general account of the institutionalisation of fundamental rights see MacCormick (2007), pp. 195–201.
- 2.
Cf. Prott and O’Keefe (1992), pp. 307–320.
- 3.
Similarly, the Spanish (bienes culturales—patrimonio mundial) and the Russian (культурных ценностей—культурное наследие).
- 4.
‘Property’. In Merriam-Webster.com (21 March 2017).
- 5.
For a pronounced critique of the language of rights, or ‘rights talk’, see Glendon (1991).
- 6.
For a detailed account of the Court’s property doctrine see Grabenwarter (2014), pp. 365–387.
- 7.
See also Debelianovi v. Bulgaria, no. 61951/00, 28 November 2008; Kozacıoğlu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, 2 July 2009; Valette and Doherier v. France (dec.), no. 6054/10, 29 November 2011; Bogdel v. Lithuania, no. 41248/06, 26 November 2013.
- 8.
Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, ECHR 2000-I.
- 9.
- 10.
Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, §§ 98–105, ECHR 2000-I.
- 11.
Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 106–107, ECHR 2000-I. It was explicitly left open whether the interference had to be classified as deprivation or as other interference as the complexity of the factual and legal position prevents its being classified in a precise category.
- 12.
Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, §§ 108–110, ECHR 2000-I.
- 13.
Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, §§ 111–113, ECHR 2000-I.
- 14.
Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, §§ 114–122, ECHR 2000-I.
- 15.
SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII.
- 16.
Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, 29 March 2011.
- 17.
Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, § 63, 29 March 2011.
- 18.
Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, § 64, 29 March 2011.
- 19.
Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, § 66, 29 March 2011.
- 20.
Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, § 67, 29 March 2011.
- 21.
Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, §§ 69–70, 29 March 2011.
- 22.
Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, § 71, 29 March 2011.
- 23.
Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, §§ 74–79, 29 March 2011.
- 24.
Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, § 74, 29 March 2011.
- 25.
Fürst von Thurn und Taxis v. Germany (dec.), no. 26367/10, 14 May 2013; for an in-depth analysis see Michl (2015), pp. 370–374.
- 26.
Fürst von Thurn und Taxis v. Germany (dec.), no. 26367/10, § 20, 14 May 2013.
- 27.
Fürst von Thurn und Taxis v. Germany (dec.), no. 26367/10, § 21, 14 May 2013.
- 28.
Fürst von Thurn und Taxis v. Germany (dec.), no. 26367/10, §§ 22–29, 14 May 2013.
- 29.
Fürst von Thurn und Taxis v. Germany (dec.), no. 26367/10, §§ 31–33, 14 May 2013.
- 30.
Matas v. Croatia, no. 40581/12, 4 October 2016.
- 31.
Matas v. Croatia, no. 40581/12, § 32, 4 October 2016.
- 32.
Matas v. Croatia, no. 40581/12, §§ 33–34, 4 October 2016.
- 33.
Matas v. Croatia, no. 40581/12, § 35, 4 October 2016.
- 34.
Matas v. Croatia, no. 40581/12, §§ 36–47, 4 October 2016.
- 35.
Matas v. Croatia, no. 40581/12, § 48, 4 October 2016.
- 36.
The Court did, however, not consider whether the painting had been sold to Italy legally and with the consent of the French authorities and thus had become part of the cultural heritage of Italy pursuant Article 4 (e) of the 1970 Convention.
- 37.
Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 113, ECHR 2000-I.
- 38.
Cf. Jahn v. Germany [GC], no. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, § 91, ECHR 2005-VI.
- 39.
In 2013, the applicant ranked on position 974 in the Forbes World’s Billionares List; see https://www.forbes.com/profile/albert-von-thurn-und-taxis/ (21 March 2017).
References
Conforti B (2007) Quelques réflexions sur la jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme en matière de propriété. In: Kohen MG (ed) Promoting justice, human rights and conflict resolution through international law. Liber Amicorum Lucius Calfisch. Brill, Leiden, pp 171–178
Glendon MA (1991) Rights talk. The impoverishment of political discourse. The Free Press, New York
Grabenwarter C (2014) European Convention on Human Rights. Commentary. Beck et al, Munich
Hoffmann BT (2006) European Union legislation pertaining to cultural goods. In: Hoffmann BT (ed) Art and cultural heritage. Law, policy and practice. CUP, Cambridge, pp 191–193
MacCormick N (2007) Institutions of law. An essay in legal theory. OUP, Oxford
Michl F (2015) Noblesse oblige? – Die Thurn-und-Taxis-Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte. Bayerische Verwaltungsblätter 146:370–374
Prott LV, O’Keefe PJ (1992) ‘Cultural heritage’ or ‘cultural property’? Int J Cult Prop 1:307–320
Rees G (2005) Kulturgüterschutz und EMRK. In: Grupp K, Hufeld U (eds) Recht – Kultur – Finanzen. Festschrift für Reinhard Mußgnung zum 70. Geburtstag am 26. Oktober 2005. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 499–516
Rudolf B (2000) Beyeler v. Italy, application no. 33202/96. Am J Int Law 94:736–740
Zihler F (2001) Eine Besprechung des Urteils Ernst Beyeler gegen den Staat Italien des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte. ZEuS 3:731–752
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Michl, F. (2018). The Protection of Cultural Goods and the Right to Property Under the ECHR. In: Lagrange, E., Oeter, S., Uerpmann-Wittzack, R. (eds) Cultural Heritage and International Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78789-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78789-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78788-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78789-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)