University of Leicester
Browse
1/1
2 files

The Conflict of Laws as a Technique of Demand Side Regulation in Claims for the Recovery of Cultural Objects

journal contribution
posted on 2015-03-09, 11:15 authored by Lorna Gillies
This article considers the role of jurisdiction in supporting private claims for the cross-border recovery of cultural objects from an EU member state. In particular, this article considers a new, “sui generis”11 A Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts (Oxford: University Press, 2014), 283. View all notes special jurisdiction rule in Article 7(4) of Regulation EU 1215/2012, the Brussels I Recast Regulation. Article 7(4), inter alia, enables “(A) person domiciled in a Member State to be sued in the courts of another Member State  […] as regards a civil claim for the recovery, based on ownership, of a cultural object as defined in point 1 of Article 1 of Directive [93/7/EEC] initiated by the person claiming the right to recover such an object, in the courts for the place where the cultural object is situated at the time when the court is seised”. This special jurisdiction rule is a welcome development towards facilitating the return of a cultural object from the place where it is seized (for example where there is market demand or when the object is in transit), to a party asserting ownership. In practice the utility of this special jurisdiction rule will depend upon its scope and interpretation by the Court of Justice together with its ability to offer a “counterbalance”22 B Hess, “The Proposed Recast of the Brussels I Regulation: Rules on Jurisdiction”, in F Pocar, I Viarengo and F C Villata (eds), Recasting Brussels I: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Milan on November 25–26, 2011 (CEDAM, 2012), 107. View all notes to Article 4 and the other special grounds of jurisdiction in the Brussels I Recast Regulation. This paper concludes that this special jurisdiction rule is a key step towards an EU-led “transnational policy of protection of cultural property”,33 A Chong, “Transnational Public Policy in Civil and Commercial Matters”, [2012] Law Quarterly Review 88–113, 106. View all notes which may require further approximation of EU private international law in the future.

History

Citation

Journal of Private International Law, 2015, 11 (2), pp. 295-316

Author affiliation

/Organisation/COLLEGE OF ARTS, HUMANITIES AND LAW/School of Law

Version

  • AM (Accepted Manuscript)

Published in

Journal of Private International Law

Publisher

Hart

issn

1744-1048

eissn

1757-8418

Available date

2017-02-14

Publisher version

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441048.2015.1068003

Notes

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the “Vulnerability and Cultural Heritage I: Heritage Crime, Illicit Trade, Stewardship and Ethics Conference,” University of Leicester, May 2013 and thereafter at the “5th Journal of Private International Law Conference” University Autónoma de Madrid, September 2013.

Language

en

Usage metrics

    University of Leicester Publications

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC