The contribution of jurisdiction as a technique of demand side regulation in claims for the recovery of cultural objects

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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” 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” 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”, which may require further approximation of EU private international law in the future.
LanguageEnglish
Pages295-316
Number of pages22
JournalJournal of Private International Law
Volume11
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Aug 2015

Fingerprint

jurisdiction
regulation
demand
EU
private law
court of justice
EEC
human being
EU member state
international law
interpretation
market
ability

Keywords

  • cultural object
  • jurisdiction
  • Brussels I Recast
  • ownership
  • demand side regulation
  • enforcement

Cite this

@article{2e3f0363e18940389f070104f1e48c01,
title = "The contribution of jurisdiction as a technique of demand side regulation in claims for the recovery of cultural objects",
abstract = "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” 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” 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”, which may require further approximation of EU private international law in the future.",
keywords = "cultural object, jurisdiction, Brussels I Recast, ownership, demand side regulation, enforcement",
author = "Gillies, {Lorna E.}",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1080/17441048.2015.1068003",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "295--316",
journal = "Journal of Private International Law",
issn = "1744-1048",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The contribution of jurisdiction as a technique of demand side regulation in claims for the recovery of cultural objects

AU - Gillies, Lorna E.

PY - 2015/8/14

Y1 - 2015/8/14

N2 - 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” 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” 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”, which may require further approximation of EU private international law in the future.

AB - 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” 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” 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”, which may require further approximation of EU private international law in the future.

KW - cultural object

KW - jurisdiction

KW - Brussels I Recast

KW - ownership

KW - demand side regulation

KW - enforcement

U2 - 10.1080/17441048.2015.1068003

DO - 10.1080/17441048.2015.1068003

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 295

EP - 316

JO - Journal of Private International Law

T2 - Journal of Private International Law

JF - Journal of Private International Law

SN - 1744-1048

IS - 2

ER -