This is a brief excerpt from the document you requested from IFAR’s Art Law & Cultural Property Database.

Case Summary

Crimean Museums (Plaintiff) & Ukraine (Intervenor Plaintiff) v. Allard Pierson Museum

HR 9 juni 2023 RvdW 2023, 22/00270 m.nt. (The Crimean Museums (Plaintiffs) /The State of Ukraine (Intervenor-Plaintiff) and the Allard Pierson Museum (Defendant)) (Neth.).

Précis
On November 19, 2014, the Crimean Museums sued APM in the District Court of Amsterdam (Rechtbank Amsterdam) for breach of loan agreement and the return of the artifacts, claiming that the title lies with them, and damages sustained by them as a result of APM’s failure to promptly deliver the artifacts after the exhibition had ended. In the spring of the same year, Ukraine intervened in the action as a plaintiff and argued that under the 1995 Law of Ukraine on Museums and Museum Affairs (“Museum Act”) and the accompanying February 2, 2000 Decree (i) the artifacts were state property and (ii) that the Crimean Museums were merely entrusted to manage these artifacts (the activity is described in this law as “operational management”). The Dutch law requires the intervening party to demonstrate that it






Click here to subscribe to IFAR's Art Law & Cultural Property Database to access this and other documents about U.S. and international legislation and case law concerning the acquisition, authenticity, export, ownership, and copyright of art objects.