Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2381/31821
Title: The Conflict of Laws as a Technique of Demand Side Regulation in Claims for the Recovery of Cultural Objects
Authors: Gillies, Lorna
First Published: 14-Aug-2015
Publisher: Hart
Citation: Journal of Private International Law, 2015, 11 (2), pp. 295-316
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”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.
DOI Link: 10.1080/17441048.2015.1068003
ISSN: 1744-1048
eISSN: 1757-8418
Links: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441048.2015.1068003
http://hdl.handle.net/2381/31821
Version: Post-print
Status: Peer-reviewed
Type: Journal Article
Description: 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.
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, School of Law

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
JPrivIntL Gillies 2015 PB edit.pdfPost-review (final submitted)449.48 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
JPILGillies250215 (1).pdfPre-review (submitted draft)456.16 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.