Amsterdam District Court has admitted Ukraine as a party to the proceedings to return the “Crimea. Gold and Secrets of the Black Sea” exhibition. The dispute about the exhibition arose after the annexation of the peninsula by Russia. Maarten Sanders, a Dutch lawyer, who is representing Ukraine in this case, answers Ukrinform's questions about Ukraine's chances in the proceedings, next steps and possible date of return of the treasure to Ukraine.
Q. At what stage are the proceedings now?
Currently we are on a beginning stage of the proceedings.
The proceedings were initiated by four Crimean museums that brought up a court case against the Allard Pierson Museum to preform the contract, under which the artifacts were to be returned to these Crimean museums after the end of the Amsterdam exhibition.
The Allard Pierson Museum agreed to go to court with the case, whereas the State of Ukraine filed a request to participate in the proceedings as a claiming party that has important arguments as to why the artifacts must be returned to Kyiv and not to Crimea.
The State of the Netherlands for their part also filed a request to the court to participate in the proceedings, although they argued they want to do it to make sure that the proceedings are taking place in the right way, that after a ruling is made by the court every party has the opportunity to appeal it, as guaranteed by the law, and that the artifacts remain in the Netherlands until the case is completely settled.
Thus, in January 2015, we had two intervening parties - the State of Ukraine and the State of the Netherlands. The court has made a judgment that the State of Ukraine be accepted as an intervening party with sufficiently clear legal interest to do so, but the State of the Netherlands be rejected such an intervention due to the insufficient clarity of their interest.
Now, after the State of Ukraine has been admitted as an intervening part, it will start filing the arguments.
Q. So, is the decision to admit Ukraine as an intervening party and the Netherlands be rejected such an admission final?
It is a decision that is final for the moment.
The State of the Netherlands may appeal it, although we are yet to see whether they do that.
As for the judgment on the admission of the State of Ukraine, I do not think it will be appealed by the Crimean museums since earlier they said they would not stand against that and would leave it to the court to decide on that.
Q. What this rejection of admission of the Netherlands to the proceedings could possibly mean for Ukraine? Do you think it will have any effect?
I think in the end it will not influence the final decision.
However, the State of the Netherlands trying to become a party to the process was, I think, helpful, in the sense that they made it clear they feel it is their legal responsibility to make sure that the artifacts end up in the right hands.
Q. The court judgment mentions the date of May 20, 2015. What will be happening on that date?
On May 20, we will file our claim and substantiate it in detail. We will clarify with supporting documents, why the State of Ukraine is the owner of the artifacts and why the Crimean museums can no longer exercise their operational management over them.
Q. What is the most important document you are going to build your case on?
That is something we have to elaborate on together with the Ukrainian co-counsel.
But we will be appealing to the Ukrainian law, under which the artifacts are a part of the State Museum Fund.
Our argument here is that before the annexation of Crimea, the Crimean museums had an authorization from the State of Ukraine to exercise operational management over the artifacts. After the annexation however, the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture issued an order stating that the museums there are no longer entitled to exercise such a management.
The museums have never been actual owners of the artifacts - their owner has always been the State and the fact of annexation of Crimea, especially since it is not recognized internationally, does not change the ownership.
Q. And how long do you think it will take the court to issue a final judgment in the proceedings?
I think it will take at least one year. It can take longer than that, if the parties appeal - another two or three years maybe. After that, of course it may happen that the parties will go to the Supreme Court.
So the shortest foreseeable time is one year or so, but one can expect that it will take longer.
Q. How high do you think are Ukraine's chances in the proceedings?
I think Ukraine has a very strong case, especially in view of the fact that the annexation of Crime is not recognized internationally.
Neither the UN, nor the EU and the Netherlands recognize it, therefore any legal authority that is to consider the case will be making its judgment based on the fact that the State of Ukraine is still the governing authority with respect to artifacts in the State Museum Fund.
Even the Crimean museums in their briefs had never contested that. They were referring instead to the contract between them and the Allard Pierson Museum, but never claiming in fact they were these artifacts' owners.
Editor's note. "Crimea: Gold and Secrets of the Black Sea" exhibition was hosted by the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam from February to September last year. It featured the most valuable items of jewelry from ancient times to the early Middle Ages, brought from five Ukrainian museums, four of which are located in the Crimea.
According to the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine, the return of 565 exhibits (2111 pieces) is disputed. Their total insurance cost is 1,4 million euros. The exhibits include artifacts from ancient cities and settlements (Hersonissos, Panticapaeum, Tyritake, Artezian), late-Scythian burials from III century BC and Gothic cemeteries from V-VII century BC
The most expensive artifacts of the exhibition, including gold, silver and copper pieces, returned to Ukraine after it ended in September last year. Among those were unique Scythian golden helmet, Scythian golden sword and scabbard, as well as Sarmatian jewelry and household items. The insurance costs of the returned artifacts was 11.5 million.
Maryna Gonta. The Hague.
No comments:
Post a Comment