Art From Russia Seized at Swiss Border
The NY Times story is here.
The works, which belong to the Pushkin in Moscow, were on loan for an exhibit of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist works that were on display in Martigny. They were seized at the Swiss border allegedly at the request of the firm Noga, a trading company, which claims they are owed around $800 million in Russian debts for food services provided in the early 1990’s. According to Swiss authorities, the 50 works, which include paintings by Picasso, Renoir, Monet and van Gogh, are insured for $1 billion. However, shortly after the Times article appeared, the BBC reported that the Swiss government has ordered the immediate release of the works. Excerpt:
Pushkin director Irina Antonova said it was unacceptable that works of art should become "hostages" in political disputes.
So the Swiss government soon stepped in to say the paintings should be returned because international law barred the seizure of cultural goods for private reasons, said foreign ministry official Paul Seger.
While the works are likely to soon head back to Russia, I doubt that they will be sending anything else over to Switzerland in the near future. Although it is not a complete safeguard against having works seized, the United States has an immunity from seizure statute that protects against the seizure of art imports in certain instances. However, exported objects originating in the United States could be subject to seizure in a foreign country. Since most foreign countries lack an immunity statute, U.S. museums typically include language in the loan agreement that protects themselves against the possibility of having artworks seized. Wise and Wolff (ALI-ABA, 1987) suggest something to the effect of “Borrower hereby guarantees the return of the work of art to Lender, or, in the event that return should be impossible, Borrower agrees to compensate Lender to the full value of the works. Borrower also agrees to indemnify Lender for all legal expenses Lender may incur in connection with any seizure of the work or other legal action preventing its return.”
The works, which belong to the Pushkin in Moscow, were on loan for an exhibit of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist works that were on display in Martigny. They were seized at the Swiss border allegedly at the request of the firm Noga, a trading company, which claims they are owed around $800 million in Russian debts for food services provided in the early 1990’s. According to Swiss authorities, the 50 works, which include paintings by Picasso, Renoir, Monet and van Gogh, are insured for $1 billion. However, shortly after the Times article appeared, the BBC reported that the Swiss government has ordered the immediate release of the works. Excerpt:
Pushkin director Irina Antonova said it was unacceptable that works of art should become "hostages" in political disputes.
So the Swiss government soon stepped in to say the paintings should be returned because international law barred the seizure of cultural goods for private reasons, said foreign ministry official Paul Seger.
While the works are likely to soon head back to Russia, I doubt that they will be sending anything else over to Switzerland in the near future. Although it is not a complete safeguard against having works seized, the United States has an immunity from seizure statute that protects against the seizure of art imports in certain instances. However, exported objects originating in the United States could be subject to seizure in a foreign country. Since most foreign countries lack an immunity statute, U.S. museums typically include language in the loan agreement that protects themselves against the possibility of having artworks seized. Wise and Wolff (ALI-ABA, 1987) suggest something to the effect of “Borrower hereby guarantees the return of the work of art to Lender, or, in the event that return should be impossible, Borrower agrees to compensate Lender to the full value of the works. Borrower also agrees to indemnify Lender for all legal expenses Lender may incur in connection with any seizure of the work or other legal action preventing its return.”
posted by Corey Wyckoff at 10:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home