Quick answer
In The J. Paul Getty Trust and Others v. Italy (2 May 2024, application no. 35271/19), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the confiscation by Italy of an ancient Greek bronze statue — the “Victorious Youth” — held by the Getty Museum. The confiscation, aimed at recovering a cultural object regarded as part of Italy’s heritage, was a proportionate control of the use of property in the general interest.
Background and facts
The case concerned a classical Greek bronze statue, sometimes known as the “Victorious Youth” or the “Getty Bronze”, which had been found in the sea off the Italian coast in the 1960s, subsequently left Italy, and was eventually acquired by the J. Paul Getty Museum in California, where it has been displayed for decades. The Italian authorities considered that the statue formed part of Italy’s cultural heritage and had been unlawfully exported, and issued a confiscation order requiring its return. The Trust complained that the confiscation interfered disproportionately with its property rights.
The complaint
The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the order to confiscate the statue was an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court examined the confiscation as a measure controlling the use of property in the general interest. It recognised the strong public interest in protecting a State’s cultural heritage and in recovering cultural objects that have been unlawfully removed, an interest reflected in national and international law. Such measures pursue a legitimate aim, and States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in this field.
Assessing proportionality, the Court had regard to the conduct of the parties, including the extent to which the Trust had exercised due diligence as to the statue’s provenance and legal status when acquiring and retaining it. Weighing the general interest in protecting cultural heritage against the applicants’ interest in the object, and taking account of the procedural safeguards available in the domestic proceedings, the Court concluded that the confiscation order struck a fair balance and did not impose an individual and excessive burden. There had accordingly been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The judgment
- unanimously, no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Legacy and significance
The judgment is an important recent statement on the interaction between property rights and the protection of cultural heritage. It confirms that measures to recover unlawfully exported cultural objects pursue a strong general interest, that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in this area, and that the diligence of a possessor as to provenance is relevant to the proportionality assessment under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
What this means for applicants
- Cultural-heritage confiscation can be a legitimate and proportionate control of property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- States have a wide margin of appreciation in protecting and recovering cultural objects.
- Due diligence as to provenance is relevant to whether an interference is proportionate.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did The J. Paul Getty Trust v. Italy decide?
The Court held unanimously that Italy’s confiscation of the “Victorious Youth” bronze did not violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, because it was a proportionate control of property pursuing the strong general interest in protecting cultural heritage.
Can a State confiscate cultural objects held abroad?
Measures to recover unlawfully exported cultural objects pursue a legitimate aim, and States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation; whether a particular confiscation is proportionate depends on a fair-balance assessment.
Why did the Trust’s due diligence matter?
The extent to which a possessor investigated the provenance and legal status of an object is relevant to the proportionality of an interference with property rights.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.