Confiscation of Archaeological Property: The Case of the J. Paul Getty Trust v. Italy

The article takes its cue from the decision rendered by the European Court of Human Rights on 2 May 2024 in the case J. Paul Getty Trust v. Italy to delve into various aspects related to the protection of cultural property. This decision represents the development in the fierce dispute between the applicant and the Italian Government over the restitution of an antique bronze statue known as the Victorious Youth or Getty Bronze. The contended statue was acquired by the Getty Trust in 1977 and had been the object of a series of judicial decisions by which Italian courts ordered its confiscation because it was illicitly exported outside Italian territory in violation of the domestic legislation to protect the national heritage. The Getty Trust lamented that, by issuing the confiscation measure, Italy had violated Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR which sanctions the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property. It argued that Italy cannot claim restitution because the cultural property at hand was found in international waters and thus never formed part of Italy’s cultural heritage. Interestingly, the Court decided on the merits without a previous assessment on the validity of the Getty Trust’s title over this valuable archaeological piece. In fact, the Court considered the case admissible on the basis of a mere proprietary interest, eligible for protection under Article 1, Protocol No.1, irrespective of whether the J.P. Getty Trust had a formal title of ownership over the contended artwork or just a situation of mere “possession”. The Trust was not involved in the commission of the crime, but the Court ruled that, owing to the Trust’s lack of due diligence in purchasing the statue, despite it being aware of the Italian claims and efforts to recover it, the confiscation order was lawful and not disproportionate to its aim. The assessment of the due diligence standard in the acquisition of cultural property is a key element of this decision. The ruling also confirmed the attitude of the ECtHR to accord great importance to the general public interest in the protection of cultural heritage as a legitimate aim capable of justifying interference with individual property rights.