No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Head of a Young Woman: The thrilling recovery of a flying Picasso
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 August 2021
Abstract
The case of the illicit export of a Picasso painting by its owner and its confiscation and recovery by French and Spanish authorities provides an interesting example of the complexities of the transnational criminal, civil, and administrative law protection of national cultural heritage and of the ongoing efforts to achieve useful legal instruments at the European level, which foster and harmonize the current and often informal mechanisms of cooperation and judicial assistance among the different domestic enforcing agencies. It also attempts to show how Spanish authorities have made a legitimate, but possibly overreaching, use of existing European Union law in order to recover and appropriate a valuable work of art.
- Type
- Case Note
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Cultural Property Society
References
Alagna, Federico. 2014. “Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Why the EU Directive Is a Missed Opportunity.” European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research 21, no. 4: 447–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armada, Inés. 2015. “The European Investigation Order and the Lack of European Standards for Gathering Evidence: Is a Fundamental Rights-based Refusal the Solution?” New Journal of European Criminal Law 6, no. 1: 8–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohlander, Michael. 2009. Principles of German Criminal Law. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Benayas, Elvira, Jesús, María. 2018. “Transposición al ordenamiento español de la Directiva 2014/60/UE sobre restitución de bienes que hayan salido de forma ilegal de un estado miembro mediante la ley 1/2017.” Revista Española de Derecho Internacional 70, no. 1: 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Bertier, Michäel. 2016. “The Confiscation and Recovery of Criminal Property: A European Union State of the Art.” ERA Forum 17: 323–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Liaño Polo, Gómez, Gonzalo. 2006. “Delitos contra el patrimonio cultural. Especial estudio del contrabando de patrimonio histórico artístico.” Documentos del Instituto de Estudios Fiscales 12: 3–28.Google Scholar
Fernando, Irurzun Montoro, and Clara, Mapelli Marchena. 2015. “La cooperación policial y judicial penal en la lucha contra el tráfico ilícito de bienes culturales en la Unión Europea.” Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma 19: 101–20.Google Scholar
Kopela, Sophia. 2016. “Port-State Jurisdiction, Extraterritoriality, and the Protection of Global Commons.” Ocean Development and International Law 47, no. 2: 89–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González Pilar, Otero. 2015. “Protección penal de los daños al patrimonio histórico (tras la reforma del Código Penal operada por la LO 1/2015).” Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 19: 325–70.Google Scholar
Antonio, Roma Valdés. 2015. “La cooperación judicial frente al tráfico ilícito de bienes culturales.” Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Univesidad Autónoma 19: 393–419.Google Scholar
Ryngaert, Cedric, and Ringbom, Henrik. 2016. “Introduction: Port State Jurisdiction: Challenges and Potential.” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 1, no. 3: 379–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felipe, Renart García. 2002. “Aspectos sustantivos del delito de contrabando de bienes culturales.” Revista de Derecho Penal y Criminología 10: 143–97.Google Scholar
Tamás, Szabados. 2020. “In Search of the Holy Grail of the Conflict of Laws of Cultural Property: Recent Trends in European Private International Law Codifications.” International Journal of Cultural Property no. 27: 323–47.Google Scholar
Vigneron, Sophie. 2016. “The Return of Illicitly Exported Cultural Objects: The Implementation of the 2014/60/EU Directive in France.” Santander Art and Culture Law Review 2: 35–56.Google Scholar