Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

The judgment is now on New Law Online. Unfortunately, leaving aside esoteric points of copyright law, I am sure that I am bound by contract or at least good manners not to reproduce it in whole on the RDG. At some risk to my soul I will put in a bit. Scanning the lengthy judgment I do not see the pleadings set out anywhere but I see this:

"The Federal Republic of Germany claims ownership of the painting. The City of Gotha asserts a possessory title to it. The plaintiffs claim declaratory relief, an order for delivery up and/or damages on the grounds that Cobert converted the painting by taking constructive delivery of it in March 1989, by consigning it to Sotheby's for sale at that time, by offering it for sale through Sotheby's to the City of Gotha in October 1991 and/or by demanding its return from Sotheby's in August 1993."

I guess a declaration of legal ownership (only possible by statute) would be the closest thing we might have to a vindicatio, but without more it might be thought a rather weak thing to be deserving of the name. Interestingly although Moses J stated several conclusions he did not seem actually to make an order or a declaration.

I will not burden the list with the conflicts points although I will send lengthier extracts to those interested. Suffice to say that Moses J thought that under the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 it *is* possible to have two leges causae (otherwise you might need to distinguish between foreign substantive limitation periods and procedural ones); that here the German limitation period had not expired (30 years); and (obiter) even if it had expired he would have disapplied it because it is contrary to the policy evidenced in s. 4 of the Limitation Act 1980 (time does not run against the victim of a theft).

Lionel