TheArtLawReviewEdition1-1

Netherlands

Based on the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, the Netherlands recognises immunity from seizure. Invocation of immunity from seizure can be denied only in cases where the intended use of the cultural object clearly concerns a commercial goal, such as the sale of the object. The legislation regarding immunity from seizure is mainly laid down in Articles 436 and 703 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.38 These articles are applicable for preand post-judgment measures of constraint respectively. Both Articles contain the following wording: ‘Attachment cannot be made to property intended for public service.’

Although several states have developed legislation to protect objects from any form of seizure, most states lending objects to the Netherlands, settle for ‘soft law’ ‘guarantor’s declarations’ accompanying the agreements regarding cultural objects on loan in the country. These declarations, issued by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, state that the Dutch authorities will do their utmost to ensure that the objects are returned to the lending institution.

The notion that the governmental guarantees are not entirely watertight was illustrated by the recent example of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem that had planned to lend a Rembrandt to the Jewish Historical Museum in Amsterdam for the 2019 ‘Rembrandt Year’ programme. The Dutch state was unable to give the desired guarantees as to protection against immunity from seizure, with the result that the loan was cancelled.39

iii Cross-border transactions

See Section V.ii for information on cross-border transactions.

iv Art finance

The EU Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive,40 which came into force in the Netherlands on 21 May 2020, has far-reaching consequences for the art trade.41

Anonymous buyers (or sellers) and undisclosed prices are among practices that the Directive seeks to make an end to, arguing that the art market for too long has lured shady representatives from the realm of money launderers.

A 2018 study42 on fighting illicit trafficking in cultural goods commissioned by the European Commission led to these new measures. The report pointed to the increase in the trade in illegally excavated art objects from, for example, Syria and Iraq; money laundering

38Furthermore, Article 13a of the General Provisions Act provides judges with the option to interpret the law restrictively with regard to, among other things, enforcement of judgments concerning property of foreign states. The potential consequence is that, even if an object is seized successfully and a case as to restitution of this object is decided in favour of the claimant, a Dutch court has the option to prevent execution of the decision. Therefore the return of the object to the claimant after a decision to this effect is not a foregone conclusion.

39Jewish Cultural Quarter, Rembrandt’s Saint Peter Kneeling, without date, retrieved via: https://jck.nl/nl/ rembrandt (last retrieved on 23 October 2020).

40Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (OJEU 2018, L 156).

41Official journal (Staatscourant) 2020, 146, Implementation Act Amendment fourth anti-money laundering directive.

42DG Taxud, ‘Fighting illicit trafficking in cultural goods: analysis of customs issues in the EU’ (final report), June 2017.

257

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

Netherlands

via freeports; and the use of virtual currency in the art trade. In addition, the authors noted that the trade in illegal art objects also serves to finance terrorism. The Directive aims to ensure greater transparency.

Since 2018, the Dutch art trade has been subject to the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Prevention) Act, also known as the Wwft. At present, persons and companies that mediate in art and persons or companies that buy or sell art are already covered by the Wwft as long as the monies involved exceed €10,000.43 The rules have been extended to include entrepreneurs who store art, regardless of whether payments are made in cash or via wire transfer.

Compliance is required with strict rules regarding identification of clients, determining ultimate beneficial owners, transactions involving high-risk countries, dealings with political exposed persons and the question of when and how suspicious transactions should be reported. Traders are also required to pay attention to the training of personnel in the field of anti-money laundering rules.

Up until now there has been little enthusiasm for the new rules within the art trade, given that severe obstacles in art transactions are expected. Small art dealers will have to comply with the same rules as large art dealers. An auctioneer from The Hague has called the new measures madness: ‘I can’t imagine that a lot of money is being laundered there. But I can lose customers because of it.’44

VI ARTIST RIGHTS

i Moral rights

The Dutch Copyright Act grants each author the right to oppose modifications to his or her work, ‘unless the alteration is of such a nature that it would be contrary to the notion of reasonableness and fairness’.45 The author furthermore has ‘the right to oppose any deformation, mutilation or other deterioration of the work, which could be detrimental to the reputation or the name of the author or to his [or her] value in this capacity’.46 In several more recent cases, artists and architects have invoked these provisions to put a halt to what they considered a lack of respect for their work.

Interestingly enough, the complete demolition of a building or artwork does not per se constitute a breach of these rights, provided that the original work has been sufficiently documented and the current owner is able to come up with a rational basis for the demolition.47 However, a balance-of-interests test is usually applied.

In a recently published matter before the District Court of Northern Netherlands, it was ruled that an artwork could not be removed for destruction without prior consultation

43Article 1a, sub 4k, Wwft.

44Thomas Spekschoor, ‘Kunst opslaan of kopen? Bewijs eerst dat je geen crimineel bent’ (translation: ‘Want to keep or buy art? Prove first that you are not a criminal’), NOS (Dutch Broadcasting Foundation),

11 January 2020.

45Article 25, sub 1 c, Dutch Copyright Act.

46Article 25, sub 1 d, Dutch Copyright Act.

47Supreme Court of the Netherlands 6 February 2004, ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AN7830 (Jelles / Zwolle). See also: Supreme Court of the Netherlands 29 March 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:451 (De vier jaargetijden). These decisions also provided that the creator of an artwork may invoke tort (Article 6:162, Dutch Civil Code) or misuse of power (Article 3:13, Dutch Civil Code).

258

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

Netherlands

with the artist regarding acceptable alternatives. This matter involved an installation that consisted of a large rectangular frame with several copper objects, named Without Title 1407. The work had to serve as a connecting element between a school and its parking area. After several copper elements of the artwork had been stolen, the school finally proceeded to remove the artwork to destroy it.48 Invoking his moral rights, the artist reproached the owner for failing to contact him to discuss appropriate measures for the possible preservation of the work. The Court agreed.

Another remarkable case concerned the question of whether a site-specific work of art could be moved elsewhere in spite of protests by the maker.49 The artist in question had placed a mobile sculpture in a hangar for jet fighters at a former military airbase. The landlord, however, decided to rent the hangar out to a physiotherapy practice.50 According to the artist, the work of art was inextricably linked to the location. The court, however, after weighing all interests involved, and while acknowledging that the context in which a work of art is placed is also part of the work itself, ruled that the owner was not obliged to use his best efforts to preserve the work of art.51

ii Resale rights

Based on EU Law as implemented in the Dutch Copyright Act, an artist or his or her legal successors has the right to remuneration in the event of resale of an artwork,52 amounting to a percentage of the sales price and depending on the resale price of the work. The maximum compensation amounts to €12,500 and the artist must be an EU national (including Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) or a permanent resident of the Netherlands.53

Very few cases have been adjudicated in Dutch courts on the issue of resale rights. One of the more outstanding cases involved the question of whether the compensation is a fee to be collected by the artist or whether it is to be proactively handed over by the seller or buyer in the event of a resale.54 When the Dutch authors’ rights organisation Pictoright (a royalty collection organisation for visual creators) requested galleries to provide information on their sales involving resale rights, it met with resistance from Simonis & Buunk, a large Dutch gallery that was of the opinion that it was not obliged to respond to fishing expedition-type requests. The gallery’s view (that artists can only make specific requests if a sale raises the issue of resale rights) exposes a fundamental problem: if the artist himself or herself is to collect compensation for resale and sellers are not to inform artists, the resale right remains a dead letter. The court decided that when an author has indications (not actual knowledge) of

48District Court Assen 18 December 2018 (publication 31 January 2020), ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2018:5659 (ROC).

49District Court Utrecht 24 December 2019, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2019:6198 (Secret Operation 610).

50Remarkably, the owner is a foundation that stands up for the protection of nature and heritage in the area.

51District Court Utrecht, 24 December 2019, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2019:6198 (Secret Operation 610), r.o. 2.10.

52Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art.

53There are also cases in which no remuneration is to be paid: (1) if the sale price does not exceed €3,000;

(2)if the artist sells directly for a sale price not exceeding €10,000 within three years of purchase, and (3) if a person not acting as a professional art dealer sells the painting to a museum on a non-profit-making basis.

54District Court of Gelderland, 5 February 2014, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2014:1037 (Pictoright / Simonis & Buunk).

259

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

Netherlands

transactions involving resale rights, enquiries may be made at the gallery, which subsequently has an obligation to provide a response. This duty to correctly inform beneficiaries after such requests was also reaffirmed by more recent case law.55

VII TRUSTS, FOUNDATIONS AND ESTATES

In accordance with Dutch law, a broad definition of the term ‘foundations’ is used in the context of non-profit institutions. A trust whose focus is the benefit of others is considered a charitable foundation, in which case it is important to obtain public-benefit organisation status (ANBI status)56 to qualify for tax benefits (no taxation for inheritance and gifts, provided the inheritance or gift proceeds are used solely for charity purposes). More than 43,000 foundations in the Netherlands have this tax-benefit status. However, according to a recent study, a large number of these institutions do not meet the criteria.57

Foundations can also be established for purposes other than charity. To avoid dilution of ownership or control over an art collection, this instrument can be chosen to separate legal and beneficial ownership. More and more charities offer donors the option of setting up a registered fund.58 Donated or bequeathed capital is then administered separately by the charity (the main fund) and deployed within the framework of that charity’s objective but on the basis of the wishes of the donor.59 From that time on, the main fund takes care of the administrative and organisational tasks, as well as any additional (notarial) costs.

Many donors see it as an advantage to remain anonymous. A registered fund can bear the name of the donor, but this is not necessary. However, anonymity for donations (exceeding €15,000) recently became the subject of discussion because of the 2018 draft bill on the transparency of charities.60 Terrorism threats, undesirable external influences and the above-mentioned investigation into ANBI status have ensured that the Dutch government wants to get a better grip on civil society organisations. Charity organisations will have to publish details of any donation in excess of €15,000, with the name and place of residence of the donor.61 In fact, all 219,000 foundations, 128,000 associations and 1,500 church associations registered with the Chamber of Commerce will be subject to the obligation

55District Court of Amsterdam, 7 January 2020, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:35.

56In Dutch: Algemeen Nut Beogende Instelling.

57https://pointer.kro-ncrv.nl/artikelen/liefdadige-instellingen-ontlopen-massaal-controle-door- belastingdienst.

58Most charities apply a minimum of €50,000.

59One of the organisations that pioneered the development of the named fund is the Prince Bernhard Culture Fund. As at the beginning of 2020, there are more than 450 named funds at the cultural organisation.

60The draft bill on transparency of civil society organisations was published online for consultation on 21 December 2018. See: www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2018/12/21/ conceptwetsvoorstel-transparantie-maatschappelijke-organisaties---internetconsultatie.

61Article 2 of the draft bill on transparency of civil society organisations (see footnote 60).

260

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

Netherlands

to publish this information.62 The proposal has met critical reactions from charitable organisations, pointing out that existing systems of self-regulation regarding the acquisition of undesirable influence through donations suffice.63

Dutch inheritance law provides for a specific remission scheme, entailing certain tax obligations, through the ‘donation’ of one or more eligible art objects to the Dutch state.64 The state accepts a corresponding obligation to ensure that the art object is preserved as public property.

To promote this scheme, relevant law provisions state that the inheritance tax to be remitted amounts to the value of the art object plus 20 per cent, so, in total, 120 per cent of the fair market value. Certain requirements have to be met; for example, the artwork has to be included in the register of designated cultural goods65 or be eligible for it. To meet the latter criteria it can be important that the work has been exhibited frequently, is a highlight of the artist’s oeuvre or is part of a recognised valuable collection.66 Art by non-Dutch makers may also qualify. According to the recently appointed Advisory Committee on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, this tax scheme is not yet producing the envisaged and hoped for results. Consideration is being given to other ways of making it more attractive for private individuals to donate art for public benefit.67

Regulation (EU) 2019/880 on the introduction and the import of cultural goods aims to prevent the illegal removal of cultural goods from non-EU countries,68 but may impose uncertainty and administrative burdens for dealers.69 A distinction is made between

62There was a great deal of indignation about the proposal, as evidenced by the 187 responses to the consultation coming from all corners of civil society (churches, funds, museums, performing arts, charities, etc.). See the position paper on the draft bill on transparency of civil society organisations by the Collaborative Branch Organisations of the Philanthropic Sector (SBF), 22 January 2019, retrieved via: www.goededoelennederland.nl/sector/belangenbehartiging/wet-transparantie-maatschappelijke- organisaties.

63For example, in the culture sector museums have set up an Ethical Code Committee and in recent years the charitable sector has developed the Recognition Scheme for Charities. According to many donors, the bill goes against the interest that the government itself attributes to the philanthropic sector: ‘In this way, supporting good causes is turned into a suspicious activity.’ See the submission by three directors (Natuurmonumenten, KWF and Amensty) in NRC Handelsblad, ‘Nagel donateur niet aan de charitieve

schandpaal’ (translation: ‘Don’t shame the generous donor’), 4 February 2019; see also: Financieel Dagblad, Hoofdredactioneel commentaar ‘Dekker slaat de plank mis’ (translation: ‘[Minister] Dekker misses the point’), 6 March 2019; see also the SBF position paper at footnote 62.

64Article 67 sub 3 Dutch Inheritance Act (Successiewet).

65See: www.collectienederland.nl.

66Article 15 Dutch Inheritance Act (Successiewet). See also: www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/ bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/prive/relatie_familie_en_gezondheid/erven/erfenis_nalaten/erfbelasting_ betalen_met_kunst/.

67Report, Advisory Committee on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, 30 September 2019, p. 14.

68Regulation (EU) 2019/880 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the introduction and the import of cultural goods (Regulation 2019/880).

69Following its official publication on the website of the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 June 2019, Regulation 2019/880 entered into force on 27 June 2019.

261

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

Netherlands

(1) import licences for the most endangered cultural goods such as archaeological objects,70 and (2) a system for obtaining an ‘importer statement’, necessary for the import of ‘material other than the most endangered cultural goods’.71

The distinction between the import licence and statement results in a cluttered system for the art trade and therefore, according to former Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Bert Koenders, will entail ‘an additional burden on the implementing and supervisory bodies, leading to further enforcement problems’.72 The former minister’s critical stance seems to be mainly due to fears that the costs of this project will be borne by the government. Furthermore, the former minister stated in a letter to the Dutch parliament that it would be inappropriate for customs authorities to decide on the legality of a cultural object.73 Customs can only carry out a risk-based approach, but a final judgment on the lawfulness is reserved for the courts on the basis of, for example, the 1970 UNESCO Convention. However, dealers seem to be especially burdened with the execution of a great deal of research prior to import. This will not only cause additional costs, but also lead to uncertain outcomes.74

Art fairs may have to rely on the temporary admission procedure.75 However, if cultural goods are sold after the fair, and will remain in the EU, an import licence will still have to be obtained.76 These and other issues will have to dealt with through practical regulations before implementation of Regulation (EU) 2019/880 by EU Member States in the course of 2021.

VIII OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS

Despite the important 2020 developments discussed above, some challenges and critical questions remain unanswered, particularly with regard to the following:

athe outcome and implementation of the expected advice on the restitution of Nazi-looted art and the advice already given on the restitution of colonial art;

bthe need for better coordination between art experts and the legal world with regard to the criteria for assessing fakes and forgeries; and

chow to further develop the right balance between ensuring a lively art trade and combating illegal trade in cultural heritage.

70Regulation 2019/880, Article 4, Annex Part B.

71Reference is made to non-EU fine and decorative art and collectibles more than 250 years old and with a value over €18,000: Regulation, Article 5, Annex Part C.

72Official document Parliament Second Chamber 22112, No. 2391, Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 15 September 2017.

73Official document Parliament Second Chamber 22112, No. 2391, Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 15 September 2017.

74Official document Parliament Second Chamber 22112, No. 2391, Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 15 September 2017.

75Regulation 2019/880, Preamble 21.

76Regulation 2019/880, Preamble 21 and Article 3 sub 5.

262

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

Chapter 23

NORWAY

Johan Camilo Alstad-Øhren1

I INTRODUCTION

To provide an overview of the Norwegian art market, one must draw some historical lines and background. It is also the first time that art law is presented as a separate discipline from a Norwegian perspective. The one real authority on the field of art law in Norway, and active in the art market, was Professor Viggo Hagstrøm who passed away in 2013. He would have been the natural author of this chapter if he were still alive. His articles and literature cite examples from the art world still used by scholars and professionals today.

With a population of approximately 5.4 million, not only is the Kingdom of Norway a small country when seen through international eyes, but also a relatively ‘new’ one. With 400 years under a union with Denmark (1388–1814) and almost a century under a union with Sweden (1814–1905), Norway has naturally been influenced by its two neighbouring countries. Norway has historically been regarded as a cultural province. The art market is naturally smaller and more limited compared with that of neighbours Sweden and Denmark.

There are only a few key market players. The largest auction houses are Blomqvist Kunsthandel (established in 1870), Grev Wedels Plass Auksjoner (established in 1992) and Christiania Auksjoner (established in 1998), all located in Oslo. Other auction houses are small and a few pawnbrokers also exist.

There are very few galleries compared to European capitals. The trend is focused on modern contemporary art and minimalism. The more classic galleries have ‘evaporated’. Galleries often receive public support or are subsidised in one form or another. Those that operate profitably often have business beyond the country’s borders.

According to Arts Council Norway, the size of the market in terms of turnover in 2018 was 754 million Norwegian kroner on sales subject to tax reporting by the sellers.2 Galleries, professional dealers and auction houses reported sales of 564 million Norwegian kroner, and the following turnovers were reported from other areas:

a33 million Norwegian kroner by art societies and art centres;

b98 million Norwegian kroner by public institutions; and

c59 million Norwegian kroner by private individuals and associations.

The grey market is apparently increasing in line with the publication of official price indices. Art transactions in Norway are subject to freedom of contract based on background principles and the rule of law, and supplemented by the law of obligations and contracts.

1Johan Camilo Alstad-Øhren is an independent legal counsel and compliance officer.

2www.kulturradet.no/documents/10157/f3a02bf7-d177-4497-9249-90575be5f565.

263

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

Norway

Lawyers’ individual client accounts and freeports make Norway a practical country to make transactions. Lawyers in Norway do not want to risk their positions in unsecured transactions, but act as a protector with their own insurance for buyers and sellers. When art disputes arise, clients tend to seek counsel on special relevant fields of law from which the dispute arises. This reason, in combination with market size and low numbers of high-level transactions, is why there are few disputes in the area of art law.

II THE YEAR IN REVIEW

Art disputes are a rare occurrence in Norway. Over the past five years, some cases have represented topics of interest under civil law. The cases relate to art held by Customs,3 the new Copyright Act, tax on art in freeports,4 third-party ownership and anti-money laundering (AML) legislation.

The trend is leaning towards an increase of legal and professional competence in the field of art law. Museums and institutions are updating ethical guidelines. Museums are testing more commercial loan agreements with private parties. The different art institutions are becoming more conscious of legal aspects, and in 2020 the Munch Museum in Oslo became the first museum in Norway to appoint its own in-house counsel.

IIIART DISPUTES

iTitle in art

The legal rules for how a buyer can obtain a title to an artwork is based on fragmented legislation and case law. This brief overview does not include the rules concerning the protection of creditors. There is no general rule on how one can gain ownership to an artwork as a piece of movable property. Ownership can be created through original, derivative and extinctive acquisitions. The right to an artwork as such property would need an obligation or agreement between the parties, or by a bona fide acquisition. From a Norwegian and Scandinavian point of view, it is the functional approach to determine the rules on transfer of title in artworks that applies.5

Transfer of title through contractual agreements requires a binding agreement. There are no form aliases on how such an agreement must take place, with minor exceptions.

At Norwegian auction houses, titles to the artwork will depend on the individual or general sales terms and conditions. Other arrangements can be made, such as payment through instalment. If nothing else has been agreed upon, the title is transferred when there is a binding agreement and the amount is paid in full.

3LB-2014-195567; the Oslo Court of Appeal found that the neon artist Marit Følstad’s sculptures and installations were indeed works of art, and not only goods under reference to neon light products. In 2016, 16 paintings by Bjarne Melgaard were held by Customs under the same theory by the customs officials that they were not works of art, activating a tax claim. The Minister of Finance intervened when it was realised that the works were paintings.

4DHL Exel Global Forwarding warehouse became the subject of in-depth articles published during 2019 and 2020 in the Norwegian daily Dagens Næringsliv on anti-money laundering, three lost works by Munch and tax claims.

5Martin Lilja in Faber and Lurger (eds.) National Reports on the Transfer of Movables in Europe, 2019, p. 17.

264

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

Norway

Good faith acquisitions, where the purchaser is unaware of a defect in the seller’s title, is possible under Norwegian law. The rules concerning bona fide purchases are regulated in a special act, in combination with other acts and case law.6 Section 1 of the Good Faith Acquisition Act states that a purchaser can gain title despite lack of title from the seller, if the purchaser did not understand, or should have understood with the diligent care required, that the seller lacked title.7 This means that two conditions must be met: subjective good faith and due care.

One recent case from 2020 involving the art collectors Nicolai Tangen8 and Paal Gundersen concerns the world-famous lithograph, Madonna by Edvard Munch, which disappeared from DHL Global Forwarding/DHL Exel Fine Art’s freeport in 2015.9

Both collectors had a version of the Munch lithography, and the case was brought before court as a claim for compensation against the freeport provider after the artwork was handed over to Mr Tangen following the preliminary injunction. The case is nonetheless highly relevant, as the court had to assess whether Mr Gundersen had gained title to the Munch on a bona fide basis. The court found that the purchaser, Mr Gundersen, had been in good faith, but had not shown due care. He had therefore not extinguished Mr Tangen’s title in the lithography. The case has been appealed.

ii Nazi-looted art and cultural property

Norway has joined the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art of 3 December 1998. Although these are non-binding principles for the members, Norwegian museums must conduct due diligence steps when acquiring artworks under this scheme. Part of what would enable a purchaser to remain diligent and protect the purchase depends on whether or not the parties are professionals. To remain in good faith and prove due care as mentioned above, case law has shown that such inquiries should be taken to fulfil a bona fide purchase.

As a member of the United Nations, Norway ratified the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property in 2007.10 The Convention must also be seen in combination with the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995, which Norway ratified in 2001. Additionally, through the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the EEA Agreement), Norway has incorporated Directive 2014/60/EU on the return of unlawfully removed cultural objects into Norwegian legislation.11

Since fluctuation in unlawfully traded cultural artefacts and works of art is a global problem, Norway has acknowledged the problem by ratifying the two above-mentioned conventions, where the first obliged Norway to report to the UN on its status every four years.12 In addition to these obligations, the 1978 Cultural Heritage Act13 governs the trading of fine art, particularly prohibiting against importing and exporting art and cultural material of

6LOV-1978-06-02-37 (the Act relating to the acquisition in good faith of movable property (the Good Faith Acquisition Act)).

7id., Section 1(2).

8The founder of AKO Capital and the AKO Foundation; today the chief executive officer of Norges Bank Investment Management (a Norwegian government pension fund).

9Oslo District Court, 19-121754TVI-OTIR/02.

1014-11-1970 No. 21 Multilateral.

11FOR-2001-10-04-1179.

1214-11-1970 No. 21 Multilateral, Article 16.

13LOV-1978-06-09-50.

265

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

Norway

‘great importance for preservation, research or communication of cultural heritage, art and history’.14 This Act is supported by regulations on the import and export of cultural objects. The regulations state that only such objects exported legally from countries within the EEA or that have ratified the UNIDROIT or UNESCO 1970 conventions and have secured means to be returned to the place of origin may be legally brought into the country.15

In 2015, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Trade and Industry Børge Brende urged all buyers, collectors, book and art dealers and state agencies to exercise caution and due diligence when acquiring lots that may originate from Syria or Iraq. Furthermore, all audiences acting in the art market were urged to exercise such caution when buying objects in regard to origin and provenance, through the internet, abroad or at auctions.16

As yet, there have been no cases before Norwegian courts in connection with restitution of artworks looted under the Nazi regime. The most common cases presented to the courts have been violation of the Cultural Heritage Act in regard to construction, demolition and removal. However, there are two well-known and relevant Norwegian cases in this field in which claims have been directed at a museum and a private collector.

The first is the Henie Onstad Art Center’s (HOK) return of the Matisse painting Blue Dress in a Yellow Armchair to heirs of the French art dealer Poul Rosenberg in 2014.17 Niels Onstad, a well-known shipping magnate and financier who collected art with his wife, the famous ice skater and film star Sonja Henie, bought the painting in ‘good faith’ from Galerie Henri Benezit in Paris in 1950. In 2012, the heirs of Poul Rosenberg brought suit against the museum claiming that the Nazis looted the work during the Second World War. HOK unconditionally returned the painting in 2014 upon an assessment that the claim was legitimate. This was the first, and still the only, restitution of an artwork in Norway.

High-end collectors and professionals were appalled that HOK did not have the case heard by a court. The board of the museum followed requests from the well-known art detective Christopher A Marinello.18 Some collectors feared that such an extradition would set a precedent for Norway, where ownership is thoroughly protected. Older collectors with knowledge of Onstad’s collection believed that the artwork was bought in good faith and that history shows several periods of unknown ownership where the painting had been sold via famous galleries, most recently in Paris, where Onstad bought the painting as a gift for his wife.

The second case relates to an aquatint by Edvard Munch, Bathing Girls (1896), which was withdrawn from Christie’s in London in 2013.19 The Norwegian art dealer Einar Tore Ulving apparently acquired the piece in 1998. Christie’s contacted Mr Ulving with reference to the legal representative of descendants of the German Jewish art collector Curt Glaser on the very day of the auction. Mr Ulving protested, and Christie’s had the object sent back to the art dealer.

14id., Section 23.

15FOR-2001-10-04-1179 (the Regulations on the return of stolen and unlawfully exported cultural objects).

16Speech held by former Minister of Foreign Affairs Børge Brende and former Minister of Culture Torhild Widvey on 17 March 2015 to Norway’s parliament. This does not apply to objects from non-Member States of these acts and conventions.

17Henri Matisse, Robe bleue dans un fauteuil ocre, 1937. HOK Press release, 20 March 2014.

18www.artdaily.cc/news/68908/Henie-Onstad-Kunstsenter-returns-Matisse-painting-to-art-dealer-Paul- Rosenberg-s-heirs#.X3y4Xu1S8dU.

19Yngvild Solberg Greiner, art law thesis (2018), interview with Mr Ulving and individual research.

266

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd