The prestigious Institute of Cultural Heritage of Spain (Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España – IPCE), under the Ministry of Culture organization, has invited the director of this office, Antonio Pedro Rodríguez Bernal, to teach the Master Class “Preventive legal advice to administrations, individuals and operators in the Historical Heritage area”, part of the course “Transformations in the Spanish Historical Heritage Legislation” which will be held at the headquarters of the Heritage School of Nájera -Escuela de Patrimonio de Nájera- (La Rioja) between 28th to 30th September 2016.

Find attached the Course Programme.

More information by clicking here.

Para más información sobre el curso, siga este enlace.

Antonio Pedro Rodríguez Bernal, director of this Law Firm, has answered to some questions posed on the occasion of works of art transactions in connection with money laundering conducts. This interview took place last 9th June 2016 in the newspaper La Marea.

We transcribe some passages of such an interview:

¿Es fácil blanquear dinero en España con obras de arte? 

En España no es fácil vender obras de arte de más de 100 años de antigüedad debido a la rigurosa normativa sobre patrimonio histórico existente que somete a permiso de exportación toda venta internacional y a la posibilidad de que el Estado pueda quedarse con el bien pagando el valor declarado o considerar el bien inexportable, impidiendo la exportación. Las ventas en España -sin exportación- de bienes de interés cultural (BIC) o los que están incluidos en el Inventario General de Bienes Muebles están sujetos a derecho de adquisición preferente a favor del Estado o las comunidades autónomas, por lo que es difícil el blanqueo. Sólo las obras que están fuera de este control (incluso las que se encuentran en el mercado negro) pueden utilizarse para el blanqueo, dado que son bienes muebles y pueden ocultarse conservando su valor. Su titularidad se presume por la posesión.

¿Es fácil en ese caso?

La normativa antiblanqueo de capitales hace difícil las transacciones ilegales, pues si no se justifica el origen lícito del dinero (hablamos de varios millones de euros) este dinero puede quedar bloqueado. Por ello los vendedores suelen exigir, para evitar problemas, que el dinero para pagar el precio se encuentre depositado, previamente al pago, en un banco de un país donde se apliquen rigurosamente los protocolos antiblanqueos y pueda ofrecer un certificado de origen lícito.

Siga este vínculo para ir al artículo íntegro.

Antonio Pedro Rodríguez Bernal defended a man charged with murder with unjustifiable malice , this being a trial well-covered by the Spanish media in the last week (from 20 to 24 of June 2016):

My interview in Cadena Ser -National Radio Station- on the legal situation of “Recreativo de Huelva” Futbol Club after the inception of the procedure to declare this activity as Asset of Cultural Interest.

Listen to the interwiew by clicking here.

The director of this Firm, Antonio Pedro Rodríguez Bernal, was interviewed by Almudena Cacho in the Radio Programme Más que Palabras of Radio Euskadi on 27th December 2015.

The lawyer answered to interesting legal issues arisen on ocassion of the recent discovery of the galleon San José, sunken by English ships in Colombian waters in 1708.

You may listen to the lawyer’s intervention by clicking here (minute 19:30).

The Director of this Office, Antonio Pedro Rodriguez Bernal, was recently interviewed by the newspaper El Mundo, National Edition, on the occasion of the seizure of the painting ‘Woman Head’ by Picasso, that was located in the French island of Corsica. This painting belonged, indirectly, to the Spanish wealthy banker, Jaimen Botín.

Yesterday (05-08-2015) was publicized the article “Picasso se queda en casa” (Picasso remains at home), which reflects an interesting perspective of the Art Market in Spain and the difficulty of recovering artworks that unlawfully leave our country.

“Los plazos de reclamación cuando un cuadro se vende fuera del país sin consentimiento son muy cortos y en la mayoría de las ocasiones se acaba perdiendo” explica Antonio P. Rodriguez Bernal abogado y especialista en el derecho aplicable al Mercado del Arte, Patrimonio Histórico y Antigüedades. “Muchas veces aunque esa venta sea ilícita la compra la realiza un tercero de buena fe y se acaba perdiendo. En este caso tratándose de un cuadro tan conocido la buena fe es siempre muy discutible”, añade Rodríguez.

 

 

Supreme Court of Justice confirms on 21st May 2015 judgment held by the Malaga Appeal Court (Criminal Division), clearing a man accused of fraud, undue appropriation and other economic crimes for which Prosecutors claimed penalties of more than 4 years in prison and reimbursement of 240.000,00 €. The Supreme Court ends a criminal procedure that had started nine years ago.

The Malaga Appeal Court embraced the allegations pronounced in the public hearing by the defendant’s lawyer, Antonio Pedro Rodríguez Bernal, for which was applicable to the case the doctrine of “lifting of corporate veil” in accused’s favour. The Court determined that no punishment must be held against a company’s administrator if such a company was artificially created with the only purpose to operate fictitiously in the commercial traffic and that circumstance was well known by the plaintiff.

Read the full article in Spanish.

 

 

The Director of this Office, Antonio Pedro Rodriguez Bernal, was recently interviewed by the journalist, Iñaki Esteban, who is specialized in Cultural Heritage, on the occasion of the prohibition of sale of the painting ‘Woman Head’ by Picasso, that was located in a sailing boat anchored in Valencia Harbour. This painting belongs, indirectly, to the Spanish wealthy banker, Jaimen Botín.

Today (30-5-2015) was publicized the article Works of Art without Passport, in the newspaper Las Provincias, which reflects an interesting perspective of the Art Market in Spain and the difficulty of carrying out lawful transactions of artworks in our country.

“(…) El galerista invierte dinero y trabajo en localizar la obra, en el estudio de la misma, en restaurarla y almacenarla, en los seguros. Todo un proceso que se puede quedar en nada. La crisis también ha hecho agujeros en este terreno. No hay fondos públicos para comprar las obras interesantes que salen al mercado.

Como alternativa, todas las operaciones se realizan en el extranjero y así se evita el riguroso filtro de la Junta. “Si sale una obra al mercado, como la de Botín por ejemplo, los compradores extranjeros apenas entran en el proceso porque no tienen garantías de que va a salir bien”, explica el abogado malagueño Antonio Rodríguez Bernal, especialista en patrimonio.

Si realmente interesa un cuadro de ese tipo, la cautela aconseja comprarla en el extranjero, aunque sea de origen español, y registrar la propiedad en una empresa también extranjera, creada quizá solamente para cubrir legalmente la pieza. Entonces se podría importar a España por un periodo de diez años sin temor al informe de la Junta, o sacarla antes para no correr riesgos (…)”

Read the complete article (in Spanish).

 

The Director of this office, Antonio Pedro Rodríguez Bernal, has intervened on 11th March 2015 on the radio programme “Esto me suena. Las tardes del Ciudadano García” of Radio Nacional de España -nationwide radiostation- on the ocassion of discussing the recent judgment held by the Madrid Appeal Court, Administrative Division (Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid) for which the Foundation Casa de Alba is forbidden to sell at Christie’s a letter sent by Chistopher Columbus to his son Diego, dated in 1498, at the price of 21 million €.

Go to the postcast, RNE, minute 30′

I. Introduction

Some countries in Europe have a strong industry devoted to cultural goods. Particularly, United Kingdom attracts a meaningful number of all cultural goods transactions that take place in the world.

The art market is a prime example of British achievement in a highly competitive global environment. Britain has 29% of the global art and antiques market and is the second largest market in the world, second in size only to the United States. The British art and antiques market generated £7.7 billion in sales and directly supported over 60,000 jobs in 2009.

This success is based, above all, on a fiscal and regulatory environment that has enabled the UK to attract the greatest works of art for sale because this market is highly dependent on crossborder trade: in 2009 art to the value of £2 billion was imported into the UK and exports totalled £2.2 billion[1].

In contrast to other regulations in force in Continental Law, like Spanish, French or Italian ones, which are characterized by rigidity, UK legislation on cultural goods are more flexible and less protective than the first ones.

The comparative chart below –Comparative Chart 1- depicts the differences between Spanish and English Regulations on Cultural Goods and explains itself why the English market of works of art is so relevant in the world.

Public opinion is often alarmed when media discover that important cultural goods coming from plundering are sold almost freely in foreign countries losing their track forever. In case of archeological items, the plundering is specially detrimental. The looting in archaeological digs before the objects have been classified and catalogued makes almost impossible to identify the origin of the items. So they arrive to foreign countries to be sold in the market, by direct sale or at auction, and the return to the origin countries becomes improbable.

How can it happen so easily? Is the regulation currently in force sufficient to fight against the illicit traffic of cultural goods?

Comparative chart 1

    UNITED KINGDOM SPAIN
  NATIONAL TRADE GENERAL RULE -Free trade -Right of first offer -Right of repurchase
EXCEPTIONS -Treasure finds Free trade:  Goods non registered in Public Registries created for this purpose (Inventario General de Bienes Muebles e Registro de Bienes de Interés Cultural)
  INTERNATIONAL TRADE EXPORT LICENSE -Certain cultural objects more than 50 years of age and valued above specified financial thresholds. -For those cultural goods belonging to Spanish Heritage and: -More than 100 years of age -or registered in Inventario General de Bienes Muebles or in the process to be included in it. -Inexportable goods: Cultural goods registered in Registro General de Bienes de Interés Cultural  or in the process to be included in it.
TERM TO GRANT -In case it is considered the object does not satisfy any of the Waverley criteria, the licence can be granted in about 2 weeks. About 3 months.
CRITERIA TO GRANT An object does not satisfy any of the Waverley criteria. -History -Aesthetics -Scholarship -Undetermined criteria
IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO ACQUIRE THE CULTURAL GOOD NO. If export license is refused applicant continues being owner. YES. State can acquire the cultural goods within the term of 3 months from the day of application submit in exchange for paying the value declared by the applicant.
INFRIDGEMENT -Subject to penalties including criminal prosecution under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. -Subject to seizure under the provisions of the same Act. -Subject to penalties including criminal prosecution under Criminal Code. -Subject to seizure under Spanish Heritage Act (Ley 16/1985, de 25 de junio, del Patrimonio Histórico Español)

II. Remedies currently in force

Remedies created to fight against irregular traffic of cultural goods have shown insufficient due to several reasons:

  • Some national regulations (e.g. countries belonging to Civil Code System such as Spain or Italy) are excessively protectors to such extent that almost makes impossible or really difficult any kind of cultural goods transaction. The consequence of this lack of flexibility is the creation of an illegal, parallel field of commerce beyond the control of authorities, which includes cultural goods legally held by their owners who try to escape from legal limits, and those goods directly coming from plundering or illicit activities like robbery, undue appropriations, smuggling, etc.
  • Some national regulations (e.g. countries belonging to Common Law system like United Kingdom) are too much permissive so no irregular commerce takes place but, in contrast, cultural goods are almost treated as common goods with only a few differences in relation to general regulation of goods transactions. This favorable system causes that a significant portion of heritage could disappear from its origin country.
  • Transnational regulations passed by European Union Institutions are often impotent to fight against illegal commerce of cultural goods. Periodical reports publicized by European Commission[2] show that the designed mechanisms are achieving very poor results. It must be emphasised that there is not any European Directive or Regulation directly aimed at the fighting against plundering of cultural goods and its consequences. The current regulation deals with cultural goods exportation and the consequences of breach of the exportation procedure. See Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 of 18 December 2008 on the export of cultural goods[3] and Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State[4].
  • International regulations to fight against plundering and illicit exportation are also insufficient to achieve their main purpose. A fundamental reason to this lack of effectiveness is the fact that a lot of countries have not signed or ratified the main International Agreements passed in order to protect cultural goods from unlawful activities. Particularly countries like USA and UK, where take place the most transactions of antiques and work of arts have not sign the UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects 24 June 1995.

As regards to Spanish Law and the return of cultural goods unlawfully removed from the Spanish territory, the deficiencies assessed have been analyzed in my recent article “El comercio de bienes culturales de ilícita procedencia o titularidad controvertida: control, reclamación e impunidad”, publicized in the legal journal Noticias Jurídicas[5].

III. Possible solutions

Possible solutions can be studied from several perspectives:

  • National Law, analyzing the idea to pass new, balanced regulations that combine flexibility and control in transactions on cultural goods, so they do not impede the lawful commerce but without waiving the preservation of historic heritage.
  • Transnational, European Law, introducing new Regulations and/or Directives dealing with the cultural goods coming from plundering or criminal provenance, boosting measures of control to be complied by all the operators in the market of cultural goods, such as art and antiques dealers, auction houses, art galleries, etc, similar to the ones used in Anti-Money Laundering EU Regulations.
  • International Law, forcing national authorities to pass harmonic and balanced regulations in the sense given at 1); extending measures of control to be complied by all the operators in the market of cultural goods, similar to the ones used in Anti-Money Laundering Worldwide Regulations.

 

Antonio Pedro Rodríguez Bernal

Lawyer. Recognised specialist in the law applicable to the art market, historical heritage and antiques. He participates in the International Research Project “Right and Beauty. From Common Good to Universal Good” at the Università della Calabria (Italy)

 

Notes:

[1] ARTS ECONOMICS 2009. The British Art Market. A Winning Global Entrepôt. Lapada: The Association of Art & Antiques Dealers [en línea]. [Consulta: 9 enero 2015]. Disponible en: http://www.lapada.org/public/The_British_art_Market.pdf.

[2] COMISIÓN EUROPEA, 2000. Informe de la Comisión al Consejo, al Parlamento Europeo y al Comité Económico y Social sobre la aplicación del Reglamento (CEE) n° 3911/92 del Consejo relativo a la exportación de bienes culturales y de la Directiva 93/7/CEE del Consejo relativa a la restitución de bienes culturales que hayan salido de forma ilegal del territorio de un Estado miembro [en línea]. 25 mayo 2000. S.l.: s.n. [Consulta: 6 enero 2015]. Disponible en: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52000DC0325. /* COM/2000/0325 final /; COMISIÓN EUROPEA, 2005. Informe de la Comisión al Consejo, al Parlamento Europeo y al Comité Económico y Social Europeo – Segundo informe sobre la aplicación de la Directiva 93/7/CEE del Consejo, relativa a la restitución de bienes culturales que hayan salido de forma ilegal del territorio de un Estado miembro [en línea]. 21 diciembre 2005. S.l.: s.n. [Consulta: 6 enero 2015]. Disponible en: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0675. / COM/2005/0675 final /; COMISIÓN EUROPEA, 2009. Informe de la Comisión al Consejo, al Parlamento Europeo y al Comité Económico y Social Europeo – Tercer informe sobre la aplicación de la Directiva 93/7/CEE del Consejo, relativa a la restitución de bienes culturales que hayan salido de forma ilegal del territorio de un Estado miembro [en línea]. 30 julio 2009. S.l.: s.n. [Consulta: 6 enero 2015]. Disponible en: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0408. / COM/2009/0408 final */

[3] OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 1–7.

[4] Official Journal L 074, 27/03/1993 P. 0074 – 0079. New Directive has been passed in 2014 and will entry in force in 2015: Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012, Official Journal L 159/1, 28.5.2014.

[5] Vid. http://noticias.juridicas.com/

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 7
logo-footer

                

× ¿Cómo puedo ayudarte?