CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 31 mai 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9A72FAFE { width:198.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 48259/15 SYLLOGOS TON ATHINAION against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31   May 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Kristina Pardalos, President,   Paul Mahoney,   Robert Spano, judges, and Milan Blaško, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 September 2015, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Syllogos Ton Athinaion, is a Greek association founded in 1895 in Athens with the aim, inter alia , of ensuring the protection and maintenance of the monuments and works of art connected with the history of Athens. It was represented before the Court by Mr   V.   Sotiropoulos, a lawyer practising in Athens. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In the early nineteenth century, Lord Elgin transported a collection of sculptures that were originally part of the temple of the Parthenon of Athens (known as the “Elgin” or “Parthenon” Marbles) from Greece to the United Kingdom. The Marbles were subsequently purchased by the United Kingdom Government and passed to the British Museum. Greece subsequently unsuccessfully sought the return of the Marbles. On 9 August 2013 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (“UNESCO”) offered to mediate between the two countries. On 26 March 2015 the United Kingdom declined the offer of mediation. It stated that the Marbles had been legally acquired by Lord Elgin. COMPLAINTS The applicant argued under Articles 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the refusal of the United Kingdom to take part in mediation with Greece amounted to a violation of its human rights and, indirectly, of the human rights of its members and their ancestors. Under Article 8, it contended that the statement of the United Kingdom to UNESCO, the retention of the Marbles and the refusal of mediation breached its right to respect for private life. The violation stemmed from the failure to respect the applicant’s ability to protect the monuments of Athens, as provided for in its articles of association and as an aspect of its cultural identity, and the diffusion of alleged lies as to the legality of the acquisition of the Marbles. Under Article 9, the applicant argued that the statement made to UNESCO and the retention of the Marbles constituted a breach of its right to respect for its conscience. Under Article 10, the applicant relied on its right of access to cultural information that could be obtained from the Marbles in relation to their history and the history of Athens. Under Article 13, the applicant argued that the refusal of the United Kingdom to participate in mediation organised by UNESCO constituted the denial of a remedy. Finally, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant contended that the retention of the allegedly unlawfully removed Marbles constituted an interference with its proprietary right to access to the whole monument. THE LAW The Court notes that the Marbles were removed from Greece in the early nineteenth century. In order to bring the matter within the temporal jurisdiction of the Court, the applicant has sought to rely on the refusal of the United Kingdom, on 26 March 2015, to enter into mediation with Greece concerning the return of the Marbles and the continuing refusal to return the Marbles. However, it is clear from the nature of the applicant’s complaints that its underlying grievance is the allegedly unlawful removal of the Marbles from Greece. The removal having occurred some 150   years before the Convention was drafted and ratified by the respondent State, the applicant’s complaints would appear to be inadmissible as incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention. Even assuming that the continued retention of the Marbles constitutes a continuing act or that the refusal to engage in mediation could itself be viewed as an act which might arguably amount to an interference with Convention rights, such as to bring the application within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction, the Court is satisfied that the application is inadmissible as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. None of the Articles invoked by the applicant can be said, either on the basis of the text of the Article in question or by virtue of the Court’s interpretative case-law, to give rise to any right for an association in the position of the applicant to have the Marbles returned to Greece or to have the respondent State engage in international mediation for their return.   In particular, while it is true that the Court has been prepared, in certain circumstances, to give some degree of recognition to ethnic identity as an aspect of Article 8 rights (see, for example, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, §§   76 and 93-96, ECHR 2001 ‑ I), the applicant has failed to point to any case of this Court where it has held that Article 8 gives rise to a general right to protection of cultural heritage of the nature contended for in the present case. The application must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 23 June 2016.   Milan Blaško   Kristina Pardalos Acting Deputy Registrar   President