CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 février 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 105 February 2008 Glaser v. the Czech Republic - 55179/00 Judgment 14.2.2008 [Section V] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Dismissal of a claim for restitution of works of art that had been deposited in a museum decades earlier: no violation   Facts : In June 1948, following the communist coup d’état of February 1948, the applicant decided to emigrate to the United States. Before leaving, he deposited his collection of works of art with the Jewish Museum in Prague. In 1997, having sought in vain to recover his collection, he brought an action for restitution. The court noted that in the case of such an action, the onus was on the person bringing the action to prove his or her ownership of the objects in question, which the applicant was unable to do. The appeals lodged by the applicant were unsuccessful. Law : The national courts, having studied the facts of the case and the parties’ submissions in minute detail, had concluded that the applicant had not proved with sufficient certainty either that he was the original owner of the works of art he sought to recover, or that the objects in the possession of the National Museum were the same ones he had deposited in the Jewish Museum before his emigration in 1948. The courts had given detailed reasons for their findings. Admittedly, it had been difficult, if not impossible, for the applicant to furnish any further evidence in support of his action for restitution, given the lengthy period that had elapsed since he had emigrated, especially since the circumstances in which he had left the country had probably not allowed him to make a more detailed inventory of the objects he had handed over to the museum. However, the Court found no appearance of arbitrariness in the way in which the domestic courts had determined the applicant’s claim. In short, the applicant had not demonstrated that he had a claim that was sufficiently established to be enforceable, and it could not therefore be said to amount to a “possession”. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes