sou · GTB33 · 2006-01-01 00:00:00 — Detta innebär att utredningen föreslår att den nuvarande ettårs- fristen i 6 kap. 6 § kulturminneslagen skall utvidgas till en treårsfrist och att den yttersta tidsfristen ändras till en yttersta tidsfrist . Utredningen har vidare föreslagit att reglerna i 6 kap. kulturminnes- lagen om ersättning och alternativ till ersättning till en godtroende innehavare, som tvingas återlämna ett olagligt utfört kulturföremål, skall utvidgas till att gälla också när återlämnandet sker till konven- tionsstater utanför EES. I förhållande till konventionsstater utanför EES skall bestämmelsen dessutom kompletteras, så att även den som innehar ett föremål för annans räkning har rätt till ersättning. Svensk rätt uppfyller konventionens krav att det skall finnas en dom- stol eller myndighet som är behörig att handlägga anspråk på åter- lämnande av stulna eller olagligt utförda kulturföremål. Någon kompletterande lagreglering krävs därför inte i detta avseende. Utredningen föreslår att den vid till- träde till konventionen skall anmäla att en begäran om återlämnande av kulturföremål och därmed sammanhängande frågor kan fram- ställas direkt vid allmän domstol eller – i fråga om stulna kulturföre- mål – hos behörig kronofogdemyndighet. De möjligheter som domstolen enligt nu gällande regler i 6 kap. kulturminneslagen har att besluta om säkerhetsåtgärder beträffande olagligt utförda kulturföremål bör utvidgas till att också gälla i sam- band med sådana anspråk på återlämnande som framställs av kon- ventionsstater utanför EES. Följdändringar i 6 kap. kulturminneslagen Utredningen har föreslagit att skyldigheten enligt 6 kap. 1 § kultur- minneslagen att återlämna olagligt utförda kulturföremål till stater inom EES skall utvidgas till att avse även återlämnande av kultur- föremål till konventionsstater utanför EES. I anslutning härtill har utredningen övervägt om övriga bestämmelser i 6 kap. kulturminnes- lagen bör gälla beträffande sådana anspråk. Härvid har utredningen gjort bedömningen att bestämmelsen i 14 §, som anger att offentlig- rättsligt grundade krav på återlämnande av kulturföremål till EES- stater och frågor om ersättning till innehavaren skall handläggas enligt reglerna för indispositiva tvistemål, bör utvidgas till att gälla även sådana anspråk. Utredningen har också funnit att bestämmelsen i 15 § om hur rättegångskostnader i ett mål om återlämnande skall fördelas bör utvidgas till att gälla även i mål om sådana krav. Detta innebär att även en återkrävande konventionsstat skall svara för rätte- gångskostnaderna om innehavaren av föremålet var i god tro och inte insett eller borde ha insett att föremålet hade blivit olagligt bortfört. Utredningen föreslår vidare att den särskilda lagvalsregeln i 17 §, som anger att äganderätten till ett olagligt utfört kulturföremål efter återlämnandet skall bestämmas enligt den återkrävande statens lag, skall utvidgas till att gälla även i förhållande till konventionsstater utanför EES. Däremot anser utredningen inte att bestämmelsen i 8 §, som reglerar tingsrätts möjlighet att på ansökan av Riksantikvarie- ämbetet besluta om undersökning hos någon för att eftersöka kul- turföremål, bör utvidgas till att gälla anspråk från konventionsstater utanför EES. Någon utvidgning bör enligt utredningens mening inte heller ske vad gäller andra bestämmelser i kapitlet som reglerar Riks- antikvarieämbetets funktion som central myndighet. Lämpligheten av att det enligt nuvarande ordning ankommer på den centrala myn- digheten att genomföra undersökningar hos någon för att söka efter ett olagligt bortfört kulturföremål och att ta hand om föremålet bör enligt utredningens mening bli föremål för överväganden i annan ordning. Svenska statens rätt att i andra konventionsstater föra talan om åter- lämnande av kulturföremål Som en följd av att tillträder konventionen får också den svenska staten möjlighet att väcka talan om återlämnande av stulna eller olagligt utförda kulturföremål vid domstol eller annan behörig myndighet i andra konventionsstater. Detta aktualiserar frågor om vem som har rätt att föra statens talan i sådana mål. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects was drafted by the international organisation (). The Convention, which was adopted in 1995 and entered into force in 1998, complements the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the , Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. It aims to increase international co-operation to endeavour to limit the illegal export of cultural objects and dealing in stolen cultural objects. It is intended that should accede to the Convention. For this to be possible, Swedish legislation must be adapted to the requirements of the Convention. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention is applicable to claims of an international nature. It contains civil law provisions that mean that the possessor of a stolen cultural object is required to return it. such claim for restitution must, however, be brought within certain periods of time specified in the Convention. Furthermore, a may, invoking the provisions on export in its law, request a court or other competent authority of another to order the return of a cultural object illegally exported from the territory of the requesting State. The Convention also stipulates certain time limits for these claims. It is not intended that the provisions of the Convention should apply retroactively. The rules of the Convention on the return of illegally exported cultural objects coincide in certain respects with the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Heritage Conservation Act. This provides for the return of a cultural object in that has been illegally removed from another state within the EEA. Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects illegally removed from the territory of a has been incorporated into Swedish legislation by the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Heritage Conservation Act. Since the Directive takes precedence over the Convention to the extent that its provisions regulate the same matters, the Com- mission recommends that the existing provisions of Chapter 6 of the Heritage Conservation Act should continue to apply in relation to the EEA states. should therefore, when acceding to the Convention, make a declaration as provided for in Article 13 (3) of the Convention. However, the provisions of the Convention on the restitution of stolen cultural objects are fully applicable in relation to Contracting States within the EEA. The concept Cultural Object Cultural objects are defined in Article 2 of the Convention as objects which, on religious or secular grounds, are of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and belong to one of the categories listed in the to the Convention. The definition coincides in principle with the term cultural property in the 1970 Convention. The concept cultural object exists in Swedish law in Chapter 5 of the Heritage Conservation Act, concerning protection against export of certain older cultural objects, and in Chapter 6 of the same Act that contains provisions on the return of illegally exported cultural objects. The meaning of the term cultural object differs in these two chapters. The definition of cultural object in Chapter 6, section 2, of the Heritage Conservation Act is based on the corresponding concept in Council Directive 93/7/EEC and does not then coincide completely with the definition of cultural object in the Convention. The Commission recommends that Chapter 6, section 1, of the Heritage Conservation Act should be expanded to include return of illegally exported cultural objects to Contracting States outside the EEA as well. In this connection, the Commission recommends that the concept cultural object in Chapter 6, section 2, of the Heritage Conservation Act be expanded so that it also covers what is considered to be a cultural object in the Convention. The over- arching criteria according to Article 2 of the Convention have been included in Chapter 6, section 2, of the Heritage Conservation Act and the to the Act has been adapted to the Convention. The additions in the entail the introduction of a new category of object and partly amended age limits have been introduced and an exemption for the Contracting States outside the EEA from the value thresholds applicable to EEA states. The adaptation of Swedish legislation to the rules of the Convention on the restitution and return of stolen cultural objects means that the time limits pursuant to sections 3 and 5 of the Good of Personal Property Act (Good Act) must be extended to three years for claims for return and redemption of those cultural objects referred to in the Convention. The Commission has proposed that these longer time limits are to be included in a new section 9 of the Good . In this connection, the Commission has decided not to recommend that these time limits be linked to the concept of cultural object but that the time limits instead should apply to items of particular cultural value. Return of stolen cultural objects Under Article 3 of the Convention, the possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it. For the purposes of the Convention, a cultural object which has been unlawfully excavated or lawfully excavated but unlawfully retained shall be considered stolen, when consistent with the law of the State where the excavation took place. claim for restitution shall be brought within a period of three years from the time when the claimant knew the location of the cultural object and the identity of its possessor, and, in any case, within a period of fifty years from the time of the theft. However, a claim for restitution of a cultural object forming an integral part of an identified monument or archaeological site, or belonging to a public collection, shall not be subject to any ultimate time limitation. A possessor who neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known that the object was stolen and can prove that it exercised due diligence when acquiring the object, shall be entitled, under the Convention, to payment of reasonable and fair compensation on return of the object. Under Swedish law, the stolen party is always entitled to restitution of a stolen object from the party who has stolen it. The owner also has an unconditional right for an unlimited period of time to have the object returned from anyone who has acquired the object knowing that it was stolen or if the acquirer should have suspected that this was the case. In these respects, Swedish legislation complies with the requirements of the Convention in these respects and no adaptation of the Swedish rules therefore needs to be made. The situation is somewhat different if the acquirer of a stolen object is in good faith and did not have any reason to suspect nor ought reasonably to have suspected that the object was stolen. In the case of stolen property, the owner is now entitled under the rules of the Good introduced on 1 2003, to restitution of the property without paying compensation. How- ever, he must demand to have the property returned from the possessor within six months of the time when he knew or must be assumed to have known about the possession. No ultimate time limitation has been stipulated for a claim of this kind, however. Swedish legislation complies in these respects with the require- ments of the Convention with the exception of the duration of the period of time in which a claim for restitution can be made. For Swedish legislation to comply with the requirements of the Con- vention, the time limit for demanding restitution of a stolen cultural object from an acquirer in good faith must be extended to three years. After the legislative amendment mentioned above, good faith acquisition of stolen property is no longer possible under Swedish law. However, the situation can arise that an object is considered as being stolen under the legislation of another , while the object shall be considered as being, for instance, embezzled under Swedish law. Under the Convention, the person from whom the object has been stolen is entitled to restitution. However, under the Good , the object can be subject to good faith acquisition or prescription here in . Under the Good , the owner is, however, entitled to redeem the property for compensation provided that he makes his claim within six months of knowing about the acquirers possession of the property. The compensation amount is then to be set at an amount corresponding to the good faith acquirers costs for acquisition of the property and for its improvement. It can be noted in this context that the requirements made in the Good for an acquirer to be considered as being in good faith are in any case as stringent as those made in the Convention and that entitlement to compensation is not more generous under the Good than according to the Convention. The Swedish rules may therefore be considered as complying with the requirements of the Convention except with respect to the period of time for making claims for restitution and redemption of a cultural object. This period of time should accordingly also be extended to three years. The Commission recommends that a new section 9 be introduced into the Good stating that a period of time of three years shall apply to objects of particularly important cultural value instead of the period of six months applicable to objects in general. No ultimate time limits corresponding to those provided for in the Convention have been proposed. Return of illegally exported cultural objects Under Article 5 of the Convention, a Contracting Party may request a court or other competent authority of another to order the return of a cultural object illegally exported from the territory of the requesting State. In order for Swedish legislation to comply with the undertakings under the Convention, it is required that the States Parties are able to institute such proceedings in . As mentioned above, Chapter 6 of the Heritage Conser- vation Act contains regulations on the restitution of illegally exported cultural objects to EEA states. These provisions largely coincide with the provisions of the Convention. Under the manda- tory Directive 93/7/EEC, the existing provisions in the Heritage Conservation Act shall continue to apply in relation to EEA states. In order for a state outside the EEA which is covered by the Convention to be able to make use of its entitlement to request return of illegally exported cultural objects, the Commission recommends that the current provision in Chapter 6, section 1, of the Heritage Conservation Act on the obligation to return be expanded to cover such claims. Furthermore, the Commission recommends that the definition of cultural object in Chapter 6, section 2, of the Heritage Conservation Act be expanded so as to also apply to objects defined as cultural objects for the purposes of the Convention. The Commission has also found it justified to change the definition in Chapter 6, section 3, as to what is meant by the unlawful export of a cultural object so that it also has in view the export rules of the Contracting States to protect the cultural heritages of these states. It follows from the Convention that a has three years in which to bring a claim for return of a cultural object at a Swedish court and that an ultimate time limit of 50 years applies to such claims. In the view of the Commission, uniform time limits should be introduced in Chapter 6 of the Heritage Conservation Act for claims brought by Contracting States and for claims for Contracting States outside the EEA. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the current one-year time limit in Chapter 6, section 6, of the Heritage Conservation Act be extended to a three-year time limit and that the ultimate time limit of 30 years be changed to an ultimate time limit of 50 years. The Commission has further proposed that the rules in Chapter 6 of the Heritage Conservation Act on compensation and compen- sation alternatives to a good-faith possessor obliged to return an illegally exported cultural object are to be extended to apply when restitution takes place to states outside the EEA as well. In relation to Contracting States outside the EEA, the provision shall more- over be complemented to provide entitlement to compensation also to a possessor holding an object on behalf of another party. Swedish legislation complies with the requirements of the Conven- tion that there is to be a court or an authority competent to consider claims for return and restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. No complementary legislative provisions are there- fore required in this respect. The Commission recommends that the Swedish government declare on Swedish accession to the Convention that a claim for return and restitution of a cultural object and related matters can be made directly to a general court of law or – with respect to stolen cultural objects – to the competent enforcement service. The possibilities of the court under the current provisions in Chapter 6 of the Heritage Conservation Act to decide on security measures for illegally exported cultural objects should be expanded to apply as well in connection with claims for restitution brought by Contracting States outside the EEA. Consequential amendments to Chapter 6 of the Heritage Conservation Act The Commission has recommended that the obligation under Chapter 6, section 1, of the Heritage Conservation Act to return illegally exported objects to states within the EEA shall be expanded to apply as well to restitution of cultural objects to Contracting States outside the EEA. In this connection, the Commission has considered whether other provisions in Chapter 6 of the Heritage Conservation Act should apply to such claims. In this context, the Commission has made the assessment that the provision in section 14, stating that claims based on public law for return and restitution of cultural property to EEA states and matters relating to compen- sation to the possessor shall be dealt with in accordance with the rules for civil disputes not amenable to out-of-court settlement, should be expanded to apply to such claims as well. The Commission has also found that the provision in section 15 on how litigation costs in a case for restitution are to be apportioned should be expanded to also apply in cases on such requirements. This means that a should also meet the litigation costs if the possessor of the object was in good faith and did not realise or should not have realised that the object had been unlawfully removed. The Commission further recommends that the special rule on choice of jurisdiction in section 17, stating that ownership to an illegally exported cultural object shall be decided in accordance with the law of the state claiming return and restitution, should be expanded to apply in relation to Contracting States outside the EEA as well. However, the Commission does not consider that the provision in section 8 regulating the ability of the district/city court to decide on a search at a party for cultural objects sought after, on application by , should be expanded to apply to claims from Contracting States outside the EEA. Neither, in the view of the Commission, should any expan- sion be made of other provisions in the Chapter regulating the role of as a central agency. In the view of the Commission, consideration should be given in another context to the appropriateness under the existing arrangements of the central agency being responsible for carrying out searches at a party to look for an unlawfully removed cultural object and to take care of the object. The entitlement of the Swedish state to institute proceedings in other Contracting States on the return and restitution of cultural objects As a consequence of acceding to the Convention, the Swedish state may also institute proceedings for return and restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects at a court or other competent authority in other Contracting States. This brings to the fore issues of who is entitled to institute proceedings on behalf of the State in such cases. Lag om ändring i lagen (1988:950) om kultur- minnen m.m. Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om lagen (1988:950) om kultur- minnen m.m. dels att 6 kap. 1–3 §§ och 6–8 §§ skall ha följande lydelse, dels att bilagan till 6 kap. 2 § första stycket 2 skall ha följande lydelse. Ett kulturföremål som efter olagligt förts bort från en stat som ingår i Europeiska ekonomiska sam- arbetsområdet (EES) och som finns i skall på begäran återlämnas till den staten. Ett kulturföremål som finns i och som -efter olagligt förts bort från en stat som ingår i Europeiska ekono- miska samarbetsområdet (EES), eller -efter den XX 2005 (=datum då konventionen trätt i kraft i )olagligt förts ut från en stat utanför EES som omfattas av skall på begäran återlämnas till den återkrävande staten. 1 Senaste lydelse 1994:1523. Med ett kulturföremål avses i detta kapitel ett föremål som 1. i den stat det förts bort från betraktas som en nationell skatt av konstnärligt, historiskt eller arkeologiskt värde enligt lagar eller administrativa förfaranden som är förenliga med artikel 36 i , och 2. tillhör någon av de katego- rier som anges i bilagan till denna lag eller är en integrerad del av inventarierna hos en kyrklig in- stitution eller en integrerad del av en offentlig samling och upp- tagen i inventarieförteckningen hos ett museum, ett arkiv eller en bibliotekssamling. Med en offentlig samling av- ses en samling som ägs av -en stat som avses i 1 §, -en lokal eller regional myn- dighet i en sådan stat, eller -en offentlig institution i en sådan stat vilken ägs eller till stor Med ett kulturföremål avses i detta kapitel 1. ett föremål som -förts bort från en stat som ingår i EES och i den staten betraktas som en nationell skatt av konstnärligt, historiskt eller arkeologiskt värde enligt lagar eller administrativa förfaranden som är förenliga med artikel 36 i , eller -förts ut från en stat utanför EES som är part i Unidroitkon- ventionen av och i den staten av religiösa eller profana skäl är av betydelse för arkeologin, förhistorien, historien, litteraturen, konsten eller veten- skapen om föremålet, 2. om detta -tillhör någon av de kategorier som anges i bilagan till denna lag, eller -i en stat som ingår i EES är en integrerad del av inventarierna hos en kyrklig institution eller en inte- grerad del av en offentlig samling och upptagen i inventarieförteck- ningen hos ett museum, ett arkiv eller en bibliotekssamling. Med en sådan offentlig samling ien stat som ingår i EES avses en samling som ägs av -en lokal eller regional myn- dighet, eller -en offentlig institution vilken ägs eller till stor del finansieras 2 Senaste lydelse 1994:1523. del finansieras av staten eller av av staten eller av en lokal eller en lokal eller regional myndighet. Med att ett kulturföremål olagligt förts bort avses att före- olagligt förts bort avses att före- målet förts från en stats territo- målet förts ut från en stats terri- rium i strid med den statens torium i strid med den statens regler till skydd för nationella regler om utförsel av kulturföre- skatter eller att efter en tidsbe- mål eller att efter en tidsbegrän- gränsad laglig bortförsel före- målet inte har återlämnats eller inte har återlämnats eller något något annat villkor för bortför- annat villkor för bortförseln har seln har överträtts. Talan om återlämnande skall Talan om återlämnande skall väckas från det att väckas från det att kännedom om föremålets belä- kännedom om föremålets belä- genhet och om vem som inne- genhet och om vem som inne- Talan får dock inte Talan får dock inte väckas senare än efter väckas senare än efter det att föremålet olagligt fördes det att föremålet olagligt fördes Ifråga om föremål som I fråga om föremål som