Cultural Property Protection Act (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Law for the Protection of Cultural Property
Short title: Cultural Property Protection Act
Abbreviation: KGSG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter: Special administrative law ; Civil law ; Ancillary criminal law
References : 224-26
Issued on: July 31, 2016 ( Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1914 )
Entry into force on: August 6, 2016
(Art. 10 G of July 31, 2016)
Last change by: Art. 40 G of November 20, 2019
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1626, 1649 )
Effective date of the
last change: 		November 26, 2019
(Art. 155 G of November 20, 2019)
GESTA : B030
Weblink: Text of the law
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The law for the protection of cultural property ( cultural property protection law for short , KGSG ) is a federal law of the Federal Republic of Germany . In addition to the national monument protection laws, it regulates a part of the protection of cultural property . On August 6, 2016, it replaced the law on the protection of German cultural property against emigration, the Law on the Return of Cultural Property and the Law on Implementation of the Hague Convention of 1957, which had previously been in force.

history

Regulations for the protection of cultural goods against migration abroad were enacted by various German states in the early 20th century. There were numerous models for this from other countries who had already enacted relevant regulations in the 19th century.

Predecessor regulations

The first all-German regulation was made after the First World War with a Reich decree on the export of works of art of December 11, 1919. Then a directory of nationally valuable works of art should be created, the export of which was restricted. The occasion was the export of works of art from aristocratic property, in particular the Oldenburg picture gallery, by the abdicated Grand Duke in the summer of 1919, who had triggered national protests. On May 8, 1920, a Reich ordinance on the protection of monuments and works of art followed , which provided for export restrictions regardless of the entry in the aforementioned directory. The aim was to counter “panic sales” abroad to alleviate acute distress. In 1955 a law for the protection of German cultural property against emigration (in short: Cultural Property Protection Act ) was passed. In terms of its content, it largely corresponded to the Reich Decree of 1919. In particular , it took into account the “ cultural sovereignty of the federal states ” introduced by the Basic Law , in that it left the federal states to the discretion of whether and which cultural assets they should enter in the register of nationally valuable cultural assets . The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict had already been enacted a year earlier, and it became valid in Germany through a Transformation Act . Since the art trade also affects the European internal market , the European Union has been issuing more and more regulations in the field of cultural property protection since the 1990s. This included, on the one hand, the export regulation first enacted in 1992 and revised in 2009 , which is directly applicable in the EU member states. The EU's Directive on the Return of Cultural Goods, issued in 1993 and not directly applicable in the Member States , was only implemented in 1998 after proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany had come before the European Court of Justice . A newly enacted Law on the Return of Cultural Property and an amendment to the Law on the Protection of Cultural Property of 1955 served to implement it. When the Federal Republic of Germany finally ratified the 1970 Convention on Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of the Inadmissible Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property of UNESCO , the Law on the Protection of Cultural Property and the Law on the Return of Cultural Property became amended. An evaluation of this new legal situation was also decided after a few years.

New version 2016

As a result of this evaluation, the federal government presented a comprehensive report on the effects of the amendment in April 2013. The report classified the current legal situation as ineffective and therefore inadequate. The main points of criticism were named:

  • The 2007 law had proven to be impractical for the return of cultural property: not a single cultural property was returned on its basis. The reason for this was identified as the high requirements for a return, which hardly any third country has met. The law only made it possible to return cultural goods that were entered in a register of national cultural goods in their country of origin. Only very few states keep such registers at all.
  • The same applies to the practice of import controls.
  • Effective protection against emigration was not possible on the basis of the law in force: the competent authorities were already having problems identifying cultural goods that were unknown to them but affected by export restrictions during export controls. In addition, the problem turned out to be that export bans were tied to entry in the register of national cultural assets, but on the one hand such entries were extremely reserved. Since the end of the First World War, only 2,700 cultural assets had been placed under protection. On the other hand, the responsible authorities often had absolutely no knowledge of cultural assets that were worth protecting and that could have been registered.
  • The dovetailing with the state's monument protection laws led to contradictions in valuation: Cultural assets listed in the register of national cultural assets that did not fall under the state's definition of monument were therefore not allowed to be exported abroad, but could be destroyed in Germany.

In addition, there were two resolutions of the World Security Council , which obliged the UN member states to take effective measures against the illegal art trade. Above all, this was intended to counter the knowledge that terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq also financed themselves through trade in cultural goods. Finally, a new version of the return policy had to be implemented by 2015. Not least because in the run-up to the amendment, cultural assets of national importance had reached foreign countries and had to be repurchased at great expense, a completely new law on the protection of cultural assets began to be drawn up under the leadership of Minister of State for Culture Monika Grütters . For this reason, a public oral hearing of specialist groups, associations, churches and scientists was held in autumn 2014. Then the core issues of the amendment were worked out with 100 people. At the end of June 2015, an unauthorized draft bill was first made public and sparked severe criticism: In the Handelsblatt, a lawyer criticized the fact that the data on terrorist financing through illegal antiquities had not been verified. Collectors, gallery owners and auctioneers, including Rudolf Zwirner , Max Hetzler and Florian Illies , wrote an open letter to Ms. Grütters against the draft, which they considered to be a significantly tightened legal situation. In contrast, archaeologists criticized that the design was unsuitable for preventing robbery excavations . In contrast, a coordinated ministerial draft was only made known in July 2015. Expert groups, associations, churches and scientists were again consulted on this draft; this time in a written procedure. The federal government then passed this draft law on November 4, 2015 and submitted it to the Federal Council . Inadvertently with his opinion, it was introduced to the Bundestag in February 2016 . After the first reading, further processing of the draft law was assigned to the Committee on Culture and the Media . On April 13, 2016, he conducted another oral and written hearing with various experts. With the votes of the governing parties, the law, which was amended on some points by the Committee on Culture and the Media, was adopted in second and third readings . The Federal Council agreed 12 days later . It was issued by the Federal President on July 31 and came into force on August 6, 2016. The previous regulations also expired.

Regulatory content

In terms of content, the Cultural Property Protection Act essentially comprises regulations on the areas of protection against emigration, import control, trade in and the return of cultural property (restitution). For this purpose, a number of sometimes complex regulatory mechanisms have been created which, not least, are intended to help ensure that the responsible authorities are made aware of cultural assets that are worthy of protection.

Central terms

The regulations of the Cultural Property Protection Act are linked to various concepts of cultural property. In this way, a differentiated system of provisions is created for individual categories of cultural goods. Above all, three terms are particularly central to the Cultural Property Protection Act:

Cultural asset

The Cultural Property Protection Act defines cultural property as ...

"Any movable object or aggregate of artistic, historical or archaeological value or from other areas of cultural heritage, in particular of paleontological, ethnographic, numismatic or scientific value"

- Section 2 Paragraph 1 No. 10 KGSG

The term is a constituent feature of most of the provisions of the Cultural Property Protection Act and therefore defines its basic scope. It was given a broad definition because the Cultural Property Protection Act combines several previous regulations that used different cultural property terms. All of them should now be incorporated into a uniform concept of cultural property. The criticism that objects of palaeontological value should also be considered cultural assets. The paleontology mainly deals with fossils and with an area of nature , not the culture . On the other hand, it is argued that the term “cultural property” relates to the importance of an object for cultural life and can therefore also refer to culturally significant natural phenomena such as fossils, plants or minerals.

National cultural asset

The Cultural Property Protection Act defines every ...

“Cultural property that

  1. is entered in a register of nationally valuable cultural assets,
  2. is publicly owned and in the holdings of an institution that preserves cultural assets under public law,
  3. is owned and held by an institution that preserves cultural property and is mainly financed by government grants, or
  4. Part of a federal or state art collection. "
- Section 6 (1) KGSG

The concept of national cultural property is particularly relevant for the regulations on protection against emigration and return. It comes from the UNESCO Convention of 1970 and Art. 36 TFEU and is also used by the EU Export Regulation and Return Directive. According to Art. 36 TFEU, national legislators may, among other things, enact regulations for the protection of “national cultural assets” that hinder the free movement of goods within the European Union. European law leaves it to the individual member states to determine what is a “national cultural asset”. With the definition, the Federal Republic of Germany essentially follows the so-called list principle. In contrast to other countries, Germany does not generally place certain groups of cultural goods under protection, but only those that are entered in a register of nationally valuable cultural goods. In addition, all cultural assets in public collections are automatically included in the definition. Provided that they were made available by a private lender, but not against their will.

Archaeological heritage

Archaeological cultural assets are all ...

"Movable objects or aggregates that have been created or worked on by humans or provide information about human life in the past, are or have been in the ground or in a body of water or for which this can be assumed based on the overall circumstances."

- Section 2 (1) KGSG

According to the federal government, this definition should be based on the monument protection law of the federal states and EU law. On the part of jurisprudence, however, it is criticized that the term goes into boundlessness. Ultimately, every canned food found in the ground or in water is a particularly protected archaeological cultural asset.

Migration protection

The Cultural Property Protection Act provides as a principle the export of all cultural property from a certain age and value limit according to § 21 No. 2 i. V. m. Section 24 (1) and (2) KGSG subject to approval . This is to ensure that the state is aware of economically valuable, privately owned cultural goods before they are exported abroad. This reservation of approval is in accordance with Section 24 (1) no. 2 KGSG on the one hand excludes cultural goods that are sold by their manufacturer to the European internal market. On the other hand, the export of such cultural goods does not require a permit that does not reach certain age and value limits. In principle, these limits are taken from the EU export regulation, but partly for export to the European internal market in accordance with Section 24 (2) KGSG increased.

Comparison of the age and value limits according to European law and the KGSG
Cultural asset category Protection levels according to the EU export regulation
(export to third countries) 		Protection limits according to § 24 KGSG
(export to the European internal market)
Age limit Value limit Age limit Value limit
Archaeological artifacts 100 years no 100 years no
Monument parts 100 years no 100 years no
painting 50 years € 150,000 75 years € 300,000
Watercolors 50 years € 30,000 75 years € 100,000
Mosaics 50 years € 15,000 75 years € 50,000
Etchings 50 years € 15,000 75 years € 50,000
Sculpture 50 years € 50,000 75 years € 100,000
Photographs / films 50 years € 15,000 75 years € 50,000
Manuscripts 50 years no 75 years € 50,000
Books 100 years € 50,000 100 years € 50,000
Maps 200 years € 15,000 200 years € 15,000
Archives 50 years no 50 years € 50,000
Collections no € 50,000 no € 50,000
Means of transport 75 years € 50,000 150 years € 100,000
Others grds. 100 years € 50,000 100 years € 100,000

Approval process

If an export license has been applied for, the competent authorities must issue an export license within ten days in accordance with Section 24 Paragraph 5, 7 sentence 1 KGSG. Such approval may only be refused if

For national cultural assets , the export license depends on further requirements. You may acc. 22 KGSG can only be issued for an export of a maximum of 5 years duration if a timely and undamaged return of the cultural property in question to Germany is guaranteed. For exports lasting longer than 5 years, Section 23 (2) KGSG requires that the non-essential interests of German cultural property are opposed. According to Section 23 (3) KGSG excludes any export for restitution of looted art . If the export license is refused for more than 6 years, the owner can initiate a purchase process through a museum or similar institution.

Registration procedure

If a cultural asset is not a national cultural asset, the competent authorities can refuse an export license and instead initiate a registration procedure. The aim of this procedure is to raise a cultural asset to the rank of a national cultural asset by registering it. As long as this procedure has not been completed, the export of the respective cultural property is prohibited ( Section 21 No. 1 KGSG). The requirements for entry in the register of nationally valuable cultural assets are regulated by Section 7 (1) KGSG. Accordingly, a cultural asset can only be registered if

"1. it is particularly significant for the cultural heritage of Germany, the federal states or one of its historical regions and thus identity-creating for the culture of Germany and 2. its emigration would mean a significant loss for the German cultural heritage and therefore its stay in the federal territory is in the outstanding cultural public interest . "

- Section 7 (1) KGSG

If the manufacturer of the cultural property is still alive, he must agree to an entry in any case. According to the justification for the law, the previous registration practice should be legally fixed. However, lawyers criticize this norm. The terminology is ambiguous, but completely indefinite . In addition, it is unclear to what extent there must be a causal relationship between the significance for cultural heritage and the identity-creating effect.

The entry also has the effect that the damage to the cultural property according to 18 KGSG is prohibited and according to Section 83 (3) KGSG can be punished. The damage and destruction of the other categories of cultural property was previously classified as damage to property according to Section 304 punishable by law. This regulation ensures that a cultural asset, the export of which is prohibited, cannot be legally destroyed domestically. On the part of jurisprudence, however, it is doubted that the federal government has the necessary legislative competence to issue such a regulation.

Import controls

According to § 28 No. 1 KGSG, the importation of any cultural property is prohibited that originates from a member state of the European Union or the UNESCO Convention of 1970, is protected there as a national cultural property and has been exported contrary to the local legal provisions. The import ban is therefore determined solely by the law of the country of origin, the so-called list principle was therefore abandoned for import restrictions. According to Section 29 No. 1 KGSG, however, excludes those cultural goods that were already lawfully imported into the federal territory when the amendment came into force under the previous legal situation.

Compared to the German authorities must gem. According to § 30 KGSG it can be proven that the import of the cultural property was not prohibited. For this purpose, an export permit or other documents confirming the lawful export of the country of origin must be presented. On the part of jurisprudence, it is criticized that the definition of the country of origin, which results from § 2 para. 1 no. 8 KGSG, is unclear. Both the country in which the cultural property was produced and the one that placed it under protection count as the country of origin. Even experts are unable to determine which states have placed an object under protection.

Seizure and confiscation

If authorities suspect that a cultural asset is being imported or exported illegally, they must acc. . § 33 para 1 KGSG sure . It is then by the competent authority shall keep and must not be damaged for the period for which, destroyed or altered in its appearance. The seizure continues until either the suspicion has ceased or a return of the cultural property to the country of origin is excluded or should take place ( Section 35 KGSG). Then the cultural property is given to the person entitled.

If there is no return and if the owner cannot be identified or if he does not collect the cultural property within a period set, it will be confiscated. This confiscation has the effect that all rights to the cultural property expire and the respective country itself acquires property. This means that the cultural asset can be legally traded again, even if it was previously imported illegally. Therefore, the respective country can legally auction the cultural property after the confiscation .

Cultural goods trade

A central innovation of the 2016 amendment is the first-time standardization of rules for the trade in cultural goods. They are intended to prevent the illegal trade in cultural property and essentially rely on two means:

Trade bans

The placing of cultural property on the market is prohibited if it ...

"Has been lost, unlawfully excavated or illegally imported"

- Section 40 (1) KGSG

The ban is linked to the import ban of § 28 KGSG as well as to the national monument protection regulations. The latter arises from Section 2 (1) No. 14 KGSG, according to which a cultural asset is considered to be illegally excavated if it was excavated without an excavation permit . Such a permit is planned in all German federal states. The meaning of the term "got lost" is controversial in jurisprudence. According to the legal justification, it should be based on § 935 BGB. Part of the specialist literature concludes from this that trading is only prohibited for those cultural goods of which the owner has lost direct possession. Another part of the specialist literature refers to the fact that the legal principle of hand-to-hand that supports Section 935 of the German Civil Code does not apply to Section 40 of the KGSG and that any form of loss of property must therefore be regarded as lost.

If a transaction violates § 40 Paragraph 1 KGSG, it is void according to § 40 Paragraph 2 KGSG. The meaning and scope of this standard is also controversial. The predominant literature considers § 40 Abs. 2 KGSG to be a more specific norm in relation to § 134 BGB and thus a lex perfecta that breaks the abstraction principle of German civil law and therefore a bona fide auction acquisition i. S. d. § 935 para. 2 excludes. On the other hand, the regulation aims to teleologically reduce a lower opinion for lost cultural goods so that stolen works of art can still be purchased at auctions. Otherwise the art trade location in Germany is at risk. It is countered that Section 935 (2) BGB protects a special interest in the acquisition of the auction, but that there can never be a special interest in breaking a legal prohibition such as Section 40 (1) KGSG. In some cases, it is still argued that § 40 KGSG justifies a purchase prohibition that also excludes a prescription. The prevailing opinion rejects this, because the wording of the provision refers only to legal transactions. The highest court case law has not yet decided the question. In an obiter dictum in 2017 , the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court initially determined that Section 40 KGSG did not stand in the way of at least a prescription. The Federal Court of Justice overturned this decision in 2019 for other reasons and expressly left it open as to whether or not a presidency is still possible as a result of Section 40 KGSG.

If a gem. 40 Paragraph 4 KGSG, the seller is not only liable to pay damages or reimbursement of expenses to the purchaser in accordance with Paragraph 40 (4) KGSG, but is also liable to prosecution under Paragraph 83 Paragraph 1 No. 4 and 5 KGSG.

Due diligence, recording and disclosure obligations

In order to prevent a prohibited business from being concluded as much as possible, the KGSG imposes a duty of care on the seller of cultural property. Jurisprudence criticizes the fact that their legal nature is unclear because they have both a civil law and a public law character.

Everyone who wants to sell cultural property must according to 41 KGSG, regardless of the age, type and value of the cultural property, check all information that can be obtained with reasonable effort. But this only applies to certain suspicious factors. In particular, this may include the fact that the cultural property was previously sold at unusually cheap rates or that the previous seller insisted on cash payment in the event of a high purchase price. In all other cases it should be decisive whether a reasonable person would have suspected. It is criticized that the figure of the reasonable person is a borrowing from common law, which is so alien to German law.

For commercial art dealers, Sections 42 ff. KGSG provide for a tiered system of obligations. For example, Section 43 KGSG relieves the primary market, while Section 44 KGSG formulates stricter obligations for particularly sensitive cultural goods. However, stricter obligations only apply to cultural assets with a value of at least € 2,500, unless they are archaeological cultural assets . There are also obligations to record and store documents, which may have to be inspected.

The Cultural Property Protection Act finally combines the previous regulations for the return of cultural property to their countries of origin. In this respect, it corresponds to the previous regulations and implements European and international law.

criticism

The Cultural Property Protection Act is widely criticized in the relevant specialist media. Especially representatives of the art trade complain that they are excessively burdened. For example, it is not sufficiently taken into account that hardly any cultural property is ever traded with associated documents. It is precisely this fact that the opposing position applies as evidence of a flourishing illegal trade in cultural goods. Because the Cultural Property Protection Act only applies to the future, all relevant cases are not covered by it. Others criticize the fact that the due diligence obligations of the Cultural Property Protection Act undermine the existing treasury registers under monument law. Because it does not record accidental archaeological finds, property can be acquired in good faith . In this context, the duty of care contributes to lowering the requirements for the good faith of the buyer. The countries would therefore in practice mostly lose ownership of such objects if they were to be illegally traded. In other respects, too, the law does not sufficiently take into account the interests of the protection of cultural property, because the provisions only really apply to museum cultural property and make every protection provision dependent on economic criteria. A constitutional complaint was lodged with the Federal Constitutional Court against various provisions of the Cultural Property Protection Act . The proceedings are still ongoing.

literature

  • Elmenhorst / Wiese (ed.), Kulturgutschutzgesetz, KGSG - Commentary , Munich 2018 - ISBN 978-3-406-70769-8
  • von der Betten / Fechner / Weller (ed.), Kulturgutschutzgesetz - Handkommentar , 2018 - ISBN 978-3-8487-3746-8
  • von derdecke, The Cultural Property Protection Act of 2018 with a special focus on the protection against emigration for German cultural property , in: Weller / Kemle / Dreier (Eds.), Art and Law - Retrospect, Present, and Future , Baden-Baden 2017, p. 71 -102.
  • Fechner, Protection of Cultural Property , in: Martin / Krautzberger u. a. (Ed.), Handbook of Monument Protection and Preservation Munich 2017, Rn. 78-203.
  • Haimo Schack , Civil Law Effects of the KGSG: Import Bans and Transparency Obligations , Art and Law 2018, pp. 112–118.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ von der Betten , The Cultural Property Protection Act of 2016 , in Weller / Kemle / Dreier (eds.), Art and Law - Retrospect, Present and Future, Baden-Baden 2017, p. 74.
  2. Jump up ↑ from the blankets, The Cultural Property Protection Act of 2018 with a special focus on protection against emigration for German cultural property , in: Weller / Kemle / Dreier (eds.), Art and Law - Retrospect, Present and Future , Baden-Baden 2017, p. 85-87.
  3. ↑ RGBl. I p. 1961 ff.
  4. ^ Malve Anna Falk: Dissolution and a new beginning. The Oldenburg Gallery and its paintings after 1918 . In: Sebastian Dohe / Malve Anna Falk / Rainer Stamm (eds.): Ie Gemäldegalerie Oldenburg. A European collection of old masters . Michael Imhof Verlag, Petersberg 2017, ISBN 978-3-7319-0447-2 , p. 49-66 .
  5. ↑ RGBl. P. 913 ff.
  6. ^ Sophie Lenski : Import without export . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung, February 2, 2016, p. 13
  7. ↑ BGBl. I, p. 501 ff.
  8. ↑ VO 2009/116 / EG
  9. ↑ RL 1993/7 / EEC
  10. ^ Fechner, Kulturgüterschutz , in: Martin / Krautzberger u. a. (Ed.), Handbook of Monument Protection and Preservation Munich 2017, Rn. 129
  11. ↑ BGBl. I, p. 3162 ff.
  12. ↑ BGBl. I, p. 757 ff.
  13. ↑ BT-Drs. 17/13378 ( full text )
  14. ↑ BT-Drs. 17/13378, p. 8.
  15. ↑ BT-Drs. 17/13378, p. 8
  16. ↑ BT-Drs. 17/13378, p. 26
  17. ↑ a b BT-Drs. 17/13378, p. 23
  18. ↑ BT-Drs. 17/13378, p. 39.
  19. ↑ RES. 2199 (2015) paragraph 5; RES 2253 (2015) .
  20. ↑ RL 2014/60 / EU.
  21. ↑ Tobias Timm: Art Market: That'll stay nice here. The time 07/2015, March 1, 2015, accessed on March 1, 2015 .
  22. ↑ a b c von der Betten, The Cultural Property Protection Act of 2018 with a special focus on the protection against emigration for German cultural property , in: Weller / Kemle / Dreier (ed.), Art and Law - Retrospect, Present, and Future , Baden-Baden 2017 , P. 81.
  23. ↑ Lucas Elmenhorst, The Six Billion Dollar Myth - The discussion about the protection of cultural property and about antiquities from robbery excavations is based on figures that have never been questioned . Handelsblatt July 31, 2015, p. 59
  24. ↑ Romy Campe: Open letter from the German art trade to Mrs. Grütters: Dead regulated. New regulation of the cultural property protection law! kunstlebenberlin 07/2015, July 15, 2015, accessed on July 21, 2015 .
  25. ^ "A disaster for the protection of cultural property. DGUF comments on the draft of the new law on the protection of cultural property" Statement by the German Society for Prehistory and Early History. Retrieved October 7, 2015 .
  26. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/7456 ( full text )
  27. ↑ Despite violent protests: Bundestag passes cultural property protection law Spiegel Online , 23 June 2016.
  28. ↑ BT.-Drs. 18/7456, p. 85
  29. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/7456, p. 59.
  30. ↑ Joachim Walser: Law for the new regulation of the cultural property protection law - not a work of art . In: KUR - Art and Law . tape 18 , no. 5 , 2016, p. 139 , doi : 10.15542 / KUR / 2016/5/4 ( quotus.org [accessed June 29, 2020]).
  31. ↑ Steffen M. Jauß: Protection of cultural property subject to economic viability . In: Critical quarterly for legislation and jurisprudence . tape 101 , no. 2 , 2018, ISSN  2193-7869 , p. 155 , doi : 10.5771 / 2193-7869-2018-2-150 ( nomos-elibrary.de [accessed on June 29, 2020]).
  32. ↑ Jauß, Steffen: 'Kulturgut' and 'nationales Kulturgut' . In: KritV . tape 102 , no. 4 , 2019, ISSN  2193-7869 , p. 351 , doi : 10.5771 / 2193-7869-2019-4-343 .
  33. ^ From the ceiling: The Cultural Property Protection Act of 2018 with a special focus on protection against emigration for German cultural property , in: Weller / Kemle / Dreier (eds.): Art and Law - Retrospect, Present, and Future , Baden-Baden 2017, p. 76.
  34. ^ From the ceiling: The Cultural Property Protection Act of 2018 with a special focus on the protection against emigration for German cultural property. In: Weller / Kemle / Dreier (eds.): Art and Law - Retrospect, Present, and Future , Baden-Baden 2017, p. 77 f.
  35. ↑ BT.-Drs. 18/7456, p. 59
  36. ↑ by Cube, is that art or can it be done? , NJW 2017, p. 787.
  37. ↑ Erik Jayme : National Art Today - Considerations on the new Law on the Protection of Cultural Property. In: Weller / Kemle / Dreier (Ed.): Art and Law - Review, Present and Future , Baden-Baden 2017, p. 56.
  38. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/7456, p. 85 f.
  39. ↑ an age of 50 years is sufficient for individual items
  40. ↑ BT.-Drs. 18/7456, p. 67
  41. ↑ Elmenhorst / Heimann, The new regulation of the protection of cultural property. Overview of the basic structures of the KGSG , NJW 2016, p. 3399.
  42. ↑ a b Elmenhorst / Wiese-Elmenhorst § 7 Rn. 23; from Cube, is that art or can it be done? , NJW 2017, p. 788.
  43. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/7456, p. 81.
  44. Jump up ↑ von derdecke, The Cultural Property Protection Act of 2016 - with a special focus on the protection against emigration for German cultural property , in: Weller / Kemle / Dreier (ed.), Art and Law - Retrospect, Present and Future , Baden-Baden 2017, p. 96.
  45. ↑ by Cube: Is that art or can it be removed? In: NJW . 2017, p. 788 .
  46. ↑ a b Jauß: On the question of the acquisition of lost, illegally excavated or illegally imported cultural goods . In: NJOZ . 2018, p. 561 .
  47. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/7456, p. 96.
  48. ↑ Lucas Elmenhorst, Henrike Strobl: Comment on the decision of the Higher Regional Court Nuremberg from September 6, 2017 - 12 U 2086/15 . In: KUR - Art and Law . tape 19 , no. 5-6 , 2017, pp. 158 , doi : 10.15542 / KUR / 2017 / 5-6 / 6 ( quotus.org [accessed June 29, 2020]).
  49. ↑ a b Jauß: On the question of the acquisition of lost, illegally excavated or illegally imported cultural goods . In: NJOZ . 2018, p. 562 .
  50. ↑ Jayme, Erik: Current Developments in International Art Law, Conference of the Research Society Art & Law in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna . In: IPRax . 2018, p. 456 .
  51. ↑ a b Janssen, Achim: Good faith purchase of the dedication of a public cause? In: NJOZ . No. 48 , 2019, p. 1555 .
  52. ^ A b Haimo Schack: Effects of the KGSG on civil law: import bans and transparency obligations . In: KUR - Art and Law . tape 20 , no. 5 , 2018, p. 114 , doi : 10.15542 / KUR / 2018/5/2 ( quotus.org [accessed June 29, 2020]).
  53. ↑ by Cube, Is that art or can it be a path? , NJW 2017, p. 791; Elmenhorst / Wiese-Elmenhorst, § 40 Rn. 12; Elmenhorst / Strobl, comment on the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg from September 6, 2017 - 12 U 2086/15, on the relationship between prescription and § 40 KGSG , KuR 2017, p. 159.
  54. ↑ Steffen M. Jauß: Evidence questions about property and presidency - BGH, judgment of 07/19/2019, V ZR 255/17 . In: JURA - Legal training . tape 42 , no. 4 , February 28, 2020, ISSN  0170-1452 , p. 376 , doi : 10.1515 / jurassic-2019-2349 ( degruyter.com [accessed on June 29, 2020]).
  55. ↑ Baldus, Chistian: § 937 . In: Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 8th edition. tape 8 , 2020, para. 40 .
  56. ↑ Krause, Tobias: Burden of proof of the previous owner when stealing a stolen work of art . In: NJW . 2019, p. 3155 .
  57. ^ Higher Regional Court Nuremberg: burden of presentation and proof in the case of acquisition . In: KUR - Art and Law . tape 19 , no. 5-6 , 2017, pp. 172 , doi : 10.15542 / KUR / 2017 / 5-6 / 7 ( quotus.org [accessed June 29, 2020]).
  58. ↑ Judgment of the BGH of July 19, 2019 - V ZR 255/17 margin no. 36 with note by Krause, NJW 2019 , 3147 ff .; Weller, LMK 2020 , 426356; Jauß, JURA 2020 , 365 ff .; Dreesen, KuR 2019 , 143 ff.
  59. ↑ Strobl .: Due diligence in the Cultural Property Protection Act. Practical challenges . In: NJOZ . 2017, p. 816 .
  60. ↑ a b Strobl: Due diligence in the Cultural Property Protection Act. Practical challenges . In: NJOZ . 2017, p. 811 .
  61. ↑ by Cube: Is that art or can it be removed? In: NJW . 2017, p. 791 .
  62. ↑ Strobl: Due diligence in the Cultural Property Protection Act. Practical challenges . In: NJOZ . 2017, p. 814 .
  63. ↑ Birgit Maria Sturm: Aspects of the amendment to the protection of cultural assets . In: KUR - Art and Law . tape 18 , no. 3-4 , 2016, pp. 73 , doi : 10.15542 / KUR / 2016 / 3-4 / 4 ( quotus.org [accessed June 29, 2020]).
  64. ↑ Julia Weiler-Esser: The effects of the new cultural property protection law on the trade in antiquities . In: KUR - Art and Law . tape 18 , no. 5 , 2016, p. 133 , doi : 10.15542 / KUR / 2016/5/3 ( quotus.org [accessed June 29, 2020]).
  65. ↑ Müller-Karpe, Antikenhandel ./. Protection of cultural property - continuation of KUR 2014, 147 ff. The “Antikenwäschegesetz” - to the Cultural Property Protection Act of July 31, 2016, KuR 2017, p. 44.
  66. ↑ Müller-Karpe, Antikenhandel ./. Protection of cultural property - continuation of KUR 2014, 147 ff. The “Antikenwäschegesetz” - on the Protection of Cultural Property Act of July 31, 2016, KuR 2017, p. 45.
  67. ↑ Steffen M. Jauß: Archeological chance finds, treasure regalia and the new KGSG . In: KUR - Art and Law . tape 20 , no. 2 , 2018, p. 56–60 , doi : 10.15542 / KUR / 2018/2/4 ( quotus.org [accessed June 29, 2020]).
  68. ↑ Jauß, Protection of cultural assets subject to economic viability, KritV 2018, p. 169 f.
  69. ↑ File number: 1 BvR 1658/17, 1 BvR 1727/17, 1 BvR 1728/17, 1 BvR 1729/17, 1 BvR 1735/17, 1 BvR 1746/17