European Court of Human Rights Rules on Ancient Statue
In a landmark decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled in favor of Italy’s claim for the return of an ancient Greek statue, currently held by the Getty Villa Museum in Malibu, California. The statue, known as the “Victorious Youth,” is a life-size bronze piece created by the Greek sculptor Lysippos between 300 and 100 BC.
The ECHR’s ruling supports Italy’s assertion that the statue, found by a fisherman off the coast of Pedaso in 1964, was smuggled out of Italy and subsequently acquired illegally. The court found Italy’s 2019 confiscation order to be “proportionate to the aim of ensuring the return of an object that was part of Italy’s cultural heritage.”
Despite changing hands several times after its discovery, the statue was eventually purchased by the Getty Trust in 1977 for $3.95 million. Since then, it has been a centerpiece at the Getty Villa Museum. The museum has maintained that its acquisition of the statue is consistent with American and international law, emphasizing that the artwork was not created by an Italian artist nor found within Italian territory.
The ECHR criticized the Getty Trust for buying the statue without proper verification of its provenance, suggesting negligence or possibly bad faith. However, it’s important to note that the ECHR’s ruling is not enforceable in the United States, as it is not a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights.
The Getty Villa Museum has expressed intentions to seek a review of the ECHR’s decision and to continue defending its legal right to the statue in all relevant courts. Meanwhile, Rome’s Culture Minister Gennaro Sangiuliano hailed the ruling as a clear recognition of Italy’s rights over the statue. He also noted that since taking office, he has successfully repatriated hundreds of cultural artifacts from the United States and Britain.
Both parties have three months to appeal the decision, though historically only a small fraction of cases are accepted for review. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for cultural heritage disputes worldwide.
