Right to Property and Cultural Heritage Protection in the Light of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

Keywords: cultural heritage, possessions, right to property, expropriation, proportionality, ECHR, ECtHR


This article presents the relationship between the protection of property and cultural heritage protection under the ECHR system. Most often, state measures aimed at the protection of cultural heritage appear to interfere with private parties’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Those dissatisfied with the outcome of domestic court proceedings regarding such interferences often want to reverse unfavorable domestic court decisions by bringing their case before the ECtHR. This article outlines the relevant case law of the ECtHR, distinguishing deprivation of property cases from controls on the use of property, in accordance with the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. At the same time, it demonstrates the limits of property protection and, thereby, the success of claims by applicants before the ECtHR in cases involving cultural heritage. First, the limited temporal scope of the application of the ECHR and Protocol No. 1 excludes many cultural heritage disputes from the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. Second, the applicant has to prove that (s)he has possessions as interpreted by the ECtHR; the lack of possessions bars in particular restitution claims regarding property expropriated before the ratification of the Convention. Third, cultural heritage protection is considered a legitimate aim by the ECtHR, which can justify a deprivation or restriction of the use of property. States have a wide margin of appreciation in determining whether and how they will ensure the protection of cultural heritage in public interest. In particular, the ECtHR seems to endorse policies underlying both cultural nationalism and internationalism without giving a priori preference to any of them. Finally, the application of the flexible proportionality test by the ECtHR often makes the outcome of the procedure difficult to predict.


Bauer, A. A. (2007) ‘New Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property: A Critical Appraisal of the Antiquities Trade Debates’, Fordham International Law Journal, 31(3), pp. 690–724.

Francioni, F. (2012) ‘Public and Private in the International Protection of Global Cultural Goods’, European Journal of International Law, 23(3), pp. 719–730; https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chs039.

Granovsky, M. (2007) ‘A Permanent Resolution Mechanism of Cultural Property Disputes’, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 8(1), pp. 25–40; https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1001786.

Hirschboeck, M. (2019) ‘Conceptualizing the Relationship between International Human Rights Law and Private International Law’, Harvard International Law Journal, 60(1), pp. 181–199.

Lixinski, L. (2019) ‘A Third Way of Thinking about Cultural Property’, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 44(2), pp. 563–612.

Merryman, J. H. (1986) ‘Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property’, American Journal of International Law, 80(4), pp. 831–853; https://doi.org/10.2307/2202065.

Merryman, J. H. (2005) ‘Cultural Property Internationalism’, International Journal of Cultural Property, 12(1), pp. 11–39; https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739105050046.

Michl, F. (2015) ‘Noblesse oblige? – Die Thurn-und-Taxis-Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte’, Bayerische Verwaltungsblätter, 146(11), pp. 370–374.

Michl, F. (2018) ‘The Protection of Cultural Goods and the Right to Property Under the ECHR’ in Lagrange, E., Oeter, S., Uerpmann-Wittzack, R. (eds.) Cultural Heritage and International Law. Cham: Springer, pp. 109–127; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78789-3_6.

Parkhomenko, K. (2011) ‘Taking Transnational Cultural Heritage Seriously: Towards a Global System for Resolving Disputes over Stolen and Illegally-Exported Art’, Art Antiquity and Law, 16(2), pp. 145–160.

Raumer von, S. (2017) ‘Artikel 1 Schutz des Eigentums’ in Meyer-Ladewig, J., Nettesheim, M., von Raumer, S. (eds.) Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Renold, M-A. (2000) ‘A Landmark Decision in Art Law by the European Court of Human Rights: Beyeler v. Italy’, Art Antiquity and Law 5(1), pp. 73–76.

Ress, G. (2005) ‘Kulturgüterschutz und EMRK’ in Grupp, K., Hufeld, U. (eds.) Recht – Kultur – Finanzen – Festschrift für Reinhard Mußgnugzum70. Geburtstag am 26. Oktober 2005. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller, pp. 499–516.

Rikon, M. (2017) ‘Property Rights as Defined and Protected by International Courts’, Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Journal, 6, pp. 329–340.

Rudolf, B. (2000) ‘European Court of Human Rights – Regulation of Cultural Property – Preemptive Right of State to Acquire Works of Art – Compensation for Deprivation of Possessions – UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property: Beyeler v. Italy’, American Journal of International Law, 94(4), pp. 736–739; https://doi.org/10.2307/2589800.

Schabas, W. A. (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press; https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199594061.001.0001.

Seidl-Hohenveldern, I. (2001) ‘State Preemption of Foreign-Owned Painting and International Law’, International Journal of Cultural Property, 10(1), pp. 70–78; https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739101771214.

Soirila, P. (2022) ‘Indeterminacy in the Cultural Property Restitution Debate’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 28(1), pp. 1–16; https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2021.1908275.

Trykhlib, K. (2020) ‘The Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’ in Duić, D., Petrašević, T. (eds.) EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC), Issue 4—EU 2020—Lessons from the Past and Solutions for the Future. Osijek: University Josip Juraj Strossmayer of Osijek – Faculty of Law Osijek, pp. 128–154; https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/11899.

How to Cite
SzabadosT. (2022). Right to Property and Cultural Heritage Protection in the Light of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Central European Journal of Comparative Law, 3(2), 159-181. https://doi.org/10.47078/2022.2.159-181