003-3590116-4064487

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 075 (2011)   28.06.2011   Conditions of purchase by the Spanish Government of Goya’s   work “La Condesa de Chinchón” were compliant with the   Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Ruspoli Morenes v. Spain (application   no. 28979/07), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the   European Convention on Human Rights   The case concerns the conditions of the Spanish Government’s purchase from the   applicants of Goya’s painting “La Condesa de Chinchón”. The State had exercised its   right of pre-emption over an item of cultural interest. The painting is now on display in   the Prado Museum, Madrid.   Principal facts   The applicants, Carlos, Luis and Enrique Ruspoli Morenes, are three Spanish nationals   who are brothers and live in Madrid. They are the former owners of the painting “La   Condesa de Chinchón” (Portrait of Maria Theresa De Bourbon Y Vallabriga) by Francisco   de Goya.   In December 1999, in accordance with the National Historic Heritage Act, they informed   the authorities that they had agreed to sell the painting to private buyers for more than   million euros, to be paid in cash by 15 March 2000.   In a decision of 18 January 2000 the Ministry of Education and Culture exercised its right   of pre-emption over an item of cultural interest on behalf of the Spanish Government.   A few days later the applicants informed the authorities that the conditions applicable to   the sale would be the same as those agreed with the private purchasers: payment in   cash on the delivery of the painting, and in the event of deferred payment, the sum   would be revised in accordance with the retail price index, with statutory interest also   added.   The painting was delivered to the State on 17 February 2000.   The applicants reiterated their request through administrative channels in February, April   and May 2000. Not having received an answer they lodged an application for judicial   review, claiming payment of the sale price.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   While their application was pending, the authorities paid the price in two instalments,   namely a first instalment of about 15 million euros on 30 January 2001 and a second of   about 9 million euros on 11 July 2001.   On 11 October 2001 the Audiencia Nacional dismissed the applicants’ claims on the   ground that the National Historic Heritage Act authorised the authorities to spread   payments for items of cultural interest acquired through the exercise of their right of   pre-emption over two accounting periods. In a judgment of 21 November 2006 the   Supreme Court upheld that decision. It found that the authorities had made the   payments within the statutory time-limit of two accounting periods, without any interest   being due. It further observed that the Constitutional Court had on a number of   occasions found the National Historic Heritage Act to be compliant with the Constitution.   The painting is currently on display in the Prado National Museum, Madrid, which houses   Spain’s greatest art collection.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Ruspoli Morenes brothers complained of the   conditions in which their painting was purchased by Spain. In particular, they complained   of delays in the payment and submitted that the final price should have been revised   accordingly.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 July 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President,   Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia),   Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands),   Ineta Ziemele (Latvia),   Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova),   Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), Judges,   Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz (Spain), ad hoc Judge,   and also Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   In exercising its right of pre-emption when the painting “La Condesa de Chinchón” was   up for sale, the Spanish Government had “controlled the use” of the work within the   meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Such interference was   compliant with that Article if it was provided for by law and pursued a legitimate aim and   if a fair balance was struck between the requirements of the general interest and the   fundamental rights of the individuals affected.   The Court first noted that the right of pre-emption as exercised in today’s case was   provided for by the National Historic Heritage Act, whose provisions were accessible,   precise and foreseeable.   The Court then emphasised that control of the art market had an interest for the State’s   heritage and was a legitimate aim in the context of protecting a country’s cultural and   artistic heritage.   It remained for the Court to examine the conditions in which the right of pre-emption   had been exercised in the case of the sale of the applicants’ painting. It began by   reiterating that States had a very broad margin of appreciation in controlling the use of   property declared as being of cultural interest or listed among the country’s historical   heritage. One of the main effects of such restrictions was, in the case of the sale of a   work such as “La Condesa de Chinchón” , to oblige the vendor to notify the authorities of   his intention to sell the painting so that they could exercise their right of pre-emption.   Once the authorities had expressed their interest in the property, the transaction had to   take place in accordance with the applicable rules in such matters, and the vendor could   not fix the conditions of sale unilaterally. Those restrictions could be explained by the   authorities’ concern to centralise, as far as possible, the conservation and display of   works of art, as the preferential acquisition by the State of works of art was for the   benefit of a larger proportion of the general public. The general interest of the   community was thus favoured. That being said, it was necessary in any event to   determine whether the pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants constituted a   disproportionate burden. The Court found, on that point, that the applicants had received   the full amount of the painting’s sale price, which had been paid before the end of the   time-limit of two accounting periods provided for under the National Historic Heritage   Act. That Act did not provide for any revision of the price in the event of deferred   payment. The applicants could not therefore reasonably expect such revision.   The Court accordingly found that the applicants had not had to bear a disproportionate   or excessive burden and that there had thus been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3