Return claim?. The next question – of crucial importance in this case – is who can rightfully claim the return of cultural objects that are unlawfully retained in the Neth- erlands? On this point, Article 6.7 of the Dutch Heritage Act states that return may be claimed by ‘the State Party from which the property originates or by the party with valid title to such property’, seemingly facilitating return claims by states as well as non-State Parties. This possibility for non-state deprived owners ‘with a valid title’, as laid down in Article 6.7 of the Dutch Heritage Act, arises out of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention – aimed at harmonisation of the principles laid down in the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Whilst the Nether- lands signed but did not ratify the 1995 Convention, the Dutch legislator nevertheless chose to implement some of its principles into Dutch law.47 The Dutch Court, on this point, ruled that, in the event of concurring claims between a state that listed the objects as protected cultural patrimony and a third party, the question of ownership will be suspended and the return claim of the state will have priority.48 The question of title and ownership should be left open and decided upon after their return in the requesting state, in this case Ukraine. For this, the Court invoked Article 1012 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure stating that ‘ownership of the cultural object that is subject to a return request by a State Party will be decided upon after return by the national laws of the state that claimed for its return’.49 Prioritising claims of a sovereign state may well be in line with the UNESCO principles – based as they are on a system of protection in national patrimony laws. However, it raises the question what are the possibilities for deprived owners, not being national states, to claim their artefacts. What is the legal force of cultural rights of parties, other than sovereign states, like individuals or communities? This issue will be touched on below in section 4.
