Can the new Russian criminal case against the Allard Pierson succeed?
Russia suspects the Allard Pierson of stealing Ukrainian loan items that Russia is now claiming as its own. The UvA’s cultural heritage institution returned the items to Ukraine, but Russia intends to prosecute the individuals involved in the loans. According to legal expert André Nollkaemper, this is not a trivial criminal case.
The Russian Prosecutor’s Office has opened a criminal case against the Netherlands, Ukraine and the Allard Pierson Museum (AP), after a Russian investigative committee accused the AP and the two countries of stealing a collection of art treasures from Crimea.
The case concerns a collection of artworks that in 2014 had been loaned to the AP by several Ukrainian museums on the (then still Ukrainian) peninsula of Crimea. During the exhibition, however, Crimea was annexed by Russia, creating uncertainty about to whom the artworks should be returned once the exhibition ended. The AP asked the courts to rule on the matter and, after lengthy legal proceedings, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ultimately decided that Ukraine had the right to the collection. In 2023, the objects arrived in Kyiv.
Theft
But Russia is not prepared to accept that outcome so easily. In a statement on Telegram, the Russian investigative committee said it intends to determine exactly which individuals were involved in returning the artworks to Ukraine; in other words, “the theft”, as Russia itself characterises the course of events.
But should the Allard Pierson Museum actually be worried? According to legal scholar and professor of public international law André Nollkaemper, much is still unclear for now, as it remains to be seen which individuals are involved. “The question is: will Russia request the extradition of these individuals? And if so, will the Netherlands actually extradite them? That seems highly unlikely to me, if not impossible.”
Conviction
Nevertheless, this is not an entirely harmless criminal case, Nollkaemper says. “Opening a criminal investigation into people who acted in accordance with the law as established by the highest court is at the very least an unfriendly act. In general, states tend to respect and recognise the legal processes of other states. But the fact that Russia is not doing so now clearly fits within the already severely strained relations.”
He continues: “If it were to lead to a conviction – although that still seems a long way off – the employees of the Allard Pierson involved would need to consider carefully which countries they travel to. Certainly not Russia, but also not states that are friendly with Russia, which might be willing to extradite such individuals.”
