BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//132.216.98.100//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.20.4// BEGIN:VEVENT UID:20260408T091021EDT-3648x0ThkD@132.216.98.100 DTSTAMP:20260408T131021Z DESCRIPTION:The Paul-André Crépeau Centre for Private and Comparative Law is continuing its latest series of Civil Law Workshops under the theme « Les apparences en droit civil »\, with a talk by Silvia Ferreri (bio) (Uni versity of Turin). Abstract The Italian provision corresponding to the F rench “possession vaut titre” (art. 2279 of the French Code Civil) does no t distinguish between stolen or lost goods\, and goods entrusted to a pers on who has failed to keep them in safe custody for the owner (see art. 115 3 Italian civil code). This change occurred in 1942\, when a new code rep laced the previous one\, which was a faithful 19th century reproduction of the French Code Napoleon. There are some explanations for this innovatio n (which places Italy in an isolated position in comparison with neighbour ing countries in Europe): the distinction was not easily enforced in court \, many exceptions applied\, and it was not soundly established in the Rom an tradition. The result is unfortunate: Italy has become a privileged ma rket for stolen goods imported from abroad. Switzerland and Germany still distinguish how the goods left the owner’s possession. There are at least two interesting international cases to mention: French Ministry of Cultur e v. Italian Ministry of Culture and De Contessini\, Cass. 24 November 199 5\, n. 12166 and Casa della cultura ecuadoriana c. Danusso\, Trib. Torino\ , March 23°\, 1982. They reach opposite results as far as the restitution of an illegally imported good is concerned. Why did the distinction exist previously? We have to go back to the Roman rule (nemo dat quod non habet ) and to the competing Germanic rule (Hand wahre Hand): the latter won in the period of the jus commune (prior to the French revolution)\, and passe d into the French codification. But the distinction was never felt strongl y in the Romanistic environment\, and in 1942 Italy broke away from the re st of the European codifications. Unfortunately the requirement of good fa ith on the part of the buyer is presumed (according to a specific rule of the Italian code: art. 1147)\; this puts the burden of proof of the lack o f good faith on the shoulders of the plaintiff\, and it means that sometim es stolen goods cannot be recovered. There are some further rules to be c onsidered that introduce some safeguards for “cultural goods” and provide some opportunity to recover them: Codice dei Beni Culturali (D.Lgs. 42/200 4\, art. 64)\; 1970 UNESCO convention: Convention on the Means of Prohibit ing and Preventing the Illicit Import\, Export and Transfer of Ownership o f Cultural Property  (Paris\, 1970)\; UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Ill egally Exported Cultural Objects\, (Rome\, 24 June 1995)\, in force since 1998 (5 ratifications)\; Council Directive No 93/7/EEC governing the retur n of  cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member S tate\; Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 laying down provisions on the e xport of cultural goods. About the Civil Law Workshops For well over a d ecade now\, the Paul-André Crépeau Centre for Private and Comparative L aw's “Civil Law Workshop” series has been a showcase for new ideas rela ting to aspects of fundamental private law in the civilian tradition. Th is activity was accredited for 1.5 hour of CLE by the Barreau du Québec (n o. 10058265). DTSTART:20121116T173000Z DTEND:20121116T190000Z LOCATION:NCDH 202\, Chancellor Day Hall\, CA\, QC\, Montreal\, H3A 1W9\, 36 44 rue Peel SUMMARY:The Appearance of Ownership: Sale of Another’s Property URL:https://www.mcgill.ca/law/channels/event/appearance-ownership-sale-anot her%E2%80%99s-property-219415 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR