Analysis of the role and powers of the new CIVS

On 5 January, a decree No. 2024-11 amended the CIVS (Commission pour l'indemnisation des victimes de spoliations) pursuant to the Loi n°2023-650 relative à la restitution des biens culturels ayant fait l’objet de spoliations dans le contexte des persécutions antisémites perpétrées entre 1933 et 1945.

While Law No. 2023-650 of 22 July, 2023 was adopted with considerable publicity and unanimously by the Assemblée Nationale and the Sénat, the 5 January decree  went completely unnoticed. It nonetheless provides an opportunity to take stock of the evolution of the CIVS since its creation in 1999, within a very specific historical context whose contours must be recalled.

On 14 June, 1940, the Germans entered Paris. The French army capitulated and the armistice was signed between France and Germany as early as 23 June, 1940, marking the beginning of a policy of antisemitic persecutions of unprecedented violence, one facet of which was the systematic spoliation of Jewish property, both by the occupying authorities and by the Vichy government, which was keen to keep that property on French territory.

In view of the scale of these abuses, the Allied Powers signed in London, on 5 January 1943, a solemn declaration by which they undertook to combat the expropriations carried out, in particular by establishing the principle that acts of disposition carried out by the enemy or under its control were null and void.

That declaration was taken up as early as 12 November, 1943 by the Comité Français de Libération Nationale, which incorporated it into an ordinance published in the Official Journal of the French Resistance.

After the war, responsibility for organising the restitution of spoliated property was entrusted to the Office des Biens et Intérêts Privés (OBIP) and, for cultural property, to the Commission de Récupération Artistique (CRA), which relied in particular on the essential work carried out during the war by Rose Valland^[1].

The CRA’s work nevertheless came to an end as early as 31 December, 1949, at a time when nearly 16,000 works had been recovered but could not be returned for lack of identification of their lawful owners. Among those works, 2,000 were selected as being of particular interest and placed in the custody of the national museums under the designation “Musées Nationaux Récupération” (MNR).

In parallel, Ordinance No. 45-770 of 21 April, 1945, implementing for a second time the Ordinance of 12 November, 1943, allowed "par une procédure aussi rapide et peu coûteuse que possible, aux propriétaires dépossédés de rentrer légalement en possession de leurs biens, droits ou intérêts, par application du principe de la nullité des actes de transfert" (by a procedure as swift and inexpensive as possible, dispossessed owners to regain lawful possession of their property, rights or interests, through application of the principle of nullity of acts of transfer) carried out either by the Vichy government or by the enemy, on its orders or under its influence.

From the 1960s onwards, the issue of spoliations and restitutions fell into oblivion for more than thirty years, re-emerging in the 1990s following several events.

In 1995, an important investigative inquiry conducted by journalist Hector Feliciano and published in a book, Le Musée disparu[2] alerted the general public to the existence and scale of these spoliations.

In July 1995, the President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, recognised for the first time France’s responsibility for the persecutions, deportation and extermination of the Jews of France during the Second World War, on the occasion of the 53rd anniversary of the Vel’ d’Hiv’ roundup.

Following that statement, the Mission Mattéoli, established on 25 March 1997, was tasked with an inquiry aimed at revealing the extent of spoliations of movable and immovable property during the Second World War.

The Mission’s report, which documented approximately 80,000 bank spoliations, the aryanisation of 50,000 businesses, the looting of 40,000 apartments, and the spoliation of 100,000 works of art, recommended the establishment of a body to examine individual claims submitted by victims of spoliations and to provide guidance on the redress measures available.

On 3 December 1998, 44 states meeting in Washington adopted a set of principles applicable to spoliated works, encouraging the identification of such works and the search for a “just and fair” solution between their possessors and their lawful owners.

Finally, in 1998, the first claim based on the Ordinance No. 45-770 of 21 April 1945 since the 1960s was brought before the tribunal judiciaire de Paris, opposing the heirs of collector Federico Gentili di Giuseppe to the Musée du Louvre.

It was in that context, and in implementation of the recommendations of the Mission Mattéoli, that the CIVS was created by Decree No. 99-778 of 10 September 1999, before the 5 January decree amended its name and responsibilities.

I. The contributions of the new decree

The 5 January 2024 decree introduces a number of changes in the operation of the CIVS. It shortens the term of office of the Rapporteur General and the rapporteurs appointed to the Commission from five to three years^[3]. These rapporteurs are selected by the Minister of Justice from among serving or honorary judges of the judicial order and members of the administrative courts.

For each file, the Rapporteur General appoints the rapporteur responsible for examining the claim, who sets out reasoned proposals taking into account not only compensation already paid but also restitutions already carried out. The rapporteur reports on their work to the Rapporteur General^[4].

While the CIVS remains broadly what it was prior to 5 January 2024, the principal contribution of the new decree lies above all in its implementation of the Loi No. 2023-650 of 22 July 2023 relative à la restitution des biens culturels ayant fait l’objet de spoliations dans le contexte des persécutions antisémites (1), which establishes a differentiated regime for the CIVS’s examination of claims relating to cultural property, treated differently depending on their status (2).

1. Implementation of the new regime established by Law No. 2023-650 of 22 July 2023

The 5 January 2024 decree was adopted pursuant to Articles L. 115-3, L. 115-4 and L. 451-10-1 of the Code du Patrimoine, as amended by the Loi No. 2023-650 relative à la restitution des biens culturels ayant fait l’objet de spoliations dans le contexte des persécutions antisémites perpétrées entre 1933 et 1945.

The CIVS, whose exact name becomes “Commission pour la restitution des biens et l’indemnisation des victimes de spoliations antisémites” thus adapts to the new regime established by the Law of 22 July 2023, which now allows ”la personne publique” (public authority) following a simple ”avis d’une commission administrative, placée auprès du Premier ministre, compétente en matière de réparation des préjudices consécutifs aux spoliations de biens intervenues du fait des persécutions antisémites" (an opinion from an administrative commission, placed under the Prime Minister, competent to provide redress for harm resulting from spoliations of property carried out as a result of antisemitic persecutions)^[5], to return spoliated property incorporated into the State’s public domain.

That regime is described and perceived as a derogation from the principle of inalienability applicable to public-domain property^[6]. Prior to the adoption of that text, victims of spoliations or their successors in title seeking the restitution of a spoliated work incorporated into the national collections were systematically met with the objection of inalienability.

Thus, the restitution and “handover”, in February 2022, of fifteen works incorporated into the national collections was made possible only by the adoption, on 21 February 2022, of Law No. 2022-218. That law enabled, for the first time since the immediate post-war period, the removal of works belonging to the public domain and their restitution or “handover” to the successors in title of their lawful owners, the successors in title of Nora Stiasny, Armand Isaac Dorville, Georges Bernheim and David Cender, victims of spoliations.

Under Law of 22 July 2023 and the 5 January 2024 decree, such recourse to legislation will no longer be necessary, which is why the notion of “restitution” now occupies a prominent place among the CIVS’s missions, described in general terms in Article 2.I, paragraph 3, as follows: ”Elle émet, dans les conditions prévues par le présent décret, un avis sur l’existence d’une spoliation et les circonstances dans lesquelles elle est intervenue, ainsi que, le cas échéant, sur la détermination des personnes susceptibles d’être regardées comme ayants droit de la victime. Cet avis porte également sur les mesures de réparation, de restitution ou d’indemnisation appropriées." (Under the conditions provided for in this decree, it issues an opinion on the existence of a plunder and the circumstances in which it occurred, as well as, where appropriate, on the determination of the persons likely to be regarded as beneficiaries of the victim. This opinion also covers appropriate redress, restitution or compensation measures).

2. Differentiated treatment depending on the status of the cultural property concerned

Decree No. 99-778 of 10 September 1999, amended by Decree No. 2018-829 of 1 October, 2018, made no distinction between categories of cultural property and broadly tasked the CIVS with "proposer au Premier ministre, de sa propre initiative ou à la demande de toute personne concernée, toute mesure nécessaire de restitution ou, à défaut, d’indemnisation, en cas de spoliations de biens culturels intervenues du fait de législations antisémites en vigueur pendant l’Occupation, notamment lorsque ces biens ont été intégrés dans les collections publiques ou récupérés par la France après la Seconde Guerre mondiale et confiés depuis lors à la garde des musées nationaux" (propose to the Prime Minister, on his own initiative or at the request of any person concerned, any necessary measure of return or, failing that, compensation, in the event of despoliation of cultural property occurring as a result of antisemitic legislation in force during the Occupation, in particular when these objects were integrated into public collections or recovered by France after the Second World War and have since been placed in the custody of national museums )^[7].

The main contribution of the 5 January 2024 decree is to clarify the scope of the CIVS’s mission by taking into account the specificities of each type of cultural property, addressed successively in Article 17.

Cultural property is thus divided into three categories:

• Cultural property forming part either of the movable public domain of the public entity^[8] or of the collections of musées de France belonging to non-profit legal persons governed by private law, acquired by gift or bequest or with the assistance of the State or a local authority (Article 17, 2°);
• Cultural property recovered, inventoried and placed on deposit pursuant to the Decree of 30 September 1949, namely MNR works (Article 17, 3°);
• Other cultural property, meaning in most cases property held in private hands (Article 17, 1°).

Under the new decree, when seized of a request concerning a cultural object, the CIVS must first, in all cases, “émettre un avis sur l’existence d’une spoliation et les circonstances dans lesquelles elle est intervenue”.

The distinction now operates at the stage of the remedies proposed by the CIVS.

In the first case, where the object is in public or assimilated collections, the Commission issues an opinion “aux fins de restitution [du bien] à son propriétaire ou à ses ayants droit”. It follows that once the CIVS finds that a spoliation occurred, it must recommend restitution of the object, and cannot propose compensation in lieu of restitution.

That solution is logical insofar as works in public collections are identified and inventoried and, accordingly, their return should never be impossible. By contrast, the 1999 decree contemplated compensation only "à défaut" (failing) of being able to return the spoliated property.

It should, however, be noted that pursuant to Article R. 115-8 of the Code du patrimoine, after receipt of the CIVS’s opinion, the public entity may decide to return the spoliated property or agree, “en accord avec le propriétaire ou ses ayants droit, d’autres modalités de réparation conformément au troisième alinéa de l’article L. 115-2” (in agreement with the owner or the owner’s successors in title, other forms of redress in accordance with the third paragraph of Article L. 115-2). That flexibility, which allows room for a “fair and equitable” solution freely negotiated between the parties, should be welcomed.

The CIVS opinion concerning such public-domain property must be transmitted to the owner, and the CIVS must inform the Prime Minister and, where appropriate, the Minister responsible for Culture (Article 21).

In the second case, that of MNR works, the Commission rules “en vue de leur restitution ou, à défaut, de toute mesure de réparation appropriée” (with a view to their restitution or, failing that, any appropriate measure of redress).

That opinion must be transmitted to the Prime Minister, the Minister responsible for Culture, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Article 21). Communication of the opinion to the owner is not expressly provided for, but it may be assumed that this situation is covered by Article 12, which requires the opinion to be communicated to applicants and identified successors in title.

As regards public-domain or assimilated cultural property and MNR works, the final notable contribution of the decree concerns the possibility for the CIVS to rule on all spoliations occurring between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945, on French territory as well as in territories under Nazi German control.

Finally, as regards other cultural property, meaning cultural property held in private hands, the Commission rules solely “en vue de la réparation des préjudices consécutifs à cette spoliation” (for the purposes of redressing the harm resulting from that spoliation).

It follows, in that specific case, that the CIVS should not be able to recommend restitution of the works, which would be consistent given that the State cannot decide to restitute a work that is not in its possession.

The wording of the new decree appears to exclude any return to the previous approach in the future.

II. Unclear drafting, and uneven integration into the pre-existing legal framework

While the clarification of the CIVS’s missions in relation to cultural property is welcome, the drafting of the 5 January 2024 decree lacks clarity.

It is regrettable that, among the numerous instruments cited in that decree, no reference is made to the London Declaration of 5 January 1943, the eighty-first anniversary of which it marks, or to Ordinance No. 45-770 of 21 April 1945, which remains the only legal instrument allowing judicial restitution of spoliated property (1).

Moreover, the use of distinct reference periods depending on the category of property is unlikely to facilitate victims’ and successors’ understanding of the text, and creates confusion as to the scope of their rights (2).

1. The absence of any reference to Ordinance No. 45-770 of 21 April 1945

Neither the framework law on the restitution of spoliated cultural property nor the 5 January 2024 decree refers, in its recitals, to Ordinance No. 45-770 of 21 April 1945, whose importance is nonetheless acknowledged in the impact assessment preceding the framework law.

That ordinance was also not taken into account in 1999, when the CIVS was created.

The omission might have been explained at the time by the recent rediscovery of the issue after nearly forty years of neglect, but it is all the less justified today, particularly given that, during the parliamentary debates preceding the adoption of Law No. 2023-650 of 22 July 2023, Ms. Rima Abdul Malak, then Minister of Culture, welcomed the fact that ”Grâce au travail des chercheurs et des historiens, grâce à nos archives et aux enquêtes menées par les familles elles-mêmes, notre connaissance de cette période est de plus en plus importante et précise ” (Thanks to the work of researchers and historians, thanks to our archives and to investigations carried out by families themselves, our knowledge of this period is increasingly extensive and accurate).

If the CIVS, by virtue of its status as an administrative commission, has declared itself incompetent to apply the provisions of Ordinance No. 45-770 of 21 April 1945 and to rule that an act of disposition is null and void^[9], reference to that ordinance remains fundamental, even from a purely symbolic perspective.

Moreover, since the 1945 ordinance sets out in detail the situations in which spoliation must be recognised, the practical interest of referring to it is also evident^[10].

It is therefore regrettable that the decree does not cite the need, identified in the 1945 ordinance, to enable spoliated persons, “par une procédure aussi rapide et peu coûteuse que possible” (by a procedure as rapid and inexpensive as possible), “de rentrer légalement en possession de leurs biens, droits ou intérêts” (to lawfully regain possession of their property, rights or interests). That reminder would not be superfluous in view of the time limits applicants frequently face, as Articles R. 511-3 et seq. of the Code du Patrimoine impose compliance with certain deadlines only for requests relating to cultural property incorporated into public collections.

It is legitimate, therefore, to question that omission, which may be explained by the fact that the 1945 ordinance, in line with the London Declaration and the Ordinance of 12 November 1943, establishes as a fundamental principle the automatic nullity of acts of spoliation carried out during the Occupation.

Under the ordinance, all successive purchasers of spoliated property must be regarded as acting in bad faith vis-à-vis the victim of spoliation.

A strict application of that text would therefore lead to the conclusion that objects currently held in public collections could never, in reality, have been validly incorporated into the State’s public domain.

While, on that point, the impact assessment for the restitution bill^[11] considered that only a judicial decision finding spoliation, and thus the nullity of the act of disposition, can allow an object to be removed from public collections without resorting to a deaccessioning law, that assessment appears difficult to reconcile with the spirit of Ordinance No. 45-770 of 21 April 1945, which establishes nullity “as of right”, and with the London Declaration of 5 January 1943, which states:

”La déclaration s’applique à l’ensemble de la France, aussi bien à la zone qui a été occupée dès l’armistice qu’à l’ancienne zone non occupée. Elle vise aussi bien les actes de dépossession dont les Allemands se sont rendus coupables que ceux opérés par le Gouvernement de Vichy. Elle permet de déclarer nuls non seulement les actes qui ont, directement ou indirectement, profité à l’Allemagne ou à ses complices, mais tous ceux qui ont été accomplis sous leur pression ou inspiration.

Elle s’applique à toutes les espèces de spoliation, depuis la saisie brutale et sans compensation de biens, droits et intérêts de toute nature jusqu’aux transactions en apparence volontaires, auxquelles ne manque aucune des formes légales. Il est impossible de prévoir aujourd’hui les différents modes d’application de la présente déclaration, mais dès maintenant les Gouvernements alliés parties à la déclaration et le Comité national français affirment leur solidarité et s’engagent à collaborer pour rechercher les actes de spoliation et les priver de tout effet. ”

(The declaration applies to the whole of France, both to the zone occupied since the armistice and to the former unoccupied zone. It covers both acts of dispossession committed by the Germans and those carried out by the Vichy Government. It makes it possible to declare void not only acts that directly or indirectly benefited Germany or its accomplices, but all acts carried out under their pressure or inspiration.

It applies to all forms of spoliation, from the brutal, uncompensated seizure of property, rights and interests of any kind to apparently voluntary transactions in which none of the legal forms are missing. It is impossible today to foresee the various ways in which this declaration will be implemented, but from now on the Allied Governments party to the declaration and the French National Committee affirm their solidarity and undertake to cooperate in order to identify acts of spoliation and deprive them of any effect).

In any event, it must be noted that both the Restitution Law and the 5 January 2024 decree adopt formulations that do not integrate seamlessly with the framework established by Ordinance No. 45-770 of 21 April 1945, which raises concerns as to how these regimes will operate in practice, given that an application before the CIVS is often a prerequisite to proceedings before the civil courts seeking restitution of an identified asset held in private hands.

Mme Béatrice Gosselin, Senator and rapporteur, emphasised during the examination of the bill by the joint committee that there was “un intérêt à créer une continuité entre le présent projet de loi et cette ordonnance [du 21 avril 1945], dans la mesure où c’est sur son fondement qu’un juge peut aujourd’hui annuler l’entrée dans les collections publiques d’un bien culturel et ordonner sa restitution. Cela permet donc de lier les deux voies de restitution possibles” (an interest in creating continuity between this bill and that Ordinance [of 21 April 1945], insofar as it is on that basis that a judge may now annul the entry of a cultural object into public collections and order its restitution. This therefore makes it possible to connect the two possible avenues of restitution).

2. The issue of the relevant periods of spoliation

The Law of 22 July 2023 and the Decree of 5 January 2024 refer to rather obscure time frames, whose interaction with the periods provided for by the Ordinance of 21 April 1945 appears problematic.

The Ordinance of 21 April 1945 applies to all "actes de disposition accomplis en conséquence de mesures de séquestre, d’administration provisoire, de gestion, de liquidation, de confiscation ou de toutes autres mesures exorbitantes du droit commun en vigueur au 16 juin 1940 et accomplis, soit en vertu des prétendus lois, décrets et arrêtés, règlements ou décisions de l’autorité de fait se disant gouvernement de l’Etat français, soit par l’ennemi, sur son ordre ou sous son inspiration" (acts of disposition carried out as a result of sequestration, provisional administration, management, liquidation, confiscation or other measures derogating from ordinary law, in force on 16 June 1940, and carried out either under the purported laws, decrees, orders, regulations or decisions of the de facto authority claiming to be the government of the French State, or by the enemy, on its orders or under its inspiration).

Accordingly, the Ordinance of 21 April 1945 applies from 16 June 1940, the date of Paul Reynaud’s resignation in favour of Philippe Pétain, tasked with forming a new government, to all spoliations carried out under norms issued by the Vichy government or by the enemy.

The Decree of 10 September 1999 referred to spoliations de biens intervenues du fait des législations antisémites prises, pendant l’Occupation, tant par l’occupant que par les autorités de Vichy (spoliations of property resulting from antisemitic legislation adopted during the Occupation both by the occupier and by the Vichy authorities), which broadly corresponded to the same period.

For MNR works and property included in the national collections and equivalent collections, the 2024 Decree now refers to "les biens culturels susceptibles d’avoir été spoliés entre le 30 janvier 1933 et le 8 mai 1945" (cultural property liable to have been spoliated between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945). This extended period raises no difficulty, as it includes the period addressed by the 1945 Ordinance.

However, for other cultural property, namely property in private hands, the Decree of 5 January refers to "les biens culturels susceptibles d’avoir été spoliés du fait des persécutions antisémites perpétrées tant par l’Etat français entre le 10 juillet 1940 et le 24 août 1944 que par l’occupant en vue de la réparation des préjudices consécutifs à cette spoliation". (cultural property liable to have been spoliated as a result of antisemitic persecutions perpetrated both by the French State between 10 July 1940 and 24 August 1944 and by the occupier, with a view to redress for the harm resulting from that spoliation).

The same period is adopted for spoliations concerning all other categories of property that are not cultural property.

The definition of that period is unclear and seems to require a distinction depending on whether property was spoliated as a result of antisemitic persecution perpetrated by the Vichy regime, understood as the regime in power between 10 July 1940, corresponding to the vote granting full powers to Philippe Pétain, and 24 August 1944, the date of the last official journal of the Vichy regime, or as a result of antisemitic persecution perpetrated by the occupier, given that the Occupation may be dated from the armistice signed on 22 June 1940.

The first observation prompted by this new period is that it would have been simpler and far clearer to retain the wording of the 1999 Decree, namely "during the Occupation".

Moreover, in the event of successive proceedings before the CIVS and a court called upon to rule under the Ordinance of 21 April 1945, the CIVS could conclude that no spoliation occurred because the act of disposition took place before 22 June 1940 or before 10 July 1940, whereas the court seized of the merits would be required to recognise spoliation from 16 June 1940.

Finally, it is not clear why the extended period provided for MNR works and for property included in public collections or equivalent collections was not also applied to other cultural property.

In any event, this situation does not help dispel the opacity surrounding the CIVS, nor does it make the mechanisms in place easier for the general public to understand.

III. Ultimately minor changes and insufficient consideration of past experience

As the CIVS marks twenty five years of existence, the limited positive advances introduced by the Decree (1) do not substantially alter its functioning, except as regards cultural property, and reveal an inability to synthesise the experience acquired and to resolve identified problems (2).

1. A few good ideas

First, it should be noted that the Law of 22 July 2023 provided an opportunity, for the first time, to mention the CIVS in legislation rather than only in regulatory texts, as had been the case since its creation in 1999. As Mr. Marc Laménie emphasised in a report commissioned by the Finance Committee and delivered in June 2018, it is important that the CIVS not be solely subject to political will. Mentioning the CIVS in legislation ensures greater stability and durability, even though it remains a commission attached to the Prime Minister’s services..

Among the limited changes introduced by the new Decree, the differentiated treatment of cultural property according to its status, aside from the issue of time limits, gives some reason to expect concrete and positive developments in the CIVS’s approach.

In a recent matter, the CIVS recognised the spoliation suffered by the applicants’ ancestor but did not recommend compensation on the ground that the work had been listed in a catalogue raisonné as forming part of a « collection particulière » ("private collection"). The CIVS considered that the current possessors of the work had to be identified with a view to restitution.

Such a solution no longer appears able to prevail under the new Decree, which does not state that the CIVS may recommend restitution of a work except where it is held in public collections or is an MNR work.

If that interpretation is correct, the evolution should be welcomed, since the CIVS’s prior approach led to deadlock situations. The State is not in a position to compel private owners to restitute a work even where the CIVS has recognised spoliation. Victims of spoliation may therefore be denied any compensation even though restitution is not, in practice, possible, a situation that is all the less justified because it is standard practice before the CIVS to obtain from applicants a formal undertaking to reimburse compensation received in the event of subsequent restitution.

Similarly, treating MNR works as a separate category could lead to useful reflections on their status, taking account of their specific features, since experience has shown that they could sometimes be property that was not spoliated^[12]. Research carried out in the context of claims brought before the CIVS will likely enrich knowledge of these roughly 2,000 works entrusted to the custody of the national museums.

The extension, under the 2023 framework law, of the possibilities of restitution for cultural property incorporated into the national collections or equivalent collections when spoliated outside France but in territories controlled by Nazi Germany also brings to an end - for works incorporated into public collections only -, an uncertainty that had proven prejudicial.

It should also be noted that the Decree gives greater prominence to applicants. They may now be heard systematically, provided they request it, rather than only during collegial sessions (Article 8). They also benefit from a period of two months rather than one month to request a review of their file by the collegial formation after receiving the first opinion issued by the President alone (Article 11).

Article 16 of the Decree also requires that the annual activity reports drawn up by the Commission and submitted to the Prime Minister now be made public. In practice, this provision merely reflects an already established situation, since all CIVS activity reports since 2001 are available on its website, but the clarification suggests an intention to move towards greater transparency, which can only be positive.

2.... but a missed opportunity to learn from 25 years of practice

The contributions of the Decree of 5 January do not, unfortunately, offset the many areas in which no lessons appear to have been drawn from twenty five years of CIVS practice.

In particular, the Decree does not dispel the CIVS’s reputation for opacity, which has been criticised for many years.

Pursuant to the Law of 22 July 2023, which requires the Commission’s opinions to be made public, Article 22 of the Decree creates Article R.115 9 of the Heritage Code, under which "les avis de la commission pris en application des dispositions de la présente section sont publiés sur son site internet, dans un délai d’un mois à compter de l’intervention de la décision prise par la personne publique en application de l’article R.115 7" (opinions of the Commission issued under this section are published on its website within one month from the decision taken by the public authority pursuant to Article R.115 7), namely decisions concerning cultural property in public collections.

Article 23 creates Article R.451 25 1, which imposes the same obligation, but without any time limit, for opinions concerning property in the collections of the musées de France belonging to not for profit private law legal persons, acquired by donations and bequests or with the support of the State or a local authority.

This publication obligation therefore concerns only CIVS opinions relating to the restitution of cultural property incorporated into public collections or equivalent collections. No general provision requires the CIVS to systematically publish its opinions - many of which do not concern cultural property at all.

For the time being, only nine recommendations, all after July 2020, have been published on the CIVS website. The Decree of 5 January 2024 will therefore have remedied this regrettable situation only very partially. That situation prevents applicants and the general public from having a clear view of the CIVS’s approach.

Other commissions worldwide are, however, more transparent and publish their decisions. This is the case, in particular, for the Spoliation Advisory Panel in the United Kingdom, the Kunstrückgabebeirat in Austria, and the Adviescommissie Restitutieverzoeken Cultuurgoederen en Tweede Wereldoorlog in the Netherlands.

Transparency, which only a much broader publication of CIVS recommendations would provide, is fundamental to the coherence and oversight of its action, which is sometimes exposed to a degree of arbitrariness.

CIVS opinions also regularly reveal inconsistencies, in particular as regards the treatment of matrimonial property regimes and the rules governing succession. In several decisions, the CIVS has limited standing to act on behalf of the spoliated person to heirs alone, excluding universal legatees. Nothing appears to justify this, since the 1999 Decree, which has not been amended on this point, allows all « ayants droit » (successors in title) of spoliated persons to file an application.

This Decree, which in the end introduces very few changes other than those resulting from the adoption of the Law of 22 July 2023, thus represents a missed opportunity to take into account the lessons of the CIVS’s history, at a time when other European countries are establishing commissions for the first time, a process in which France could have served as a model.