Immunity from Seizure of Artworks on Loan: Italy Aligns with International Standards

With Law No. 134 of 16 July 2026 (published in the Official Gazette No. 173 of 28 July 2026), Italy fills a regulatory gap that has long been highlighted by museum-sector professionals. The new law introduced a comprehensive framework governing immunity from seizure for foreign artworks and other cultural properties temporarily loaned for exhibitions in Italy. The reform is likely to have an impact well beyond the procedural sphere, as it strengthens Italy’s international credibility as a venue for major exhibitions and promotes cultural diplomacy through greater legal certainty.

Paul Gauguin, The King’s Wife (Te arii vahine), 1896. Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow. Image via Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain. One of 54 works from the Pushkin Museum seized in Switzerland in 2005 at the request of a creditor of the Russian Federation while returning from an exhibition.

Today, organizing a major international exhibition means persuading foreign museums, foundations, and States to entrust works of inestimable value on a temporary basis. Alongside insurance guarantees and security measures, legal protection is also of decisive importance: no lender is willing to run the risk that a painting sent for an exhibition might become entangled in legal proceedings in the host country.

It is precisely this concern that the new law has addressed.

Article 1 provides that, subject to international conventions and European Union law, foreign cultural property belonging to foreign States or to institutions of significant cultural or scientific interest shall not be subject to judicial seizure in civil proceedings concerning ownership or possession, provided that the Ministry of Culture has previously issued an immunity guarantee. The protection applies exclusively for the period during which the artwork remains in Italy.

foreign cultural property belonging to foreign States or to institutions of significant cultural or scientific interest shall not be subject to judicial seizure in civil proceedings concerning ownership or possession, provided that the Ministry of Culture has previously issued an immunity guarantee.

The procedure for issuing the immunity guarantee will be established by a decree of the Minister of Culture, in consultation with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, to be adopted within sixty days from the date on which the law enters into force (12 August 2026).

This is not an absolute immunity. The law expressly limits its scope to seizures in civil disputes concerning ownership and possession, whilst leaving unaffected obligations arising under international law, European law, and any criminal proceedings. The aim is not to place artworks beyond the reach of justice, but rather to prevent loans intended exclusively for cultural purposes from being jeopardized by interim measures that could discourage international exchanges.

Furthermore, the immunity may be granted to private lending institutions, but not to individuals.

Finally, the new law does not protect foreign loans for which immunity from seizure may be granted from the risk of being classified as cultural properties under Italian heritage law.

Of particular interest is also the decision to make the granting of the guarantee subject to the principle of reciprocity. The Ministry of Culture may grant immunity only in respect of States or institutions belonging to legal systems that provide equivalent protection for Italian cultural property loaned abroad. The procedure will be governed by a ministerial decree adopted in consultation with the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs, confirming the cross-cutting nature of the mechanism, at the intersection of procedural law, international cooperation, and cultural policy.

With this reform, Italy is bringing its legislation into line with an established practice among leading Western democracies.

France

France has long provided a system of protection for works temporarily imported for exhibitions organized by recognized cultural institutions, under the Code du patrimoine.

Article 61 of Law No. 94-679 of 8 August 1994 provides that cultural objects lent by a foreign State, foreign public authority or foreign cultural institution for public exhibition in France are unseizable (insaisissables) for the duration of the loan. 

cultural objects lent by a foreign State, foreign public authority or foreign cultural institution for public exhibition in France are unseizable (insaisissables) for the duration of the loan. 

The protection is not automatic for every foreign loan. For each exhibition, a joint order (arrêté) of the Minister of Culture and the Minister for Foreign Affairs must identify the protected objects, specify the duration of the loan and designate the exhibition organisers.

The French model is therefore essentially a statutory, exhibition-specific safe-harbour system: once the relevant order has been issued, the designated works cannot be seized in France during the specified loan period.

However, unlike the new Italian law limiting the immunity from seizure to civil proceedings, French law does not explicitly include (or exclude) the possibility to seize a cultural object within a criminal proceeding.

The regime is particularly significant for international museum cooperation because it gives foreign lenders advance legal certainty against seizure claims. France has also extended immunity in a separate context to cultural objects temporarily deposited in France for protection from armed conflict or catastrophe under Article L.111-11 of the Code du patrimoine. 

UK

The United Kingdom, through the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, introduced one of the most sophisticated models, making immunity subject to rigorous checks concerning the lawful provenance of artworks (due diligence) and transparency regarding information relating to loans.

The UK regime is principally contained in Part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, as amended by the Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Act 2022. It protects qualifying cultural objects borrowed from abroad for temporary public exhibition in an approved UK museum or gallery. The object must normally be kept outside the UK, not be owned by a UK resident, be lawfully imported, and be brought in for temporary public display. The borrowing institution must also have published “specified information” (provenance) about the object. 

The UK model is therefore an institution-based and publication-based regime, rather than a system requiring an individual ministerial order for each exhibition or object, as in France. Once the statutory conditions are satisfied, the object is protected against seizure or forfeiture pursuant to a court order. The ordinary period of protection is 12 months from the date the object enters the UK. Since 2022, approved museums and galleries in England and Scotland can, in appropriate circumstances, obtain an additional period of up to three months. 

The UK statutory formulation is broader than simply protecting against civil attachment: it refers to protection from “seizure or forfeiture” under a court order. However, the protection is not absolute: the legislation contains an exception where the court is required to make the order pursuant to an international treaty. Thus, for comparative purposes, the UK system can be described as a strong statutory safe harbour against court-ordered seizure and forfeiture, including in circumstances where seizure powers might otherwise arise, subject to narrowly defined statutory exceptions.

Germany

Germany has a specific statutory regime for immunity from seizure of cultural objects on international loan, principally under §§ 73–75 of the Kulturgutschutzgesetz (KGSG), the Act on the Protection of Cultural Property. The central mechanism is the “legally binding commitment to return” (rechtsverbindliche Rückgabezusage). It applies to cultural objects temporarily lent from abroad to a German institution for a public exhibition, other public presentation (including restoration for that purpose), or scientific research. 

The commitment must be obtained by the German borrowing institution from the competent Land authority before or in connection with the loan. Once granted, it provides unusually broad protection: for the period covered by the commitment, third-party claims for restitution, attachment, arrest and confiscation, as well as official enforcement measures and seizures (Sicherstellungen/Beschlagnahmen) under the KGSG or other statutory provisions, are inadmissible. The commitment is immediately enforceable and cannot be withdrawn, revoked or cancelled during the relevant period. 

The protection is time-limited but potentially longer than in the UK. A commitment can cover a loan period of up to two years, with extensions possible in specified circumstances and, exceptionally, up to a maximum total period of four years.

The statutory language expressly extends the protection to “seizures” based on KGSG and “other statutory provisions”, including seizures by criminal courts. The German official guidance therefore describes the mechanism as providing comprehensive protection against proceedings and enforcement measures affecting the object during its stay in Germany. 

Henri Matisse, La Danse, 1910. The State Hermitage Museum. Originally part of Sergei Shchukin’s collection, the painting was subject to an attempted seizure by his heirs during an exhibition in Rome in 2000, following its nationalisation by the Soviet State.Image: Gandalf’s Gallery / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0.

US

The U.S. regime is principally based on 22 U.S.C. § 2459, enacted in 1965 and commonly referred to as the Immunity from Seizure Act. It provides immunity for works of art and other objects of cultural significance that are temporarily imported into the United States pursuant to an agreement with the foreign owner or custodian for exhibition or display. Following amendments in 2021, the provision also expressly covers temporary storage, conservation and scientific research, and loans to qualifying cultural, educational or religious institutions. 

The protection is conditional and requires prior governmental action. Before the object enters the United States, the Department of State must determine both that the object is of cultural significance and that its temporary presence in the United States is in the national interest; the determination must then be published in the Federal Register. Once these requirements are satisfied, no U.S. federal or state court may issue or enforce judicial process, or enter a judgement, decree or order, having the purpose or effect of depriving the borrowing institution—or the carrier transporting the object—of custody or control. 

A particularly important feature is therefore that the U.S. regime operates as a federal statutory safe harbour against judicial seizure, rather than merely as a defence available in litigation after a claim has been brought. It applies across federal and state courts, and the U.S. Attorney for the relevant judicial district has a statutory right to intervene if judicial process threatening the protected object is sought. The statute, however, does not immunise the object from every possible governmental action: § 2459 expressly preserves judicial actions necessary to enforce the loan agreement or obligations undertaken by the borrowing institution or the carrier. 

For comparative purposes, the U.S. system is consequently a pre-clearance, federal-registration model: immunity depends on a prior presidential/designee determination and Federal Register publication, rather than on an automatic statutory immunity attaching to every qualifying loan. It is also important to distinguish it from sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA): § 2459 is specifically designed to protect temporarily imported cultural objects from judicial seizure and related process, irrespective of whether the foreign lender itself enjoys sovereign immunity.

It should be noted that a number of states enacted independent anti-seizure statutes operating alongside the federal statute.

For example, New York’s Arts & Cultural Affairs Law § 12.03 is particularly broad. It provides that no attachment, execution, sequestration, replevin, distress or any kind of seizure may be served or levied against any work of fine art while the same is enroute to or from, or while on exhibition or deposited by a nonresident exhibitor at any exhibition held under the auspices or supervision of any museum, college, university or other nonprofit art gallery, institution or organization within any city or county of this state for any cultural, educational, charitable or other purpose not conducted for profit to the exhibitor, nor shall such work of fine art be subject to attachment, seizure, levy or sale, for any cause whatever in the hands of the authorities of such exhibition or otherwise. 

This is conceptually different from § 2459: New York’s protection is a state-law immunity attaching by operation of the statute, rather than depending on a specific Presidential/State Department determination for each foreign loan.

Conclusion

Compared with these experiences, the Italian approach presents certain distinctive features. On the one hand, it limits immunity to civil proceedings concerning ownership and possession, adopting a more narrowly defined approach than some other systems; on the other, it gives particular weight to the principle of reciprocity as a fundamental criterion of international cultural cooperation.

The adoption of Law No. 134 of 2026 also represents an important cultural policy signal. In recent years, the absence of specific legislation had at times fuelled concerns among foreign lenders, particularly in connection with exhibitions of major international significance. The introduction of a statutory guarantee therefore strengthens the competitiveness of Italy’s museum sector and places it on a more equal footing with countries hosting major exhibitions.

The new law has been criticised on the following grounds: (i) it provides immunity to foreign private institutions lending artworks to Italian museum, but not to individual non-resident lenders; (ii) the immunity does not protect against seizures issued by criminal courts.

As to the first criticism, I agree that the new law could have had a broader reach and the distinction between individuals and private institutions may face a constitutional issue under article 3 of the Italian Constitution (principle of equality): it is unreasonable to provide a different legal regime for an artwork depending on who the owner of that artwork is.

With regard to the second criticism, I believe that it is unrealistic to expect from the Italian legislator an extension of immunity from seizure to measures adopted in criminal proceedings.

The law 22/2022, implementing the Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property of 19 May 2027  (Nicosia Convention) has stiffened criminal sanctions for crimes related to cultural heritage and broadened the scope of criminal law in consideration of the particular nature of the protected interest by introducing new crimes, like the importation of antiquities illegally excavated. In this legal framework, extending immunity to cases where a criminal proceeding is initiated would have been inconsistent with the above provisions.

 

Ultimately, the new framework protects not only the owners of artworks, but also the public interest in the circulation of culture. Enabling a masterpiece to cross borders under conditions of full legal security means promoting exchanges between museums, strengthening international cooperation, and giving the Italian public the opportunity to admire works that, without adequate safeguards, would be unlikely to leave their collections of origin. In this sense, Law No. 134 of 2026 represents an important building block in a more modern cultural policy, in which the protection of cultural heritage is combined with international openness and mutual trust between States.

About the author: 

Giuseppe Calabi, managing partner at CBM & Partners

Blogs are written by Art Lawyers Association members and reflect their personal views. They do not represent the views of the Association