• 333e.cn/4048 ↓上善尚易↓欢迎关注
  • #二维码.cn立刻有#二维.cn/333e.cn/4048
  • 二维码.cn/333e.cn/404888享网↑88xw.cn/4048
  • BBS备→ErWei.com.cn/bbsb.cn/4048
  • Spotlight: Chinese villagers to claim back stolen mummy Buddha in Dutch court: 333e.cn/4048
    二维码2017-07-14 07:25
    Spotlight: Chinese villagers to claim back stolen mummy Buddha in Dutch court


    肉身坐佛`章公祖师
    THE HAGUE, July 12 (Xinhua) -- Chinese villagers who want to get back their stolen Buddha statue with in it a mummified body of an 11th-century monk will face the Dutch collector in the court of Amsterdam on Friday afternoon.
    After going through documents filed by both parties, Xinhua presents here the key issues on admissibility, procedures and merits that might be discussed at the first public hearing of this case.
    CAN CHINESE VILLAGE COMMITTEE STAND AT DUTCH COURT?
    Villagers from two villages in China's southeastern province of Fujian had their village committees to file the claim that the mummified body, or "Master Zhang Gong" as called and worshipped during the past centuries, should be returned and placed back in their village temple.
    In his answer to the claims, Oscar van Overeem, an Amsterdam-based architect and experienced art collector, argued that a "village committee is not to be referred to as a natural person or legal person" under the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure and "the claimants should be declared inadmissible in their claims."
    The villagers then filed additional documents to explain that under the Chinese law, a village committee, as a special legal person, is entitled to attend litigation as a party based on legal provisions or authorizations from villagers. In practice, there are a great number of cases in which villagers' committees are claimants or defendants in lawsuits.
    "The judge in the Netherlands has the responsibility to first check whether the parties have legal representation power. It is possible that they do not fully understand the legal personalities of village committees under the Chinese Law. I will give more information about this at the hearing," Dutch lawyer Jan Holthuis, who represents the Chinese villagers in Dutch court proceedings, told Xinhua.

    PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD?
    The defendant said that with a "swap agreement" reached on Nov. 29, 2015, Van Overeem has exchanged the statue against several Buddhist art objects from the private collection of a third party and committed to the third party to not disclose his identity.
    A letter signed by his insurer was submitted as proof. "The Song dynasty mummy is insured by us since the commencing date of the first policy and at the most recent time for a sum of 950,000 euro. However, this object is at the moment no longer insured by us, this in connection with an exchange-swap of the object as reported by you [Van Overeem] to us," it stated.
    The villagers ask the court to demand the Dutch collector disclose the "exchange agreement" and the identity of the "third party". For them, the exchange agreement is contrary to common decency and public order and therefore is void.
    They also filed emails sent by the Dutch collector, reading "I can 'just' act, discuss and make decisions on behalf of him [the third party]."
    "It is a 'presumption of fraud', or an 'action pauliana'. By making the statue away, the defendant causes in our view a presumption of a fraudulent act, namely preventing the enforcement of a claim of the villagers to return Zhang Gong, if the court would so decide," commented Holthuis.
    "The defendant also said this third party is fully aware of the situation, which means, this third party can never be in good faith," he added.

    KEY WORDS:Buddha statue
    Source: Xinhua| 2017-07-13 05:37:04by Liu Fang, Zindziwe Janse  |Editor: Mu Xuequan  Spotlight: Chinese villagers to claim back stolen mummy Buddha in Dutch court
     http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-07/13/c_136439345.htm
    5个回复, 0个喜欢
    评论1 来自于:二维码
    2017-07-14 07:26   0人喜欢
    IS THIS A CORPSE?
    The villagers claim that the intact mummy of the monk Liu Quan is a "corpse" of an identifiable person as defined in the Dutch Burials and Cremations Act. A corpse cannot be subject to ownership according to this Act.
    "Master Zhang Gong was famous during his life as a spiritual leader, because of his help to those who needed it and because of his healing powers. Upon his death his body was protected against rotting through herbs and other means. Thereafter the body is protected with a layer of lacquer and covered with a gold layer," said Liu Yushen, a Beijing registered lawyer who provides legal supports to the villagers.
    "The likely wish of monk Zhang Gong Liu Quan is that through mummification, he would after his death continue to have a spiritual and healing power on his environment, and he would certainly not have agreed that his body would become the subject of (illegal) art trade," Liu told Xinhua.
    "For the villagers who live in a region of the root of Buddhism in China, mummification has a special meaning. It implies that the body of the enlightened Buddhist monk remains part of the human world and can still be defiled after his death through external influences. From generation to generation the statue is worshipped and the day of the death of the monk is up to the present day memorized by ceremonies of piety," he added.
    The Dutch collector argues that what was discovered in his statue was not a "corpse" but "human remains" because "most of the organs are absent". He filed several articles reporting on the selling, buying, and auctioning of mummies in the United States, Canada, Britain, etc., to support his opinion that a statue with a mummy inside is a "thing" and therefore object to ownership.
    "There is case law that even a body without a head or without arms and legs is a corpse. In this case we have a complete body, and it is not an anonymous body, but a body that we have identified with a name. So I am confident in defending the villagers's claim," said Holthuis.

    ARE THERE TWO STATUES?
    The Dutch collector states that the Buddha statue that he bought is not the stolen statue from Yangchun village in China.
    One of his main arguments is that a collector named Benny Rustenburg has acquired the statue at the end of 1994/the beginning of 1995 in Hong Kong -- well before the date of theft claimed by the villagers (Dec. 14, 1995), after which Rustenburg had the statue transported from Hong Kong to Amsterdam in mid-1995.
    However, he does not provide concrete and substantial documents to support this narration.
    One of the key arguments cited by the villagers comes from an article published in the catalogue of the special exhibition at the Drents Museum in the Netherlands, of which the statue was part.
    "C14 dating methods confirmed that the mummy died between 1022 and 1155. During restauration a linen roll was found with two columns of Chinese characters. The name of the holy person is mentioned 'Liu Quan'. X-rays show an intact skeleton. The cause of death is even attributed to a tooth abscess," read the article written by a researcher commissioned by the Dutch collector.
    "Not even mentioning the obvious similarities in posture and physique between the Buddha bought by Van Overeem and the Buddha on the few old pictures kept by the villagers, just the fact that 'Liu Quan', the name of the monk, and 'Pu Zhao Tang', the name of the village temple, as well as other Chinese characters, are written on the linen roll, is already decisive reference that this statue is the same statue as the one stolen from the village," said Liu Yushen.
    评论2 来自于:二维码
    2017-07-14 07:26   0人喜欢
    GOOD FAITH OR NOT?
    The villagers believe that the acquisition of the statue by Van Overeem was not in good faith.
    "At the time of this acquisition, Hong Kong was a known place for trading of stolen Chinese art. Being a specialized trader and collector of Asian art, he should have asked for documented provenance of the statue and export documentation evidencing that the statue was not illegally exported from China," they stated in the claims.
    And, he "knew, or should have known, given the price he paid for the statue, that the statue was a valuable Buddhist relic".
    The Dutch collector challenged the claim by stating that he is an architect, not a specialized trader and collector of Asian art; he bought the statue in Amsterdam, not in Hong Kong or the mainland of China; and in the period concerned, in Hong Kong no import and export restrictions applied.
    He added that under the Dutch Civil Code, he is presumed to be in good faith and the claimants have to prove that this is not the case. "Whoever is possessor in good faith, stays possessor in good faith, even though he at a later moment in time is informed that he is not the beneficiary."
    "Many specialized art collectors have other jobs. Mr. Van Overeem could be both architect and specialized art dealer and collector at the same time. These two identities are not contradictory," commented Huo Zhengxin, vice-director of the School of International Law at the China University of Political Sciences and Law.
    "Several documents filed by himself refer to him as being 'an active' or 'experienced' collector. For an active and experienced collector, a higher standard for duty of diligent investigations must apply. We have good reasons to believe that Mr. Van Overeem was not in good faith," he added.
    The first hearing will last one hour. "Most likely, following the hearing, the court will issue a procedural order asking for a new exchange of statements to challenge. This would be the next step of the case," said the Dutch lawyer who represents the Chinese villagers.
    评论3 来自于:二维码
    2017-07-15 06:45   0人喜欢
    Dutch court to hear Buddha relic case
    2017-07-12 08:44Global TimesEditor: Li Yan

    Not just a relic but one with the remains of an identifiable person: lawyer

    Villagers from East China's Fujian Province are likely to retrieve the 1,000-year-old Buddha sculpture they claim contains the corpse of their ancestor, lawyers said, ahead of the first hearing on Friday in the Netherlands.

    The case was filed in an Amsterdam court by a group of lawyers in June 2016 after Dutch art collector Oscar van Overeem refused to return the Buddha to Yangchun villagers.

    The court case could become the first successful retrieval of Chinese relics in court. Previously, most of the retrievals were done through diplomatic channels, Liu Yang, one of the attorneys representing the villagers who has been fighting to retrieve relics overseas for years, told the Global Times.

    More than 10 million Chinese cultural relics have yet to be returned, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

    Zhanggong Zushi, or Zhanggong Patriarch, a 1.2 meter-tall golden sitting Buddha, contains the remains of a monk who lived and was worshipped in Yangchun village since the Song Dynasty (960-1279), Xinhua reported. The respected Buddha had been placed in a local temple for more than 1,000 years before it was stolen in 1995.

    Van Overeem claimed he got the mummified Buddha in 1996.

    "We have enough evidence to prove the mummified Buddha in the Netherlands is the one that Chinese villagers are seeking. We don't care how the collector got the Buddha, for so long as the remains of our ancestor are not in the hands of others," Liu said.

    "The challenge is to prove ownership of the relic," Liu said, adding that Dutch law states that if one possesses relic-like objects for more than 20 years in an open, continuous and non-violent way, he/she is granted full ownership.

    However, Dutch laws also state that nobody can own a corpse, Liu said, adding that nobody can own the statue even if it is acquired in good faith.

    The Buddha is not just a relic but one with the remains of an identifiable person, which means the Dutch cannot simply call it a relic," Liu added.

    Dutch lawyer Jan Holthuis will represent the Chinese villagers in court on Friday.

    Villagers started the retrieval process when they identified the mummified Buddha in March 2015 at an exhibit called "Mummy World" at the Hungarian Natural History Museum.

    The Dutch collector had asked for $2 million for research and storage fees in exchange for the Buddha, the Beijing Youth Daily reported.

    Lin Wenqing, a spokesperson for the villagers, previously told the Global Times that the villagers consider the Buddha part of their family.

    "We love and worship it so much that no matter how difficult it is going to be, we are determined to get it back," said the village spokesperson.

    http://www.ecns.cn/2017/07-12/264976.shtml
    http://www.ecns.cn/2017/07-13/265180.shtml
  • 二维码 ↓ Spotlight: Chinese villagers to claim back stolen mummy Buddha in Dutch court
  • 333e.cn/4048上善尚易谢谢分享
  • 88享网↑二维码.cn:88xw.cn/4048
  • 葩葩搜:paps.cn/4048需登录3hhh.cn
  • 搜一搜.cn/检索词/'手机号'/样式新帖
  • Soys.cn/4048/15359936221/祝福语
  • 二维码 · Uid:2↑搜一搜·Tid:Soys.cn/4048

  • 联系.cn·OQRC.com/检索易·Js1.cn/15359936221

    内容正在加载中,请稍候……

  • 楼主:二维码的地址↓爱上善: →ai33.cn/2 ↓
  • 扫一扫.cn→:SXsms.cn/2←私信SMS
  • 二维码.cn↓E科教网↓ ekjw.com/u2
  • 二维码.cn↑名片 w.ekjw.com/u2 ←微看见友
  • 二维码.cn楼帖: Spotlight: Chinese villagers to claim back stolen mummy Buddha in Dutch court
  • 链接.cn电脑版→3hhh.cn/4048
  • 扫一扫.cn名本·Ta会会→tahh.cn/4048
  • 偶集到记事易及微博等
  • ·2wm.com.cn ·#二维码.cn立刻有#
  • ·Js1.cn/zp·照片
  • 搜一搜.cn:Soys.cn·易项目网:Exmw.cn
  • Bsss.cn·必上搜索·鸣谢.cn:Emxw.cn
  • 微网话题王·wwHTw.cn/名单·印发·介绍
  • 国搜·推介.cn:333e.cn/5667
  • httt.cn/检索·检索易·Js1.cn·建站易:jz1.com
  • ·微博客户端@第一建站网·#MADV全景#
  • 三好会会→ 下载:3Hcn.cn