Cassirer V. Fundación Thyssen: adquisición por usucapión extraordinaria de obra de arte robada durante el holocausto = Cassirer V. Foundation Thyssen: acquisition through extraordinary adverse possession of a work of art stolen during the holocaust

Resumen: La desestimacion por el Juzgado del Distrito Central de California de la demanda formulada por Claude Cassirer contra la Fundacion Thyssen y el Reino de Espana sobre la restitucion de un cuadro del pintor impresionista Camille Pissarro, ilicitamente expropiado de sus propietarios judios en el contexto del Holocausto, pone fin, por el momento, a un asunto de gran complejidad y dotado de importantes implicaciones historicas, culturales, politicas y juridicas, finalmente resuelto mediante la aplicacion de las normas que regulan la usucapion extraordinaria de bienes muebles en el Codigo Civil espanol. El analisis del caso revela la variedad de cuestiones juridicas que han debido afrontarse con caracter previo, asi como la existencia de problemas de fondo que quedan por resolver. Palabras clave: bienes culturales, usucapion extraordinaria, prescripcion, inmunidad soberana. Abstract: The dismissal by the District Court of the Central District of California of the claim filed by Claude Cassirer against the Foundation Thyssen and the Kingdom of Spain for the restitution of a painting by the impressionist artist Camille Pissarro, illegally expropriated from its Jewish owners in the context of the Holocaust, brings to an end, at least for the moment, an affair of great complexity and with important historical, cultural, political and legal implications, which is finally resolved through the application of the rules of the Spanish Civil Code regarding the acquisition of movable assets by adverse possession in the absence of good faith. The analysis of the case shows the variety of legal issues that had to be previously dealt with, but also the existence of essential problems that have not been resolved.. Keywords: cultural assets, acquisition through extraordinary adverse possession, prescription, sovereign immunity. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2016.3266