## Facts

- The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran sued a London antiquities dealer, Barakat Galleries Ltd., over eighteen carved chlorite artefacts (jars, bowls, and cups) alleged to have been illicitly excavated from the Jiroft region of Iran and exported.
- Iran pleaded conversion and sought delivery up, asserting that Iranian heritage legislation vested ownership and an immediate right to possession of undiscovered antiquities in the State and prohibited unauthorized excavation and export.
- Barakat disputed provenance and asserted it had acquired good title through purchases in European countries.
- The High Court tried preliminary issues on (1) whether Iranian law gave Iran title or an immediate right to possession and (2) whether any such right could be recognized in England or was barred as indirect enforcement of foreign public/penal law; the High Court ruled against Iran on both.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal assumed (for preliminary-issue purposes) facts favorable to Iran regarding provenance and focused on construction of Iranian law and its recognition under English private international law.

## Issues

1. Whether Iranian legislation vested proprietary title and/or an immediate right to possession of the antiquities in the Iranian State.
2. Whether the rights asserted under Iranian law were proprietary (in rem) or merely regulatory/penal (public law) in character.
3. Whether English private international law would recognize Iranian state title to movable property so as to support a conversion claim in England.
4. Whether the claim was barred as an indirect enforcement of foreign public or penal law (the foreign public law rule / non-enforcement principle).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal allowed Iran’s appeal and reversed the High Court on the preliminary issues.
- It held Iranian heritage legislation, properly construed, was sufficiently clear to vest ownership and an immediate right of possession of the artefacts in the Iranian State.
- It characterized Iran’s asserted interest as a genuine proprietary right, not merely a public or penal measure.
- It held that English courts could recognize and give effect to that foreign proprietary title; the action was not an impermissible attempt to enforce foreign public or penal law.
- The case was permitted to proceed to trial on the remaining factual disputes (including provenance and acquisition).

## Legal Principles

- Foreign law that vests or defines proprietary rights in movable property can be recognized and enforced in England through ordinary private law causes of action (including conversion).
- The non-enforcement rule for foreign penal, revenue, and other public laws does not bar a claim that seeks recognition and protection of a foreign state’s property rights, even if the foreign statute serves public policy aims.
- In determining whether a foreign statute is “public/penal” or proprietary for recognition purposes, the focus is on whether the law creates or transfers property rights, not on the fact that it regulates conduct or reflects sovereign cultural policy.
- Title to movables is generally governed by the law of the place where the property was situated when the relevant proprietary interest arose (lex situs); if that law vested title in the claimant, English law will ordinarily recognize it.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that Iranian patrimony legislation could vest state ownership of antiquities and that such ownership is recognizable in England, allowing Iran to pursue a conversion claim for allegedly illicitly excavated and exported cultural objects without offending the rule against enforcing foreign public or penal laws.


Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Barakat Galleries Ltd., [2007] EWCA (Civ) 1374 (Eng.)