The Supreme court returned to the collector of the FSB seized the painting “Christ in the tomb”
The Supreme court ruled to return the confiscated painting to the owners — collectors from Germany Irina and Alexander Pevzner. In 2003, Russia canvas was arrested, and the owners charged with smuggling.
The Presidium of the Supreme court (SC) of Russia has ruled to return the confiscated painting by Karl Briullov “Christ in the tomb” its owner — collector from Germany, Alexander Pevzner, who had previously been accused of smuggling. About it RBC said the press service of the court.
Today, the Presidium of the Supreme court rendered a decision to cancel previous decision of the judicial Board on criminal cases of the Supreme court and, in essence, for the return of paintings Alexander and Irina Pevzner. The picture should be returned to Pevzneru. The question is closed.Maxim CropScience Alexander Pevzner
He stressed that the decision of the court of the painting should be returned to his client today.
In March, Alexander and Irina Pevzner sent a petition to the President of the Supreme court Vyacheslav Lebedev with the request to return confiscated from the picture.
In 2003, Pevzner brought from Germany the painting Briullov to send it in Russian Museum for examination, which was to confirm the authorship and authenticity of works of art. But the FSB confiscated his picture. The incident was explained by the fact that the owner of the properly filled out customs Declaration when crossing the border with Russia. In relation to Pevsner, was initiated a criminal case about contraband, however, to prove his guilt in court failed, and in 2013 the persecution of the collector stopped at the end of the period of limitation.
A year after this Lenoblsud made the decision to return the painting to the spouses Pevsner, but in 2016, the state office of public Prosecutor with the support of the Chairman of the armed forces in criminal cases, Vladimir Davydov has appealed this decision to the Board of the aircraft. Picture recognized the “murder weapon” and confiscated in favor of the Russian Museum. In this case the constitutional court did not agree with this decision because of the lack of conviction and ordered the case to be reviewed.