The state fails to recover a notable manuscript

Blois (41). “Who plumped the king’s goose, a hundred years later makes the pen. »» The adage formulated by the lawyer Antoine Loysel finds in recent years a resounding echo in the crusade led by the State to obtain the restitution of cultural goods which would belong to the public domain and which would have found themselves, following the vagaries of time, in private hands. However, these cases have a smell of historical-legal sulfur in their wake as recalled by a judgment of the Blois judicial court of March 13, 2025.

In 2012, Mr. de Vibraye – owner of the Château de Cheverny – decided to separate from a manuscript Memoirs to serve the history of the royal and Bastimens of France houses (See ill.), Said manuscript of Cheverny, written in 1681 by André Félibien on an order by Jean-Baptiste Colbert. But the export certificate was refused to him by the Ministry of Culture on the grounds that this manuscript would belong to the public domain. Seized by the owner, the Council of State considered on July 28, 2017 that it was not able to clearly identify the property in question and ordered expertise. However, this could not take place since Mr. de Vibraye withdrew from his action.

The case could have stopped there, but it would have been disregarding the tenacity of the Ministry of Culture to recover this property at all costs. In 2021, the State initiated an action in demand before the judicial court of Blois in order to request the restitution of the manuscript of Cheverny because of its public domain.

Since the edict of Moulins in February 1566, the principle of inalienability has been generalized, and devoted, for goods belonging to the Couronne estate. The French Revolution modifies this area into an area of ​​the nation which was incorporated into the public domain before being registered in article L. 2112-1 of the general property code of public persons. This is how articles II and III of the Moulins edict consider a property as having integrated the Crown estate under the meeting of three cumulative conditions: the property was transmitted to the king by its predecessor, it was expressly devoted as incorporated into the Couronne domain, and has been acquired by the king for more than ten years.

To decide the property, the Blésois judges appointed an expert to answer two prior questions: Is the Cheverny manuscript the original manuscript commissioned by Colbert to André Félibien or only the copy? Did he belong or not to the collections of the Royal Library? At the first question, the expert replied that the copy kept at the National Library of France (BNF) is the one who answers Colbert’s order for the superintendence of France’s buildings, while the copy kept in Cheverny is the personal copy of Colbert. In the second, the expert said that the two manuscripts belonged to the Bibliotheca Regia : The BNF manuscript since 1719, that of Cheverny perhaps from 1728 or 1732 before emerging in 1734 on the occasion of the “sale of doubles”.

However, the State has not been able to produce any evidence to question this detailed analysis, the cleaver of the judges is firm: “The duration of presence in the collections of the Royal Library, and therefore of possession by the King, being less than ten years, the Cheverny manuscript did not integrate the Couronne estate at that time. »» Also “It has therefore never been incorporated into the Couronne estate, which has become the public domain. He therefore never acquired the character of inalienability alleged by the State ”. Apart from all membership of the Crown area – and therefore to the public domain – only the rule of article 2276 of the Civil Code must be applied according to which “In fact of furniture, possession is worth title”. Mr. de Vibraye was therefore the legitimate owner of the Cheverny manuscript and the action in the claim of the State could not prosper.

The French state having appealed at the last minute, this case will be re -joined. However, another solution is difficult to envisage, unless new proof contrary brought by the State. Ultimately, Mr. de Vibraye should be recognized in his right property and would be free to have his “Cheverny manuscript” … except that the State classified it as “national treasure” subject to being able to acquire it within thirty months. After this period, the administration could no longer refuse the issuance of the certificate except to automatically classify the manuscript for compensation which constitutes a real financial burden as revealed by the “Walter” affair in 1996.

By an implacable demonstration, this judgment brings a new piece to the building of claims by offering a welcome temporal illustration for goods under the field of the crown and demonstrates all the usefulness of resorting to experts to shed light on the history of cultural goods whose state has lost trace for decades or centuries. A more balanced vision than that concerning goods removed during the revolutionary period (fragment of the roodle of the cathedral of Chartres or Crying n ° 17), although the cards were slightly rebatted by the Council of State by recognizing on July 22, 2022 that the loss of heritage interest in enjoying a cultural property under the movable public domain constitutes a repairable damage.

On the other hand, it is normal to indicate that the State has the right – and the duty – to claim objects that have disappeared from its monuments, libraries or museums since the 19th century, when the indisputable proof that they belong to the public domain is brought. Inspired by Colbert’s words, the state would thus avoid maintaining an art of claim which would consist in plucking the goose to obtain as much feathers as possible with as little as possible!