Dutch display of stolen Dacian treasure was careless
Articol de Petruţa Obrejan, 07 Februarie 2025, 04:13
The preparations for the exhibition in the Netherlands of the stolen Dacian treasures were careless, according to the results of checks carried out by the Prime Minister's Control Body at the National Museum of Romanian History and the Ministry of Culture. The findings were sent to the Prosecutor General's Office.
The security measures accepted by the management of the National Museum of Romanian History to organize this temporary exhibition in the Netherlands were less rigorous than those established for the exhibitions in Madrid and Rome, according to the representatives of the Prime Minister's Control Body, at least in terms of providing security with specialized staff 24/7.
Other irregularities relate to the lack of approval of this initiative by the museum's board of directors, while the National Commission of Museums and Collections has brought forward some deadlines for obtaining the approval in principle, a commission that has not noticed the significant difference between the information communicated by the management of the National Museum of History on the number of cultural objects in the letter of intent, about 350, while the list of pieces proposed for the exhibition contains 673 pieces.
Moreover, at the time the loan contract was concluded, the Romanian side did not yet have the opinion in principle of the National Commission of Museums and Collections, and the contract was not concluded in authentic form, as expressly required by law.
Checks revealed that both the loan contract and the insurance certificate had not been endorsed by the Ministry of Culture's Legal and Litigation Service, and the representatives of the National Museum of History had not taken any steps in this regard.
And, last but not least, the Control Body draws attention to the fact that the insurance value of the exhibits in the Netherlands was the last to be established, and for some pieces this was based on a revaluation carried out no more than 14 years ago, although this revaluation should have been carried out at 10-year intervals.
Translated by: Radu Matei
