The claim emerged in the paintings of Nicholas Glushchenko.
 

Ukraine could lose the right of possession 50 paintings of the famous artist Nicholas Glushchenko, market value, according to experts, is not less than $ 2 million, Kommersant has learned, on Wednesday at the Central State Archive of Literature and Arts of Ukraine bailiffs arrived and presented a solution Shevchenko the district court to transfer those pictures of the artist's granddaughter - Larissa Glushchenko, who lives in the U.S.

Nicholas Hlushchenko born September 17, 1901 in the town of Novomoskovsk, Dnepropetrovsk region. In 1918 he was enlisted in the Volunteer Army Anton Denikin. After some time he was captured, escaped and was in Germany. In 1920-1924 he studied at the Berlin Graduate School of Fine Arts, worked in the genres of landscape, still life, portrait. Shortly before his death carried away equipment monotyping and create a series of floral still lifes. From 1944 until his death Oct. 31, 1977 he lived and worked in Kiev. He was awarded the Order of Red Banner of Labor, was awarded the title People's Artist of the USSR.
Pictures of Nicholas Glushchenko got to the museum in 1979, told Kommersant director of the Central State Archive-Museum of Literature and Art of Ukraine (TSGAMLI) Leonid Violin. After the death of the artist as a gift to the museum 50 works passed to his widow Mary Glushchenko and brother. Along with the paintings were given to easels, paints, brushes and personal belongings of the artist - to design a memorial room museum. In 2008, interest in the work of Nicholas Glushchenko expressed his granddaughter Larissa Glushchenko, who lives in the U.S.. She served in the Shevchenko district court of Kyiv claim "for restitution from unlawful possession" (a copy has b), which states that Mrs. Glushchenko inherited the copyrights to the works of Nicholas Glushchenko after the death of his wife, in connection with which the demands to return her paintings of his grandfather. January 13, 2010 Shevchenko Kiev district court ruled in favor of Larissa Glushchenko. Guide TSGAMLI tried to appeal this decision to the appellate and cassation instances, but to do so failed. As a result, on Aug. 11 in the bailiffs TSGAMLI profit and presented the court decision, which archive to seven days to carry it out, giving the picture Larissa Glushchenko.
"Granddaughter Glushchenko motivates his claim that the transfer of paintings in 1979, has been shaped by the act, which is not specified, they are transferred as a gift or for temporary storage. The document reads 'sent for processing rooms of the museum', - said Mr. Violin .- But the state archives - it's not a barn, I'm sorry, we do not provide temporary storage of pictures. Even if the archive is taking something for temporary storage, the document sets out the conditions and time, and we have these pictures for over 30 years. "
Give the artist's work state is not going. "Bailiff we refused pictures, referring to the right documents Shevchenko court - told Kommersant yesterday that the chairman of the State Archive Committee Olga Ginzburg .- In addition, we asked the chairman of the parliamentary committee on justice Sergei Kivalov asking for assistance in resolving this conflict and to investigate the misdeeds of the judges of the court of Kyiv Shevchenko.
Archivists believe that Larissa Hlushchenko expressed interest in the work of his grandfather primarily because of their high market value. During his life Nicholas Glushchenko wrote from 5 thousand to 10 thousand works of art, an average of one of his painting is worth $ 20-50 thousand, told Kommersant Leonid Violin: "His works are kept in various museums throughout Ukraine. We have 50 such works, the market value of paintings is no less than $ 2 million. "
Chief Curator of the National Art Museum Julia Litvinets confirmed to Kommersant that the paintings of Nicholas Hlushchenko represent high artistic and collectible value. "His paintings are in great demand in the market, it is in demand as an artist. Perhaps this was the reason for attempts to return the paintings Glushchenko private property" - she said. This sure Michael Mamas, who represented the interests of TSGAMLI in court. According to him, the process was initiated in the interest of Western collectors. "The collection of paintings is unlikely to be her (Larissa Gluschenko.-b) property. That is the debate the other people who are trying to get itself a collection - assumed counsel .- The time during which the heirs could contest the fact that the transfer of pictures from the Civil Code, is three years, but this term has long passed. "
All suspicions that Mrs. Hlushchenko acts from selfish motives - in the hope of profitable resell grandfather - her lawyer Olga Poddubnaya denies. "Accusations that we are acting in the interests of some collectors, are unfounded. On the private collectors who wish to get a picture of Glushchenko, I did not hear and know nothing!" - Kommersant said Mrs. Poddubnaya. According to her, before you go to court and demand the return of paintings, Larissa Glushchenko intended to negotiate with the museum. "We tried to resolve this conflict - suggests TSGAMLI charitable cash contribution, and even leave a few paintings as a gift, but they refused, then we had to go to court - said Olga Poddubnaya .- The paintings were handed over to the widow of Glushchenko archive in perpetuity free use, and such contract is terminated after the death of the party that transferred property. Legally, in the archive there is no reason to keep painting.
Julia Ryabchun
Kommersant Ukraine

Pretty weak, in my view, a trick - accuse Larissa Hlushchenko for selfish motives. Even if they do occur, so what? More importantly - can the lawyers to bring the matter before the execution of court decisions. In our wonderful country this is quite difficult. Touched by the position of the museum, which, instead of appeal (which actually would have been logical on their part), wrote a strange letter Kivalov. In fact, why the deputy did not overturn the decision of the court? ..

Yes, I liked this passage:
".- In addition, we asked the chairman of the parliamentary committee on justice Sergei Kivalov requested help resolution of the conflict and to investigate the misdeeds of the judges of the court of Kyiv Shevchenko."
This is the shortest way to solve the issue, because "Pidrahuy" (nicknamed "pidrahuy" - "Calculate" translated into Russian, is derived from the Ukrainian "rahuvati"-take was given Kivalov in 2004)
 Kuchma, not just chairs the committee in the parliament, and is an active chairman of the Higher Council of Justice, after the nominee was elected Chairman VJ kum Kivalov, Kolesnichenko.V his hands the fate of all judges in Ukraine.
On the other hand, do not know who is behind Larisa Glushchenko and whose desire to get transferred from Ukraine to the United States legally paintings, performs Shevchenko district court of Kyiv since in Ukraine, no judicial decision is not accepted by the law and only on the basis of expediency.

not the fact that the paintings leave Ukraine. I remember a couple of years ago, Larisa Glushchenko came to Kiev and sold the painting of his grandfather. So, in my opinion, there is just normal deriban.

vyadem, if the court decided to transfer pictures Larissa Glushchenko, what's the problem? clear ..
Where is it they sell it in Ukraine or in the U.S., it is her case personally.

Eugene, well, you know our court from the area "the most humane court in the world ":)
A decision is made, withdraws his second. In matters relating to Western Ukraine decides, the court in the East and vice versa. In a word - a farce!
That's more in another issue - human.
I certainly do not judge, I have no place granddaughter Glushchenko, and certainly do not know the completeness of the whole situation ... but the part looks like a "raider attack". Her family in their right mind gave the painting to the museum. Now she simply wants to pick them up. One thing if for a museum, etc. But looking at what's left in the studio Hlushchenko after all sales. Museum there and does not smell.
But I repeat, not for me to judge. Perhaps there are some other reasons.

No Problem! This is prodigy, that the court defended the rights of private persons in a dispute with the state scorned its own Constitution. It is - as abnormally Bermuda Triangle. Mysteriously, like a snow man.
Koneno, even takes advantage of the fact that it belongs!
 But many others want the same. Therefore, the clue of this phenomenon is so exciting .......

Eugene, you may be embarrassed that I was "Western" and "eastern, written with a capital <!--~ a ~-->. I just do not remember in what area were such a court decision here and united. But on principle the results of voting in the presidential elections, clearly traced the line that divides Ukraine into 2 parts ... on this our politicians and go! But this topic is not the case.