Exclusion from a catalogue raisonné can have an immediate and substantial effect on an artwork’s marketability. For an owner, the natural reaction may be to seek a judicial expert, force inclusion or claim damages. French case law has, however, developed a particularly protective approach to the freedom of catalogue authors and authentication bodies. Any contemplated procedure must therefore be assessed with close attention to the facts and the precise relief sought.
The turning point: the Metzinger decision of 2014
In the landmark Court of Cassation decision of 22 January 2014, concerning a painting attributed to Jean Metzinger, a judicial expert had concluded that the work was authentic. The Court nevertheless held that the author of a catalogue raisonné could not be held at fault merely for refusing to include the work, even if authentic, in the absence of a special legal rule.
The decision rests on freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and marked a clear departure from the idea that judicially established authenticity could automatically compel catalogue inclusion.
Alexis Fournol’s earlier analysis traced the development of the case law
Alexis Fournol analysed the 2014 decision in Le Journal des Arts, followed the proceedings after remand in “Affaire Metzinger, suite et fin”, and later examined the broader freedom of choice of catalogue authors in a 2016 article.
Those decisions already showed that French courts distinguish between the judicial determination of an underlying dispute and the intellectual freedom involved in producing a scholarly catalogue.
The 2024 Wildenstein Plattner Institute litigation confirmed the restrictive approach
In proceedings concerning a work submitted for possible inclusion in a catalogue raisonné, the Paris Court of Appeal decision of 7 May 2024 rejected the request for pre-action judicial expertise. The court considered the contractual framework of the submission and the legal viability of the contemplated claim.
The decision also illustrates an important procedural rule: an Article 145 expert measure requires a genuine and legally viable future dispute. It cannot be ordered simply because the owner wants an independent authentication opinion.
The Paris Court of Appeal went further in September 2025
In its decision of 4 September 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected another Article 145 request involving a foundation that had refused to authenticate a work and include it in the catalogue raisonné.
The court stated that authentication is the expression of an opinion protected by freedom of expression and that no heir, specialist or foundation holds a legal monopoly on authenticity. It considered that even a favourable judicial expert opinion would not compel the foundation to change its own assessment.
This decision reinforces the difficulty of building a claim whose sole objective is forced inclusion, certification or damages based only on the refusal itself.
But the analysis should not stop at the words “catalogue raisonné”
The recent case law does not mean that every dispute involving a catalogue or authentication body is identical, nor that no legal action can ever be contemplated. The parties, contractual documents, statements made, conduct complained of, existence of a separate sale dispute, procedural objective and applicable law may all matter.
The owner may also have a claim against a seller, auction house or expert that is legally distinct from a demand directed at the catalogue author. Judicial expertise may remain relevant to that underlying transaction even though it cannot force the catalogue author to adopt the court expert’s conclusion.
Prospects of success must be assessed case by case
A proposed procedure should therefore be examined with particular caution before proceedings are commenced. The line of authority protecting the freedom of catalogue authors is now strong, especially where the requested relief is inclusion, certification or damages based solely on refusal.
That does not eliminate every possible claim. It means that the practical objective, the contractual framework, the available expert and provenance evidence, the proper defendant and the legal basis must be identified before litigation. The prospects of success should be assessed case by case rather than inferred from the market authority of the catalogue alone.
About the author
An article written by Alexis Fournol, Attorney at Law and Partner at Fournol & Associés.
Alexis Fournol advises and represents auction houses, galleries, dealers, experts, collectors, artists and artist estates in authenticity, attribution and art-market disputes. He also regularly works with foreign lawyers on French-law aspects of cross-border art matters.
This article builds on earlier analysis by Alexis Fournol in Le Journal des Arts: 2014 – La liberté (ou non) de l’auteur d’un catalogue raisonné; 2015 – Affaire Metzinger, suite et fin; and 2016 – La liberté de choix de l’auteur du catalogue raisonné. Subsequent important rulings, notably those handed down by the Paris Court of Appeals in 2025, were discussed by Alexis Fournol in the French edition of The Art Newspaper.
How Fournol & Associés can assist
Fournol & Associés regularly advises and represents clients in authenticity, attribution and expert-liability matters involving artworks and collectibles. The Firm has handled, and is currently handling, several matters involving disputed authenticity, auction descriptions, expert opinions, provenance and judicial expertise.
Our practice combines art-market knowledge with French contract law, auction law, civil liability, evidence and procedure. We may intervene at the pre-contentious stage, during expert and documentary analysis, in negotiations and in proceedings before the French courts. In cross-border matters, the Firm can act as French counsel alongside the client’s existing foreign legal team.
Related reading
Art Market · Art Provenance and Ownership Claims in France · Insights
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a French court force a catalogue raisonné author to include an artwork?
Current French case law is strongly against forced inclusion based solely on disagreement over authenticity. The 2014 Court of Cassation decision and recent Paris decisions protect the catalogue author’s freedom of expression.
Can I obtain a judicial expert simply because the catalogue refuses the work?
Not necessarily. Article 145 requires a legitimate evidential purpose connected to a viable contemplated dispute. Recent decisions have rejected requests where the future action was regarded as legally bound to fail.
Does a favourable judicial expert report bind an artist foundation or catalogue author?
Recent case law indicates that it does not, by itself, compel the body to change its authentication opinion or include the work.
Does that mean there is never any possible claim?
No categorical conclusion should be drawn without reviewing the facts. A sale dispute, contractual issue, professional-liability claim, allegedly harmful statements or another legal basis may raise different questions. Prospects must be assessed case by case.
This publication provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable law, evidence, procedural options and limitation periods must be assessed in light of the facts of each case.
