Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament is considering at second reading the harmonisation of artists' right of resale, thus taking up again a directive for the benefit of artists as also galleries and auction houses in Europe that has been under discussion since 1996. First I want to thank those colleagues who have assisted with this project. It was very difficult to resolve the problems in a way that was useful for those concerned. In the end we did manage to do so thanks to the goodwill of all the groups in this House, as shown in particular by the decision in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I owe special thanks to Mr Dehousse and Mr Echerer, whose many discussions helped bring about workable compromises. Right of resale is the unassignable and inalienable right of creative artists to receive a share of the profits made from the selling on of their works. As such it forms part of societal copyright protection and is the expression of the societal acknowledgement of artistic creativity. It needs to be harmonised because although it already applies in many EU states, it has not so far been recognised in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Ireland or Austria. That leads to considerable distortions of competition because it means that in one country an artist profits from the resale, whereas in another he gets nothing. That is not acceptable in the European market and is contrary to the requirements of the single market. The report proposes the following specific amendments to the Council's common position. Right of resale should extend to the professional trade in works of art. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market proposes graduating the amount of royalties to be paid by the seller on the basis of a percentage rate of 4% for the portion of the sale price up to EUR 50 000 and 1% for the portion above EUR 200 000. Moreover, the artist is assigned a right of information so that he can make his claims to royalties known to a professional art dealer during a period of up to three years, which is reasonable since the dealer has to keep the accounts of his purchases and sales. So here we must not allow a collective management firm to be involved. The new minimum sale price of EUR 1 000 repeats a proposal the European Parliament made at first reading. Most transactions in Europe take place up to the threshold sale price of EUR 4 000 provided for in the Council's common position, so that this area needs to be harmonised now. For amounts below EUR 1 000, however, there is no need for harmonisation since this does not affect the European market and on the basis of subsidiarity no European right of resale should apply. Furthermore, we have deleted the Council's proposed ceiling of EUR 12 500 as the highest amount of royalties an artist may receive, since there is no reason why successful artists should be penalised. In regard to the time limits for implementing this directive, on my proposal the committee decided to set a deadline of two years for each Member State to transpose it into its national law and during which the rights of the successor in title must be enforced in countries that have not hitherto recognised the right of resale. The time limits of five and ten years wanted by the Council and in particular by the United Kingdom are unacceptable because in effect this would simply enshrine the status quo and would only benefit the art market in the United Kingdom. The reservations voiced in several quarters can be summarised in two major groups. On the one side, UK lobbyists fear job losses. However, I do not see any risk of art markets relocating to Switzerland or the USA, since the insurance and transport costs exceed the costs involved in the right of resale and make it unprofitable to relocate. In addition, it is in the interests of both Switzerland and the USA to introduce a right of resale once we have adopted a harmonised right of resale in Europe. The second problem concerns Austria, where groups of artists have formed who fear the directive will have adverse effects and therefore oppose it. This is based on the quite mistaken assumption that it is compulsory to involve collective management firms, as has hitherto been the case in Austria. But that is precisely what the directive does not provide. Accordingly, this matter should be put before the Austrian legislator instead of attacking the European legislator who is only creating positive framework conditions for artists and auction houses. So I hope our UK colleagues will not show the same national tendency to block progress that we saw in Nice but that this Parliament will adopt a forward-looking European directive on the art market. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE