Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, a majority of my parliamentary group – I am also saying this because Mr Graça Moura is unable to be here at the moment – will doubtless approve the conclusion reached by the conciliation committee. In spite of this, a good many more members of my parliamentary group also have reservations, shared by political colleagues in my own country of Austria which, at present, does not have resale rights at all and has not seen any need to introduce them either. I also promised my French colleague, Mrs Fourtou, that I would again voice some of these reservations today, although I am a committed supporter of fair competition in the internal market and always speak up for European regulations whenever they make sense in terms of the internal market and our common integration policy. On 13 December of last year, I therefore informed plenary of the concerns expressed about resale rights by artists, the art world, gallery owners and, above all, young artists, as well as by the auction houses in my own country and by our parliamentary group. On that occasion, I concluded by saying that the present basis for the decision was unsatisfactory. I certainly think that the conciliation committee made a lot of changes to try to accommodate these reservations. Moreover, the rapporteur is also to be congratulated. For many, these misgivings could not, however, be completely resolved, something which finds very clear – albeit only symbolic – expression in the wordings concerning the transitional regulations, such as the following: ‘The deadline for implementation of the directive will be 4 years. Those Member States which do not apply the resale right at the time of the entry into force of the directive shall not be required, for a period expiring not later than 1 January 2010, to apply the resale right for the benefit of those entitled under the artist after his death.’ A further deadline is cited by way of supplement. This wording shows how sensitive the subject is and how various compromises had to be made. I should also like to say, however, that the purpose of introducing resale rights is to enable practitioners of the visual arts to benefit from the subsequent financial success of their works. We must ask ourselves if this goal has been achieved. Partly in the wake of scientific investigations and, in addition, the conclusion reached by the conciliation committee, many believe that resale rights constitute a redistribution of resources from young, and often less well off, artists to older, successful artists and, above all, to their heirs. One of the investigations I have to hand provides a very good five-point summary of the reservations, which I should very probably point out, since they show that not everyone is now in a state of euphoria. Firstly: since the art and auction trade can only bear a very small part of the resale rights tax and since – thankfully, in my view – this tax cannot be fully passed on to the purchasers of works of art, resale rights might lead to a reduction in the purchase prices of works by young artists. The second problem is that artists successful later on in life – perhaps just a few out of the total number – might regard resale rights as an enforced redistribution of resources in those later phases of their lives. Thirdly, this is an undesirable development, however, since it would confine young artists within a world of consumer opportunities. Fourthly, the tax could change the nature of competition in the art trade. If this were to happen, there could be a real risk of migration. Fifthly, the initial sale price might be influenced by account having to be taken of the fact that, in the event of a subsequent sale, the resale rights tax would be payable to the artist. These reservations are also shared by many in my country and in my parliamentary group. That does not detract from the result of the conciliation, but I would ask you to understand that not everyone today is laughing.

Political group: PPE-DE