# EUR-Lex - 52013PC0311 - EN

*|*

# 52013PC0311

**Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (Recast) /* COM/2013/0311 final - 2013/0162 (COD) */**

			*

			*

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.           Background to the proposal

·
General context, reasons for and objectives
of this proposal

National cultural objects are objects
identified by the Member States as belonging to their cultural heritage. These
objects are generally classified in terms of their cultural importance and
covered by more or less stringent protection rules. Of these cultural objects,
national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value
(“national treasures”) under national legislation or administrative procedures
within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU), are objects of major interest that should be preserved
for future generations. As a general rule, national treasures receive better
legal protection preventing their permanent removal from the Member State’s
territory.

The internal market is an area without
internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods is ensured in accordance
with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
These provisions do not preclude prohibitions or restrictions justified on
grounds of the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic
or archaeological value within the meaning of Article 36 TFEU.

Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of
cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State[1] was adopted in 1993, when the
internal frontiers were abolished, in order to protect the Member States’
cultural objects that are classified as national treasures. This Directive
seeks to reconcile the fundamental principle of free movement of goods with the
need for effective protection of national treasures.

The assessments of the Directive[2] have shown that its
effectiveness in securing the return of cultural objects classified as national
treasures which have been unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member
State and are located on the territory of another Member State is limited. The main
reasons for this were identified as being:

·
the conditions making objects classified as
national treasures eligible for return, in other words whether they belong to
one of the categories referred to in the Annex and meet the financial and age
thresholds;

·
the short time available for bringing return
proceedings;

·
the cost of compensation.

The assessment reports also highlighted the
need for improved administrative cooperation and consultation between the
central authorities in order to enable them to better implement the Directive.

Under the system set up by the Directive,
certain Member States would have to use the mechanisms provided for by
international agreements in order to secure the return of their cultural
objects. UNESCO’s Convention of 1970 on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing
the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and
the UNIDROIT Convention of 1995 on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural
Objects have not been ratified by all Member States[3].

Despite the variety of instruments
available, trafficking in cultural objects has become one of the most
widespread forms of illegal trade. Trafficking in cultural objects classified
as national treasures is a particularly serious form of this crime which
adversely affects the national identity, culture and history of the Member
States, since the disappearance of national treasures deprives a State’s
citizens of a mark of their identity and history.

In response to this problem and its major
impact on the Member States, the Council of the European Union concluded on 13
and 14 December 2011 that measures needed to be taken to make preventing
and combating crime against cultural objects more effective. It therefore
recommended that the Commission, amongst other bodies, support the Member
States in the effective protection of cultural objects with a view to
preventing and combating trafficking and promoting complementary measures where
appropriate[4].

The aim of this proposal is to enable
Member States to secure the return of any cultural object which is classified
as a national treasure and has been unlawfully removed from their territory
since 1993.

The overall objective is to contribute to
the protection of cultural objects in the context of the internal market.

Consistency with other policies and
objectives of the Union

This initiative is consistent with the
Union's policy on the protection of cultural objects. It is also in line with
the above-mentioned conclusions of the Council of the European Union on
preventing and combating crime against cultural goods.

The proposal for a Directive relates to the
return of cultural objects by means of arrangements enabling Member States to
protect their cultural objects which are classified as national treasures.

As far as the recovery of a cultural object
by its owner is concerned, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012[5] on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
provides for the creation of a forum for civil recovery proceedings based on
ownership at the courts of the place where the object is located. This new
provision would also cover civil proceedings brought for the recovery of
cultural objects.

Both initiatives are aimed at protecting
cultural objects, one enabling national authorities to request the return of a
cultural object which is classified as a national treasure and has been removed
unlawfully from the territory, and the other giving the owner the right to seek
recovery of a cultural object before the courts of the Member State where the
object is located.

2.           Results of consultations with interested
parties and impact assessment

·
Consultation of interested parties

A public consultation, addressed to all the
parties concerned by this initiative, was held from 30 November 2011 to
5 March 2012. The consultation was carried out via the interactive
policy-making system (“Your Voice in Europe”) in the form of two
specific questionnaires, one for public authorities and bodies and the other
for citizens and economic operators concerned by the issue or working in the
area of cultural objects.

The Commission received 142 replies, 24 of
which were from public bodies and 118 from the private sector. A summary of the
results of this public consultation is available on the Europa website[6].

Most (61%) of those from the private sector
taking part in the consultation felt that Directive 93/7/EEC met the needs of
the Member States and that there was no need to revise it. Only 22% were in
favour of revision.

However, 54% of the representatives of
public authorities and bodies took the view that the Directive did not
guarantee the return of national treasures unlawfully removed from the
territory of a Member State. The solutions proposed for improving the
Directive’s effectiveness received fairly even support, with 29% in favour of
revision of the Directive, 29% in favour of improved administrative cooperation
and information exchange between the competent authorities, 17% in favour of
promoting ratification by the Member States of the international agreements
(UNESCO and UNIDROIT) and 25% in favour of an approach combining several
solutions, such as revision of the Directive together with improved
administrative cooperation and consultation between the competent authorities.

·
Acquisition and use of expertise

The Commission has regularly drawn up
reports reviewing Directive 93/7/EEC on the basis of national reports on its
application. These evaluation reports covering the period 1993 to 2011 are
addressed to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and
Social Committee[7].

The Commission also carried out an ex
post evaluation of the Directive by setting up a group of national experts
representing the central authorities which carry out the tasks set out in the
Directive. The role of the Return of Cultural Goods expert group, established
within the Committee on the Export and Return of Cultural Goods, was to
identify problems in applying the Directive and find possible solutions. The
group carried out its work between 2009 and 2011.

The group concluded that the Directive
should be revised to make it a more effective instrument for the return of
national treasures and that mechanisms should be put in place to improve
administrative cooperation and consultation between the central authorities[8].

·
Impact assessment

This proposal is accompanied by an
executive summary of the impact assessment and an impact assessment, a draft
version of which was assessed by the Impact Assessment Board of the European
Commission, which issued its opinion on 21 September 2012. The final
version of the impact assessment was amended to take the Board’s
recommendations into account.

The impact assessment took particular
account of the reports reviewing the application of the Directive, the
documentation obtained from the work of the Return of Cultural Goods expert
group, the work of the OMC (Open Method of Coordination) expert group on the
mobility of collections under the Work Plan for Culture 2007-2010[9], the results of the public
consultation on the matter, and also studies looking into cultural goods
carried out in 2004, 2007 and 2011[10].

Based on the information collected, the
Commission carried out an impact assessment which examined and compared the
following options[11]:

Option 1: no change to the current
situation

No amendment is made to Directive 93/7/EEC
as amended by Directives 96/100/EC and 2001/38/EC.

Option 2: promoting the use of common
tools by the central authorities

The central authorities are provided with
an electronic tool (the Internal Market Information System or "IMI")
to facilitate administrative cooperation, consultation and the exchange of information
between these authorities.

Option 3: revision of Directive 93/7/EEC

Directive 93/7/EEC is revised to: (i)
extend its scope to include all objects classified as national treasures, (ii)
extend the time-limits for bringing return proceedings and for checking the
cultural object, and (iii) align the conditions for compensating the possessor.

Option 4: encouraging ratification and
application by the Member States of the UNESCO Convention of 1970 on cultural
property

Directive 93/7/EEC remains unamended and
action is focused on ratification and application by the Member States of the
1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit
Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

The preferred approach is a combination of
options 2 and 3, aimed in particular at:

- prescribing the use of the IMI administrative
cooperation system between the central authorities;

- extending the scope of the Directive to
include all cultural objects classified as national treasures within the
meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty;

- extending the time available for bringing
return proceedings;

- extending the time allowed for checking
the cultural object;

- aligning the conditions for compensating
the possessor in cases of return.

3.           Legal aspects of the proposal

·
Summary of the proposed action

The aim of recasting Directive 93/7/EEC, as
amended by Directives 96/100/EC and 2001/38/EC, is to enable Member States to
secure the return of any cultural object which is classified as a national
treasure. The recast is also intended to simplify Union legislation in this
area.

The changes made to the provisions of
Directive 93/7/EEC concern: (i) extending its scope to cover all cultural
objects classified as national treasures within the meaning of Article 36 of
the Treaty, (ii) prescribing the use of the IMI system for administrative
cooperation and information exchanges between the central authorities, (iii)
extending the time given to the authorities of the requesting Member State to
check the nature of the cultural object found in another Member State, (iv)
extending the time-limit for bringing return proceedings, (v) indicating which
authority of the requesting Member State starts the period for bringing return
proceedings, (vi) stipulating that the possessor has the burden of proof that
due care and attention was taken when the cultural object was acquired, (vii)
indicating the common criteria for interpreting the concept of due care and
attention and (viii) extending the time-limit for the reports assessing and
reviewing the application of the Directive.

·
Legal basis

The proposal is based on Article 114 of the
Treaty (TFEU).

·
Subsidiarity principle

The internal market is a competence that is
shared between the Union and the Member States. Therefore the principle of
subsidiarity applies.

Directive 93/7/EEC was adopted when the
internal market was created, since any action taken in isolation by Member
States towards the return of objects might be thwarted by differences between
national laws.

Establishing rules on the return of objects
contributes towards the smoother functioning of the internal market. It would
be very difficult for a Member State to secure the return of a cultural object
classified as a national treasure that has been unlawfully removed without a
common procedure that is also available in the Member State where the object is
located. A possessor who knows that the object has been unlawfully removed
could therefore establish himself in a Member State without having to fear the
loss of that object.

The cross-border dimension of the unlawful
removal of cultural objects makes the Union better suited to act on these matters
and enable the return of objects that have been unlawfully removed and are
located in the territory of a Member State. Therefore, the objective of the
proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States and requires action
at EU level.

However, the Union is not competent for
determining what is a national treasure or which national courts have
competence for hearing the return proceedings brought by the requesting Member
State against the possessor and/or holder of a cultural object that is classified
as being a national treasure and has been unlawfully removed from the territory
of the Member State. These matters are covered by subsidiarity, as they fall
within the competence of the Member States.

·
Proportionality principle

In accordance with the principle of
proportionality, the proposed modifications do not go beyond what is necessary
to achieve the objectives set.

The scale of the proposed measure is
connected with the major factors limiting the effectiveness of Directive
93/7/EEC with regard to securing the return of certain objects classified as
national treasures. This proposal is proportionate to the objective of ensuring
the return of all cultural objects that are classified as national treasures
and have been unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State since
1993 and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose.

In order to improve its application, this
proposal stipulates that administrative cooperation and information exchange
between the central authorities is to be carried out using the IMI system; it
also indicates which national authority of the requesting Member State starts
the period for bringing return proceedings, stipulates that the possessor has
the burden of proof that due care and attention was exercised, and sets out
certain common criteria for interpreting the concept of due care and attention
so that it is easier for national judges to arrive at a more uniform
interpretation of this concept for the purposes of compensating the possessor.
These criteria are not exhaustive.

However, there is no need for action with
regard to other aspects, such as enabling an individual to bring return
proceedings to retrieve an object considered a national treasure which belongs
to him, extending the time-limit for bringing return proceedings from thirty to
fifty years, or limiting the maximum amount of compensation to the possessor.

The proposal will not add to the
administrative burden of the administrations; it should, in fact, reduce it.

·
Legislative technique

On 1 April 1987, the Commission
decided to instruct its staff that all acts should be codified after no more
than ten amendments, stressing that this is a minimum requirement and that
departments should endeavour to codify the texts for which they are responsible
at even shorter intervals in order to ensure that their provisions are clear
and readily understandable.

Codification of Council Directive 93/7/EEC
of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from
the territory of a Member State[12]
was initiated by the Commission, and a relevant proposal was submitted to the
legislative authority[13].
The new Directive was to have superseded the various acts incorporated in it[14].

In the course of the legislative procedure,
it was acknowledged that Article 16(4) of Directive 93/7/EEC, which
corresponded to Article 16(3) of the proposed codified text, established a
secondary legal basis. In the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of
6 May 2008 in Case C-133/06, it was considered necessary to delete Article
16(3) of the proposed codified text. Since such a deletion would have involved
a substantive change going beyond straightforward codification, it was
considered necessary that point 8[15]
of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated
working method for official codification of legislative texts – be applied, in
the light of the joint declaration on that point[16].

The Commission therefore considered it
appropriate to withdraw the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council codifying Directive 93/7/EEC[17] and to transform the
codification of the Directive into a recast in order to incorporate the
necessary amendment.

As explained above, the objective of
enabling Member States to secure the return of cultural objects which are
classified as national treasures requires a certain number of substantial
changes to be made to Directive 93/7/EEC. It has therefore been decided to
apply the recasting technique in accordance with the Interinstitutional
Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting
technique for legal acts[18].

This proposal is for a recast of Directive
93/7/EEC, as amended by Directives 96/100/EC and 2001/38/EC. It provides for
simplification of the legislation in force and will lead to the repeal of
Directives 93/7/EEC, 96/100/EC and 2001/38/EC.

·
Detailed explanation of the proposal

Article 1(1)
defines a ‘cultural object’ as an object which is classified, before or after
its unlawful removal from the territory of a Member State, among the ‘national
treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value’ under national
legislation or administrative procedures within the meaning of Article 36 of
the Treaty. The Annex to Directive 93/7/EEC is deleted.

For the purposes of the return of an
object, this Directive removes the requirements that objects classified as
national treasures should:

·
belong to one of the common categories referred
to in the Annex and to respect, where necessary, the age and/or financial
thresholds set for those categories, or,

·
where the objects do not belong to one of those
categories, form an integral part of public collections listed in the
inventories of museums, archives or libraries' conservation collections or the
inventories of ecclesiastical institutions.

Each Member State must define their
national treasures within the meaning and the limits of Article 36 of the
Treaty. The Annex to Directive 93/7/EEC is not intended to define objects which
rank as national treasures within the meaning of that article, but merely
categories of object which may be classified as such and may be eligible for
return proceedings.

This proposal seeks to reconcile the
fundamental principle of the free movement of cultural objects with the need
for effective protection of national treasures. It confirms
the intention of the legislature of 1993 to make Directive 93/7/EEC a first
step in establishing cooperation between Member States in this field in the
context of the internal market, and that its aim was mutual recognition of the
relevant national laws.

This proposal meets the repeated demand
made by representatives of the Member States for effective arrangements for the
return of cultural objects classified as national treasures. It allows Member
States to secure the return of cultural objects which are classified as
national treasures and have been unlawfully removed from their territory since
1993, and thus provides better protection for the Member States’ cultural
heritage.

However, the possessor would be able to
submit evidence in the return proceedings to argue that the requesting State
infringed Article 36 of the Treaty when it classified the object as a national
treasure. The court in question will then have to make a ruling, where
necessary after sending a referral for a preliminary ruling to the Court of
Justice of the European Union.

Articles 4 and 6 provide for the use by the central authorities of the Internal
Market Information System ("IMI") in order to facilitate
administrative cooperation, consultation and the exchange of information
between them.

Article 4(3)
extends the time-limit allowed to the competent authority of the requesting
Member State to check that the object discovered in another Member State is a
cultural object to five months after the notification that the object has been
discovered.

In view of the cross-border aspect of this
issue, extending this time-limit will contribute to more effective
administrative cooperation between the competent authorities.

Article 7(1)
stipulates that the return proceedings may not be brought more than three years
after the central authority of the requesting Member State became aware
of the location of the cultural object and of the identity of its possessor or
holder.

The extension of this period takes account
of the complexity of cross-border relations and also the obligation of due care
and attention incumbent on the requesting State.

Article 9
contains common criteria for interpreting the concept of the due care
and attention exercised by the possessor in acquiring the object. These
criteria are based on those set out in Articles 4(4) and 6(2) of the UNIDROIT
Convention of 1995.

Under this proposal, the burden of proof
of due care and attention in acquiring the object will lie with the possessor.
The person acquiring the object will be entitled to compensation provided that
he can prove that he exercised due care and attention in acquiring the object
with respect to whether the cultural object was lawfully removed from the
territory of the requesting Member State.

These changes should enable the Directive
to be applied more uniformly and, where necessary, make it more difficult for
possessors acting in bad faith or not exercising due care and attention to
obtain compensation.

Article 16
lays down the evaluation and monitoring arrangements allowing the other
institutions of the Union to gain an insight into the actual implementation of
the Directive. The reports reviewing the application of the Directive will be
drawn up every five years. A review clause is included.

·
Comitology and delegated acts

Article 17
of Directive 93/7/EEC provides for the Commission to be assisted by the
committee established by Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 (codified
version of Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 on the export of cultural goods)[19]. This is the Committee on the
Export and Return of Cultural Goods, which is an advisory committee of the
Commission made up of representatives of the Member States.

Directive 93/7/EEC stipulates that the
Committee is to examine any question arising from the application of its Annex
which may be tabled by the chairman either on his own initiative or at the
request of the representative of a Member State.

Since the new Directive does not contain an
annex, the reference to the Committee has been deleted in the proposal.

In accordance with the Communication from
the Commission entitled “Framework for Commission's expert groups: horizontal
rules and public register”, the Commission will set up, where necessary, an
expert group made up of experts from the central authorities responsible for
the Directive to set out the operating procedure for using the Internal Market
Information System (IMI) in the area of cultural objects.

4.           Additional information

·
Repeal of existing legislation

The adoption of this proposal for a recast
will lead to the repeal of the legislation in force, Directives 93/7/EEC,
96/100/EC and 2001/38/EC.

·
Amendment of existing legislation

This Directive amends the Annex to
Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 25 October 2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal
Market Information System to include the new Directive.

·
European Economic Area

The proposed act is relevant to the EEA and
should therefore extend to the European Economic Area.

5.           Budgetary implications

The budgetary implications of this proposal
are set out in the financial statement attached to the proposal. The proposal
involves only administrative costs.

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

2013/0162 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the return of cultural objects
unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State

(Recast)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Economic Community Ö on the
Functioning of the European Union Õ , and in
particular Article 100
A Ö 114 Õ thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative
act to the national parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the Ö European Õ Economic and
Social Committee[20],

Acting in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure,

Whereas:

ò new

(1)       Council
Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects
unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State[21] has been substantially amended
several times[22].
Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests
of clarity.

ê93/7/EEC Recital
1 (adapted)

ð new

(2)       Whereas Article 8a of the Treaty provides for the
establishment, not later than 1 January 1993, of the Ö The Õ internal
market, which is to
comprise Ö comprises Õ an area
without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons,
services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the
Treaty. ð These provisions do not preclude
prohibitions or restrictions justified on grounds of the protection of national
treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value. ï

ê 93/7/EEC
Recital 2 (adapted)

(3)       Whereas, Under the terms and
within the limits of Article 36 of the Treaty, Member States will, after 1992,
retain the right to define their national treasures and to take the necessary
measures to protect them in this area without internal frontiers.

ê 93/7/EEC
Recital 3 (adapted)

(4)       Whereas arrangements should therefore be
introduced Ö Directive
93/7/EEC introduced arrangements Õ enabling
Member States to secure the return to their territory of cultural objects which
are classified as national treasures within the meaning of the said
Article 36 Ö of the
Treaty, fall under the common categories of cultural object referred to in the
Treaty’s Annex Õ and have been
removed from their territory in breach of the above-mentioned national measures
or of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92116/2009 of 9
18 December 19922008 on the export of cultural goods[23]; Ö and
cultural objects classified as national treasures and forming an integral part
of public collections or inventories of ecclesiastical institutions but which
do not fall within these common categories Õ. whereas the
implementation of these arrangements should be as simple and efficient as
possible; whereas, to facilitate cooperation with regard to return, the scope
of the arrangements should be confined to items belonging to common
categories of cultural object; whereas the Annex to this Directive is
consequently not intended to define objects which rank as ‘national treasures’
within the meaning of the said Article 36, but merely categories of object which may be classified as such and may accordingly be
covered by the return procedure introduced by this Directive;

ê 93/7/EEC
Recital 4 (adapted)

Whereas cultural objects classified as national
treasures and forming an integral part of public collections or inventories of
ecclesiastical institutions but which do not fall within these common
categories should also be covered by this Directive;

ê 93/7/EEC
Recital 5 (adapted)

(5)       Whereas administrative cooperation should be
Ö Directive
93/7/EEC Õ established administrative cooperation between Member
States as regards their national treasures, in close liaison with their
cooperation in the field of stolen works of art and involving in particular the
recording, with Interpol and other qualified bodies issuing similar lists, of
lost, stolen or illegally removed cultural objects forming part of their
national treasures and their public collections.

ê 93/7/EEC
Recital 6 (adapted)

(6)       Whereas The procedure Ö provided
for in Õ introduced by this
Directive Ö 93/7/EEC
was Õ is a
first step in establishing cooperation between Member States in this field in
the context of the internal market. The aim is mutual recognition of the
relevant national laws. whereas provision should therefore be made, in particular, for the
Commission to be assisted by an advisory committee.

ê 93/7/EEC
Recital 7 (adapted)

(7)       Whereas Regulation (EEC) No
3911/92
116/2009 introduces, together with
this Directive, a Community
Ö Union Õ system to
protect Member States’ cultural goods. whereas the date by which Member States have to
comply with this Directive has to be as close as possible to the date of
entry into force of that Regulation; whereas, having regard to the nature of
their legal systems and the scope of the changes to their legislation necessary
to implement this Directive, some Member
States will need a longer period,

ò new

(8)       Application
of Directive 93/7/EEC has shown the limitations of the arrangements for
securing the return of objects classified as national treasures which have been
unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State and discovered in the
territory of another Member State.

(9)       The
Member States should have arrangements at their disposal to ensure that the
unlawful removal of a cultural object classified as a national treasure to
another Member State does not present the same risk as its illegal export
outside the Union.

(10)     The
scope of this Directive must extend to any cultural object classified as a national
treasure possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value under national
legislation or administrative procedures within the meaning of Article 36 of
the Treaty. The criterion of falling under one of the categories referred to in
the Annex to Directive 93/7/EEC should therefore be removed and thus the Annex
itself should be deleted and the criterion of forming an integral part of public
collections listed in the inventories of museums, archives and libraries'
conservation collections or the inventories of ecclesiastical institutions
should also be removed. The diversity of national arrangements for protecting
cultural objects is recognised in Article 36 of the Treaty. In this context,
mutual trust, a willingness to cooperate and mutual understanding between
Member States are therefore essential.

(11)     Administrative
cooperation between the Member States needs to be stepped up so that this
Directive can be applied more effectively and uniformly. The central
authorities should therefore be required to use the Internal Market Information
System (“IMI”) provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on administrative
cooperation through the Internal Market Information System and repealing
Commission Decision 2008/49/EC[24].
It would also be desirable for other competent authorities of the Member States
to use the same system where possible.

(12)     In
order to ensure the protection of personal data, administrative cooperation and
the exchange of information between the competent authorities should comply
with the rules set out in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data[25] and, insofar as the Internal
Market Information System is used, in Regulation(EU) No 1024/2012.

(13)     The
time given to the competent authorities of the requesting Member State to check
whether the cultural object found in another Member State is a cultural object
within the meaning of this Directive should be extended. A longer period should
allow appropriate measures to be taken in order to keep the object and, where
necessary, prevent any action to evade the return procedure.

(14)     The
time-limit for bringing return proceedings should be set at three years after
the requesting Member State became aware of the location of the cultural object
and of the identity of its possessor or holder. In the interests of clarity, it
should be stipulated that the time-limit for bringing proceedings begins on the
date on which the information came to the knowledge of the central authority of
the requesting Member State.

(15)     The
Council of the European Union has recognised the need for measures to be taken
in order to make preventing and combating crime against cultural objects more
effective. It therefore recommended that the Commission support the Member
States in the effective protection of cultural objects with a view to
preventing and combating trafficking and promoting complementary measures where
appropriate[26].

(16)     It
is desirable to ensure that all those involved in the market in cultural
objects exercise due care and attention in transactions involving cultural
objects. The consequences of acquiring a cultural object of unlawful origin
will be genuinely dissuasive only if the obligation to return is coupled with
an obligation on the possessor to prove the exercise of due care and attention
in order to obtain compensation. In order, therefore, to achieve the Union’s
objectives in preventing and combating unlawful traffic in cultural objects, it
must be stipulated that the possessor must provide proof that he exercised due
care and attention in acquiring the object in order to obtain compensation, and
that the possessor may not claim to have acted in good faith if he failed to
exercise the level of due care and attention required by the circumstances.

(17)     In
order to enable Member States to arrive at a uniform interpretation of the
concept of due care and attention, the circumstances should be set out which
are to be taken into account to determine whether due care and attention have
been exercised.

(18)     The
aim of this Directive, that of enabling the return of any cultural object
classified as a national treasure which has been unlawfully removed from the
territory of a Member State, cannot be adequately achieved by the Member States
and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at
Union level. The Union may therefore adopt measures in accordance with the
principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European
Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that
Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to
achieve that objective.

(19)     Since
the tasks of the committee set up by Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 116/2009
are rendered obsolete by the deletion of the Annex to Directive 93/7/EEC,
references to that committee should be deleted.

(20)     Since
the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 contains a list of provisions on
administrative cooperation in Union acts which are implemented by means of the
IMI, the Annex should be amended to include this Directive.

(21)     The
obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to
those provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with the
earlier Directives. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are
unchanged arises from Directive 93/7/EEC.

(22)     This
Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States
relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law of the
Directives set out in Annex I, Part B,

ê 93/7/EEC

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

For the purposes of this Directive:

1)           ‘Cultural object’ shall mean an
object which: is classified, before or after its unlawful removal from the
territory of a Member State, among the ‘national treasures possessing artistic,
historic or archaeological value’ under national legislation or administrative
procedures within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty.

and

–
belongs to one of
the categories listed in the Annex or does not belong to one of these
categories but forms an integral part of:

–
- public
collections listed in the inventories of museums, archives or libraries'
conservation collection.

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

For the purposes of this Directive, ‘public
collections’ shall mean collections which are the property of a Member State,
local or regional authority within a Member States or an institution situated
in the territory of a Member State and defined as public in accordance with
the legislation of that Member State, such institution being the property of,
or significantly financed by, that Member State or a local or regional
authority;

ê 93/7/EEC

–
- the inventories
of ecclesiastical institutions.

2)           ‘Unlawfully removed from the
territory of a Member State’ shall mean:

(a)     removed from the territory of a Member State in breach of its
rules on the protection of national treasures or in breach of Regulation (EEC)
No 3911/92
116/2009,

or

(b)     not returned at the end of a period of lawful temporary removal
or any breach of another condition governing such temporary removal.

3)           ‘Requesting Member State’ shall
mean the Member State from whose territory the cultural object has been unlawfully
removed.

4)           ‘Requested Member State’ shall
mean the Member State in whose territory a cultural object unlawfully removed
from the territory of another Member State is located.

5)           ‘Return’ shall mean the physical
return of the cultural object to the territory of the requesting Member State.

6)           ‘Possessor’ shall mean the person
physically holding the cultural object on his own account.

7)           ‘Holder’ shall mean the person
physically holding the cultural object for third parties.

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

Ö 8)     ‘Public collections’ shall mean
collections which are the property of a Member State, local or regional
authority within a Member State or an institution situated in the territory of
a Member State and defined as public in accordance with the legislation of that
Member State, such institution being the property of, or significantly financed
by, that Member State or a local or regional authority.Õ

ê 93/7/EEC

Article 2

Cultural objects which have been unlawfully
removed from the territory of a Member State shall be returned in accordance
with the procedure and in the circumstances provided for in this Directive.

Article 3

Each Member State shall appoint one or more
central authorities to carry out the tasks provided for in this Directive.

Member States shall inform the Commission
of all the central authorities they appoint pursuant to this Article.

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

The Commission shall publish a list of
these central authorities and any changes concerning them in the C series of
the Official Journal of the European Communities Ö Union Õ.

ê 93/7/EEC

Article 4

Member States' central authorities shall
cooperate and promote consultation between the Member States' competent
national authorities. The latter shall in particular:

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

1)           upon application by the requesting Member State, seek a
specified cultural object which has been unlawfully removed from its territory,
identifying the possessor and/or holder. The application must
include all information needed to facilitate this search, with particular
reference to the actual or presumed location of the object;

ê 93/7/EEC

ð new

2)           notify the Member States
concerned, where a cultural object is found in their own territory and there
are reasonable grounds for believing that it has been unlawfully removed from
the territory of another Member State;

3)           enable the competent authorities
of the requesting Member State to check that the object in question is a
cultural object, provided that the check is made within 2 ð five ï months of the notification provided for in paragraph 2. If it is
not made within the stipulated period, paragraphs 4 and 5 shall cease to apply;

4)           take any necessary measures, in
cooperation with the Member State concerned, for the physical preservation of
the cultural object;

5)           prevent, by the necessary interim
measures, any action to evade the return procedure;

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

6)           act as intermediary between the
possessor and/or holder and the requesting Member State with regard to return. To this end, the
competent authorities of the requested Member States may, without prejudice to
Article 5, first facilitate the implementation of an arbitration procedure,
in accordance with the national legislation of the requested State and provided
that the requesting State and the possessor or holder give their formal
approval.

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

Ö For the
purposes of paragraph 1, the Member State’s application must include all
information needed to facilitate the search, with particular reference to the
actual or presumed location of the object. Õ

Ö For the
purposes of paragraph 6, the competent authorities of the requested Member
States may, without prejudice to Article 5, first facilitate the implementation
of an arbitration procedure, in accordance with the national legislation of the
requested State and provided that the requesting State and the possessor or
holder give their formal approval. Õ

ò new

The central
authorities of the Member States shall use the Internal Market Information
System ("IMI") established by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 to
cooperate and consult with each other. The Member States shall decide on the
use of the IMI for the purposes of this Directive by other competent
authorities.

ê 93/7/EEC

Article 5

The requesting Member State may initiate,
before the competent court in the requested Member State, proceedings against
the possessor or, failing him, the holder, with the aim of securing the return
of a cultural object which has been unlawfully removed from its territory.

Proceedings may be brought only where the
document initiating them is accompanied by:

(a)     a document describing the object covered by the request and
stating that it is a cultural object,;

(b)     a declaration by the competent authorities of the requesting
Member State that the cultural object has been unlawfully removed from its
territory.

Article 6

The central authority of the requesting
Member State shall forthwith inform the central authority of the requested
Member State that proceedings have been initiated with the aim of securing the
return of the object in question.

The central authority of the requested
Member State shall forthwith inform the central authorities of the other Member
States.

ò new

The exchange of
information shall be conducted using the IMI.

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

ð new

Article 7

1. 1. Member States shall lay down in their
legislation that the return proceedings provided for in this Directive may not
be brought more than one year ð three years ï after Ö the
central authority of Õ the requesting
Member State became aware of the location of the cultural object and of the
identity of its possessor or holder.

ê 93/7/EEC

Such proceedings may, at all events, not be
brought more than 30 years after the object was unlawfully removed from the
territory of the requesting Member State.

However, in the case of objects forming
part of public collections, referred to in Article 1 (1) (8), and ecclesiastical goods in the
Member States where they are subject to special protection arrangements under
national law, return proceedings shall be subject to a time-limit of 75 years,
except in Member States where proceedings are not subject to a time-limit or in
the case of bilateral agreements between Member States laying down a period
exceeding 75 years.

2. Return proceedings may not be brought if
removal from the national territory of the requesting Member State is no longer
unlawful at the time when they are to be initiated.

Article 8

Save as otherwise provided in Articles 7
and 13, the competent court shall order the return of the cultural object in
question where it is found to be a cultural object within the meaning of
Article 1 (1) and to have been removed unlawfully from national territory.

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

Article 9

Where return of the object is ordered, the
competent court in the requested States shall award the possessor such Ö fair Õ compensation as it deems fair according
to the circumstances of the case, provided that it is satisfied that the
possessor Ö demonstrates that he Õ exercised due care and attention in acquiring the object.

ò new

In determining
whether the possessor exercised due care and attention, consideration shall be
given to all the circumstances of the acquisition, in particular the
documentation on the object’s provenance, the authorisations for removal
required under the law of the requesting Member State, the nature of the parties,
the price paid, whether the possessor consulted any accessible register of
stolen cultural objects, and any other relevant information and documentation
which he could reasonably have obtained and whether the possessor consulted
accessible agencies or took any other step which a reasonable person would have
taken in the circumstances.

The possessor may
not claim to have acted in good faith if he failed to exercise the level of due
care and attention required by the circumstances.

ê 93/7/EEC

The burden of
proof shall be governed by the legislation of the requested Member State.

In the case of a donation or succession,
the possessor shall not be in a more favourable position than the person from
whom he acquired the object by that means.

The requesting Member State shall pay such
compensation upon return of the object.

Article 10

Expenses incurred in implementing a
decision ordering the return of a cultural object shall be borne by the
requesting Member State. The same applies to the costs of the measures referred
to in Article 4 (4).

Article 11

Payment of the fair compensation and of the
expenses referred to in Articles 9 and 10 respectively shall be without
prejudice to the requesting Member State's right to take action with a view to
recovering those amounts from the persons responsible for the unlawful removal
of the cultural object from its territory.

Article 12

Ownership of the cultural object after
return shall be governed by that law of the requesting Member State.

Article 13

This Directive shall apply only to cultural
objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State on or after 1
January 1993.

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

ð new

Article 14

1. Each Member State may extend its
obligation to return cultural objects to cover categories of objects
other than those listed
Ö defined Õ in the Annex Ö Article 1(1) Õ.

ê 93/7/EEC

ð new

2. Each Member State may apply the
arrangements provided for by this Directive to requests for the return of
cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of other Member States
prior to 1 January 1993.

Article 15

This Directive shall be without prejudice
to any civil or criminal proceedings that may be brought, under the national
laws of the Member States, by the requesting Member State and/or the owner of a
cultural object that has been stolen.

Article 16

1. Member States shall send the Commission
every three ð five ï years, and for the first time in February 1996
ð [...] ï, a report on the application of this Directive.

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

ð new

2. The Commission shall send the European
Parliament, the Council and the Ö European Õ Economic
and Social Committee, every three
ð five ï years, a report reviewing the application of this Directive. ð The report shall be accompanied by
any appropriate proposals. ï

ê 93/7/EEC

3. The Council
shall review the effectiveness of this Directive after a period of application
of three years and, acting on a proposal from the Commission, make any
necessary adaptations.

4. In any event,
the Council acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall examine every three
years and, where appropriate, update the amounts indicated in the Annex, on the
basis of economic and monetary indicators in the Community.

Article 17

The Commission
shall be assisted by the Committee set up by Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No
3911/92.

The Committee
shall examine any question arising from the application of the Annex to this
Directive which may be tabled by the chairman either on his own initiative
or at the request of the representative of a Member State.

ò new

Article 17

The following
point 6 shall be added to the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012:

"6. European
Parliament and Council Directive xxxx/xx/EU on the return of cultural objects
unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (*): Articles 4 and 6.

(*) OJ L
[...]."

ê 93/7/EEC
(adapted)

Article 18

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive within nine months of its adoption,
except as far as the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany and
the Kingdom of the Netherlands are concerned, which must conform to this
Directive at the latest twelve months from the date of its adoption
Ö the
[following] articles: [Article 1(1), the first subparagraph of Article 4,
Article 4(3), the fourth subparagraph of Article 4, the third subparagraph of
Article 6, Article 7, Article 9 and Article 16] of this Directive Õ at the latest
twelve months from the date of its adoption.

They shall forthwith inform Ö communicate
the text of these provisions to Õ the Commission
thereof.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this
Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their
official publication. Ö They
shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations
and administrative provisions to the directive(s) repealed by this Directive
shall be construed as references to this Directive. Õ The methods of making
such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States Ö Member
States shall determine how such reference is to be made and how that statement
is to be formulated Õ .

ê

2. Member States shall communicate to the
Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in
the field covered by this Directive.

Article 19

Directive 93/7/EEC, as amended by the
Directives listed in Annex I, Part A, is repealed with effect from [...], without
prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits
for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex I, Part
B.

References to the repealed Directive shall
be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance
with the correlation table in Annex II.

Article 20

This Directive shall enter into force on
the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of
the European Union.

Articles [...] shall apply from [...].

ê 93/7/EEC

Article 21

This
Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament                       For
the Council

The
President                                                 The President

ê 93/7/EEC

ANNEX

Categories
referred to in the second indent of Article 1 (1) to which objects classified
as ‘national treasures’ within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty must
belong in order to qualify for return under this Directive

A.           1.      Archaeological objects more than 100 years old
which are the products of:

–
land or underwater
excavations and finds,

–
archaeological
sites,

–
archaeological
collections.

2.      Elements
forming an integral part of artistic, historical or religious monuments which have been dismembered, more than
100 years old.

ê 96/100/EC
Article 1(1)(a)

3.      Pictures
and paintings, other than those included in Category 3A or 4, executed entirely
by hand on any material and in any medium[27].

ê 96/100/EC
Article 1(1)(b)

3 A.   Water-colours,
gouaches and pastels executed entirely by
hand on any material1.

ê 96/100/EC
Article 1(1)(c)

4.      Mosaics
in any material executed entirely by hand, other than those falling in
Categories 1 or 2, and drawings in any medium executed entirely by hand on any
material1.

ê 93/7/EEC

5.      Original
engravings, prints, serigraphs and lithographs with their respective plates and
original posters1.

6.      Original
sculptures or statuary and copies produced by the same process as the original1 other than those in category 1.

7.      Photographs,
films and negatives thereof1.

8.      Incunabula
and manuscripts, including maps and musical scores, singly or in collections1.

9.      Books
more than 100 years old, singly or in collections.

10.    Printed
maps more than 200 years old.

11.    Archives
and any elements thereof, of any kind, on
any medium, comprising elements more than 50 years old.

12.    (a)     Collections[28] and specimens from zoological, botanical,
mineralogical or anatomical collections;

(b)     Collections2 of historical, palaeontological, ethnographic
or numismatic interest.

13.    Means of
transport more than 75 years old.

14.    Any
other antique item not included in categories A 1 to A 13, more than 50 years
old.

The
cultural objects in categories A 1 to A 14 are covered by this Directive only
if their value corresponds to, or exceeds, the financial thresholds under B.

B.           Financial thresholds applicable to certain
categories under A (in ecus)

ê 2001/38/EC
Article 1(1)

VALUE:

Whatever the value

ê 93/7/EEC

–
1 (Archaeological
objects)

–
2 (Dismembered
monuments)

–
8 (Incunabula and
manuscripts)

–
11 (Archives)

15 000

–
4 (Mosaics and
drawings)

–
5 (Engravings)

–
7 (Photographs)

–
10 (Printed maps)

ê 96/100/EC
Article 1(2)

30 000

–
3A. (Water
colours, gouaches and pastels)

ê 93/7/EEC

50 000

–
6 (Statuary)

–
9 (Books)

–
12 (Collections)

–
13 (Means of
transport)

–
14 (Any other
item)

150 000

–
3 (Pictures)

The
assessment of whether or not the conditions relating to financial value are
fulfilled must be made when return is requested. The financial value is that of
the object in the requested Member State.

ê 2001/38/EC
Article 1(2)

For the Member
States which do not have the euro as their currency, the values expressed in
euro in the Annex shall be converted and expressed in national currencies at
the rate of exchange on 31 December 2001 published in the Official Journal of
the European Communities. This countervalue in national currencies shall be reviewed every two years with effect from 31
December 2001. Calculation of this countervalue shall be based on the average
daily value of those currencies, expressed in euro, during the 24 months ending
on the last day of August preceding the revision which takes effect on 31
December. The Advisory Committee on Cultural Goods shall review this method of
calculation, on a proposal from the Commission, in principle two years after
the first application. For each revision, the values expressed in euro and their countervalues in national currency shall be
published periodically in the Official Journal of the European Communities in
the first days of the month of November preceding the date on which the
revision takes effect.

_____________

é

ANNEX I

Part A

Repealed Directive with list of its
successive amendments
(referred to in Article 19)

Council Directive 93/7/EEC || (OJ L 74, 27.03.1993, p. 74) ||

|| Directive 96/100/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council || (OJ L 60, 1.3.1997, p. 59)

|| Directive 2001/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council || (OJ L 187, 10.7.2001, p. 43)

Part B

List of time-limits for
transposition into national law
(referred to in Article 19)

Directive || Time-limit for transposition

93/7/EEC || 15.12.1993[29]

96/100/EC || 1.9.1997

2001/38/EC || 31.12.2001

_____________

ANNEX II

Correlation table

Directive 93/7/EEC || This Directive

Article 1(1), first indent || Article 1(1)

Article 1(1), second indent, introductory phrase || _______

Article 1(1), second indent, first sub-indent, first subparagraph || _______

Article 1(1), second indent, first sub-indent, second subparagraph || Article 1(8)

Article 1(1), second indent, second sub-indent || _______

Article 1(2), first indent || Article 1(2)(a)

Article 1(2), second indent || Article 1(2)(b)

Article 1(3) to (7) || Article 1(3) to (7)

Articles 2 and 3 Article 4, first subparagraph Article 4(1), second sentence Article 4(6), second sentence _______ || Articles 2 and 3 Article 4, first subparagraph Article 4, second subparagraph Article 4, third subparagraph Article 4, fourth subparagraph

Article 5, first subparagraph || Article 5, first subparagraph

Article 5, second subparagraph, first indent || Article 5, second subparagraph, point (a)

Article 5, second subparagraph, second indent || Article 5, second subparagraph, point (b)

Article 6, first subparagraph || Article 6, first subparagraph

Article 6, second subparagraph || Article 6, second subparagraph

_______ || Article 6, third subparagraph

Articles 7 and 8 || Articles 7 and 8

Article 9, first subparagraph || Article 9, first subparagraph

Article 9, second subparagraph || _______

_______ _______ || Article 9, second subparagraph Article 9, third subparagraph

Article 9, third and fourth subparagraphs || Article 9, fourth and fifth subparagraphs

Articles 10 to 15 || Articles 10 to 15

Article 16, paragraphs 1 and 2 || Article 16, paragraphs 1 and 2

Article 16, paragraph 3 || _______

Article 16, paragraph 4 || _______

Article 17 || _______

_______ || Article 17

Article 18 || Article 18, paragraph 1

_______ || Article 18, paragraph 2

_______ || Article 19

_______ || Article 20, first subparagraph

_______ || Article 20, second subparagraph

Article 19 Annex || Article 21 _______

______ || Annex I

______ || Annex II

é

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

1.           FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

1.1.    Title of the
proposal/initiative

1.2.    Policy area(s)
concerned in the ABM/ABB structure

1.3.    Nature of the
proposal/initiative

1.4.    Objective(s)

1.5.    Grounds for the
proposal/initiative

1.6.    Duration and
financial impact

1.7.    Management
method(s) envisaged

2.           MANAGEMENT MEASURES

2.1.    Monitoring and
reporting rules

2.2.    Management and
control system

2.3.    Measures to
prevent fraud and irregularities

3.           ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE
PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

3.1.    Heading(s) of
the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected

3.2.    Estimated impact
on expenditure

3.2.1. Summary of
estimated impact on expenditure

3.2.2. Estimated impact
on operational appropriations

3.2.3. Estimated impact
on appropriations of an administrative nature

3.2.4. Compatibility
with the current multiannual financial framework

3.2.5. Third-party
contributions

3.3.    Estimated impact
on revenue

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

1.1. Title of the proposal/initiative

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory
of a Member State (Recast)

1.2. Policy area(s) concerned in the ABM/ABB
structure[30]

Title 2 – Enterprise - Chapter 02 03: Internal market for goods and
sectoral policies

1.3. Nature of the proposal/initiative

The proposal/initiative relates to an action
redirected towards a new action

1.4. Objective(s)

1.4.1. The Commission's multiannual
strategic objective(s) targeted by the proposal/initiative

Contribute towards the protection of cultural objects in the context
of the internal market.

1.4.2. Specific objective(s) and
ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned

Specific objective: to enable Member States to secure the return of
cultural objects which are classified as national treasures and have been
unlawfully removed from their territory since 1993.

1.4.3. Expected result(s) and impact

Specify the effects
which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted.

The aim of this proposal is to increase the number of returns of
cultural objects classified as national treasures and reduce their costs. It
will have an impact on the prevention and combating of crime against cultural
objects within the European Union.

1.4.4. Indicators of results and
impact

Specify the
indicators for monitoring implementation of the proposal/initiative.

- Increasing the number of return proceedings;

- increasing the number of returns of cultural objects classified as
national treasures;

- following up requests to search for a cultural object within the
meaning of Article 4(1) of the Directive;

- following up notifications that a cultural object within the
meaning of Article 4(2) of the Directive has been found;

- comparability of statistics on the application of the Directive;

- survey of satisfaction among central authorities with the use of
the IMI system.

1.5. Grounds for the
proposal/initiative

1.5.1. Requirement(s) to be met in the
short or long term

The general objective of this initiative is to contribute towards
the protection of cultural objects in the context of the internal market by
making it easier to secure the return of cultural objects which are classified
as national treasures and have been unlawfully removed from the territory of a
Member State since 1993.

1.5.2. Added value of EU involvement

The cross-border aspect of the unlawful removal of cultural objects
makes the Union better suited to take action in this area.

1.5.3. Lessons learned from similar
experiences in the past

The assessments of Directive 93/7/EEC show that the arrangements in
place are of limited effectiveness in securing the return of certain cultural
objects which are classified as national treasures.

In the light of studies and reports by experts on preventing and
combating crime against cultural objects, the Commission has also concluded
that the Directive needs to be revised.

1.5.4. Compatibility and possible
synergy with other relevant instruments

This initiative is fully compatible with the other measures and
policies on cultural objects.

1.6. Duration and financial impact

Proposal/initiative of unlimited duration

1.7. Management method(s) envisaged[31]

Centralised direct management by the Commission

2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

2.1. Monitoring and reporting rules

Specify frequency
and conditions.

Article 16 lays down the evaluation and monitoring arrangements
allowing the other institutions of the Union to gain an insight into the actual
implementation of the Directive. The reports reviewing the application of the
Directive will be drawn up every five years.

2.2. Management and control system

2.2.1. Risk(s) identified

No financial risks could be identified.

2.2.2. Control method(s) envisaged

The control methods envisaged are laid down in the Financial
Regulation and Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012.

2.3. Measures to prevent fraud and
irregularities

Specify existing or
envisaged prevention and protection measures.

The Commission must ensure that the financial interests of the Union
are protected by the application of preventive measures against fraud,
corruption and other illegal activities, by effective checks and by the
recovery of amounts unduly paid and, if irregularities are detected, by effective,
proportionate and dissuasive penalties, in accordance with Regulations (EC,
Euratom) No 2988/95, (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 and (EC) No 1073/1999.

3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE
PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

3.1. Heading(s) of the multiannual
financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected

·
Existing expenditure budget lines

In order of
multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Heading of multiannual financial framework || Budget line || Type of expenditure || Participation

|| Diff./ Non-diff. ([32]) || from EFTA countries[33] || from applicant countries[34] || from third countries || within the meaning of Article 21(2)(b) of the Financial Regulation

[...] || [XX.YY.YY.YY] [...] || Diff./ Non-diff. || || || ||

New budget lines requested

In order of multiannual financial framework
headings and budget lines.

Heading of multiannual financial framework || Budget line || Type of expenditure || Participation

Number [Description.......................................] || Diff./ Non-diff. || from EFTA countries || from applicant countries || from third countries || within the meaning of Article 21(2)(b) of the Financial Regulation

|| [XX.YY.YY.YY] || || YES/NO || YES/NO || YES/NO || YES/NO

3.2. Estimated impact on expenditure

3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on
expenditure

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Heading of multiannual financial framework: || || ||

|| DG: ENTR || || || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || TOTAL

||  Operational appropriations || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

|| TOTAL appropriations for DG ENTR || Commitments || =1+1a +3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

|| Payments || =2+2a +3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

||

Heading of multiannual financial framework: || 5 || ‘Administrative expenditure’ ||

|| DG ENTR || || || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || TOTAL

||  Human resources || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 1.0

||  Other administrative expenditure || 0.05 || 0.05 || 0.05 || 0.05 || 0.05 || 0.25

|| TOTAL DG ENTR || Appropriations || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 1.25

|| TOTAL appropriations for HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || (Total commitments = Total payments) || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 1.25

|| TOTAL appropriations for HEADINGS 1 to 5 of the multiannual financial framework || Commitments || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 1.25

|| Payments || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 1.25

3.2.2. Estimated impact on operational
appropriations

The
proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations

3.2.3. Estimated impact on
appropriations of an administrative nature

3.2.3.1. Summary

The proposal requires the use of administrative
appropriations, as explained below:

EUR million (to 3
decimal places)

|| 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || TOTAL

HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || ||

Human resources || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 1.0

Other administrative expenditure || 0.05 || 0.05 || 0.05 || 0.05 || 0.05 || 0.25

Subtotal HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 1.25

Outside HEADING 5[35] of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || ||

Human resources || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Other expenditure of an administrative nature || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Subtotal outside HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

TOTAL || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 1.25

3.2.3.2. Estimated human resource
requirements

The proposal requires
the use of human resources, as explained below:

Estimate to be expressed in full amounts
(or at most to one decimal place)

|| 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary agents)

02 01 01 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2

FTE = 1.5 || FTE = 1.5 || FTE = 1.5 || FTE = 1.5 || FTE = 1.5

XX 01 01 02 (Delegations) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

XX 01 05 01 (Indirect research) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

10 01 05 01 (Direct research) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

 External personnel (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE)[36]

XX 01 02 01 (CA, INT, SNE from the ‘global envelope’) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

XX 01 02 02 (CA, INT, JED, LA and SNE in the delegations) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

XX 01 04 yy [37] || - at Headquarters[38] || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

- in delegations || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

XX 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Indirect research) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

10 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Direct research) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Other budget lines (specify) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

TOTAL || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2

FTE=1.5 || FTE=1.5 || FTE=1.5 || FTE=1.5 || FTE=1.5

The human resources
required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to
management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if
necessary with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing
DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary
constraints.

Description of tasks to be carried out:

Officials and temporary agents || Manage the transposition and implementation of the Directive.

3.2.4. Compatibility with the current
multiannual financial framework

The proposal is compatible with the current
multiannual financial framework.

3.2.5. Third-party contributions

The proposal does not provide for co-financing
by third parties.

3.3. Estimated impact on revenue

The proposal has no financial impact on
revenue.

[1]               Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on
the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a
Member State, OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74, amended by Directive
96/100/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 February
1997, OJ L 60, 1.3.1997, p. 59, and by Directive 2001/38/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, OJ L 187,
10.7.2001, p. 43.

[2]               First report from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the implementation
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 on the export of cultural goods and
Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed
from the territory of a Member State (COM(2000) 325 final, 25.05.2000). Second
report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the
Economic and Social Committee on the application of Council Directive 93/7/EEC
on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a
Member State (COM(2005) 675 final, 21.12.2005). Third report from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social
Committee on the application of Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of
cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (COM(2009)
408 final, 30.07.2009)]. Fourth report from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the
application of Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects
unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (COM(2013) 310 final, 30.5.2013).

[3]               As at September 2012, the UNESCO Convention of 1970
had been ratified by 22 Member States and the UNIDROIT Convention of 1995 by 13
Member States. Austria was in the process of ratifying the UNESCO Convention.

[4]               Conclusions of the Council of the European Union on
preventing and combating crime against cultural goods, 13 and
14 December 2011.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/126866.pdf.

[5]               OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1.

[6]               http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/2012/index_en.htm

[7]               http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/regulated-sectors/cultural-goods/index_en.htm

[8]               The work of this group and the individual
contributions of its members have not been published.

[9]               Final report and recommendations to the Cultural
Affairs Committee on improving the means of increasing the mobility of
collections, June 2010: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/working-group-on-museum-activities_en.htm

[10]             Study in 2004 entitled “Analyse des structures et
mécanismes de diffusion des données nécessaires aux autorités afin de garantir
l’application de la directive relative aux biens culturels” [Analysis of
the structures and mechanisms of data distribution that the authorities require
to guarantee application of the Directive on cultural goods] and study in 2007
entitled “Extension aux 12 nouveaux États membres” [Extension to the 12
new Member States, Final Report] (Information & Communication Partners,
(study contract No 30-CE-0102617/00-49), available on request from ENTR-PRODUCT-MARKET-INTEGR-AND-ENFOR@ec.europa.eu.
“Study on preventing and fighting illicit trafficking in cultural goods in the
European Union”, CECOJI-CNRS-UMR 6224 (France), 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/crime/docs/Report%20Trafficking%20in%20cultural%20goods%20EN.pdf#zoom

[11]             Other options, such as (i) ratification by the Union of
the UNESCO Convention of 1970 and the UNIDROIT Convention of 1995, (ii) shaping
a Union approach towards ratification by all Member States of the UNIDROIT
Convention, (iii) replacing Directive 93/7/EEC with a regulation and (iv)
repealing Directive 93/7/EEC, were abandoned during the initial stages of
examination of the various solutions on grounds of feasibility.

[12]             Carried out pursuant to the Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Codification of the
Acquis communautaire, COM(2001) 645 final.

[13]             COM (2007) 873 final.

[14]             See Annex I, Part A of this proposal.

[15]             "Should it prove necessary during the
legislative process to go beyond straightforward codification and make
substantive changes, it will be the Commission's responsibility to submit any
proposal(s), where appropriate".

[16]             "The European Parliament, the Council and the
Commission note that if it should appear necessary to go beyond straightforward
codification and make substantive changes, the Commission will be able to
choose, case by case, whether to recast its proposal or whether to submit a separate
proposal for amendment, leaving its codification proposal on the table, and
then, once the substantive change has been adopted, incorporate it into the
proposal for codification".

[17]             OJ C 252, 18.9.2010, p. 11.

[18]             OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 1.

[19]             OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 1.

[20]             OJ C
[...], [...], p. [...].

[21]             OJ L 74, 27.03.1993, p. 74.

[22]             See Annex I, Part A.

[23]             OJ L 395, 31.12.1992, p. 1. OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 1.

[24]             OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 1.

[25]             OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 74.

[26]             Conclusions of the Council of the
European Union on preventing and combating crime against cultural goods,
Justice and Home Affairs Council, 13 and 14 December 2011.

[27]             Which are more than fifty years old and do not
belong to their originators.

[28]             As defined by the Court of Justice in its Judgment
in Case 252/84, as follows: ‘Collectors' pieces within the meaning of
Heading No 99.05 of the Common Customs Tariff are articles which possess the
requisite characteristics for inclusion in a collection, that is to say,
articles which are relatively rare, are not
normally used for their original purpose, are the subject of special
transactions outside the normal trade in similar utility articles and are of
high value.’

[29]             The time-limit for
transposition for Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands was 15 March 1994.

[30]             ABM: Activity-Based Management – ABB: Activity-Based
Budgeting.

[31]             Details of management modes and references to the
Financial Regulation may be found on the BudgWeb site: http://www.cc.cec/budg/man/budgmanag/budgmanag_en.html

[32]             Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. =
Non-differentiated appropriations.

[33]             EFTA: European Free Trade Association.

[34]             Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential
candidate countries from the Western Balkans

[35]             Technical and/or administrative assistance and
expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions
(former "BA" lines), indirect research, direct research.

[36]             CA= Contract Agent; LA= Local Agent; SNE= Seconded
National Expert; INT= agency staff ("Intérimaire"); JED= "Jeune
Expert en Délégation" (Young Experts in Delegations).

[37]             Under the ceiling for external personnel from
operational appropriations (former "BA" lines).

[38]             Essentially for Structural Funds, European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and European Fisheries Fund (EFF).