NoC223/10 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 31.8.92
Opinionon:
—theproposalforaCouncilDirectiveonthereturnofculturalobjectsunlawfullyremoved
fromtheterritoryofaMemberState,and
—theproposalforaCouncilRegulation(EEC)ontheexportofculturalgoods(*)
(92/C223/03)
On24February1992theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle100AoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,onthe
abovementioned proposals.
TheSectionforSocial,Family,EducationalandCulturalAffairs,whichwasresponsiblefor
preparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon15May1992.The
RapporteurwasMrProumens.
Atits297thPlenarySession(meetingof26May1992),theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
TheCommitteeapprovestheproposedCouncilDirec­
tivesubjecttothefollowingcommentsandsuggestions .
TheCommitteeissurprised,however,atnothaving
beenconsultedontheproposedRegulationonthe
exportofculturalgoods.AttheendofthisOpinionit
setsoutitscriticismsoftheprocedurefollowedby
theCommissionanditscommentsontheproposed
Regulation .1.1.4.UnderArticle36theMemberStatesinfact
retaintherighttodefinetheirnationaltreasuresand
protectthembysuchmeansaslicences.
1.1.5.Theexportofnationaltreasuresisalso
coveredbyvariousconventions,suchastheConvention
oftheUnitedNationsEducational ,ScientificandCul­
turalOrganization (UNESCO)of14November1970
andtheCouncilofEuropeConventionof25June1985.
Atthemoment,however,itdoesnotseemthatthese
conventionscanberatifiedintime(i.e.by31December
1992).
1.1.6.Inthisconnectionitshouldbenotedthat,in
viewofthedifficultiesandobjectionsraisedbythe
MemberStateswithregardtotheseconventions,the
International InstitutefortheUnificationofPrivate
Law(UNIDROIT )hasbeenaskedtodrawupatext
which,fromthelegalangle,isacceptabletoallparties.
Heretoo,however,itwouldseemthattheproposed
provisionscannotbedraftedorapprovedby31Dec­
ember1992.
1.1.7.ConsequentlytheCommissionhasproposed
thetextnowreferredtotheEconomicandSocialCom­
mittee.
1.1.8.Itisobviousthatdifficultiesencounteredwith
theafore-mentioned conventionsandintheworkof
UNIDROITmeanthatthetextoftheproposedDirec­
tivelacksprecisioninanumberofareasandthatit
wasnotpossibletosolvealltheproblems,mainlylegal,
raisedbytheillegalexportofculturalgoods.
1.1.9.Article10,interalia,willcertainlybeasource
ofmuchconflict,e.g.:1.ProposalforaCouncilDirectiveonthereturnof
culturalobjectsunlawfullyremovedfromtheterri­
toryofaMemberState
1.1.Generalprinciples
1.1.1.TheCommission'sobjectiveistosecurethe
returnofculturalobjectsillegallymovedwithinthe
Community ,bearinginmindthatfrom1January1993
theCommunity'sfrontierswillbeopenforthefree
movementofgoods.
1.1.2.TheCommission considersthat,notwith­
standingthefundamentalprincipleofthefreemove­
mentofgoods,accountmustbetakenofthespecial
natureofculturalobjectswhichcannotbetreatedas
'meregoods'.
1.1.3.AlthoughtheMemberStatesmayenacttheir
ownmeasurestoprotecttheirnationaltreasurespursu­
anttoArticle36oftheTreaty,useofthisArticlemust
notcreatedifficultiesforthecompletionoftheinternal
market.
—entitlementtoandtheamountofthe'fair'compen­
sation, (i)OJNoC53,28.2.1992,pp.8-11.

31.8.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC223/11
proposedDirective.Thiswouldseemtobethecaseif
theculturalgoodsinquestionfallwithinoneofthe
categorieslistedintheAnnex.
1.3.3.Itshouldbenotedthatthereturnprocedure
willoperateonlyfromoneMemberStatetoanother.
1.3.4.TheCommitteehasdoubtsastowhetheruni­
formityhasbeenachievedwithregardtothelegal
measures,suchasdation,pre-emption ,banonnegotiat­
ingfornationalmuseums;theseareboundtobea
sourceofdifficultiesorevenconflictintheprocedures
referredtointheproposedDirective.
1.4.CommentsontheAnnex—whethertheacquirercouldhaveknownorcould
havebeenexpectedtoknowthattheculturalgoods
inquestionhadbeenexportedillegally,
—whethertheacquirerhasthesamerightsinthecase
ofadonationorsuccessionasforanacquisition .
1.2.Generalcomments
1.2.1.Itshouldbenotedthattwotermsareused:
a)nationaltreasures;
b)culturalgoods.
1.2.2.InthepresentversionoftheproposedDirec­
tive,culturalgoodsarenationaltreasuresandbelong
tooneofthecategorieslistedintheAnnex.
1.2.3.ThislistwasnegotiatedbetweentheMember
Statesandconstitutesapreliminarycompromisesol­
ution.
1.2.4.Ontheotherhandthereareothercultural
goodswhicharenotincludedinthislistandwhichare
nationaltreasuresofaMemberState(itbeingupto
eachMemberStatetodefineitsnationaltreasures).
1.2.5.Thereforeneitherthereturnofnationaltreas­
uresnotlistedintheAnnexnorCommunityexport
licencesforsuchtreasuresarecoveredbytheproposed
Directive .
1.2.6.TheCommission hasstilltosubmitaCom­
municationontheapplicationofTreatyArticles30to
36inrelationtothisproposedDirective.
1.2.7.InparticulartheCommissionhasreservedthe
righttoclarifyitsinterpretationofArticle36,andwill
nodoubtdothisatalaterdate.TheCommitteeurges
theCommission toexaminethematterandmake
knownitsinterpretationbeforethepublicationofthis
draftDirective;itwouldliketobeconsultedonorat
leastinformedoftheresults.1.4.1.WhilethemonetaryvaluesgivenintheAnnex
onculturalgoodsaretheresultofaconsensusbetween
theMemberStates,aprocedurefortheiradjustment
mustbelaiddowninviewofthesubstantialfluctu­
ationsinthevalueofthesegoods.
1.4.2.Whatcanbedonetopreventthebreaking-up
ofcollections (points11and12)tofacilitatetheirdis­
posal(withthepossibilityofthepurchaserreassembling
thecollectionsubsequently )?
1.4.3.Theagelimitofover50yearsforarchives
doesnotseemrealistic,e.g.thearchivesofartistslike
MagritteorPicassoautomatically becomecultural
goodsassoonastheydie,unlessotherwisestipulated
intheirwill.
1.4.4.ThevaluesandagelimitslistedintheAnnex,
whicharethecriteriaforwhethernationaltreasures
qualifyasculturalgoods,maybeopentoquestionand
theCommitteewonderswhethertheyarepracticable .
1.4.5.Inthisconnection,besidesthepossibilityof
differinginterpretations ofthedefinitions,theCom­
mitteewondershowandbywhomthemonetary
thresholdsaretobeestablished .
Furthermore ,establishingthemonetaryvalueobtaining
whenreturnisrequestedmayalsobeasourceof
conflict.1.3.Specificcomments
1.3.1.Apartfromtheprovisionscontainedinthis
proposalregardingperiodsoflimitation,theproblem
raisedbythevaryingtimelimitationslaiddownbythe
lawsoftheMemberStateswillhavetoberesolved,in
thecaseofreceivingandconcealingstolengoodsfor
instance.Theaggravatedtheftofculturalgoodsand
nationaltreasuresshouldcertainlynotbesubjecttoa
timelimitation .
1.3.2.TheCommitteeisconcernedtoknowwhether
culturalgoodsbelongingtoreligiouscommunities ,pri­
vatemuseumsorprivateindividualsarecoveredbythe1.5.Specificcomment
1.5.1.Thecooperationofartgalleries,auctioneers
andantiquesdealersisvaluable,essentialeven,for
clarityinthetransferofculturalgoodsandaEuropean
oreveninternationalcodeofconductwouldbehighly
desirable.

NoC223/12 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 31.8.92
2.ProposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)onthe
exportofculturalgoods
2.1.AlthoughtheEconomicandSocialCommittee
hasnotbeenconsultedontheproposal,itfeelsitmust
expresssurpriseatthisandofferitscommentson
theRegulationsincethisinstrumentcoversthesame
culturalgoodsastheDirective.WhiletheCommittee
approvestheproposal,somepointsneedmaking.
2.2.Generalcomments
2.2.1.AlthoughtheCommissionthinksthatthespe­
cialnatureofculturalobjectsmeansthattheycannot
betreatedasmeregoods,itbasesitsproposedRegu­
lationonArticle113oftheTreatywhichispartof
Chapter4oncommercialpolicy.
2.2.2.TheCommitteeconsidersthatArticle100A
wouldhavebeenmoresuitableandwouldhaveallowed
boththeEuropeanParliamentandtheESCtogivetheir
viewsonanimportantsubjectinwhichallMember
Statecitizenshaveaninterest.
2.3.Specificcomments
2.3.1.ItshouldbepointedoutthatthisdraftRegu­
lationconcernssolelytheexportofculturalgoodsto
thirdcountries(whilethedraftDirectiveconcernsthe
illegalmovementbetweenMemberStates).2.3.2.TheCommitteehasreservationsaboutthe
followingpointsinparticular :
—thedefinitionofculturalgoodsisdifferentfrom
thatintheDirectiveanditsreferencetoalistmay
giverisetodifficulties,e.g.forvalues,
—thecommentssetoutinpoints1.4.4and1.4.5apply
mutatismutandistothecriteriainthisAnnex.
2.3.3.Toimprovesurveillanceoftheexportofcul­
turalgoodsasreferredtointhedraftRegulation,the
Committeeproposes—withoutdisguisingthedifficult­
ieswhichsuchaprocedurecouldentail—theintroduc­
tionofanaccompanying certificateissuedbythecom­
petentauthorities,wherebyitwouldbepossibleto
followtheculturalobjectfromitsorigin,insofaras
knowable,throughitsvariousmoves(sale,donation,
dation,pre-emption).Itshouldnot,however,beposs­
ibletousethisaccompanying certificatefortaxpur­
posesasthiscoulddefeatitsobject.
2.3.4.Woulditnotbeadvisabletousetheexpertise
ofthecustomsservicestoevaluatethevalidityofexport
licences?
2.3.5.Inthisconnectionwoulditnotbedesirableto
retrainanumberofcustomsofficials,particularlyata
timewhentheirdutiesarebeingreducedorareeven
disappearingaltogether?
2.3.6.Whataboutprovisionalexportlicences,e.g.
fortemporaryexhibitions,tothirdcountries,inparticu­
larwithregardtoreturnintheeventofdefaultbythe
provisionalimporter?
DoneatBrussels,26May1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH