WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1631/97 by Philippe MONFILS to the Commission. Illegal trafficking in cultural artefacts
Date: 1997-05-14
Institutions: European Parliament, MONFILS
Subjects: competence of the Member States, cultural object, cultural relations, export, export licence, heritage protection, illicit trade, intergovernmental cooperation (EU), single market, trade mark

C 45/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10. 2. 98

(98/C 45/79)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1631/97

by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 May 1997)

Subject: Illegal trafficking in cultural artefacts

For a number of years, one of the methods of combating the illegal trafficking in cultural artefacts has been the
practice of marking them in some way.

Much work and a number of reports have already been completed on the subject of this procedure.

Has  the  Commission  any  intention  of  carrying  out  a  study  into  the  matter  with  a  view  to  determining  the
reliability of this practice?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 1997)

Title VI of the Treaty on the European Union provides that cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs
takes place within the Council. There are two aspects to the fight against the unlawful trade in cultural goods: the
completion of the single market and the fight against theft and receiving.

As part of the completion of the single market, a Regulation and a Directive have been adopted by the Council on
a proposal from the Commission. These texts relate to the export of cultural goods and the return of national
treasures (1). Measures to combat theft and receiving are a matter for intergovernmental cooperation under Title
VI of the Treaty on the European Union.

The Commission does not see any obstacle to the marking of cultural goods but it is for the Member States to
adopt such measures.

Such procedures would make it possible to clearly identify goods for which an export licence was sought or
national treasures the return of which was desired. However, it is the Member States which issue licences or
classify cultural goods as national treasures; Member States are therefore responsible for drafting and adopting
provisions in this field.

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods › OJ L 395, 31.12.1992

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

(98/C 45/80)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1633/97

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(14 May 1997)

Subject: Responsibility for animal welfare in DG VI and DG XXIV

In  view  of  the  reorganization  of  some  units  of  DG  VI  following  the  transfer  of  certain  responsibilities  to
DG XXIV, would the Commission use this opportunity to give serious consideration to amending the existing
formal consultative procedures to include animal welfare?

Although virtually all other sectors of the agricultural industry are formally consulted over issues in one form or
another, this does not apply to animal welfare. Would the Commission not agree that the continued absence of
any formal consultation with a representative animal welfare organization would be seen by some as another
example of DG VI(cid:146)s bias towards the industry, particularly in matters concerning the welfare of farm animals?

The  new  responsibilities  assumed  by  DG  XXIV  include  the  monitoring  of  the  Veterinary  Inspectorate  and
supervision of the work of the Scientific Committees. Would the Commission give an assurance that not only
will the monitoring of the effectiveness of Directive 95/29/EC on the transport of animals remain a priority for
the Inspectorate, but that it will also do its best to increase the present inadequate resources available for this
task?

In addition would the Commission give a further assurance that the issue of the welfare of farm animals will
remain a priority for the work of the Scientific Veterinary Committee?