Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee - Second Report on the application of Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State
Date: 2005-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: activity report, art trade, cultural object, illicit trade, public authorities

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 21.12.2005 
COM(2005) 675 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 

Second report on the application of Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural 
objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 3 

GENERAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 3 

FIRST REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVE 93/7/EEC (1993-1998).................. 4 

Conclusions of the first report...................................................................................... 4 

Institutions’ responses.................................................................................................. 4 

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE FIRST REPORT..................................................................... 5 

Legal amendments: Directive 2001/38/EC .................................................................. 5 

Preparation for the accession of the 10 new Member States ....................................... 5 

Contribution to improving the protection of the European cultural heritage: study on 
the traceability of cultural objects ................................................................................ 5 

4.4. 

Improving administrative cooperation: adoption of guidelines ................................... 6 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE IN THE PERIOD 1999-2003. ........................................ 6 

Content of the Member States’ implementation reports .............................................. 6 

Evaluation of the application of the Directive ............................................................. 7 

5.2.1.  Cooperation and exchange of information between authorities .................................. 8 

5.2.2.  Return proceedings ...................................................................................................... 8 

5.2.3.  Protection of cultural objects....................................................................................... 8 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

6.5. 

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 9 

Improving cooperation and the exchange of information among Member States ....... 9 

Extension of the time limit for bringing return proceedings........................................ 9 

Maintaining financial thresholds................................................................................ 10 

Frequency of the assessment report ........................................................................... 10 

Referral to the Advisory Committee on Cultural Goods ........................................... 10 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Council Directive 93/7/EEC, adopted on 15 March 1993,1 introduces systems for cooperation 
between national authorities and a legal procedure for the return of cultural objects when they 
have been unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. 

Article 16(2) of the Directive lays down that every three years the Commission shall send a 
report reviewing the application of the Directive to the European Parliament, the Council and 
the European Economic and Social Committee. 

This is the second report and covers the period 1999-2003; it assesses the application of the 
Directive in the fifteen Member States. The first report covered the period 1993-19982. 

2. 

GENERAL BACKGROUND 

At Community level, cultural objects are subject to the provisions of the Treaty establishing 
the  European  Community  (hereafter  referred  to  as  the  EC  Treaty),  in  particular  those 
concerning  the  free  movement  of  goods.  Articles  28  and  29  of  the  EC  Treaty  prohibit 
measures having an equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports or exports. 

However,  article  30  lays  down  that  articles  28  and  29  of  the  EC  Treaty  shall  not  preclude 
prohibitions  or  restrictions  on  imports,  exports  or  goods  in  transit  justified  on  grounds,  in 
particular,  of  “the  protection  of  national 
treasures  possessing  artistic,  historic  or 
archaeological  value”.  For  such  prohibitions  or  restrictions  to  be  allowed,  they  must  in  any 
event  be  necessary  for  and  proportionate  to  the  objective  that  they  aim  to  achieve  and, 
consequently, they must constitute neither a means of arbitrary discrimination nor a disguised 
restriction on trade between Member States.  

In  this  context,  Directive  93/7/EEC  is  an  internal  market  support  measure  aimed  at 
reconciling  the  operation  of  the  internal  market  with  the  guarantee  that  Member  States  can 
protect  cultural  objects  with  the  status  of  national  treasures  of  artistic,  historic  or 
archaeological value, in accordance with article 30 EC. 

The aim of the Directive is not to combat the illegal trafficking of cultural objects. Nor does it 
regulate the use which Member States may make of article 30 EC. Under this article Member 
States preserve the right to define their national treasures and the ability to take the national 
measures necessary to protect them.  

1 

2 

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 of 27.03.1993, p. 74, amended by Directive 96/100/EC of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  February  1997,  OJ  L  60  of  1  March  1997,  p.  59,  and  by  Directive 
2001/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, OJ L 187 of 10 July 2001, p. 43. 
Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  European  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 of 25 May 2000. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

FIRST REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVE 93/7/EEC (1993-1998) 

3.1. 

Conclusions of the first report 

The first report3 noted the slow progress made in transposing the Directive into national law 
and the consequent delay in its application. The actual period of application of the Directive 
was therefore not considered sufficient to assess its effectiveness.  

The report stressed that the Member States saw the Directive as necessary and useful for the 
protection of their cultural heritage. Most Member States also regarded the Community legal 
framework created by the Directive as sufficient, although some would have liked to develop 
it  further.  For  example,  Italy  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  one-year  time  limit  should  be 
increased  to  three  years,  while  the  Netherlands  proposed  extending  the  right  to  bring  return 
proceedings to private individuals. 

However,  the  report  revealed  that  administrative  cooperation  between  the  national  and 
Community  authorities  had  not  taken  any  practical  shape.  Most  Member  States  therefore 
called  for  greater  cooperation.  The  report  also  noted  that  the  traceability  of  cultural  objects 
should  be  improved,  given  the  lack  of  information  on  cultural  objects  unlawfully  removed 
from the territories of the Member States. 

3.2. 

Institutions’ responses 

The  responses  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  proposed  improvements  to  the 
Directive.  

In its Resolution,4 the European Parliament stated that the European Union should, within its 
sphere of jurisdiction, attach greater importance to combating illegal trade in cultural objects 
and that the Commission had a central role to play. Parliament therefore called for: 

•  a change in the one-year time limit laid down in Directive 93/7/EEC;  

•  a  campaign  in  the  15  Member  States  and  the  10  candidate  countries,  aimed  at  raising 

public awareness of the adverse effects of the illegal trade in cultural objects; 

•  comprehensive, public catalogues of all such objects in the possession of public or private 

institutions, foundations or bodies; and 

•  a  Green  Paper  on  illegal  trade  in  cultural  objects  and  specific  proposals  at  Community 

level to combat it. 

This  report  deals  exclusively  with  the  application  of  the  Directive  and  does  not  address  the 
last three points. 

3 
4 

See footnote 2. 
European  Parliament  Resolution  of  12  June  2001  on  the  Commission  report  to  the  Council,  the  European 
Parliament and the European 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 OJ C 53 E of 28 February 2002, p.125, p.7. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  its  Resolution,5  the  Council  called  upon  Member  States  to  exploit  fully  the  protection 
afforded by the Directive, particularly by intensifying administrative cooperation. It called on 
the Commission to: 

•  pursue  the  proposed  initiatives  and,  if  necessary,  develop  new  ones  to  contribute  more 
effectively to the protection of Member States' cultural heritage and the effective operation 
of the Directive; and 

•  pay particular attention to the establishment of administrative structures and capabilities in 
the  new  Member  States  that  are  responsible  for  protecting  the  European  Union’s  new 
external borders. 

4. 

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE FIRST REPORT 

4.1. 

Legal amendments: Directive 2001/38/EC  

In  accordance  with  the  first  report,  Directive  2001/38/EC6  amends  the  Annex  to  Directive 
93/7/EEC  in  order  to  adapt,  as  of  1  January  2002,  the  amounts  expressed  in  national 
currencies  to  the  euro  and  to  replace  the  reference  to  the  value  0  (zero)  of  the  financial 
thresholds by the words “Whatever the value”. The Directive has been transposed by all the 
Member States. 

4.2. 

Preparation for the accession of the 10 new Member States 

The Commission examined the ten new Member States’ draft national measures transposing 
the  Directive.  It  thus  provided  the  technical  assistance  necessary  to  facilitate  correct 
transposition  within  the  deadlines  set.  However,  in  2004  the  Commission  initiated 
infringement  proceedings  against  some  Member  States  for  failing  to  notify  national 
transposition measures.  

4.3. 

Contribution  to  improving  the  protection  of  the  European  cultural  heritage: 
study on the traceability of cultural objects 

The main objective of the study, which was finalised at the end of 2004, was to examine the 
structures and systems put in place in the Member States for the dissemination of information, 
with a view to collecting, passing on and exchanging information on the cultural objects listed 
in the Annex to the Directive7. 

The study showed that the system of cultural heritage protection in each country consisted of 
a core of national treasures which could not permanently leave the national territory, a second 
category  comprising  cultural  objects  that  required  national  authorisation  in  order  to  be 
transferred abroad and a third category consisting of all the objects which could move freely 
without  controls  because  of  their  relative  lack  of  importance  in  cultural  terms.  The  study 

5 

6 

7 

Council Resolution of 21 January 2002 on the Commission report to the Council, the European Parliament 
and the European Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 
on the export of cultural goods and Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed 
from the territory of a Member State, OJ C 32 of 5 February 2002, page 3. 
Directive 2001/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, OJ L 187 of 10 July 
2001, p.43. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/regulation/inst_sp/dir937_en.htm  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
concluded  that  traceability  was  possible  only  for  cultural  objects  belonging  to  the  core 
category and, to a lesser extent, the second category which could be removed on the basis of a 
licence.  

To increase the traceability of cultural objects in Europe when they are transferred from one 
Member State to another, the study recommended the following measures:  

•  the  adoption  of  a  single  model  licence  for  transfers  of  cultural  objects  within  the 

Community;  

•  the  creation  at  European  level  of  a  database  of  transfer  licences  and  licences  for  exports 

outside the Community; and 

•  the introduction of efficient systems for marking cultural objects and the establishment of a 
network  based  on  regular  meetings  and  the  use  of  common  technical  tools  in  order  to 
increase cooperation between the competent authorities in the Member States8. 

4.4. 

Improving administrative cooperation: adoption of guidelines  

The advisory Committee referred to in article 17 of the Directive has adopted guidelines for 
improving  and  strengthening  administrative  cooperation  between  the  competent  national 
authorities  through  the  creation  of  a  network  of  contacts  and  the  exchange  of  information9. 
They  provide  the  institutions  and  persons  concerned  with  useful  information  regarding  the 
existence of Community instruments regulating the export of cultural objects to non-member 
countries  and  the  return  of  objects  which  were  unlawfully  removed  from  the  territory  of  a 
Member State.  

5. 

APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE IN THE PERIOD 1999-2003. 

5.1. 

Content of the Member States’ implementation reports 

In the absence of the reports which, in accordance with article 16 of the Directive, at the end 
of  February  2004  the  Commission  sent  a  questionnaire  to  the  Member  States  designed  to 
make  it  easier  to  compare  the  data  provided.  All  the  Member  States  contributed,  although 
several  reminders  were  necessary  before  the  last  contribution  was  obtained  in  March  2005. 
An  additional  questionnaire  was  then  sent,  later  in  March  2005,  to  the  central  authorities 
responsible for implementing the Directive: at the end of September 2005 four Member States 
had  not  replied  to  this  second  questionnaire  (France,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands  and 
Austria). 

The  Member  States  regard  the  Directive  as  a  useful  instrument  for  recovering  national 
treasures  removed  unlawfully  from  their  territory  from  1993  onwards.  However,  their 
comments reveal that:  

•  the Directive is not often applied; 

8 

9 

This  recommendation  has  already  resulted  in  the  approval,  under  the  Sixth  Research  Framework 
Programme (2002-2006), of an initial research project. At the time of drafting this report, a new call for 
research proposals was being drawn up including tasks aimed in particular at facilitating authentication 
and improving the traceability and marking of cultural objects.  
http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/cultural_goods/index_en.htm.  At  the 
time of drafting this report, these guidelines were being updated. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  there  is  insufficient  cooperation  between  the  competent  authorities  at  Community  level; 

and 

•  the central authorities lack data on the actual application of the Directive. 

The  statistics  on  the  application  of  articles  4  and  5  of  Directive  93/7/EEC,  sent  to  the 
Commission by the Member States, are annexed. To summarise, there were five cases where 
cultural  objects  were  returned  as  a  result  of  cooperation  between  the  national  authorities 
without recourse to the legal procedure provided for in Directive 93/7/EEC. Two other return 
proceedings initiated during the period in question are still in progress.  

Twelve applications for searches for cultural objects and nine notifications of cultural objects 
found  in  the  territory  of  Member  States  were  reported.  The  Netherlands  reported  eight 
requests for verification by six Member States. Austria mentioned just one case.  

Finally,  Germany  and  Portugal  stated  that  they  had  taken  the  measures  necessary  for  the 
physical  preservation  of  cultural  objects.  Italy  reported  that  France  and  Germany  had  taken 
interim measures in its favour to prevent action to evade the return procedure. This was not 
corroborated by France and Germany.  

The  Member  States  also  reported  three  proceedings  for  the  return  of  cultural  objects  under 
article 5 of the Directive, two initiated by Greece and one by France.  

Some Member States, such as Germany and the Netherlands, put the rare application of the 
Directive down to ignorance on the part of the public prosecutor and the police authorities of 
the  national  legislation  implementing  the  Directive.  Others,  such  as  Spain,  believe  the  time 
limit for initiating proceedings for the return of an object is too short, hence the preference for 
civil litigation. 

Finally,  some  Member  States  would  like  the  frequency  of  the  report  changed.  Ireland  is  in 
favour  of  an  annual  report  whereas  Denmark  and  Belgium  suggest  extending  the  reporting 
period to five or even ten years. 

5.2. 

Evaluation of the application of the Directive  

In  the  light  of  the  national  reports,  the  Commission  notes  the  very  low  number  of  cases  in 
which articles 4 and 5 of the Directive were applied. However, it is difficult to know whether 
this is the true figure, as the Commission has found it difficult to compare the data provided 
by  the  Member  States10.  Sometimes  one  Member  State  reports  having  never  received  an 
application for a search or a notification that an object has been found while another claims to 
have sent one. The low number could also be due to the facts that:  

•  cultural  objects  removed  illegally  from  a  country  only  reappear  after  20  to  30  years  on 

average; and 

•  only the national treasures listed in the Annex to the Directive fall within its scope.  

10 

Given these difficulties, the Commission has submitted the annexed tables to the central authorities of the 15 
Member States for their approval.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2.1.  Cooperation and exchange of information between authorities  

The national contributions showed that cooperation and consultation between the central 
authorities was rare, given the low number of cases of application reported. 

In this respect, some Member States, such as Belgium and Germany, reported shortcomings in 
the collection and transfer of information, both among and within them.  

In any event, it appears that information on measures taken under article 4 of the Directive is 
not passed on adequately by the authorities concerned to the central authorities responsible for 
implementing the Directive. The central authorities therefore call for an improvement in the 
exchange  of  information  both  at  national  level  and  between  the  Member  States  in  order  to 
eliminate obstacles to the effective application of the Directive.  

Denmark, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom highlighted the results they 
had  achieved  by  virtue  of  the  close  understanding  among  their  respective  competent 
authorities, whilst complaining about the uncooperative attitude of other central authorities. 

As  regards  cooperation  between  the  various  authorities  involved  in  the  field  of  cultural 
objects at national level (culture, customs, police and justice), the information provided by the 
Member States reveals a variety of national situations. In the experience of Portugal, Ireland, 
France,  Belgium,  Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom,  the  existence  of  a  working  party  bringing 
together  the  services  involved  to  exchange  information  and  share  good  practice  seemed  to 
produce good results. 

5.2.2.  Return proceedings 

Three proceedings for the return of objects were brought by the Member States under article 5 
during  the  period  1999-2003.  Two  were  brought  by  Greece  against  Germany  and  one  by 
France against Belgium.  

The  low  number  of  proceedings  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  mere  availability  of 
legal  proceedings  has  a  positive  effect  on  efforts  to  find  amicable  solutions  out  of  court. 
However,  it  is  not  possible  to  ascertain  from  the  Member  States’  contributions  the  exact 
number of cases where objects have been returned out of court following implementation of 
the  Directive.  Indeed,  some  Member  States  (Greece,  Spain,  France  and  the  Netherlands) 
generally prefer to use other legal methods to recover cultural objects because the conditions 
for  bringing  return  proceedings  are  considered  too  restrictive  (unlawful  removal  from  1993 
onwards and/or the time limit of one year). 

In  addition,  the  data  provided  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  article  6,  which  provides  for  the 
exchange of information among Member States during proceedings for the return of an object, 
has not been applied. 

5.2.3.  Protection of cultural objects  

The  system  for  recovering  cultural  objects  established  by  the  Directive  aims  to  protect 
Member States’ cultural heritage.  

The Member States agree that, even though the Directive has a preventative effect in terms of 
safeguarding  their  heritage,  it  is  not  in  itself  designed  to  combat  the  illegal  trafficking  of 
cultural  objects.  Furthermore,  the  purpose  of  the  Directive  is  not  to  regulate  the  free 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
movement of cultural objects. Its effectiveness should not, therefore, be judged in terms of its 
contribution to combating the illegal trafficking of cultural objects.  

Nevertheless,  given  the  interest  of  the  Member  States  and  the  Community  institutions  in 
actively tackling the illegal trafficking of cultural objects, the Commission believes it would 
be  appropriate  to  examine  in  detail  the  recommendations  of  the  study  on  the  traceability  of 
cultural objects. Even though  the  study’s conclusions go  beyond the scope of the Directive, 
the Commission believes that the Advisory Committee on Cultural Goods has the appropriate 
expertise to launch such a discussion.  

In accordance with the European Parliament’s request in its Resolution,11 the Commission is 
considering  whether  the  time  is  right  for  a  Communication  on  the  movement  of  cultural 
objects within the Union, including a review of the situation in the Member States. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS  

6.1. 

Improving cooperation and the exchange of information among Member States 

The assessment of the application of Directive 93/7/EEC in the period 1999-2003 highlights 
shortcomings  in  administrative  cooperation  and  consultation  among  the  Member  States, 
mechanisms  which  are  fundamental  to  the  protection  and  defence  of  the  Member  States' 
cultural heritage.  

To  remedy  these  shortcomings,  the  Commission  will  examine  to  what  extent  the 
recommendations  set  out  in  the  guidelines  for  improving  administrative  cooperation  have 
been acted upon. This would provide the opportunity for a general appraisal of the operation 
of  the  guidelines  and  an  assessment  of  the  degree  to  which  they  meet  real  needs.  The 
Commission believes that targeted action is necessary at both national and Community levels 
to correct the deficiencies in cooperation, in order to ensure that the Community system for 
the protection of cultural objects works properly and to facilitate the application of Directive 
93/7/EEC.  In  this  respect,  some  Member  States,  such  as  Spain  and  Germany,  would  be  in 
favour of setting up a procedure for applying article 4 of the Directive if this helped improve 
administrative cooperation between Member States without creating more red tape. Denmark, 
for example, considers it important to set deadlines for replying to requests for cooperation. 
However,  other  Member  States  do  not  appear  to  be  in  favour  of  a  common  procedure.  The 
Commission believes that it is premature to draw conclusions at this stage. 

6.2. 

Extension of the time limit for bringing proceedings  

Member States consider insufficient the time limit of one year for initiating proceedings for 
the return of a cultural object. They are in favour of extending the limit to three years. This 
request was made at the time of the first report.  

Subject to the results of consultations with the Advisory Committee on Cultural Goods, article 
7(1) of the Directive could be amended to extend the time limit for bringing proceedings to 
three years after the requesting Member State becomes aware of the location of the cultural 
object and of the identity of its possessor or holder. 

11 

See footnote 4. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6.3.  Maintaining financial thresholds 

The Directive lays down that every three years, acting on a proposal from the Commission, 
the Council shall examine and, where appropriate, update the financial thresholds indicated in 
the  Annex  to  the  Directive,  on  the  basis  of  economic  and  monetary  indicators  in  the 
Community. 

The  replies  which  the  Member  States  provided  for  the  drafting  of  this  report  are  not 
unanimous.  Some  Member  States,  such  as  Spain,  Austria  and  Sweden,  think  the  thresholds 
are  too  high  and  do  not  provide  adequate  protection.  Others,  such  as  the  United  Kingdom, 
would prefer to increase the thresholds in order to reduce the list of cultural objects covered 
by  Directive  93/7/EEC.  Given  that  the  differences  in  approach  already  apparent  in  the  first 
report  persist,  the  Commission  does  not  intend  to  propose  the  updating  of  the  thresholds  at 
this stage. 

6.4. 

Frequency of the assessment report 

Given that it is difficult to obtain information from the Member States on the application of 
the  Directive  and  in  view  of  the  limited  number  of  cases  of  application  of  articles  4  and  5 
thereof, the Commission does not consider it necessary to maintain the obligation laid down 
in Article 16 of the Directive to draw up a report every three years.  

6.5. 

Referral to the Advisory Committee on Cultural Goods 

The Commission intends to submit the issues referred to above to the Advisory Committee on 
Cultural Goods. 

*

*

*

•  The Commission invites the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic 

and Social Committee to take note of this report. 

•  In  the  light  of  this  report,  the  Commission  will  consult  the  Advisory  Committee  on 
Cultural  Goods  on  the  proposed  amendments  to  Directive  93/7/EEC  concerning  the  time 
limit for bringing return proceedings and the frequency of reports.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX  

Tables showing returns and instances of administrative cooperation  
between Member States 1999-200312 

•  List of returns (all amicable settlements outside the legal return procedure) 

Year 

Returning State 

Requesting State 

Object 

2003 

UK 

Portugal 

? 

UK 

2001 

Portugal 

Sweden 

Spain 

Archive  of  Manuscripts  from  the  18th 
century  

Books 

Painting “Romany” 
Madrazo Kuntz 

of 

Frederico 

2000 

2003 

Netherlands  

Austria 

Painting  

UK 

Netherlands  

Manuscripts  

•  Summary of ongoing requests for return 

Year 

Returning State  Requesting State 

Result 

? 

Germany 

2002 

Netherlands 

Italy 

Italy 

ongoing 

ongoing (armour) 

•  List of legal return procedures (article 5 of directive 93/7/EEC) 

Year 

Requesting State  Requested State 

Object 

2002 

2003 

2003 

Greece  

Greece 

France 

Germany 

Germany 

Belgium 

438 antiquities of Greek origin  

13 antiquities of Greek origin 

Public archives (33.000 documents ) 

•  List of requests for search (article 4, 1 of Directive 93/7/EEC) 

Year 

Requesting State  Requested State 

Result 

2003 

Netherlands 

UK 

2003 

Germany 

UK  

Due  to  an  agreement  between  the 
parties,  the  objects  were  returned  to 
the  Netherlands  without  the  need  to 
apply the Directive.  

Removal  from  Germany  was  not 
unlawful.  

12 

Source / Mesures notified by the central authorities charged with the application of Directive 93/7/EEC 
to the European Commission. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
2003 

2001 

1999 
2000 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

Germany 
(painting 
Degas) 

Austria 

of 

Austria 
(Latin 
military diploma) 

Germany 

Italy (2) 

Netherlands  

Italy 

Portugal  

Spain 

Germany 

Spain 

Germany 

No  result.  The  painting  is  not  known 
in Austria.  

No  result  for  lack  of  intervention  by 
the authorities. 

Resolved  outside  the  ambit  of  the 
Directive.  

Ongoing 

ongoing  

Without success (Painting of Bernardo 
Belotto)  

Greece (2) 

Germany 

Securing of the objects  

Italy  

Netherlands  

? 

•  Notifications of discoveries (Article 4, 2 of Directive 93/7/EEC) 

Year 

Notifying State 

Notified State 

Result 

2003 

UK  

France  

2001 (1) 
2003 (2) 

UK (3) 

Portugal  

2003 

1999 

Germany  (objects 
of Greek origin) 

Austria 

Italy 
reliefs) 

(gothic 

Austria 

1999 

Austria 

? 

Spain 

2002 

France  

Italy 

Italy 

Greece 

The  French  authorities  have  granted 
the 
authorisation 
retroactive 
and 
British  authorities  have 
issued  an 
export licence. 

In two cases the Portuguese authorities 
granted  retroactive  authorisation  and 
the  British  authorities  issued  export 
licences.  In  the  other  case,  the  article 
has  been  sent  back  to  Portugal  on  a 
voluntary  basis  following  mediation 
by  the  British  authorities  between  the 
holder and the Portuguese authorities. 

No  result.  Restitution  abandoned  for 
lack of conditions. 

result.  Origin  could  not  be 

No 
determined. Item returned to owner.  

? 

ongoing 

Prohibition of the sale 

EN 

12 

   EN