Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee - Third 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: 2009-07-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, activity report, art trade, cultural object, illicit trade, public authorities

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.7.2009 
COM(2009) 408 final 

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

Third 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 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Second report on the application of Directive 93/7/EEC (1999-2003): conclusions... 3 

Developments since the second report (2004-2007).................................................... 4 

Accession of the twelve new Member States............................................................... 4 

Study on the traceability of cultural objects: extension to the twelve new Member 
States (2007)................................................................................................................. 4 

Application of the directive during the period 2004-2007........................................... 5 

Application reports from the Member States ............................................................... 5 

Evaluation of the application of the directive .............................................................. 6 

4.2.1.  Administrative cooperation and exchange of information between authorities 

(Article 4) ..................................................................................................................... 7 

4.2.2.  Proceedings for return (Article 5) ................................................................................ 8 

5. 

6. 

Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 8 

Next step....................................................................................................................... 9 

ANNEX.................................................................................................................................... 10 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Council  Directive  93/7/EEC,  adopted  on  15 March  19931,  introduced  mechanisms  for 
cooperation  between  the  national  authorities  and  a  legal  procedure  for  the  return  of  cultural 
objects taken unlawfully from the territory of a Member State. 

At Community level, cultural objects are subject to the provisions of the Treaty establishing 
the European Community (the EC Treaty), especially those relating to the free movement of 
goods. In particular, Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty prohibit restrictions on imports and 
exports and all measures having equivalent effect. However, Article 30 provides 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 of … the protection of national treasures possessing 
artistic, historic or archaeological value…". Therefore, pursuant to this Article, the Member 
States retain the right to define cultural goods which they consider to be national treasures and 
to take measures to protect them. 

Directive  93/7/EEC  is  therefore  a  measure  to  support  the  internal  market  with  the  aim  of 
reconciling the operation of the internal market with a guarantee for the Member States that 
their cultural objects with the status of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological 
value, pursuant to Article 30 of the EC Treaty, will be protected. 

Pursuant  to  Article  16(2)  of  the  Directive,  the  Commission  sends  the  European  Parliament, 
the  Council  and  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  every  three  years,  a  report  reviewing 
the application of this Directive2. 
This document is the third report reviewing the Directive. It covers the period 2004-2007 and 
examines the application of the Directive in the Member States3. 

2. 

SECOND  REPORT  ON  THE  APPLICATION  OF  DIRECTIVE 93/7/EEC  (1999-2003): 
CONCLUSIONS 

The  second  report  noted  that  the  Member  States  considered  the  Directive  to  be  useful  for 
protecting  cultural  heritage  and  that  the  Community  legal  framework  created  by  it  was 
sufficient,  even  if  certain  improvements  were  necessary.  The  second  report  thus  concluded 
that the following approaches were appropriate: 

•  improving cooperation and the exchange of information among Member States; 

•  extending the time limit of one year for bringing proceedings;  

1 

2 

3 

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. 
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 May 2000]. 
Second  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(2005) 675 final]. 
The  Commission  has  not  received  a  national  application  report  from  Estonia,  Ireland,  Luxembourg, 
Malta or Bulgaria. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
•  maintaining financial thresholds; 

•  leaving unchanged the frequency of the assessment report. 

The  Commission  had  indicated  its  intention  to  consult  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Cultural 
Goods on the issue of the time-limit for bringing proceedings and the frequency of the reports.  

3. 

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE SECOND REPORT (2004-2007) 

3.1. 

Accession of the twelve new Member States  

Before  each  accession,  the  Commission  examined  the  planned  national  measures  for  the 
transposition  of  the  Directive.  The  candidate  countries  also  received  regular  technical 
assistance to facilitate correct transposition. 
The Commission launched infringement proceedings against some Member States4 for failure 
to  communicate  national  transposition  measures  within  the  deadlines  set.  These  procedures 
were discontinued once the national measures had been communicated and checked.  

Over  the  period  of  the  two  accessions  (in  2004  and  2007),  the  Advisory  Committee  on 
Cultural Goods (now known as the Committee on the Export and Return of Cultural Goods) 
met once, on 16 February 2005. Issues relating to the Directive raised by the Member States 
include the need to extend the period of one year for bringing proceedings for the return of 
cultural goods. This request made by Greece was supported by other Member States such as 
Spain and Italy. 

3.2. 

Study  on  the  traceability  of  cultural  objects:  extension  to  the  twelve  new 
Member States (2007) 

At  the  end  of  2006,  the  Commission  requested  that  the  study  on  the  traceability  of  cultural 
objects in the 15 'old' Member States and the three EEA countries be extended to also include 
the  12  new  Member  States.  The  new  2007  study  confirmed  the  conclusions  of  the  study 
conducted in 20045, i.e. that traceability is ensured only for national treasures and, to a lesser 
extent, for cultural objects whose movement is based on an export authorisation. 

It also confirmed the recommendations in the basic study, in particularl the importance of:  

•  putting in place a single Community model for shipping authorisations for cultural objects 

in the intra-Community area; 

•  creating a European database for shipping and export licences to third countries;  

•  creating marking systems for cultural objects; and  

•  creating  a  network  to  strengthen  cooperation  between  the  competent  authorities  of  the 

Member States. 

Some  Member  States,  such  as  France,  wished  to  have  these  recommendations  examined  by 
the  Committee  on  the  Export  and  Return  of  Cultural  Goods.  The  Commission  considers, 

4 
5 

Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/goods/dir937_en.htm 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
however,  that  these  recommendations,  which  go  beyond  the  scope  of  Directive  93/7/EEC, 
should  be  evaluated  in  the  light  of  the  principles  relating  to  the  free  movement  of  goods 
between Member States (Articles 28 to 30 EC)6.  

4. 

APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE DURING THE PERIOD 2004-2007 

4.1. 

Application reports from the Member States  

In  line  with  Article  16(1)  of  the  Directive,  the  Member  States  must  send  the  Commission, 
every three years, a report reviewing the application of this Directive7. 

As a rule, the Member States consider that the Directive is a useful instrument for the return 
of national treasures which have been unlawfully taken from the territory of a Member State 
and are to be found in another Member State. They also agree that, even though the Directive 
goes some way towards safeguarding cultural heritage, it is not enough in itself to combat the 
illegal trade in cultural goods. 

The national reports note: 

•  that the Directive is seldom applied, either in the context of administrative cooperation or 

in the exercise of return proceedings (see Annex)8; 

•  the  need  for  enhanced  administrative  cooperation  between  the  competent  authorities  at 

national and Community level;  

•  the need to make certain adjustments to the Directive to make it more effective.  

Moreover,  most  of  the  Member  States  blamed  the  administrative  complexity  and  cost  of 
applying the Directive for the fact that it is seldom used. According to these Member States, 
this is why the national authorities prefer to  use civil or criminal  proceedings.  Furthermore, 
some Member States, such as France, Italy and Hungary, take the view that limiting the scope 
of  the  Directive  to  national  treasures  listed  in  the  Annex  to  the  Directive  or  belonging  to 
public collections or on ecclesiastical lists constitutes a further restriction. 

Improvements proposed by the Member States  

In order to make the Directive more effective, almost all the Member States are in favour of 
amending Article 7(1) to extend the period during which return proceedings can be initiated. 
This  period,  currently  one  year,  could  be  extended  to  three  years,  for  instance.  France  and 
Italy,  for  example,  take  the  view  that  the  starting  point  of  the  corresponding  period  should 
also be clarified.  

6 

7 

8 

During the period 2004-2007, the Commission dealt with just one complaint concerning obstacles to the 
removal of a cultural good from a Member State to another Member State (Article 29 EC).  
In  order  to  obtain  comparable  data,  the  Commission  sent  the  national  authorities  responsible  for 
implementing  Directive  93/7/EEC  the  same  questionnaire  as  the  one  sent  for  the  preparation  of  the 
second assessment report.  
This table was submitted, for their opinion and agreement, to the national authorities responsible for the 
Directive. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  vast  majority  of  the  Member  States  (including  Belgium,  Germany,  Spain,  Cyprus, 
Hungary,  Poland,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia)  are  also  in  favour  of  amending  the  Annex  to  the 
Directive,  either  to  include  new  categories  of  goods  such  as  certain  contemporary  works  of 
art, or to amend the current financial thresholds9 or the frequency of the reports. 

The  Czech  Republic,  France,  Italy  and  Austria  emphasise  the  difficulties  inherent  in  return 
proceedings,  for  example  different  interpretations  of  the  concepts  of  "due  care"  and  "fair 
compensation" by the national jurisdictions involved in the proceedings. For this reason, these 
Member  States  are  in  favour  of  a  standard  interpretation  of  these  concepts.  The  Czech 
Republic has suggested that Articles 9 and 11 of the Directive be amended to make clearer the 
obligations  of  the  possessor  upon  acquisition  of  a  cultural  good.  As  stated  above,  some 
Member  States  (in  particular  France,  Italy  and  Hungary)  have  noted  that  the  concepts  of 
"cultural  object"  and  "national  treasure"  vary  between  Member  States,  complicating  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive  by  the  authorities.  These  Member  States  therefore  propose 
that the scope of the Directive be reviewed.  

Finally,  some  Member  States  take  the  view  that  a  set  of  guidelines  for  administrative 
cooperation (Article 4) would facilitate implementation of the Directive. 

4.2. 

Evaluation of the application of the directive  

The Commission has listed in the table in the Annex the cases where Articles 4 and 5 of the 
Directive were applied between 2004 and 2007, on the basis of information supplied by the 
Member States concerning this period.  

Specifically,  the  Member  States  implemented  Article  4,  which  provides  for  administrative 
cooperation by way of searches for cultural objects and notifications of their discovery in the 
territory  of  another  Member  State.  Moreover,  three  Member  States  (Germany,  Cyprus  and 
Latvia)  stated  that  they  allowed  another  Member  States  to  check  the  nature  of  the  cultural 
object; Spain, Austria and Sweden indicated that they had taken administrative measures for 
the physical preservation of a cultural object. Hungary and Greece stated that they had taken 
interim measures to avoid the return procedure.  

The  national  contributions  also  take  account  of  the  148  actual  returns  of  cultural  objects 
following negotiations between the national authorities, without recourse to the courts. 

Lastly,  the  national  authorities  stated  that  they  had  instituted  eight  legal  actions  for  return 
under Article 5 during the reference period10. 

However, as was the case during previous evaluations, the Commission stresses the difficulty 
of checking the accuracy of data communicated regarding the application of Articles 4 and 5. 
In this context, some national authorities responsible for the application of the Directive noted 
difficulties in the collection of all the information relating, in particular, to court actions. 

9 

10 

Some Member States are in favour of raising the threshold (Cyprus and the UK), whilst others would 
like to see it lowered (Spain, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden and Romania). 
Apart  from  the  request  by  the  Czech  Republic  to  Germany  concerning  baptismal  fonts  (Taufbecken), 
rejected for lapse of time in 2008, the other actions were still ongoing at the end of 2007.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2.1.  Administrative  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  between  authorities 

(Article 4) 

The national reports described good cooperation and exchange of information at national level 
between  the  central  authorities  responsible  for  implementing  the  Directive  and  the  other 
competent  authorities  with  regard  to  the  unlawful  export  of  cultural  objects  (in  particular 
customs  and  the  police).  The  central  authorities  took  the  view  that  this  was  vital  for  the 
application of the Directive. For example, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania 
pointed to the existence of either cooperation agreements between the national authorities, ad 
hoc provisions (e.g. the Office central de lutte contre le trafic des biens culturels in France) or 
working groups for the exchange of information and good practices (Germany and Portugal). 
The  Netherlands  referred  to  its  plan11  to  strengthen  this  cooperation  through,  among  other 
things,  exchanges  of  knowledge,  experience  and  training.  Belgium  announced  that  regular 
meetings between the relevant authorities and a cooperation project were planned from 2008 
onwards.  

The Member States also agreed on the importance of good administrative cooperation and the 
exchange of information between the Member States for the implementation of the Directive. 
In this context, Greece commented that all information received about objects which had been 
unlawfully  removed  from  a  Member  State  had  come  from  the  national  courts  or  from 
INTERPOL, not from the national authorities responsible for implementing the Directive. The 
Greek authorities also stated that they always inform the other national authorities responsible 
for  the  Directive  of  any  thefts  recorded  on  their  territory.  In  this  context,  Greece  noted  the 
shortcomings  in  administrative  cooperation  at  European  level.  France  emphasised  the 
importance of creating a platform for contacts and exchanges between the national authorities 
responsible  for  the  Directive  at  European  level.  According  to  the  Netherlands,  such 
cooperation  should  be  extended  to  include  the  countries  of  the  European  Economic  Area12. 
The  Czech  Republic  and  Lithuania  suggested  improving  communication  by  means  of 
electronic  tools  such  as  a  joint  Internet  portal13.  In  this  context,  the  Commission  recalls  the 
ITCG  (Information  on  Transfer  of  Cultural  Goods)  pilot  project  intended  to  facilitate 
exchanges  of  information  on  the  protection  of  cultural  goods  between  the  competent 
administrations14.  Lastly,  Portugal  noted  that  the  preservation  of  cultural  heritage  would  be 
even more effective if all the authorities also cooperated with INTERPOL and EUROPOL.  
The  Member  States  confirmed  that  it  would  be  useful  to  have  joint  guidelines  for 
administrative cooperation, like those adopted in 2002 by the Committee on the Export and 
Return  of  Cultural  Goods.  In  their  view,  such  guidelines  would  provide  a  very  important 
information tool on the national provisions applicable to the protection of cultural objects and 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Pure  Art  -  preventive  criminal  analysis  of  the  Dutch  art  and  antiques  trade.  Intraval  -  Groningen-
Rotterdam. 2007. The report was drawn up following a survey on the vulnerability of the art market in 
the Netherlands to organised crime. 
Directive 93/7/EEC also applies to the EFTA countries which are part of the EEA, pursuant to Annex 
II, Chapter 28, point 1. 
European  portal  allowing  Member  States  to  share  up-to-date  information  on  export  permits  and 
providing information on unlawful removals. This portal would, in particular, be an entry point for the 
national databases of stolen objects (circa group). 
The  ITGC  project  was  financed  between  1997  and  2000  by  means  of  the  IDA  (Interchange  of  Data 
between Administrations). Its final report, published in May 2000, proposed the creation of a website 
comprising  two  parts:  one  public,  containing  information  on  cultural  goods  (national  legislation, 
movement  forms,  contact  addresses,  etc.);  the  other,  with  access  limited  to  the  authorities  and  with  a 
standardised exchange domain, would contain confidential information. Even though the Commission 
proposed that implementation of this project be launched in 2003, the approval procedure was blocked. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
on the competent authorities in the Member States. Finally, all the Member States recognised 
the  Committee  on  the  Export  and  Return  of  Cultural  Goods  as  a  body  to  facilitate 
administrative cooperation and the exchange of information between the national authorities 
represented.  

4.2.2.  Proceedings for return (Article 5) 

According to the information communicated by the Member States, eight legal actions for the 
return of cultural objects pursuant to Article 5 were instituted during the period 2004-2007. 

According to the Member States, there are two reasons for this small number: 1) the scope of 
the Directive, which covers only national treasures unlawfully removed since 1 January 1993 
and belonging to one of the categories of objects listed in the Annex to the Directive, a public 
collection or an ecclesiastical list; and 2) the deadline for return, which is one year from the 
time  the  applicant  Member  State  discovers  the  place  where  the  object  is  located  and  the 
identity of its owner or holder. For these reasons, several Member States indicated that they 
prefer  to  use  other  legal  means,  such  as  the  UNESCO  Convention15,  for  the  recovery  of 
cultural objects. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In  line  with  the  conclusions  of  the  last  two  assessment  reports,  most  of  the  Member  States 
take  the  view  that  the  Directive  is  a  useful  tool  for  the  recovery  of  certain  cultural  objects 
removed unlawfully from the territory of a Member State, and for protecting heritage. These 
Member  States  acknowledge  that  the  Directive  has  a  preventive  effect  and  discourages  the 
unlawful removal of objects. However, the Member States regret that the Directive has certain 
restrictions, such as the one-year deadline for initiating recovery proceedings.  

Regarding administrative cooperation and the exchange of information on the Directive, the 
Commission has seen an improvement both within and between the Member States. However, 
it  has  noted  some  shortcomings,  on  the  one  hand  in  the  collection  and  exchange  of 
information between the authorities responsible for implementing the Directive and the other 
national authorities responsible for protecting cultural objects and, on the other hand, between 
the  various  national  authorities  responsible  for  the  Directive.  The  Commission  therefore 
suggests that the Member States take the necessary action to improve cooperation between the 
various  national  authorities.  In  order  to  support  them,  the  Commission  will  update  the 
guidelines  on  administrative  cooperation  and  publish  lists  of  the  national  authorities 
responsible  for  implementing  the  Directive.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  would  emphasise 
the  Member  States'  obligation  to  notify  it  every  time  the  national  authority  designated 
pursuant to Article 3 of Directive 93/7/EEC changes so that the list published in the Official 
Journal of the European Union can be updated. 

Regarding actions for recovery, the Commission notes that the small number of proceedings 
launched could also be the result of successful administrative cooperation and, in particular, 
of negotiations for amicable out-of-court settlements16. However, there is a consensus among 
the Member States that the current one-year deadline is too short, rendering the Directive less 

15 

16 

Convention  on  the  Means  of  Prohibiting  and  Preventing  the  Illicit  Import,  Export  and  Transfer  of 
Cultural Property, Paris, 14 November 1970 
See table "Overview of recoveries under amicable out-of-court settlements" in the Annex. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
effective,  and  that  is  should  be  extended.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  similar  consensus 
regarding  other  proposals  for  amending  the  Directive,  for  example  the  addition  of  other 
categories of goods to the list in the Annex, or the amendment of the financial thresholds. 

6. 

NEXT STEP 

In the light of the information received about the application of the Directive, the Commission 
takes the view that the amendment of the Directive should be considered. It is of the opinion 
that  any  proposal  to  amend  the  Directive  should  be  analysed  in  depth  by  the  national 
authorities responsible for implementing the Directive with regard to its impact.  

Accordingly,  the  Commission  will  suggest  to  the  Committee  on  the  Export  and  Return  of 
Cultural Goods that an ad hoc working group be created under its auspices in 2009. The role 
of this group will be to identify problems associated with the application of the Directive and 
to suggest solutions which are effective and acceptable to all the Member States with a view 
to possibly amending the Directive.  

The Commission calls on the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic 
and Social Committee to take note of this report.

*

*

*

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
Recoveries, actions for recovery and administrative cooperation between the Member 
States between 2004 and 200717 

ANNEX  

•  Overview of recoveries under amicable out-of-court settlements  

Year 

Returning State  Requesting State 

Object 

2004 

Germany 

Greece 

1 antiquity (fragment of a marble relief 
of a colossal statue) 

2006 

2006 

2006 

2006 

2007 

2007 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

Austria 

Latvia 

France 

Poland 

2 parts of a bas relief 

2 wooden bas reliefs (part of an altar) 

United Kingdom  Greece 

1 ancient piece 

Sweden 

Austria 

France 

Greece 

Hungary  

48 ancient pieces  

1 painting by W. Farkas 

United Kingdom 

fourteenth 

1 
manuscript 

century 

Hebrew 

Germany 

Czech Republic 

1 sculpture  of  an  angel  in  polychrome 
wood, eighteenth century 

Germany 

Germany 

Spain 

Spain 

France 

Austria 

1 royal journal 

Czech Republic 

4 sculptures  of  saints  in  polychrome 
wood, eighteenth century 

Italy 

Sweden 

Spain 

1 Roman sculpture  

86 religious objects  

1 canvas 

•  Ongoing  negotiations  with  a  view  to  amicable  recovery  (Article  4(6)  of  Directive 

93/7/EEC) 

Year 

Returning State  Requesting State 

Result 

2006 

2006 

Poland 

Latvia  

Czech Republic  Germany  

In progress 

In progress  

? 

Germany 

Austria 

In progress (1 gouache) 

(matrix of the book "De Revolutionibus 
orbium coelestium")  

17 

Source: National reports on the application of the Directive. These tables were checked by the central 
authorities responsible for implementing Directive 93/7/EEC. However, some data were not confirmed 
by the two Member States concerned. 
The steps associated with the recovery of a single object may appear in more than one table. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Year 

Returning State  Requesting State 

Result 

? 

Spain 

Sweden 

In progress (1 enamel casket) 

•  Requests for return submitted (Article 5 of Directive 93/7/EEC)18 

Year 

Claimant 

Against 

Object 

2005 

Greece 

United Kingdom 

1 Byzantine icon (ongoing) 

2006 

Italy 

Austria 

336 archaeological items (ongoing) 

2006 

Czech Republic  Germany 

2006 

Czech Republic  Austria 

Fonts  (proceedings  dismissed  in  2008 
through lapse of time)  

1 sculpture of the Madonna of Cholina, 
fifteenth century, returned after 2007) 

Czech Republic  Austria 

1 painting of a church (ongoing) 

2006 

2006 

Czech Republic  Austria 

2006 

Czech Republic  Austria 

2007 

Greece  

Germany  

80 objects 
monasteries (ongoing) 

from 

churches 

or 

4 sculptures 
(ongoing) 

from  a 

luxury  hotel 

90 ancient  objects  (to  be  returned  in 
2009) 

•  Requests for searches (Article 4(1) of Directive 93/7/EEC) 

Year 

Claimant 

Against 

Result 

2004 

Hungary 

Austria 

 Positive (painting by W. Farkas found) 

2004-2007  Greece 

All the national 
authorities 

Negative 
concerning 
(39 requests 
439 objects  stolen  from  churches  and 
monasteries) 

18 

In 2004, two requests from Italy were rejected by the Dutch and German courts respectively concerning 
proceedings  brought  in  2002  for  the  return  of  a  Greek  panoplia,  and  proceedings  dating  from  2001 
concerning 911 archaeological items. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Year 

Claimant 

Against 

Result 

2004-2005  Austria 

2005-2006  Germany 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Hungary 
Czech Republic 
Romania 
Slovakia 

2007 

2005 

2006 

2006 

Portugal 
Finland 

Latvia 

Finland 

France 

Greece 
(20 requests) 

Poland 

Germany 

United 
Kingdom 

2006 

Netherlands 

Germany 

Negative because of lack of information 
on the objects: 35 paintings and 11 886 
works  of  art  or  pieces.  The  latter 
request  for  works  of  art  came  from 
Bulgaria. 

2 wooden bas reliefs (part of an altar) 

Negative (object in USA) 

1 musical 
according to France) 

instrument 

(no 

reply, 

Negative  (request  to  search  for  archive 
material refused) 

2006 

Poland 

Latvia 

In progress (1 object) 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

Germany 

Lithuania 

Positive 

Italy 

Austria 

Czech Republic  Germany 

Czech Republic  Austria 

France 

Negative  (1 Roman  dental  prosthesis). 
Request 
rejected  because  deadline 
passed 

2 sculptures 
request 
returned, 
withdrawn and start of return procedure 
(fonts) 

1 

In progress 

In progress  

Romania 

Romania 

Romania 

Romania 

Sweden 

Sweden 

Germany 

Return (3 objects) 

Austria 

United 
Kingdom 

Spain 

Spain 

In progress  

In progress  

Return of 86 religious objects  

In progress (1 enamel casket) 

•  Notifications of discovery of objects (Article 4(2) of Directive 93/7/EEC) 

Year 

Notifying State  Notified State 

Result 

2004 

France 

Greece  

Negative. As the one-year deadline had 
passed, 
not 
applicable.  Greece  had  to  purchase  the 

the  Directive  was 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Year 

Notifying State  Notified State 

Result 

ancient amphora 

2005 

Hungary 

Austria 

Positive (painting by W. Farkas) 

2006 

Austria 

France 

Return (2 parts of a bas relief) 

2006 

Austria 

Czech Republic 

Return following legal action to recover 
1 sculpture of the Madonna of Cholina 

2006 

2007 

United Kingdom  Greece  

1 ancient item recovered 

Germany 

Greece 

3 confiscations: 

1)  90 ancient  objects  (to  be  returned  to 
Greece in 2009) 

3 ancient 

2) 
investigation). 

1 ancient 

3) 
investigation). 

objects 

(under 

object 

(under 

In  three  other  cases,  the  result  was 
negative,  because  it  was  found  that  the 
objects  in  question  had  not  left  Greece 
unlawfully 

Negative 

Ongoing (ancient coins) 

In progress (3 objects) 

Return (Roman sculpture) 

Ongoing (sixteenth century Bible) 

Germany 

Austria 

Cyprus 

Spain 

Spain 

Austria 

Bulgaria 

Bulgaria 

Italy 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Germany 

Positive 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

EN 

13 

   EN