COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document 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)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, cultural heritage, free movement of goods, heritage protection, illicit trade, indemnification

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.5.2013  
SWD(2013) 188 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

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) 311 final} 
{SWD(2013) 189 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

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. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION  

Directive  93/7/EEC  of  15 March  1993  on  the  return  of  cultural  objects  unlawfully  removed 
from the territory of a Member State1 is intended to guarantee the return of certain national 
treasures  which  were  unlawfully  removed  from  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  after 
1 January 1993. 

This  Directive  is  perceived  by  the  national  authorities  responsible  for  the  Directive 
(hereinafter  the  "central  authorities")  as  a  necessary  instrument  for  safeguarding  national 
heritage. However, these authorities are critical of the limited effectiveness of the Directive in 
securing  the  return  of  certain  cultural  goods  classified  as  "national  treasures  possessing 
artistic,  historic  or  archaeological  value"  in  accordance  with  the  national  administrative 
legislation or procedures within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union (hereinafter "national treasures"). 

The impact assessment identifies three main causes: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

the conditions set for objects classified as "national treasures" in order for them to be 
returned,  i.e.  to  also  belong  to  one  of  the  15  categories  referred  to  in  the  Annex 
(including  archaeological  objects,  pictures,  paintings,  engravings  and  archives)  and 
to  pass  a  minimum  age  threshold  (of  50,  75  or  100  years)  and/or  a  minimum 
financial 
threshold  (a  value  of  EUR 15 000,  EUR 30 000,  EUR 50 000  or 
EUR 150 000). 

the short one-year deadline for return proceedings; 

the cost of compensating the possessor; the Directive provides that the court award 
the  possessor  compensation  if  he/she  has  exercised  due  care  and  attention  in 
acquiring the object. When applied in the Member States, the award of compensation 
(and/or its amount) could be subject to differing decisions in similar circumstances. 
This provision would be a source of ambiguity and could make returning the object 
more difficult, or even impossible, for some Member States.  

In view of the difficulties encountered when returning objects, the national authorities often 
need  to  resort  to  the  mechanisms  provided  for  in  the  1970  UNESCO  Convention  on  the 
Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of 

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. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Cultural  Property  and/or  to  those  set  out  in  the  1995  UNIDROIT  Convention  on  Stolen  or 
Illegally Exported Cultural Objects2. 

2. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows the EU to 
adopt measures to facilitate the functioning of the internal market in goods, including cultural 
goods.  

Setting rules on the return of objects is a way of making it easier for this market to function. 
However, it is not within the EU's competence to define national treasures or determine the 
types of national courts responsible for handling restitution cases.  

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.  

The cross-border dimension of the unlawful removal of cultural goods means that the EU is 
best  placed  to  take  action  regarding  these  aspects  and  allows  for  the  return  of  unlawfully 
removed objects on the territory of a Member State. During the public consultation, the vast 
majority  of  central  authorities  and  public-sector  representatives  expressed  their  support  for 
action by the EU to improve the system of returning goods classed as "national treasures". On 
the  other  hand,  the  majority  of  citizens  and  private-sector  businesses  did  not  consider  it 
necessary to resort to action by the EU to guarantee the return of cultural goods classified as 
"national treasures". 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The general objective of this initiative is to help protect cultural goods in the context of the 
internal  market.  The  specific  objective  is  to  allow  Member  States  to  secure  the  return  of 
cultural objects classified as "national treasures" which were unlawfully removed from their 
territory after 1993.  

The  operational  objectives  of  this  initiative  are  to  increase  the  number  of  returns  of  objects 
classified as "national treasures" and to reduce the cost of these returns. 

These objectives are in line with the conclusions of the Council of the European Union of 13 
and  14  December  2011  recommending  that  the  Commission  provide  its  support  to  the 
Member States in order to effectively protect cultural objects with a view to preventing and 
combating illegal trade and to promoting additional measures, where appropriate. 

4. 

POSSIBLE OPTIONS 

The strategic options were developed on the basis of the assumptions set out below:  

• 

• 

2 

the  free  movement  of  cultural  objects  is a  fundamental  principle  recognised  by  the 
Treaty (TFEU). This Treaty likewise recognises the Member States' right to restrict 
this freedom in order to protect cultural objects classified as "national treasures"; 

the definition of what is covered by the concept of "national treasure" and the related 
protection measures thus remains a prerogative of each Member State; 

These Conventions were not ratified by all EU Member States. The UNESCO Convention of 1970 was 
ratified by 22 Member States and the UNIDROIT Convention of 1995 by 13 Member States. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

only  the  Member  State  is  entitled  to  initiate  a  return  procedure  irrespective  of  the 
nature of ownership of the object (public or private); 

the Directive does not relate to aspects concerning ownership of the object for which 
a return request has been made, and is thus in line with Article 345 TFEU. 

The report did not analyse the options which do not fall within the competences of the EU or 
do not comply with the rules of the Treaty (TFEU). 

Apart  from  the  baseline  scenario  (no  change)  (option  1),  the  following  options  were 
examined3: 

Option 2: Promoting the use of common tools between the central authorities  

The Commission would propose using an IT tool to improve administrative cooperation and 
dialogue between the central authorities. 

Option 3: Revision of Directive 93/7/EEC  

Directive 93/7/EEC, as amended by Directives 96/100/EC and 2001/38/EC, would be revised 
in order to i) extend its scope to all objects classified as "national treasures" by the Member 
States; ii) extend the time-limits for bringing return proceedings and for checking whether the 
object found is a cultural object; and iii) align the conditions for compensating the possessor. 

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

The  Commission  would  launch  an  information  campaign  aimed  at  raising  the  awareness  of 
the  Member  States  with  a  view  to  ratifying  or  even  implementing  the  1970  UNESCO 
Convention 4. 

5. 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

In principle, none of the options described above has any effect on the creation of jobs, or on 
the environment, competitiveness or the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

These  options  have  an  impact  on  the  safeguarding  of  national  cultural  heritage  because  the 
existence of efficient return mechanisms is an important condition for such protection.  

Options  1,  2  and  3  also  have  an  impact  on  the  smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market 
because  they  help  to  reconcile  the  free  movement  of  cultural  objects  with  the  protection  of 
national  treasures.  Option  3  is  likely  to  have  an  impact  on  certain  stakeholders  in  the  art 
market, such as antique dealers or auction houses, the vast majority of which would be small- 
and medium-sized enterprises. 

The analysis of the options is more particularly qualitative in nature. 

3 

4 

Other  options,  such  as:  i)  ratification  by  the  EU  of  the  1970  UNESCO  Convention  and  the  1995 
UNIDROIT  Convention;  ii)  the  definition  of  an  EU  strategy  aiming  for  the  ratification  by  all  the 
Member States of the UNIDROIT Convention; iii) replacement of Directive 93/7/EEC by a regulation 
and  iv)  the  repeal  of  Directive  93/7/EEC,  were  rejected  in  the  preliminary  stages  of  examining  the 
various solutions for reasons of feasibility. 
The  UNESCO  site  contains  detailed  information  on  the  implementation  of  the  1970  UNESCO 
Convention by the 22 Member States and the measures taken to combat illegal trade.  
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/movable-heritage-and-museums/illicit-traffic-of-cultural-
property/1970-convention/examination-of-national-reports/#c280797  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
5.1. 

Option 1: Baseline scenario (no change) 

This  option  would  mean  that  requests  from  the  central  authorities  to  make  the  Directive  a 
more effective instrument for returning any object classed as a "national treasure" would not 
be followed up. 

Responses to the public consultation show that 61.02% of private-sector respondents consider 
that the Directive provides an adequate response to the needs of the Member States as regards 
the  return  of  national  treasures.  On  the  other  hand,  only  20.83%  of  public-sector 
representatives share this opinion. 

The  Commission  does  not  have  any  general  information  on  the  operational  costs  associated 
with enforcing the Directive. The administrative cost of drafting a report on the enforcement 
of the Directive every three years is estimated to be EUR 55 000, representing an annual cost 
of around EUR 18 0005.  

5.2. 

Option 2: Promoting the use of common tools between the central authorities  

In  previous  evaluations  of  the  Directive,  the  central  authorities  noted  a  progressive 
improvement but these authorities report that their contacts are poorly structured, in particular 
owing to the lack of a common consultation system and language barriers.  

This option would involve using the Internal Market Information System (hereinafter IMI) to 
facilitate  administrative  cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  information  between  the  central 
authorities. This tool was developed by the Commission and is accessible online. No software 
needs to be installed. It is a secure, multilingual application which allows the rapid exchange 
of information between competent authorities. It contains a system of electronic notifications, 
standard  forms  in  all  languages,  lists  of  pre-translated  questions  and  answers,  an  automatic 
translation  tool  incorporated  into  the  system  and  a  mechanism  for  monitoring  the  requests 
submitted.  

If the IMI were to be used, an ad hoc module suited to the requirements of the directive would 
need to be developed.  

Such a tool would make enforcing the Directive easier and would have a positive impact on 
the number of returns, in particular those organised on an amicable basis.  

During the public consultation, one third of the public-sector representatives considered that 
strengthening  administrative  cooperation  and  consultation  was  the  best  way  to  facilitate  the 
return of national treasures. However, 61.02% of the private-sector representatives were of the 
opinion that the existing situation should not be changed and that enhanced cooperation was 
not necessary for the return of national treasures. 

The  costs  of  developing  an  ad  hoc  module,  and  of  using  and  maintaining  the  IMI  system 
would be covered by the EU budget. The Commission would also assume responsibility for 
organising the training sessions necessary for launching the module and for its success in the 
long term.  

The  costs  relating  to  IMI  operations,  including  the  cost  of  human  resources  (IMI  users  at 
national  level  should  in  principle  also  be  those  who  are  already  dealing  with  this  dossier), 
training for the various users, promotion and technical assistance as well as administration of 
the system at national level would be the responsibility of the Member State. Using the IMI 
system, the administrative cost arising from the obligation to draw up a national report every 
three years on the enforcement of the Directive could be reduced to EUR 27 500; the annual 
administrative cost would be around EUR 9 000.  

5 

http://adminburden.sg.cec.eu.int/calculator.aspx 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.3. 

Option 3: Revision of Directive 93/7/EEC  

The aim of  this option would be to revise the current arrangements, while at the same time 
consolidating Directive 93/7/EEC, as amended by Directives 96/100/EC and 2001/38/EC. 

In principle, this option could remedy the main reasons behind the Directive's limited success 
in achieving the return of national treasures. It would provide a framework for  the repeated 
requests  of  the  central  authorities  and  would  be  in  line  with  the  recommendation  of  the 
European Council to the Commission of December 2011 to promote additional measures to 
effectively protect cultural objects. 

It  is  evident  from  the  public  consultation  that  most  public-sector  respondents  consider  that 
action  should  be  taken  to  achieve  the  aim  of  successfully  returning  national  treasures  by 
means of revising the Directive, as an isolated initiative or by combining revision with other 
solutions,  such  as  improved  administrative  cooperation.  On  the  other  hand,  only  22.03%  of 
the private-sector respondents were in favour of revising the Directive. 

5.3.1.  Extending the scope of the Directive  

Extending the scope of the Directive to all cultural objects classified as "national treasures", 
without  recourse  to  common  categories,  financial  and/or  age  thresholds  should  have  a  very 
positive impact on the protection of the heritage of the Member States. Such an amendment 
would  allow  the  Member  States  to  request  the  return  of  any  cultural  object  classified  as  a 
"national treasure" which was unlawfully removed from their territory after 1993. 

The fear that the elimination of thresholds and/or categories of objects might have an impact 
on  the  number  of  requests  for  return  should  by  no  means  be  a  reason  to  oppose  this 
amendment,  because  increasing  the  number  of  returns  is  one  of  the  objectives  of  this 
initiative. 

Most central authorities agree on the need to extend the scope of the Directive. While the idea 
of reducing the financial thresholds has received widespread support, that of revising the age 
threshold,  adding  categories  or  deleting  the  annex  met  with  a  less  enthusiastic  response. 
During  the  public  consultation6,  the  opinions  of  the  public-sector  representatives  were  as 
follows:  i)  25%  were  in  favour  of  reducing  the  financial  thresholds,  ii)  50%  wanted  to 
discontinue the age thresholds and iii) 25% supported the deletion of the annex. 

5.3.2.  Extending the time-limits for bringing return proceedings and for checking the object 

Extending  these  time-limits  would  reflect  the  complexity  of  cross-border  relations,  without 
neglecting  the  requesting  State's  obligation  to  exercise  due  care  and  attention.  These 
amendments would allow the requesting State to act under optimum conditions and therefore 
to have more chance of securing the return of the object concerned.  

Such  amendments  would  thus  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  number  of  return  proceedings 
which  could  be  instituted  successfully.  Furthermore,  the  existence  of  more  favourable 
conditions  for  return  proceedings  would  have  a  dissuasive  effect  for  the  possessor  of  the 
object, which could result in an increase in amicably arranged returns. 

The vast majority of central authorities and 80% of the public-sector representatives to whom 
this  question  was  put  during  the  public  consultation  were  in  favour  of  extending  the  time-
limits. 

6 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/internal- 
market-for-products/cultural-goods/results_public_consultation_cultural_goods_en.htm 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.3.3.  Aligning the compensation arrangements 

In  order  to  prevent  the  award  of  compensation  to  certain  possessors  acting  in  bad  faith  or 
showing a lack of care and attention, it would be necessary to amend the Directive in order to 
i) indicate common interpretation criteria for the meaning of "due care and attention" on the 
part of the possessor, and ii) specify that the possessor must prove that he exercised such care 
and attention when purchasing the object. 

The  existence  of  common  criteria  would  make  it  easier  for  national  courts  to  assess  the 
circumstances. Furthermore, having the burden of proof would encourage market stakeholders 
to always make the right checks regarding the origin of the object when making a purchase. 
This would deter trade in objects of questionable origin.  

These amendments would have a highly beneficial effect on the number of returns and on the 
prevention and combating of the illegal trade in cultural goods, in particular in States which 
suffer most from the effects of illegal trade.  

Most  central  authorities  consider  it  necessary  to  align  the  criteria  for  defining  the  term  due 
care and attention on the part of the possessor; on the other hand, only a minority would like 
the Directive to specify that the possessor bears the entire burden of proof of such care and 
attention. During the public consultation, 40% of the public sector in favour of revising the 
Directive  also  wished  to  establish  common  criteria  for  the  definition  of  "due  care  and 
attention". However, it was not deemed necessary for the Directive to specify who bears the 
burden of proof of due care and attention. 

The costs of implementing this option would essentially be those relating to the transposition 
of the new Directive into national law.  

The administrative cost of drafting a report on enforcement of the Directive would be reduced 
to EUR 11 000 a year as a result of extending the interval between the drafting of each report 
to five years.  

5.4. 

Option 4: Encourage the ratification and implementation by the Member States 
of the 1970 UNESCO Convention 

The  Commission  would  launch  an  awareness-raising  and  information  campaign  directed  at 
those Member States which have not yet signed and/or incorporated the Convention into their 
national law. 

Implementation  of  the  Convention  by  all  the  Member  States  would  add  a  further  recourse 
mechanism to the system set up by the Directive, guaranteeing: i) a broader definition of the 
cultural objects which should be returned; ii) more time to request returns, and iii) enhanced 
cooperation between the national authorities. 

This  option  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  prevention  and  combating  of  illegal  trade 
because the Convention provides for mechanisms to deal with it, in particular the creation of 
special  national  services  or  the  obligation  for  art  dealers  to  keep  a  register  relating  to  the 
origin  of  the  objects.  However,  it  is  difficult  to  foresee  when  such  ratifications  and/or  the 
adoption of national laws to implement the Convention would take place. 

This  option  would  not  solve  all  the  problems  linked  to  the  return  of  objects  classed  as 
"national  treasures"  because  the  Convention  allows  the  Member  States  to  recover  cultural 
objects which have been illegally exported only where such action is compatible with the law 
of  the  State  in  which  the  object  is  located.  As  regards  compensating  the  possessor,  the 
Convention provides that the requesting State pay compensation to anyone who purchased the 
object in good faith or who is the legal owner thereof. During the public consultation, 16% of 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
the  public-sector  participants  and  27%  of  the  private-sector  participants  expressed  their 
support for this option for increasing the number of returns of national treasures. 

According  to  available  information,  the  minimum  cost  of  an  awareness-raising  and 
information  campaign  in  all  the  Member  States  would  be  between  EUR 500 000  and 
EUR 1 million.  

The  requirement  to  draft  a  report  on  enforcement  of  the  Directive  would  result  in  the 
administrative cost of this option matching that of the baseline scenario. 

6. 

COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS 

The following comparison table summarises the qualitative impact of the various options: 

Comparative table of options 

Option 1 
Status quo 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Promote a 
common tool 
for the central 
authorities  

Revise Directive 
93/7/EEC 

Encourage the MS to 
ratify and implement 
the UNESCO 
Convention 

Increase the 
number of returns 

Reduce the cost 
of returning 
objects. 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Consistency with 
other EU policies 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

0 

+ 

- 

+ 

N.B.: Note: very positive (++) ; positive (+) ; neutral (0); negative (-).  

• 

• 

Option  1,  which  reflects  the  current  legal  situation,  should  be  rejected.  Indeed, 
evaluation of Directive 93/7/EEC has shown its limited effectiveness in achieving the 
return of objects classed as "national treasures". 

Option 2 would effectively increase the number of returns, in particular those on an 
amicable basis, through improved enforcement of the Directive. 

This  option  also  proves  to  be  efficient  since  most  of  the  costs  of  the  Internal  Market 
Information  System  would  be  covered  by  the  EU  budget.  It  would  be  consistent  with  the 
strategy  aimed  at  improving  the  governance  of  the  internal  market  by  strengthening 
administrative cooperation and also with the recommendation of the Council of the European 
Union  of  13  and  14 December  2011  that  measures  be  adopted  to  support  action  taken  by 
Member States to protect their heritage.  

This option would help to reduce the administrative burden by 50%, since it would make it 
easier to collect the data needed to draft reports on enforcement of the Directive, which would 
represent  an  annual  reduction  of  around  EUR 9 000,  compared  with  the  EUR 18 000  under 
the baseline scenario. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
• 

Option 3  would  seem to be the  most effective for increasing the number  of returns 
and reducing their cost.  

The  Directive  would  be  amended  in  order  to  extend  its  scope  to  all  objects  classified  as 
"national treasures", which would consequently remove the requirement to come under one of 
the categories in the Annex, be part of a public collection or be included in the inventories of 
ecclesiastical  institutions.  Furthermore,  the  requesting  Member  State  could  request  return 
under  more  favourable  conditions  and  pay  compensation  only  to  possessors  who  prove  that 
they  acted  with  the  due  care  and  attention  required  when  acquiring  the  object.  This  option 
would then have particularly beneficial effects for Member States whose heritage is hardest 
hit by illegal trade. 

This  option  would  also  be  fully  in  line  with  the  recommendations  of  the  Council  of  the 
European  Union  of  December  2011,  and  with  the  conclusions  obtained  from  evaluations  of 
the Directive. 

Moreover,  the  revision  would  present  an  opportunity  to  simplify  EU  law  in  this  field  by 
recasting Directive 93/7/EEC, as amended by Directives 96/100/EC and 2001/38/EC.  

Choosing  this  option  would  in  principle  incur  costs  linked  to  the  transposition  of  the  new 
Directive, making it very efficient in relation to the intended objectives.  

Extending  to  five  years  the  intervals  at  which  reports  are  drafted  on  enforcement  of  the 
Directive  would  reduce  the  administrative  cost  by  around  EUR 7 000  a  year,  i.e.  the 
difference between EUR 18 000 and EUR 11 000.  

• 

Option 4 would effectively increase the number of returns but would have no effect 
on the cost of returns. 

This option would be in line with the recommendation to the Member States by the Council of 
December  2011,  namely  to  consider  ratifying  the  Convention  and  cooperating  more  with 
UNESCO in the prevention of the illegal trade in cultural goods.  

The  estimated  costs  of  launching  the  campaign  would  appear  too  high  in  relation  to  the 
uncertainty  of  achieving  the  objectives.  Indeed,  ratification  and/or  implementation  of  the 
Convention  by  the  Member  States  depends  on  the  goodwill  of  each  of  these  States. 
Furthermore, the impact of this option on the reduction of costs, in particular those relating to 
compensation for the possessor and to the administrative burden, would be neutral.  

In view of the comparative analysis above, it is suggested that an approach be followed which 
combines the two strategic options offering the most positive impact in order to increase the 
number of returns and reduce the related costs:  

• 

• 

Option 3: revision of Directive 93/7/EEC in order to extend its scope to all objects 
classed as "national treasures", extend the deadline for verification and the deadline 
for  bringing  return  proceedings,  and  align  the  conditions  for  compensation  of  the 
possessor. 

Option 2: promoting the use of the Internal Market Information System between the 
central  authorities  to  facilitate  administrative  cooperation  and  consultation  for 
implementing the Directive.  

This  choice  would  follow  on  from  the  Council's  call  in  December  2011  for  supplementary 
measures  to  be  adopted  where  appropriate,  and  from  the  requests  of  the  central  authorities. 
Furthermore,  one  third  of  the  representatives  of  the  authorities  and  public  bodies  expressed 
their preference for a combined approach during the public consultation. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The  combined  approach  would  make  it  possible  to  further  reduce  the  administrative  cost  of 
drafting the report on the enforcement of the Directive to EUR 5 500 a year, compared with 
an annual administrative cost of EUR 18 000 under the baseline scenario. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  preferred  approach  (combination  of  options  2  and  3)  will  be  applied  by  means  of  a 
proposal to recast Directive 93/7/EEC, which should be adopted by the European Parliament 
and the Council in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.  

Organising a system to monitor and evaluate the new Directive would first involve a check, 
by the Commission, of the conformity of the national transposition measures. This monitoring 
would be accompanied by an evaluation report on the enforcement of the new Directive after 
the first five years of application. The Commission would draw up this report on the basis of 
the  five-year  implementing  reports  from  the  Member  States  and  would  submit  it  to  the 
European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. 

Assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  revised Directive  will  be  measured  on  the  basis  of  a 
number of indicators, including the number of return proceedings brought before the national 
courts,  cases  of  returns  ordered  by  the  courts and  following  an  amicable  negotiation,  or  the 
monitoring of administrative cooperation requests between the central authorities. 

EN 

10 

   EN