REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Fourth 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: 2013-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative cooperation, application of EU law, art trade, cultural object, fight against crime, heritage protection, illicit trade

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.5.2013  
COM(2013) 310 final 

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

Fourth 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 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

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

Conclusions of the third report on the application of Directive 93/7/EEC (2004-2007)3 

Developments since the third report ............................................................................ 4 

Attempt to codify the Directive.................................................................................... 4 

“Return of cultural goods” working group................................................................... 4 

Other initiatives regarding cultural objects .................................................................. 5 

Application of the directive during the period 2008-2011........................................... 7 

Application reports from the Member States ............................................................... 7 

Evaluation of the application of the Directive ............................................................. 8 

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

Annex ....................................................................................................................................... 10 

EN 

2 

   EN 

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

Fourth 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 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

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

Pursuant to Article 16 of Directive 93/7/EEC (hereinafter "the Directive"), the Member States 
sent  a  report  to  the  Commission  on  the  application  of  the  Directive  over  the  period  2008-
20112.  On  this  basis,  the  Commission  has  drawn  up  this  document,  which  constitutes  the 
fourth  report  reviewing  the  application  of  the  Directive3.  This  report  is  addressed  to  the 
Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee. 

2. 

CONCLUSIONS  OF 
DIRECTIVE 93/7/EEC (2004-2007) 

THE 

THIRD  REPORT  ON 

THE  APPLICATION  OF 

The third report on the application of the Directive concluded that the Directive was a useful 
tool  for  the  recovery  of  certain  cultural  objects  and  thus  an  appropriate  instrument  of  the 
European Union for helping the Member States to protect their heritage. However, the report 
reflected some disappointment among Member States as far as the limitations of the Directive 
were concerned, notably the limited period allowed for initiating return proceedings.  

According  to  the  report,  administrative  cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  information  had 
improved  both  within  the  Member  States  (between  the  authorities  in  charge  of  culture, 
customs,  the  police,  etc.)  and  between  the  authorities  responsible  for  the  Directive  in  the 

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. 
The Commission received contributions from 22 Member States. 
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 
2000). 
(COM(2000) 
territory 
Second  report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  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, 21 December 2005). 
Third  report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  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(2009) 408 final, 30 July 2009]. 

a  Member 

25  May 

final, 

State 

325 

of 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
various Member States. However, it stated that the cooperation and exchange of information 
between the Member States could be improved still further. 

The Member States considered that the lack of use made of the Directive (with regard to both 
administrative cooperation and proceedings before the national courts) was due to its limited 
scope and the restrictive conditions imposed on initiating return proceedings. 

In this report, the Commission agreed to launch a discussion on the possibility of revising the 
Directive, the first step of which was the creation of a working group within the Committee 
on  the  Export  and  Return  of  Cultural  Goods  to  analyse  the  application  of  the  Directive  in 
depth. 

3. 

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE THIRD REPORT 

3.1. 

Attempt to codify the Directive 

In  2007,  the  consolidation  of  Directive  93/7/EEC  formed  part  of  the  Commission's 
programme  for  simplifying  the  Community  acquis.  The  consolidation  proposal  was 
withdrawn from the programme following the judgment given by the Court of Justice of the 
European Union on 6 May 2008 (Case C-133/06)4. 

This  judgment  had  established  that  the  proposal  to  codify  Directive  93/7/EEC  contained  a 
secondary legal basis in the body of its text5. It was therefore not possible to continue with 
codification  of  the  Directive,  since  the  provision  in  question  needed  to  be  deleted,  and  this 
would have involved a substantive change going beyond codification. 

3.2. 

“Return of cultural goods” working group  

In the light of the conclusions of the third report, the Commission took the necessary steps to 
revise the Directive. 

As a first step, the Commission formed the “Return of cultural goods” working group in 2009, 
which  was  made  up  of  representatives  of  the  national  authorities  responsible  for  the 
application of the Directive. The group's mandate was i) to identify the main problems posed 
by the implementation of the Directive and ii) to propose effective and acceptable solutions 
for  a  possible  revision  of  the  Directive.  The  group  was  created  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Committee on the Export and Return of Cultural Goods. 

The “Return of cultural goods” group concluded in 2011 that Directive 93/7/EEC needed to 
be  revised  in  order  to  make  the  arrangements  for  returning  cultural  objects  classified  as 
national treasures more effective. From the suggestions made with regard to carrying out such 
a revision, the majority of members were in favour of: i) extending the time-limit of one year 
for bringing return proceedings and the time-limit of two months for the competent authorities 
of  the  requesting  Member  State  to  check  the  nature  of  the  cultural  object  found  in  another 
Member State, ii) clarifying certain provisions of the Directive to render its application easier, 
for example indicating the common criteria for making interpretation of the concept of "due 

4 

5 

EN 

See Judgment of 6 May 2008 in case C-133/06 European Parliament v Council of the European Union 
[2008] 
at: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0133:EN:HTML 
The provision concerned stipulates that the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall 
examine every three years and, where appropriate, update the amounts indicated in the Annex.  

I-03189, 

ECR 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
care  and  attention"  more  uniform  with  regard  to  compensation  of  the  possessor,  or  iii) 
extending the time-limit for drawing up reports on the Directive. 

The  members  of  the  group  gave  their  opinion  on other suggestions concerning the scope of 
the Directive, and in particular on the removal of financial and/or age thresholds for certain 
categories of objects in the Annex and on the deletion of the Annex, on fixing the burden of 
proof  of  due  care  and  attention,  and  on  the  possibility  for  individuals  to  bring  return 
proceedings. 

The members of the group also stressed the value of using other non-legislative instruments to 
improve the cooperation and exchange of information between the competent authorities, thus 
helping to facilitate the return of cultural objects. 

The work of the working group and the individual contributions of the group’s members were 
a  very  important  source  of  information  for  the  impact  analysis  for  revision  of  Directive 
93/7/EEC6. 

The  conclusions  of  the  “Return  of  cultural  goods"  working  group  were  presented  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Export  and  Return  of  Cultural  Goods  at  its  17th  meeting  on  24 October 
2011.  

3.3. 

Other initiatives regarding cultural objects 

The  European  Union  institutions  and  Member  States,  as  well  as  certain  international 
organisations such as Interpol and UNESCO, have shown growing interest in preventing and 
combating the illegal trafficking of cultural objects.  

The  Council  Regulation  on  the  export  of  cultural  goods  was  codified  in  2008  (Regulation 
(EC)  No  116/2009  of  18 December  20087).  In  2011,  the  Commission  adopted  the  second 
report on the application of this Regulation for the period 2000-20108. 

In  response  to  the  request  of  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  in  20089,  the  Commission 
had ordered a study on preventing and combating illicit trafficking in cultural objects in the 
European Union. The final report of this study, dated October 2011, lists the instruments of 
international law and European Union law concerning cultural objects and also the obstacles 
to and difficulties in preventing and fighting illicit trafficking in cultural objects10.  

The  report  concludes  with  a  series  of  recommendations  for  preventing  and  combating  this 
type  of  trafficking.  It  recommends,  for  example,  the  implementation  of  a  system  of 
cooperation  between  the  various  administrations  and  institutions  involved  in  preventing  and 
combating  the  unlawful  trafficking  of  cultural  objects  at  European  level,  the  creation  of  a 
European internet portal, the endorsement of the international conventions of UNESCO and 

6 
7 
8 

9 

10 

This documentation is not public. 
OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 1. 
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  116/2009  of  18 December 
2008 on the export of cultural goods, COM(2011)382 final, 27 June 2011. 
Conclusions of the Council of the European Union on Preventing and Combating Illicit Trafficking in 
Cultural 
2008, 
27 
Brussels 
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st14/st14224-re02.en08.pdf  
"Study on preventing and fighting illicit trafficking in cultural goods in the European Union" CECOJI-
CNRS-UMR  6224,  France.  The  study  is  available  in  French  and  English  at http://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/doc_centre/crime/docs/Report%20Trafficking%20in%20cultural%20goods%20EN.pdf#zoom 

28 November 

Goods, 

and 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
UNIDROIT11,  the  imposition  of  an  obligation  to  provide  information  at  Union  level  on 
internet  sales  sites,  the  standardisation  of  national  documents  authorising  the  dispatch  of 
cultural  objects,  the  creation  of  a  "passport"  for  goods  being  moved  within  Europe  or  the 
introduction of a general obligation to keep police records of moveable cultural objects. It also 
recommends that Directive 93/7/EEC be updated in order to improve its efficiency in terms of 
the return of cultural objects, and the creation of good practice guidelines on return. 

In  the  light  of  this  report  and  other  work  in  the  area,  the  Council  of  the  European  Union, 
during  its  meeting  of  13  and  14  December  2011,  addressed  recommendations  to  the 
Commission and the Member States on the illicit trafficking of cultural objects. In particular, 
the Commission was called upon to support the Member States in the effective protection of 
cultural  objects  with  a  view  to  preventing  and  combating  trafficking  and  promoting 
complementary measures where appropriate12.  

Under the European Agenda for Culture and the Work Plan for Culture 2008 – 2010, a group 
of  national  experts  (Open  Method  of  Coordination)  worked  on  the  issue  of  improving  the 
mobility of collections. One of the sub-groups of this OMC group, working on the prevention 
of thefts and illicit trafficking and the exercise of due diligence, recommended adoption of the 
essential requirements relating to due care and attention13.  

Using this approach, the second Work Plan for Culture 2011-2014 adopted by the Council14 
sets out three major initiatives on cultural objects.  

Firstly,  the  creation  of  a  group  of  experts  to  put  together  a  toolkit,  including  good  practice 
guidelines and a code of ethics on due diligence in the fight against illicit trafficking and theft 
of  cultural  objects.  At  its  meeting  of  13  and  14 December  2011,  the  Council  recommended 
that  the  competent  parties  affected  should  be  involved  in  the  setting-up  of  this  group  of 
experts.  

Secondly, examination by a group of national experts, meeting within the framework of the 
open  method  of  coordination,  of  means  to  simplify  the  process  of  lending  and  borrowing 
works of art within the European Union. 15  

Thirdly, the preparation of a study of the systems for valuing works of art for insurance, state 
indemnity and share liability purposes. 

Finally, in 2010, the Commission adopted  a proposal to recast Council Regulation (EC) No 
44/2001  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and 
commercial  matters.  This  proposal  provides  for  the  courts  of  the  place  where  the  object  is 
located  to  have  competence  for  civil  proceedings  concerning  rights  in  rem  or  possession  in 
moveable property. This place of jurisdiction, which applies to moveable property in general, 

11 

12 

13 
14 

15 

UNESCO  Convention  on  the  Means  of  Prohibiting  and  Preventing  the  Illicit  Import,  Export  and 
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally 
Exported Cultural Objects (Rome, 1995).  
Conclusions of the Council of the European Union on preventing and combating crime against cultural 
goods, 13 and 14 December 2011, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st17/st17541.en11.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/working-group-on-museum-activities_en.htm 
Conclusions  of  the  Council  and  of  the  Representatives  of  the  Governments  of  the  Member  States, 
meeting  within  the  Council,  on  the  Work  Plan  for  Culture  2011-2014,  OJ  C  325,  2.12.2010,  p.1. 
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/european-agenda_en.htm 
The 
be 
group 
this 
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/policy-documents/omc-working-groups_en.htm 

consulted 

work 

can 

of 

at  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
also  covers  proceedings  for  the  recovery  of  cultural  objects  by  their  owners.  The  new 
Regulation will contribute to greater protection for cultural objects16. 

4. 

APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE DURING THE PERIOD 2008-2011 

4.1. 

Application reports from the Member States  

The Member States pointed out that, for obvious reasons, they do not have information on all 
the cultural objects that have left their territory17. It was therefore difficult for them to assess 
whether illegal removals have increased or decreased.  

The national reports noted: 

• 

the  infrequent  application  of  the  Directive,  particularly  through  return  proceedings 
(see the tables in the Annex18). 

The Member States blamed the fact that the Directive is seldom used on the limitations of its 
legal scope, in particular the categories defined in its Annex, and on the short period of time 
allowed to bring return proceedings and the difficulty in ensuring uniform application by the 
national judges of Article 9 concerning compensation for the possessor in the event that the 
object is returned.  

In  addition,  some  Member  States  mentioned  the  financial  costs  associated  with  return 
proceedings, or the difficulties in identifying the competent court in another Member State; 

• 

progressive  improvement  in  the  administrative  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information  between  the  central  authorities  of  the  Member  States,  which  should  be 
continued for better implementation of the Directive. 

Most Member States take the view that their cooperation and exchange of information with 
the  authorities  of  other  Member  States  is  good.  However,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  the  Czech 
Republic,  Germany  and  the  United  Kingdom  believe  that  this  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information  is  insufficient.  By  way  of  example,  the  authorities  point  out  the  importance  of 

16 

17 

18 

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on 
jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil and  commercial  matters  (OJ L 
351, 20.12.2012, p. 1). 
The Czech Republic has, however, provided a summary of the number of items which were unlawfully 
removed  from  the  country  and  have  been  identified  in  other  Member  States  (189  since  1995),  and 
unlawfully  sourced  goods  which  have  been  found  in  its  territory  (243  since  1995).  Italy  has  also 
provided  information  on  items  that  have been unlawfully  removed  from  the  country (10 372  between 
2008  and  2011).  These  data  were  obtained  from  discoveries  made  by  the  police  responsible  for  the 
protection  of  cultural  heritage.  To  a  large  extent,  these  items  were  archaeological  objects  taken  from 
illegal excavations. Hungary estimates that the number of items unlawfully removed from the country is 
several hundred per year. According to the Romanian police, 11 530 cultural objects (including 11 300 
archaeological items) have left the territory unlawfully. Greece identified items that have been removed 
from  its  territory  unlawfully,  including  274  icons,  44  pieces  of  Roman,  Byzantine  or  post-Byzantine 
architecture, 1 painting from the 20th century, 5 vases (from the Classical and Roman eras), 8 coins and 
23  liturgical  objects.  This  Member  State  noted  a  significant  increase  in  the  number  of  stolen  post-
Byzantine icons. 
In  order  to  obtain  comparable  data,  the  Commission  sent  the  national  authorities  responsible  for 
implementing  the  Directive  a  similar  questionnaire  to  that  sent  for  the  preparation  of  the  previous 
reports.  This  questionnaire  system  will  be  revised  in  order  to  improve  the  reliability  of  the  data  and 
make their collection easier.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
having the appropriate technical support to be  able to search  for  missing  items  and/or  to  be 
able to use several working languages in contacts between these authorities; 

• 

the need to revise the Directive. 

The Member States believe that the Directive should be made a more effective instrument for 
the  return  of  cultural  objects  which  are  classified  as  national  treasures  and  have  been 
unlawfully removed from their territory since 1993. To this effect, they support the proposals 
of  the  "Return  of  Cultural  Goods"  working  group  in  favour  of  revision  of  the  current 
provisions.  

In addition, Bulgaria and Italy highlight the problem of the unlawful traffic in archaeological 
objects  taken  from  illegal  excavations,  given  the  difficulty  in  proving  the  origin  of  these 
goods and the date of their illegal removal. These Member States would like the revision of 
the Directive to offer a solution to this problem. 

Finally, Member States confirm the call for national provisions transposing the Directive to be 
applied as a matter of priority. However, the restrictive conditions imposed by the Directive 
would require repeated recourse to international conventions or criminal proceedings for the 
recovery of cultural objects19. 

4.2. 

Evaluation of the application of the Directive  

The Commission listed in the Annex the cases in which Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive have 
been  applied,  based  on  information  from  the  central  authorities  of  the  Member  States. 
However, this information does not always match up and may be incomplete. 

The most frequent acts of administrative cooperation carried out by national authorities relate 
to the search for a cultural object which has been unlawfully removed from their territory, or 
notification  of  the  discovery  of  such  an  object.  Some  Member  States,  including  Germany, 
Ireland,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Austria,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  and  Romania  also  note  that  they 
took measures to verify the nature of the object, preserve it or prevent any action to evade the 
return procedure. 

The  national  contributions  record  actual  returns  of  cultural  objects  achieved  through 
negotiations between national authorities. The number of returns agreed out of court is higher 
than that of returns ruled on by the courts; these are listed in the Annex. 

The national reports  also  state  that  six requests for return  have been  initiated,  one  of which 
has  been  rejected.  Some  of  the  national  authorities  responsible  for  the  application  of  the 
Directive have indicated that they do not have information regarding any return proceedings. 

Several  Member  States,  including  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Italy,  Hungary,  Poland  and  Finland, 
highlight the limitations of the Directive as regards securing the return of goods, due, notably, 
to the financial thresholds that apply to certain national treasures and the one-year time limit 
for  bringing  return  proceedings.  They  also  point  to  the  difficulty  of  securing  the  return  of 
archaeological  goods  taken  from  illegal  excavations  due  to  the  difficulty  in  proving  the 
object's provenance and/or the date on which it was unlawfully removed (Bulgaria and Italy). 

19 

In  this  respect,  Bulgaria  and  Poland  indicated  that  they  had  secured  returns  under  the  UNESCO 
Convention;  Romania  said  that  it  had  secured  the  return  of  235  objects  under  the  UNIDROIT 
Convention.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  national  reports  stress  the  importance  of  effective  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information  between  all  the  authorities  concerned,  and  particularly  between  the  central 
authorities responsible for the Directive. They state that administrative cooperation between 
the central authorities  of  the  Member  States has improved, but is still  poorly  structured  and 
faces  problems  relating  to  language  barriers.  The  reports  also  identify  shortcomings  in  the 
exchange of information between the authorities concerned, which reduce efficiency. 

5. 

NEXT STEP  

The  illegal  trafficking  of  cultural  objects  is  a  scourge  affecting  the  European  Union.  The 
Commission is called on by the Council of the European Union to support the Member States 
in preventing and combating trafficking in cultural objects.  

The process of revising Directive 93/7/EEC was started in 2009. The public consultation on 
this project was completed on 5 March 201220.  

The  revision  of  Directive  93/7/EEC  provides  an  opportunity  for  improving  the  possibilities 
for  securing  the  return  of  cultural  objects  classified  as  national  treasures  that  have  been 
unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State since 1993. 

In this context, the Commission is also looking at how to improve administrative cooperation 
and  consultation  between  the  authorities  which  carry  out  the  tasks  provided  for  in  the 
Directive.  

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

xxx 

20 

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/news/201112-consultation_en.htm 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Returns  under  amicable  out-of-court  settlements,  administrative  cooperation measures 
and return proceedings from 2008 to 201121 

Annex 

• 

Overview of returns under amicable out-of-court settlements 

Year 

Returning 
State 

Requesting State  Result 

2008 

2008 

2008 

2008 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

21 

Germany 

Czech Republic 

1 wooden Pietà statue (Močidlec) 

Germany 

Czech Republic 

4  wooden  Church  Fathers  statues 
(Semín) 

Germany 

Czech Republic 

1 wooden angel statue (Klokočka) 

Spain 

Sweden 

Archaeological objects 

Germany 

Czech Republic 

1  wooden  angel  statue,  ‘Allegory  of 
love’ (Česká Skalice) 

Germany 

Czech Republic 

1 wooden angel sculpture (Hněvčeves) 

Austria 

Czech Republic 

1 wooden statue of St John of Nepomuk 
(Přistoupim) 

Slovenia  

Italy 

Gorzanis book 

Austria 

Czech Republic 

church  painting  of  St  Anna 

1 
(Noutonice) 

Germany 

Greece 

90 antique objects 

Netherlands 

Czech Republic 

Statues of angels (Hněvotín) (2) 

Germany 

Czech Republic 

1 wooden statue of St Nicholas (Libníč) 

Austria 

Bulgaria  

Archaeological coins 

Sweden 

France 

Latvia 

Spain 

Paintings 

Canvas 

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 confirmed by 
only one of 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 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2011 

Czech Republic  Austria 

Wooden sculpture of Christ the Saviour 

2011 

2011 

2011 

2011 

2011 

2011 

United Kingdom  Greece 

Estonia  

Latvia 

United Kingdom 

Italy 

6 icons 

3 icons 

Two 14th and 15th century manuscripts 
and one 14th century missal 

Germany 

Austria 

Collection de manuscripts 

Germany 

Italy 

Manuscript 

France  

Germany 

2 sculptures 

• 

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

Year 

Claimant 

Against 

Result 

Bulgaria 

Belgium  

Objects not found 

Italy 

Germany (6) 

Objects found (2) 

Belgium 

Germany 

Austria  

Object not found 

Hungary 

Italy  

Ongoing (painting) 

France 

Greece 

Ongoing (archives) 

Ongoing (ancient coins) 

Czech Republic 

Ongoing (statue) 

Lithuania 

Austria 

Object found (proceedings ongoing) 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

Objects found (ecclesiastical objects) 

United Kingdom 

Objects found (archaeological objects) 

2010 

2008 

2008 

2010 

2008-2011  Germany 

Austria 

Bulgaria 

(7)  Certain  objects  found,  others  not 
found 

found 
(2)  Objects 
(archaeological coins) 

and 

returned 

2008-2011  Austria 

Germany (3) 

Objects found 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2008-2011 

Belgium 

Greece  

Objects not found  

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Germany 

France 

Hungary 

Austria 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Bulgaria 

Poland 

Ongoing  

Poland 

Germany 

Objects not found 

Bulgaria  

Romania  

Objects not found 

United 
Kingdom (5) 

Objects found 

1 object found, 2 objects not found 

Italy (1) 

Hungary (3) 

Czech  Republic 
(1) 

Object not found 

Objects not found 

2008-2011  Greece  

All  Member 
States 
(39 
cases) 

• 

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

Year 

Notifying State  Notified State  

Result 

Germany (5) 

France 

Positive (two sculptures returned) 

Bulgaria 

No action taken  

Italy 

Spain  

Positive (vase returned) 

No action taken 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year 

Notifying State  Notified State  

Result 

Denmark 

No action taken 

Hungary 

Italy  

No action taken (vase from Apulia) 

Greece 

Return ongoing (liturgical objects) 

2011 

Spain 

Positive  (works  of  art  and  ancient 
books returned)  

2010 

2011 

2010 

Italy  

Estonia 

France 

Latvia 

Positive (painting returned) 

Positive (3 icons returned) 

Netherlands 

France 

Return ongoing (statue) 

France 

No action taken (archives) 

United Kingdom 

action 

No 
objects) 

taken 

(archaeological 

Slovenia 

Austria 

Notified object not identified by Austria

Germany 

Poland 

Positive (sculpture returned) 

France 

Assistance  provided 
objects (10 paintings) 

for  preserving 

Finland 

France 

No action taken 

• 

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

Year 

Claimant 

Against 

Object 

2008 

Czech Republic  Austria 

2008 

Italy 

Germany 

4  wooden  statues  of  saints  and  2 
reliquaries (proceedings cancelled) 

Ancient 
refused)  

bronze 

helmet 

(request 

2009 

2009 

Czech Republic  Netherlands 

Statue of St Anne (ongoing) 

Lithuania  

Austria 

Sculpture, “The risen Christ” 

2010 

Czech Republic  Austria 

2 statues (ongoing) 

10 statues (returned) 

(ongoing)  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year 

Claimant 

Against 

Object 

2011 

Czech Republic  Austria 

1  statue  of  St  John  of  Nepomuk 
(Čímyšl) 

EN 

14 

   EN