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 1 January 2011 – 31 December 2013
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative cooperation, border control, cultural object, export (EU), export licence, external border of the EU, heritage protection, illicit trade, prevention of delinquency













EUR-Lex - 52015DC0144 - EN











|



52015DC0144

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 1 January 2011 – 31 December 2013 /* COM/2015/0144 final */









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
1 January 2011 – 31 December 2013
Table of Contents
1............ executive summary. 4
2............ Introduction. 5
3............ Context of the regulation. 5
3.1......... European context 5
3.2......... International context 8
4............ Practical developments regarding the
regulation. 8
5............ Statistical data on implementation by
Member States. 8
5.1......... Use of the standard licence as laid down
in Article 2(1) of the Implementing Regulation  8
5.2......... Use of the specific open licence as laid
down in Article 2(2) of the Implementing Regulation  9
5.3......... Use of the general open licence as laid
down in article 2(3) of the Implementing Regulation  9
5.4......... Refusal to issue standard licences. 9
5.5......... Consignments found in non-compliance with
the rules. 10
6............ Challenges for the future. 10
6.1......... Use of electronic systems. 10
6.2......... Interpretation of categories of cultural
goods. 10
6.3......... Cooperation between authorities. 11
6.4......... Adequacy of financial thresholds. 11
6.5......... Import of cultural goods into the EU.. 12
7............ Conclusions. 12
1.           executive summary
This report on the implementation of Regulation
(EC) No 116/2009 on the export of cultural goods ('Basic Regulation') provides
information on the use of the export licences for cultural goods under the
framework created by the Basic Regulation and the Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) No 1081/2012. The report is based on data provided by the
Member States in reply to a questionnaire on the use of the export licences. It
covers the period from 2011 to 2013, with some developments from early 2014.
The figures reported relate to three types of
export licences: standard licences, specific open licences and general open
licences. 
The total number of standard licences granted
during the period 2011-2013 was 24 564. The main issuers of this type of
licences were the United Kingdom and Italy. 
Specific open licences are granted for the
repeated temporary export of a specific cultural good by a particular person or
organisation. During the period under review, 946 specific open licences were
granted to a total of 588 persons or organisations. More than 90% of these
licences were issued by the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Poland. 
General open licences cover any temporary
export of cultural goods that form part of the permanent collection of a museum
or other institutions. In the period under review, such licences were granted a
total of 472 times by five Member States, with Spain accounting for 84% of the
total. 
The granting of a standard licence was refused
318 times, the most common reason being that the cultural good in question was
considered a 'national treasure'. 147 non-compliant consignments were detected
during the period, the vast majority by France and the Netherlands (93% of the
total). 
The report also provides information on current
initiatives and challenges for the future, such as  the possible introduction
of an online database of issued export licences which would interface with
national customs clearance systems, the interpretation of problematic
categories of cultural goods listed in Annex I to the Basic Regulation, the
cooperation between authorities, the adequacy of the financial thresholds and
the absence of control at the importation of cultural goods. 
2.           Introduction
Council Regulation
(EC) No 116/2009[1]
of 18 December 2008 on the export of cultural goods (Codified version) (the
'Basic Regulation') subjects the export of certain cultural goods outside the
European Union's ('EU') customs territory to the presentation of an export
licence and ensures that exports of those goods are subject to uniform controls
at the EU's external borders. Annex I contains information on the categories as
well as the age and/or value requirements for cultural objects to be covered by
the Basic Regulation.
Export licences are
issued by a competent authority of the Member State in whose territory the
cultural object is lawfully located. Customs controls ensure that cultural
goods can only leave the EU's customs territory if they are accompanied by a
valid export licence. This should ensure a high level of protection of cultural
goods in the internal market. 
The Basic
Regulation requires the Commission to regularly present a report on its implementation
to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social
Committee. A first report, under Council Regulation No 3911/92, was submitted
in 2000[2],
while a second report, pursuant to Article 10 of the Basic Regulation, was issued
in 2011[3].
After roughly 20 years of experience in implementing the Regulations on the
export of cultural goods, this report covers a 3-year
period between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2013, but includes also a
few developments from early 2014.
The report draws on information provided by
Member States in reply to a questionnaire, including statistical data on the
use of licences[4].
It reflects the considerable work conducted in cooperation with Member States
during the said period. 
3.           Context of the regulation
3.1.        European context
The system introduced at the EU level by
Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 with regard to the export of cultural
goods is complementary to other instruments and initiatives aiming at the
protection of cultural property. A few examples of related actions at EU level
are highligted below.
Return of Cultural Objects
In 2009 the Commission
set up an ad hoc working group within the
Committee on the export and return of cultural goods (the 'Committee') which
aimed at identifying problems in the application of
Council Directive 93/7/EEC[5]
and suggesting solutions. In 2011 the group concluded
that the Directive should be revised in order to make it a more
effective instrument for the return of national treasures. It also concluded that
mechanisms should be put in place to improve administrative cooperation and
consultation between the central authorities. These conclusions were confirmed 
by the fourth Commission report reviewing the application of Directive 93/7/EEC[6].
Following a public consultation and an impact
assessment, a Commission proposal for the recast of Directive 93/7/EEC was
presented on 30 May 2013[7].
This led to the adoption of Directive 2014/60/EU on 15 May 2014.[8] The new provisions will
apply from 19 December 2015.
The new Directive will allow the return of any
cultural object[9]
identified by a Member State as a national treasure possessing artistic,
historic or archaeological value, thus seeking a more effective protection of
Member States’ cultural heritage. For this purpose, the central authorities in
charge of the Directive in Member States will be required to cooperate and
exchange information on unlawfully removed cultural objects by making use of
the Internal Market Information System (IMI)[10].
Mobility of Collections 
A Working Group on Mobility of Collections was set up in March 2011 under the Council Work Plan for Culture
2011-2014[11],
within the context of the implementation of the
European Agenda for Culture[12].
In September 2012 the Working Group produced a report and
a toolkit on practical ways to reduce the cost of lending and borrowing of
cultural objects among Member States.
Trafficking in Cultural Goods
The Commission financed a study on Preventing
and Fighting Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Goods[13] the final report of
which was submitted in October 2011[14].
The report identified current legal and operational obstacles to preventing and
combating illicit trafficking in cultural goods, such as the difficulty of
sharing information between Member States and the need for special training for
customs officials in order to identify suspect goods. The report recommended
that the Commission could create a coordination department which would be
responsible for facilitating contact between concerned authorities and organising
trainings for officials.
In December 2011, Council Conclusions on
preventing and combating crime against cultural goods[15] recommended, inter
alia, that the Member States strengthen cooperation between law enforcement
officials, cultural authorities and private organisations. 
Furthermore, in October 2012, a Council
Resolution created an informal network of law enforcement authorities and
expertise competent in the field of cultural goods (EU CULTNET)[16]. The main objective of
the network is to improve the exchange of information related to the prevention
of illicit trafficking in cultural goods, such as identifying and sharing
non-operational information on criminal networks suspected of being involved in
illicit trafficking and information about obstacles to cross-border
cooperation. Customs authorities were invited to participate in the network
because of their competence in monitoring and controlling the movement of
cultural goods across the external borders of the EU. 
In November 2011, a Joint Customs Operation
('JCO') COLOSSEUM[17]
was conducted by Italy, Malta, Greece and Cyprus, in cooperation with the World
Customs Organisation's Regional Intelligence Liaison Office (RILO WE) and with
the participation of 17 other countries[18].
During the 10-day operation, four Member States seized illicit cultural goods
(Italy, Malta, Greece and the Netherlands one seizure each, with a total of 134
artefacts). 
JCO ODYSSEUS, in the first half of 2014, has
targetted cultural heritage fraud in the Mediterranean region. 19 Member States[19] were invited to
participate in the operation. The two operational phases concentrated on
collecting data related to detection and seizures of illegal consignments of
cultural goods and on the reinforced controls. The final report will be published
in March 2015.
In December 2013 the Council adopted a Regulation imposing restrictions on the movement of cultural goods
removed from Syria[20]. The list of items subject to the restrictions is identical to the
one included in the Basic Regulation.
The Commission also financed a project to
set up an International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods,
presented by ICOM[21].
The Observatory was created in response to the absence of centralised
statistics and the lack of available valid information on illicit trafficking
in cultural goods. The aim of the Observatory is to collect information from
various sources and, eventually compile it in the first Global Report, which
contributes to the exchange of information between Member States and increases
knowledge among officials. The dedicated website was launched in April 2014[22].
3.2.        International context
At international level, the most relevant
instruments as regards the export of cultural goods are the 1970 UNESCO
Convention[23]
and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention[24]. 
The 1970 UNESCO Convention has so far been ratified by 23 EU Member States; its
membership to date reaches 127 States Parties. Only 14 EU Member States have
ratified the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention.
A joint UNESCO-EU operation was launched in
March 2014 to halt the on-going loss of cultural heritage in Syria. The Emergency
Safeguarding of the Syrian Heritage project[25] aims at enhancing
technical assistance and capacity-building for national stakeholders and
beneficiaries, including training of police and customs officers in Syria and
adjacent countries. 
4.           Practical developments regarding the regulation 
The original Implementing Regulation
(EEC) No 752/93 was repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No
1081/2012 (the 'Implementing Regulation'). This Regulation foresees three types
of export licences (standard licence, specific open licence and general open
licence) and sets out the rules for their application. In accordance with
Articles 3(2) and 5(2) of the Basic Regulation, the most recent lists of
authorities empowered to issue export licences[26]
have been published in the Official Journal in March 2014 whereas the list of
customs offices empowered to handle export formalities[27] was published one
month earlier. Furthermore, the Committee on the export and return of cultural
goods, established pursuant to Article 8 of the Basic Regulation, met three
times in the period under review and once in early 2014. 
5.           Statistical data on
implementation by Member States
5.1.        Use of the standard licence as
laid down in Article 2(1) of the Implementing Regulation 
A standard licence is normally used for each
export subject to the Basic Regulation.
Annex 1 gives an
overview of the number of standard licences issued by Member States[28]. The total number
increased from 21 498 in 2011 to 24 564 in 2013 (+ 14%).  These
yearly figures are also higher than the average reported for the previous
period (2000–2010).
Annex 1 further shows the share in the total licences issued which is accounted for
by the different Member States28. The
figures reveal that the export of cultural goods from the EU is largely
concentrated in two Member States: Italy with 37-40% and the United Kingdom
with 33-36% of the share in 2011-2013. The top two are followed by France
(12-13%), Germany (4-5%), Austria (2-3%) Spain (1-3%), Portugal, the
Netherlands and Belgium (1% each).
5.2.        Use of the specific open
licence as laid down in Article 2(2) of the Implementing Regulation 
A specific open licence covers the repeated
temporary export of a specific cultural good by a particular person or
organisation.
Annex 2
gives an overview of the number of specific open licences that were in
circulation in the Member States28 The
total number increased from 261 in 2011 to 365 in 2013 (+ 40%).  A clear
trend cannot, however, be established as data for the previous period
(2000–2010) indicate that yearly figures fluctuate considerably. In any case,
numbers are relatively low.
The figures reveal that only seven Member
States (France, Cyprus, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and the
United Kingdom) have made use of this type of licence. Of these, the biggest
users were the United Kingdom (33%), the Netherlands (30%) and Poland (28% of
the share in 2011-2013).
Annex 3
shows the number of persons or organisations that were holding a specific open
licence.
5.3.        Use of the general open
licence as laid down in article 2(3) of the Implementing Regulation 
A general open licence covers any temporary
export of any of those cultural goods that form part of the permanent
collection of a museum or other institution.
Annex 4 gives an
overview of the number of general open licences in circulation in the Member
States28. The volume is relatively low
(141 licences in 2011, 172 licences in 2012, and 159 licences in 2013).
The figures show that only five Member
States (Bulgaria, Spain, Cyprus, Poland and Slovenia) have made use of this
type of licence. Spain was by far the biggest user, accounting for 84% of the
total.
5.4.        Refusal to issue standard
licences
Annex 5 gives an
overview of the number of applications for standard licences which were refused
by the competent authorities28. Only
seven Member States reported any refusals, and of the total of 318 reported
cases, 72% were in Italy and 25% in Spain.
The main reason for refusing a licence was that
the object to be exported was considered a national treasure in the Member
State concerned.
The number of cases where an incomplete
application was presented are not included in the reported figures, since such
cases usually do not lead to a refusal, but the issuing authorities give
applicants the possibility to provide the missing documentation.
The number of refused licences in the EU
is very low when compared with the total number of licences issued (0.4%). A
similar proportion was found for the previous period (2000–2010).
5.5.        Consignments found in
non-compliance with the rules
Annex 6 shows
the number of consignments found to be in non-compliance with the applicable
rules[29].
Member States reported a total of 147 cases for the 3-year period, a very low
figure when compared to the total number of licences issued (representing 0.2%
of the total number of licences). Two Member States (France and the
Netherlands) accounted for most of the cases (136 out of a total of 147 cases).
Member States indicated that non-compliant
consignments were generally detected by their customs authorities or the
police. Depending on the circumstances of the case and on the applicable
national legislation, follow-up is given by competent authorities, the police
and judicial authorities.
6.           Challenges for the future
During the period under review, in-depth
discussions were held on a number of fundamental topics having a bearing on the
future of the existing system. The meetings of the Committee offered a suitable
platform for the exchange of ideas and triggering action.
6.1.        Use of electronic systems
Applying for an export licence using electronic
forms is still not possible in the large majority of Member States. With the
exception of Spain, even in those Member States where electronic forms are
available the actual application must be submitted on paper. Electronic
licences are therefore also not available in all Member States bar Spain. In
Spain, the licence obtained electronically must nevertheless be printed or
downloaded for presentation to customs. 
The possibility of developing an electronic
system at EU level for issuing export licences was largely discussed during the
period under review. In 2011 France proposed to look into the possible introduction
of an online service which could interface with the national customs clearance
systems. A meeting on the subject was held in 2012 with the participation of 8
Member States.
The Member States agreed that the possible
future development of a common database could bring significant benefits, which
clearly outweighed the identified potential problems. The absence of financing
was however underlined.
Considering the existing limitations, the
Commission concluded that the project was still not ripe, but invited France,
Italy and the United Kingdom (the largest issuers of licences) to try to
develop more concrete ideas. These Member States have worked together on the
subject and should present their conclusions in the near future.
6.2.         Interpretation of categories of cultural goods
It is not always easy to assign specific
objects to one of the categories of cultural goods listed in Annex I to
the Basic Regulation.  Different Member States can make different decisions in
that respect. The text describing each of the categories is sometimes unclear
and thus open to diverging interpretations.
Following discussions at Committee meetings, it
was agreed to set up a Working Group (the 'WG') on interpretation of categories
which is composed of representatives from a number of Member States and the
Commission. The WG was tasked with developing guidance for the interpretation
of a few problematic categories, which would also cover specific types of
objects posing particular difficulties of classification (coins, icons, fossils).
The WG met twice in 2013; it also worked in subgroups and through written
exchanges. 
The WG has concluded that a common
interpretation would not solve all the problems. Instead, the wording of some
categories might need to be reviewed, one category be removed or a one new
category added. Acknowledging the fact that amending Annex I would imply a
revision of the whole Regulation, the WG agreed to pursue work on
interpretation only and simply highlighted some aspects meriting a revision:
classification of icons; classification of single coins and single
paleontological objects; definition of ‘collections’; and coverage under
Category 15.
6.3.        Cooperation between authorities
The proper implementation of the Basic
Regulation requires contributions from different authorities, not only from the
cultural authorities and customs, but also from police. It is crucial that
authorities cooperate openly and actively and that they understand each others’
point of view, constraints and needs.
This issue was given prominence in the
discussions within the Committee. The initiative started with a presentation by
Austria on relevant customs legislation. Examples of good cooperation between
authorities at all levels were later presented by the Netherlands, Hungary and
Italy. All Member States were invited to present their experiences, thereby
contributing to a better understanding.
The presentations demonstrated that cooperation
between authorities in the Netherlands, Hungary and Italy is based on framework
or multilateral agreements between the competent ministries. Cooperation takes
place in the form of special training for customs officials, exchanges of
information with regard to risk indicators or risk profiles, participation in
joint operations to detect illicit goods and assistance in identification of
cultural goods. 
This initiative will continue to be
pursued in the future, possibly leading to the development of a set of best
practices. A consensus has emerged around the need to also develop instruments
enabling effective cooperation between competent authorities from the different
Member States.
6.4.        Adequacy of financial thresholds
Annex I to the Basic Regulation lays down
the financial thresholds which are applicable to most of the categories[30] of cultural goods
listed therein. For objects falling within those categories, an export licence
is only required if their value reaches the applicable threshold.
For a majority of Member States the financial
thresholds are too high and should be lowered. They claim that the Regulation
does not play its role in the protection of their national heritage due to the
high value thresholds. This partly explains the very limited use made of the
Regulation in many Member States[31].
According to Article 10 of the Basic
Regulation, the amounts indicated in Annex I should be subject to regular
review and possibly updated on the basis of economic and monetary indicators.
This provision is no longer adapted to the situation in the EU. Were the
Regulation to be revised,  a  majority of Member States would be in favour of
lowering the existing thresholds. 
6.5.        Import of cultural goods into the EU
In different fora, concerns were expressed
about the absence of an instrument to control the importation of cultural goods
into the EU, a matter which falls within the exclusive competence of the EU. 
This being said, the EU has imposed
restrictions on the import of cultural goods from Iraq[32] and Syria[33]. Regulation (EC) No
1210/2003 prohibits the import, export and dealing in Iraqi cultural property,
where the goods have been illegally removed from Iraq without the consent of
their legitimate owner or in breach of Iraqi legislation. Similarly, Regulation
(EU) No 1332/2013 prohibits the import, export and transfer of Syrian cultural
goods, where there are grounds to suspect that the goods have been removed
without the consent of their legitimate owner or in breach of Syrian or
international law. Categories of goods to which these Regulations apply have
been listed in annexes to the Regulations, both of which correspond to Annex I
of the Basic Regulation. On 12 October 2012, 13 archaeological objects from
Iraq were seized by French customs officials. 
 
7.           Conclusions
The system initially designed for 12 Member
States and introduced in 1993 for the control of the export of cultural goods
at the EU's external borders has been used by Member States to varying degrees.
The size and importance of each country’s national heritage, as well as the
relative development of its art market, have largely determined Member States’
adherence.
While the large majority of Member States
consider the existing legislation useful, they also see the need for practical
improvements. A number of ongoing and future initiatives should contribute to a
better functioning of the system. Good cooperation between all actors and at
all levels is paramount to make that happen.
*          *          *
The
Commission invites the European Parliament, the Council and the European
Economic and Social Committee to take note of this report
[1]               Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009, of 18
December 2008, on the export of cultural goods (Codified version) (OJ
L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 1). This Regulation replaced Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992, on the export of cultural goods (OJ L 395,
31.12.1992, p. 1), which had been in application since 30 March 1993.
[2]               Report from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the implementation
of Council Regulation (EEC) n° 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 of 25.5.2000).
[3]               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, 1 January 2000 – 31 December 2010 (COM(2011)382
of 27.6.2011).
[4]               Submissions received from 26 Member States (BE, BG,
CZ, DK, DE, IE, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI,
SK, FI, SE, UK).
[5]               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), as 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).
This Directive has meanwhile been replaced by Directive 2014/60/EU (OJ
L 159, 28.5.2014, p. 1). See also footnote 8 below.
[6]               For further details see the Fourth Report on the
Application of Council Directive 93/7/EEC, COM(2013)310 of 30.5.2013.
[7]               COM(2013)311 of 30.5.2013.
[8]               Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council, of 15 May 2014, on the return of cultural objects unlawfully
removed from the territory of a Member State and amending Regulation (EU) No
1024/2012 (Recast).  See also footnote 5 above.
[9]               Directive 93/7/EEC included an annex listing
categories of cultural objects which was identical to Annex I to the Basic
Regulation; this annex no longer exists in the new Directive. 
[10]             IMI was formally established by Regulation (EU)
No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 25 October
2012, on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information
System and repealing Commission Decision 2008/49/EC (‘the IMI Regulation’).
[11]             OJ C 325, 2.12.2010, p. 1.
[12]             Resolution of the Council of 16 November 2007 on a
European Agenda for Culture (OJ C 287, 29.11.2007, p. 1).
[13]             The report was prepared for the Commission's DG Home
Affairs under the contract HOME/2009/ISEC/PR/019-A2.
[14]             http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/crime/crime_prevention_en.htm.
[15]             17541/11 ENFOPOL 415 CULT 111 ENFOCUSTOM 143.
[16]             14232/12 ENFOPOL 292 CULT 116 ENFOCUSTOMS 93.
[17]             10515/1/12 REV 1 ENFOCUSTOMS 45 ENFOPOL 159.
[18]             BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, IT, LU, HU, NL, AT, RO, SK, and
Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and USA
[19]             BE, BG, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, MT, HU, NL, AT,
PL, PT, RO, SI, UK.
[20]             Council Regulation (EU) No 1332/2013, of 13 December
2013, amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in
view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 335, 14.12.2013, p. 3).
[21]             HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/2607.
[22]             http://obs-traffic.museum/
[23]             UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural
Property, Paris, 14 November 1970; ratified by the following Member States: BE,
BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI,
SE, UK. 
[24]             UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported
Cultural Objects, Rome, 24 June 1995; ratified by the following Member States:
DK, EL, ES, HR, IT, CY, LT, HU, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE.
[25]             http://www.unesco.org/new/en/safeguarding-syrian-cultural-heritage/international-initiatives/emergency-safeguarding-of-syria-heritage/
[26]             OJ C 72, 11.3.2014, p. 16 (the corrected Croatian
version was published in OJ C 205, 2.7.2014, p. 27).
[27]             OJ C 40, 11.2.2014, p. 6.
[28]             The figures include data submitted by 26 Member States,
see footnote 4. However, the comparable figures from 2000-2010 do not indicate
that the missing data would change the conclusions drawn for the period under
review. 
[29]             The figures include data of 25 Member States (BG, CZ,
DK, DE, IE, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK,
FI, SE, UK). .
[30]             Except to Categories 1 (archaeological objects), 2
(dismembered monuments), 9 (incunabula and manuscripts) and 12 (archives).
[31]             Practically all Member States that have joined the EU
since 2004 consider the financial thresholds too high.
[32]             Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, of 7 July 2003,
concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations
with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 (OJ L 169,
8.7.2003, p. 6).
[33]             See footnote 20 above.
ANNEXES
Annex 1:    Standard Licences issued
by Member States *
   ||   || Year ||   || TOTAL || Share of total 
   || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2011-2013 || (in %) 
 BE || 261 || 229 || 313 || 803 || 1% 
 BG || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0% 
 CZ || 56 || 171 || 141 || 368 || 1% 
 DK || 38 || 36 || 42 || 116 || 0% 
 DE || 1138 || 1081 || 1181 || 3400 || 5% 
 EE || - || - || - || - || - 
 IE || 14 || 12 || 10 || 36 || 0% 
 EL || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES || 281 || 620 || 548 || 1449 || 2% 
 FR || 2863 || 3003 || 2907 || 8773 || 13% 
 HR |||||| 3 || 3 || 0% 
 IT || 7904 || 9455 || 9682 || 27041 || 39% 
 CY || 2 || 4 || 1 || 7 || 0% 
 LV || 3 || 2 || 4 || 9 || 0% 
 LT || 0 || 0 || 10 || 10 || 0% 
 LU || 0 || 5 || 0 || 5 || 0% 
 HU || 32 || 33 || 13 || 78 || 0% 
 MT || 13 || 13 || 10 || 36 || 0% 
 NL || 282 || 260 || 276 || 818 || 1% 
 AT || 516 || 553 || 475 || 1544 || 2% 
 PL || 69 || 61 || 76 || 206 || 0% 
 PT || 247 || 347 || 279 || 873 || 1% 
 RO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 SI || 30 || 24 || 35 || 89 || 0% 
 SK || 1 || 4 || 4 || 9 || 0% 
 FI || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 0% 
 SE || 111 || 62 || 330 || 503 || 1% 
 UK || 7637 || 7856 || 8222 || 23715 || 34% 
 Total || 21498 || 23833 || 24564 || 69895 || 100 
*    One
licence might cover several
cultural objects; figures refer to both permanent and temporary licences.
Annex 2:      Specific Open Licences
in circulation
   ||   || Year ||   || TOTAL || Share of total 
   || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2011-2013 || (in %) 
 BE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 BG || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 CZ || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 DK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 DE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 EE || - || - || - || - || - 
 IE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 EL || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 FR || 0 || 0 || 24 || 24 || 3% 
 HR |||||| 0 || 0 || 0% 
 IT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 CY || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 0% 
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 HU || 24 || 0 || 4 || 28 || 3% 
 MT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 NL || 65 || 125 || 97 || 287 || 30% 
 AT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 PL || 111 || 92 || 66 || 269 || 28% 
 PT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 RO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 SI || 1 || 12 || 12 || 25 || 3% 
 SK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 FI || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 SE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 UK || 59 || 91 || 161 || 311 || 33% 
 Total || 261 || 320 || 365 || 946 || 100% 
Annex 3:    Persons / Organisations
holding Specific Open Licences
   ||   || Year ||   || TOTAL || Share of total 
   || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2011-2013 || (in %) 
 BE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 BG || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 CZ || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 DK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 DE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 EE || - || - || - || - || - 
 IE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 EL || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 FR || 0 || 0 || 17 || 17 || 3% 
 HR |||||| 0 || 0 || 0% 
 IT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 CY || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 0% 
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 HU || 49 || 49 || 53 || 151 || 26% 
 MT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 NL || 25 || 50 || 49 || 124 || 21% 
 AT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 PL || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 PT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 RO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 SI || 3 || 5 || 3 || 11 || 2% 
 SK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 FI || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 SE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 UK || 53 || 84 || 146 || 283 || 48% 
 Total || 131 || 188 || 269 || 588 || 100 
Annex 4:    General Open Licences in
circulation
   ||   || Year ||   || TOTAL || Share of total 
   || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2011-2013 || (in %) 
 BE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 BG || 3 || 2 || 6 || 11 || 2% 
 CZ || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 DK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 DE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 EE || - || - || - || - || - 
 IE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 EL || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES || 114 || 145 || 138 || 397 || 84% 
 FR || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 HR |||||| 0 || 0 || 0% 
 IT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 CY || 2 || 4 || 1 || 7 || 1% 
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 HU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 MT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 NL || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 AT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 PL || 19 || 16 || 11 || 46 || 10% 
 PT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 RO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 SI || 3 || 5 || 3 || 11 || 2% 
 SK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 FI || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 SE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 UK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 Total || 141 || 172 || 159 || 472 || 100% 
Annex 5:    Applications for Standard
Licences refused
   ||   || Year ||   || TOTAL || Share of total 
   || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2011-2013 || (in %) 
 BE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 BG || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 CZ || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 DK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 DE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 EE || - || - || - || - || - 
 IE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 EL || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES || 17 || 26 || 35 || 78 || 25% 
 FR || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 HR ||   ||   || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 IT || 60 || 81 || 88 || 229 || 72% 
 CY || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 HU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 MT || 2 || 0 || 2 || 4 || 1% 
 NL || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 AT || 1 || 2 || 0 || 3 || 1% 
 PL || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 PT || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0% 
 RO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 SI || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0% 
 SK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 FI || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 1% 
 SE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 UK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 Total || 81 || 110 || 127 || 318 || 100 
Annex 6:    Non-compliant
Consignments detected
   ||   || Year ||   || TOTAL || Share of total 
   || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2011-2013 || (in %) 
 BE || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 BG || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 CZ || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 DK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 DE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 EE || - || - || - || - || - 
 IE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 EL || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES || 2 || 3 || 2 || 7 || 5% 
 FR || 12 || 29 || 31 || 72 || 49% 
 HR |||||| 0 || 0 || 0% 
 IT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 CY || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 LU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 HU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 MT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 NL || 24 || 20 || 20 || 64 || 44% 
 AT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 PL || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1% 
 PT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 RO || 0 || 2 || 1 || 3 || 2% 
 SI || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 SK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 FI || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 SE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 UK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 Total || 38 || 55 || 54 || 147 || 100% 
***