REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE First report on the application of 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)
Date: 2021-11-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative cooperation, application of EU law, art trade, cultural object, exchange of information, export, heritage protection, illicit trade, information system

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.11.2021  COM(2021) 705 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE First report on the application of 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)   
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 

First report on the application of 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) 

Table of Contents 

1. 

2. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 2 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 2 

3.  APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE ......................................................................................................... 3 

3.1. Transposition into national laws ...................................................................................................... 3 

3.2. Definition of ‘cultural objects’ – Scope ratione materiae (Article 2) ............................................... 3 

a)  Assessment of the categories defined as national treasures in the national legislations ............ 3 

b)  Assessment of what qualifies as ‘unlawful removal’ of cultural objects from the territory of a 
Member State ....................................................................................................................................... 4 

3.3. Definition of ‘cultural objects’ – Scope ratione temporis (Articles 14 and 15) ................................ 6 

3.4. Due care and attention – Scope ratione personae (Article 10 and Article 13 ) ............................... 6 

3.5. Application of the administrative procedure for the return of cultural objects ............................. 7 

a)  Cooperation among competent authorities within a Member State ............................................ 7 

b)  Administrative cooperation among Member States – Use of Internal Market Information 
System (IMI) for the purpose of administrative cooperation (Article 5) ............................................... 8 

3.6. Mutual legal assistance and specific issues related to costs of judicial return proceedings (Article 
6) ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 

4.  CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 11 

5.  ANNEX ................................................................................................................................................. 12 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  report (hereafter: ‘the report’) reviews the application and effectiveness of Directive 2014/60/EU 
of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 May 2014 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully 
removed from the territory of a Member State1, as provided in article 17(2). It is the first report since 
the entry into force of the Directive and follows the four reports presented by the European Commission 
on the application of the former Directive 93/7/EEC (recast by the Directive 2014/60/EU), the last one 
covering the period from 2008 to 20112. 

The report covers the period from 2015 to 2020. It is based on data provided by the Member States in 
response  to  a  questionnaire  sent  by  the  European  Commission3.  This  questionnaire  covers  several 
aspects of the application and efficiency of administrative and judicial cooperation in Member States in 
relation to unlawfully removed cultural objects. The report includes also information on the use of the 
Internal Market Information System (‘IMI’)4 for the purposes of the Directive. 

Overall,  Member  States’  responses  showed  the  positive  impact  of  the  Directive  on  raising  awareness 
among  stakeholders  about  the  protection  of  cultural  objects5  in  the  EU  and  the  development  of  art 
trade.  Nevertheless,  Member  States  replies  also  showed  that  the  implementation  the  Directive  offers 
some  scope  for  further  improvements,  such  as  reinforcing  administrative  and  judicial  cooperation 
between  Member  States  authorities  and  promoting  a  common  understanding  of  the  Directive’s 
provisions. 

2.  INTRODUCTION 

Directive  2014/60/EU  (hereafter:  ‘the  Directive’)  which  had  to  be  transposed  by  18  December  2015 
seeks to reconcile the fundamental principle of free movement of cultural objects with the objective of 
the protection of national treasures in the single market. 

Together  with  Regulation  (EC)  No  116/2009  on  the  export  of  cultural  goods6  and  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/880 on the introduction and the import of cultural goods7, Directive 93/7/EEC (recast by Directive 
2014/60/EU)  established  the  EU  framework  to  prevent  illicit  trafficking  of  cultural  objects  in  the 

1 OJ L 159, 28.5.2014, p. 1. 
2 4th Report: COM/2013/0310 final; 3rd Report: COM/2009/0408 final; 2nd Report: COM/2005/0675 final; 1st Report: 
COM(2000)325 final. 
3 Questionnaire launched within the framework of Article 17(1) of the Directive.  
4 The figures reported in Annex are extracted from the Internal Market Information System (IMI). Homepage - IMI-
Net - The EU Single Market - European Commission (europa.eu) 
5 For the purposes of this report, the terms “cultural good” and “cultural object” are considered as synonyms and 
interchangeable. In order to convey clearly the meaning of a specific provision of Directive 2014/60/EU , the report 
will be exclusively referring to “cultural object”, while using both terms as with equivalent weight for the rest of 
the developments.   
6 Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 of 18 December 2008 on the export of cultural goods, OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 
1 
7 Regulation (EU) 2019/880 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the introduction and 
the import of cultural goods, OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 1. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
European Union, by providing mechanisms and a procedure for restoring national treasures when these 
have been unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. While the aim of Regulation (EC) 
No  116/2009  is  to  avoid  national  treasures  being  taken  out  of  EU  territory  without  controls,  the 
Directive,  for  its  part,  introduced  mechanisms  for  administrative  cooperation  between  national 
authorities and proceedings before the national courts for the return of cultural objects taken unlawfully 
from  the  territory  of  a  Member  State.  Furthermore,  Regulation  (EU)  2019/880  aims  to  prohibit  and 
prevent the import into the customs territory of the Union of cultural goods illegally exported from third 
countries,  where  they  were  created  or  discovered  and  sets  out  procedures  for  the  legal  import  of 
cultural goods into the Union.  

Under  article  17(1)  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  are  required  to  submit  to  the  Commission  their 
reports on its application. To facilitate this reporting, the Commission sent in April 2020 a questionnaire 
agreed upon with the Commission Expert Group on the return of cultural objects8. Responses from 21 
Member  States,  2  EFTA9  Member  States  and  from  the  United  Kingdom  were  received  between  27 
August 2020 and 29 January 2021, which were later discussed by the Expert Group. National reports on 
the application of the Directive, as referred to in Article 17(1) and provided through the above-referred 
responses, represented the basis for the first report reviewing application and effectiveness of Directive 
2014/60/EU,  which  the  Commission  must  provide  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the 
Economic and Social Committee, every five years, in line with Article 17(2) of the Directive. 

3.  APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 
3.1. Transposition into national laws 

The Directive is a recast of the former Directives 93/7/EEC, 96/100/EC and 2001/38/EC on the return of 
cultural  objects.  It  states  that,  by  18  December  2015,  Member  States  should  have  adopted  the 
necessary measures to comply with its new provisions, i.e. with point (1) of Article 2, point (3) of the first 
paragraph of Article 5, the second paragraph of Article 5, the third paragraph of Article 7, Article 8(1), 
the first and the second paragraphs of Article 10 and Article 17(1) of this Directive. 

Transposition measures have been communicated by all Member States on such provisions.  

3.2. Definition of ‘cultural objects’ – Scope ratione materiae (Article 2) 

a)  Assessment of the categories defined as national treasures in the national legislations 

With the recast, the Directive covers cultural objects, i.e. “an object which is classified or defined by a 
Member State, before or after its  unlawful removal from the territory of that Member State, as being 
among  the  ‘national  treasures  possessing  artistic,  historic  or  archaeological  value’  under  national 
legislation or administrative procedures within the meaning of Article 36 TFEU” (Article 2, point 1, of the 

8 Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities (europa.eu), Commission expert group on the 
return of cultural objects (E03204). 
9 European Free Trade Association 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Directive).  According  to  Recital  9  of  the  Directive,  it  should  thus  cover  objects  of  historical, 
paleontological,  ethnographic,  and  numismatic  interest  or  scientific  value,  whether  or  not  they  form 
part  of  public  or  other  collections  or  are  single  items,  and  whether  they  originate  from  regular  or 
clandestine excavations, provided that they are classified or defined as national treasures. 

According to the majority of Member States replies to the questionnaire, the definition at EU level of the 
term  ’cultural  object’  is  a  significant  improvement  and  serves  the  objective  of  strengthening  the 
protection  of  cultural  objects  as  a  specific  category  of  goods.  However,  mutual  understanding  of 
national definitions should be improved, so that all Member States recognise and protect each other’s 
protected cultural objects. 

Although  the  definition  of  ‘cultural  objects’,  as  laid  down  in  Article  2  of  the  Directive,  is  considered 
satisfactory  by  the  majority  of  the  responding  Member  States,  some  challenges  remain  when 
determining the country of origin for archaeological objects illicitly looted and removed from their sites. 
While unique  cultural  objects may be easy to identify  as regards their  provenance  and the  originating 
Member State, other cultural objects belonging, for instance, to civilisations that flourished over a wide 
geographical area10 or serial cultural objects (such as coins or jewellery that can be dismembered) are 
not as easy to identify. Indeed, such objects are not listed as missing or stolen from collections and it is 
rather difficult to establish their provenance as they have never been registered in museum catalogues 
or are claimed to belong in private collections that have never been inventoried. 

10  Member  States  highlighted  that  the  Directive  should  also  cover  cultural  objects  that  have  been 
unlawfully exported from a Member State, without the need for a specific status of the cultural object as 
a ‘national treasure’, as some national courts tend to give a restrictive interpretation of the category of 
cultural objects that could be claimed for return based on the Directive. 

5  Member  States  did  not  raise  the  need  for  a  common  definition  of  terms  such  as  ‘cultural  objects’ 
without reference to national law, ‘antiques’, ‘archaeological objects’ at European level. 

3 responses pointed out that it is preferable to refer to the harmonised definition of cultural objects by 
Regulation (EC) 116/2009 and Regulation (EU) 2019/880, in order to avoid encountering differences in 
national legislation on concepts like ‘antiques’ and ‘archaeological objects’.  

A general observation, deriving from Member States’ responses, is that the Directive is easily applicable 
to cultural objects of typically high commercial value and to  cultural objects that are works of art and 
are registered in museums' collections or as part of other collections. Further efforts would be necessary 
to protect ‘national treasures’ of lesser commercial value, namely archaeological artefacts, because of 
their irreplaceable value for cultural history. 

b)  Assessment of what qualifies as ‘unlawful removal’ of cultural objects from the territory of 

a Member State  

The  obligation  to  return,  enshrined  in  the  Directive,  applies  solely  to  cultural  objects  that  have  been 
unlawfully  removed  from  the  territory  of  a  Member  State.  According  to  Article  2,  point  2,  of  the 

10 For example, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Arab, Byzantine, Ottoman. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Directive,  unlawfully  removed  from  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  means:  “(a)  removed  from  the 
territory of a Member State in breach of its rules on the protection of national treasures or in breach of 
Regulation (EC) No 116/2009; or (b) not returned at the end of a period of lawful temporary removal or 
any  breach  of  another  condition  governing  such  temporary  removal”.  However,  almost  all  of  the 
responses  confirmed  that  national  authorities  in  the  Member  States  face  difficulties  in  terms  of 
researches and uptake when verifying the protection of national treasures laid dawn in other Member 
States’ legislations.  

Because  of  these  difficulties  cultural  objects  that  were  unlawfully  removed  from  the  territory  of  a 
Member  State  (within  the  meaning  of  the  Directive)  could  be  perceived  as  legally  traded  in  another 
Member  State  if  no  requirement  on  provenance11  is  imposed  by  national  law  for  this  purpose.  These 
difficulties  are  not  addressed  by  Article  10  of  the  Directive  in  its  current  wording,  as  it  only  refers  to 
‘provenance’ when defining the possessor's right for compensation. As online trade is growing, there is 
also  an  increasing  uncertainty  regarding  the  licit  provenance  of  cultural  goods  in  the  single  market, 
which is a barrier for the sustainable growth of the art market in the EU.  

Furthermore, none of the reports sent by Member States on the application of the Directive denies the 
need to establish a due diligence obligation for art dealers at EU level. At least 8 Member States already 
adopted specific legal provisions on duty of care for dealers in art and antiquities  and mandatory due 
diligence requirements for the placing on the market of cultural goods. 4 Member States consider that 
EU mandatory due diligent standards for art traders would advance efforts to strengthen transparency 
and enhance the level playing field in the  art market,  provided that these standards are based on the 
highest existing requirements, so as not to reduce the level already achieved in national legislation. 13 
Member  States  also  underlined  that  the  pivot  to  strengthen  due  diligence  for professionals  in  the  art 
market with an EU Code of ethics is the need to monitor the application of this Code and to provide with 
specific sanctions in case of infringements. 

Taking  into  account  these  aspects,  a  European  Commission  study  published  in  2019  on  illicit  trade  in 
cultural goods in Europe12 includes detailed analysis and recommendations to strengthen researches on 
provenance  and due diligence  for art dealers and to promote  a legal, responsible and ethical trade of 
cultural goods as a specific category of goods13. When presented in October 2019 to the Members of the 
Directive’s Expert Group, the study was positively perceived by Member States’ Delegates. 

11  A  distinction  is  made  here  between  ‘provenance’  and  ‘place  of  origin’.  ‘Place  of  origin’  designates  the  place 
where the object came from. Provenance is admitted to be the chronology of the ownership, custody or location 
of a cultural good. It could be also, in the context of the current EU legislation, information on formal aspects that 
could be useful for identification of an object: historical antecedents, former owners/holders, bibliography. 
12 Illicit trade of cultural goods in  Europe, final report, European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, 
Youth, Sport and Culture. 
13 The Study  also  elaborates on a  common understanding  of acceptable provenance to identify  best  practices in 
investigating  the  provenance  of  the  traded  good  and  to  improve  transparency  of  the  art  trade  in  the  EU  by 
establishing due diligence obligation for professionals as a condition to exercise the profession. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
3.3. Definition of ‘cultural objects’ – Scope ratione temporis (Articles 14 and 15)  

The Directive applies to cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State on or 
after 1 January 1993 (Article 14).  

Article 15(2) leaves the possibility open to the Member States to extend its scope to requests related to 
cultural  objects  unlawfully  removed  prior  to  that  date  without  establishing  a  violation  of  general 
principle of legal certainty. To date, only 3 Member States included in their legislation the extension of 
the time scope, 2 of them without any temporal limitation subject to national procedural rules and one 
with  time  limit  of  1  January  1960.  A  specific  case  applies  to  a  Member  State,  which  restored  its 
statehood in 1990 considering to extend the return obligation beyond the time scope of the Directive in 
specific cases but without an obligation prior to the existence of the State. 

Furthermore, one Member State is in favour of a general rule at EU level to delete reference to 1993 as 
the cut-off date, especially with regard to unlawfully excavated archaeological objects that were illegally 
exported14.  

For the remaining 19 responses, Member States indicated that they are not planning an extension of the 
time scope, while highlighting that, in the absence of a reciprocity clause, the unilateral extension by a 
Member  State  of  the  material  and  temporal  scope  of  the  Directive  for  the  sole  benefit  of  the  other 
Member States would not be a relevant route. At the most, exceptions on a case-by-case basis can be 
considered  also  taking  into  account  international  Conventions15  that  provide  adequate  framework. 
Constitutional prohibition of retroactivity seems to be the main obstacle for a general extension of the 
time scope of the return obligation. 

A  number  of  Member  States  confirmed  their  endeavour  to  find  a  mutually  agreed  solution  in  all 
individual cases where proof of unlawful removal is provided even before the cut-off date.  

The  main  obstacle  Member  States  encountered with  the  time  scope  of  the Directive  is the  burden of 
proof  of  the  time  of  transfer.  In  the  current  wording,  the  burden  of  proof  lies  with  the  requesting 
Member  State.  It  is  precisely  in  cases  of  excavation  or  robbery  that  the  restitution  claim  is  often 
hindered  by  the  fact  that  the  requesting  State  is  unable  to  provide  any  evidence  as  to  the  time  of 
excavation and export from its territory. Uniform procedural standards are considered in the majority of 
the responses as the  relevant  way to overcome  the current difficulties related to the burden of proof 
and to provide with equal protection for cultural objects in all Member States.  

3.4. Due care and attention – Scope ratione personae (Article 10 and Article 13) 

The Directive states in Article 13 that the ownership of a returned object shall be governed by the law of 
the requesting Member State.   

14 This Member State raised the impossibility to bring evidence that the illegal export took place after 1993 as the 
objects have been illegally excavated. 
15 Such as the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The mechanisms provided in the Directive can only be applied by the public authorities of the requesting 
Member State. In  compliance  with article 345  TFEU16, the Directive  does  not  deal with the ownership 
regime  in  Member  States.  This  is  a  direct  consequence  that  private  owners  of  a  national  treasure 
unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State are not able to exercise the rights offered by 
the Directive, meaning proceedings to secure its return.  

Nevertheless, the Directive does not exclude civil or criminal proceedings which may be brought by the 
owner of a stolen object under national law. In this regard, the Directive’s provisions are complemented 
by Article 7(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/201217 (Brussels Regulation), which establishes a jurisdictional 
rule that the courts for the place where the cultural object is located have jurisdiction for civil claims for 
the recovery, based on ownership, of a cultural object within the meaning of the Directive.  

Furthermore,  the  main  objective  of  the  Directive  being  the  physical  return  of  the  cultural  object 
unlawfully  removed18,  a  uniform  rule  regarding  the  burden  of  proof  for  due  care  and  attention  is 
established in Article 10 with the aim of preventing ‘forum shopping’ by traffickers and making returns 
less  costly  for  the  requesting  Member  State.  With  this  new  rule,  a  possessor  who  cannot  prove  that 
he/she  has  exercised  due  care  and  attention  will  not  be  granted  compensation  when  the  object  is 
returned.  The  non-exhaustive  criteria  for  determining  due  care  and  attention  were  inspired  by  the 
UNIDROIT  Convention19  and  were  already  been  included  in  the  legislation of  all  Member  States  when 
implementing the Directive.   

12  Member  States  indicated  that  there  were  not  yet  cases  submitted  to  their  national  courts  and, 
therefore,  no  occasion  to  give  an  interpretation  of  the  concept  of  due  care.  In  addition,  3  Member 
States clearly indicated divergences in the interpretation as the circumstances of the acquisition provide 
room  for  interpretation,  and  this  will  be  different  in  each  Member  State,  depending  on  the  type  of 
cultural objects, possibilities for research and cooperation between the different authorities.  

At this stage, there is insufficient information on the interpretation of the concept in the Member States 
and it remains to be further assessed under the relevant provisions of the Directive.  

3.5. Application of the administrative procedure for the return of cultural objects 

a)   Cooperation among competent authorities within a Member State 

At national level, different bodies are involved in the identification of the cultural objects, the archives 
researches, the establishment of contacts, the applications for seizure of the cultural object and/or the 
mediation. 20 Member States reported that the cooperation amongst these bodies or authorities works 
smoothly and there is a regular exchange of information. 

16Article 345 TFEU states: “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system  
of property ownership”. 
17  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.  
18 Article 2 point 5 of the Directive defines the return as “the physical return of the cultural object to the territory of 
the requesting Member State”. 
19 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects, 24 June 1995. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Most of Member States responses highlighted the importance of cooperation between police forces and 
Ministries of the Interior at national and international level. This is particularly relevant for establishing a 
comprehensive picture of the illicit trafficking of cultural goods in the single market. The importance of 
comparative data related to cultural property when it comes to social networks20 and organised crime, 
including tackling the phenomenon through the darknet21, was stressed in all the responses. 

Several Member States stressed that the recent strengthening of the EU legislation on customs controls 
for cultural goods22 is fostering cooperation between customs and Ministries of Culture in a significant 
way. This might also have positive implications for the application of the Directive.  

Furthermore, joint communication operations are carried out in connection with the return of cultural 
objects  to  their  country  of  origin,  particularly  in  the  context  of  procedures  resulting  from  customs 
seizures with the cooperation of police, cultural authorities and foreign affairs.  

This  is  a  positive  element  for  strengthening  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  and  the  strategic 
priorities in the field of police and judicial cooperation.  

In July 2020, the Commission adopted the “Security Union Strategy for the period from 2020 to 2025”23 
outlining  the  way  forward  to  combat  organised  crime  including  the  fight  against  illicit  trafficking  in 
cultural  goods24.  The  Commission  committed  to  explore  how  to  improve  the  online  and  offline 
traceability of cultural goods. 

The EU Strategy to tackle organised crime25, adopted on 14 April 2021, sets out that the Commission will 
continue  to  support  capacity  building  amongst  cultural  heritage  experts  and  their  structured 
cooperation with law enforcement. Furthermore, the Commission will examine other necessary actions 
to address this phenomenon. To this end, the Commission will propose an Action Plan on tackling the 
illicit trade in cultural goods in 2022. 

b)  Administrative cooperation among Member States – Use of Internal Market Information 

System (IMI) for the purpose of administrative cooperation (Article 5)  

The  Directive  introduces  arrangements  for  administrative  cooperation  between  the  competent 
authorities designated by the Member States26. This cooperation involves, in particular, establishing the 
whereabouts of the cultural objects at the request of the requesting State, notification of the discovery 
of cultural objects on the territory of a Member State, verification by the requesting Member State of 

20  Social  networking  on  cultural  goods  often  uses  websites  and  web-based  applications  such  as  Facebook, 
MySpace, Twitter and LinkedIn. 
21  Darknet  is  the  part  of  the  internet  that  people  cannot  access  through  clearnet  search  engines.  It  is  the 
anonymous  internet,  where  people  keep  privacy  while  purchasing  items  that  normal  channels  cannot  supply. 
Cryptocurrency is required to order goods, including cultural objects, on the darknet. 
22 Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 of 18 December 2008 on the export of cultural goods, OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 
1  and  Regulation  (EU)  2019/880  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  the 
introduction and the import of cultural goods, OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 1. 
23 Security Union Strategy (europa.eu) 
24 COM(2020) 605 
25 COM(2021) 170 final 
26 The list of these authorities is published in OJEU C 134, 28.4.2017, p. 4. 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
the  nature  of  the  cultural  object  on  the  territory  of  the  requested  Member  State,  adoption  of  all 
measures necessary for the material conservation of the cultural object and the adoption of provisional 
measures to avoid that the cultural object falls outside the scope of the return procedures.  

The  cooperation  provided  for  in  Article  5(6)  of  the  Directive  may  include  diplomatic  mediation  and 
facilitation  and  promotion  of  amicable  settlement  and  could  also  lead  to:  (i)  a  non-compulsory  pre-
litigation  administrative  mediation/coordination  with  the  aim  to  reach  an  amicable  resolution,  (ii)  the 
facilitation of an alternative method of dispute settlement and (iii) the facilitation of the implementation 
of an arbitration procedure. Even if the use by the interested parties  of the cooperation referred by the 
competent authorities, referred  to in  Article 5(6) of the Directive,  before starting court proceedings is 
not  mandatory  in  all  Member  States,  such  cooperation  is  perceived  as  the  privileged  way  of  working 
together. 

As  far  as  public  authorities  are  concerned,  cooperation  between  authorities  at  EU  level  may  be  still 
improved, in particular when the existing information has to be shared and processed in the appropriate 
way. The Commission established a specific IMI module which is operational as of 2016 with a view to 
exchanging information on the return of cultural objects falling within the scope of the Directive. It is a 
working IT tool for central authorities in the Member States who are responsible for the implementation 
of the Directive, as well as to facilitate cooperation between competent authorities within the Member 
States. 

To  date,  164  authorities  are  registered  and  have  access  to  IMI27,  including  national  IMI  coordinators. 
Some  authorities  in  Member  States  are  only  set  up  for  bilateral  information  exchanges  (i.e.  when  an 
authority  is  aware  of the  presence  of  a  cultural object  in  a  given  Member  State  and  seeks  the object 
from a clearly identified country reasonably assuming that the object that was unlawfully removed can 
be found there and asking for confirmation about its location in order to retrieve the object). 

IMI  is  considered  as  a  potentially  good  attempt  to  register  information  about  unlawfully  removed 
objects  in  a  uniform  way  within  the  EU  and  to  inform  national  authorities  within  the  EU.  National 
authorities  confirmed  that  IMI  facilitates  cooperation  between  Member  States  authorities  by 
establishing  initial  contact  and  that  it  is  a  key  tool  for  improving  information  processing,  providing 
guidance,  discussing  issues  and  identifying  problems  regarding  the  exchange  of  notifications  and 
information through IMI.   

From the data on the use of IMI (as presented in Annex), it can be assumed that the exchanges among 
Member States on cultural objects that have been unlawfully removed were limited.  

Over the period of 2016-2020, there were 304 notifications for this purpose with a low number in 2018 
and  2020  (less  than  5)  and  also  with  a  different  level  of  activeness  from  Member  States.  The  most 
affected  categories  of  cultural  objects  by  this  form  of  IMI  notifications  were:  ‘Pictures,  paintings  and 
icons’ (icons in particular with 116 notifications out of 178), followed by ‘Archaeological objects’ with 55 
notifications.  Notifications  on  other  categories  of  cultural  objects  such  as  vessels,  water-colours, 
figurines, coins and books were in average less than 10 for the same period. 

For the same period, 65 requests to seek an unlawfully removed cultural object and the identity of the 
possessor or holder were also registered in IMI. The annual evolution shows a constant decrease of this 

27 Further figures from Member States notifications and exchanges on cultural objects are in Annex. 

9 

 
 
                                                           
form  of  notifications  between  2016  and  2018,  going  from  14  cases  to  less  than  5  with  an  increase  in 
2019 and 2020 (respectively 20  and 19  notifications received).  For the same  form of notifications, the 
most  affected  categories  were:  ‘Original  sculptures  or  statuary  and  copies  produced  by  the  same 
process as the original’ and ‘Pictures, paintings, icons executed entirely by hand’. 

The  number  of  notifications  about  the  finding  of  an  unlawfully  removed  cultural  objects  fell  sharply 
between  2017  (19  notifications)  and  2019  (3  notifications)  and  increased  sharply  in  2020  (15 
notifications). The great number of notifications for this form concerns ‘objects of numismatic interest’ 
(12  notifications),  followed  by  ‘coins’  (8  notification),  icons  (5  notifications)  and  sculptures  (5 
notifications). 

Since 2016, only 5 notifications were recorded in IMI for the purposes of initiating return proceedings. 

A  general  observation  received  from  19  Member  States  is  that  further  IMI  improvements  could  be 
considered in order to render the tool more user-friendly. There seem to be some terminological issues 
as  well  on  certain  linguistic  versions  that  require  small  adjustments.  To  address  these  issues,  the 
Commission is preparing a dedicated User‘s Guide.  

Member States also reported issues concerning time constraints in the closing of notifications in cases 
where investigations are ongoing. In this regard, Member States highlighted that it was important that 
the system is actively monitored and used by all connected authorities. Furthermore, the more targeted 
requests are placed on IMI, the greater the prospect of a helpful response is. This will also help reduce 
the large quantity of messages automatically generated by the system 

Furthermore, when a cultural object was unlawfully removed and actually found, Member States seek to 
recover  it  through  various  tracks  and,  in  first  place,  via  judicial  proceedings,  rather  than  via  an  IMI 
request. This said, the added value of IMI is not challenged, as official exchanges through the IMI system 
are treated in court proceedings as formal evidence. 

3.6. Mutual legal assistance and specific issues related to costs of judicial return 
proceedings (Article 6)  

Article 6 of  the  Directive  provides  for  the  initiation of  return  proceedings  and  the  conditions  for  such 
legal action. Such return proceedings are brought by the Member State from the territory of which the 
cultural  object  was  unlawfully  removed  (known  as  the  ‘requesting  Member  State’)  before  the 
competent court of the Member State in which the cultural object is located (known as ‘the requested 
Member  State’).  The  return  of  the  cultural  object  is  ordered  by  the  competent  court  when  it  is 
established that the  object  in  question  is  a  cultural object  and that  it  has  been  unlawfully  removed28. 

28 In this respect, Article 28(4) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the EP and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on 
the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders (OJ L 303 du 28.11.2018, p. 1) clarifies that the 
executing State is not required to sell or return specific items covered by a confiscation order, where those items 
constitute cultural objects, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2014/60/EU. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Furthermore,  the  Directive  lays  down  the  time  limits  for  bringing  return  proceedings  and  the 
arrangements for compensating the possessor in cases where the object has been restored29.  

Overall,  Member  States’  responses  indicated  that  the  rules  for  the  return  via  judicial  proceedings,  as 
provided by the Directive, are adequate. Only one Member State argued that the provisions laid down in 
Article 6 are not sufficient.  

Since the entry into force of the Directive, only two judicial proceedings were initiated by national courts 
for the return of cultural objects. The main obstacles could be linked with the complexity and high cost 
of court proceedings30, the need for storage, transport and insurance costs, and the burden of proof of 
unlawful  export  after  1st  of  January  1993.  In  one  particular  case,  it  was  pointed  out  that  judicial 
proceedings  under  the  Directive  were  impossible,  as  the  unlawfully  removed  cultural  object  had  the 
opportunity to be exported to a third country and was therefore no longer in the EU territory at the time 
when the requesting Member State was able to activate the return mechanism under the Directive. 

While reporting after 5 years of application of the Directive, national authorities called for specific legal 
assistance when they need to initiate judicial proceedings before other Member States’ courts and also 
for  shared  expenses  on  securing  and  transport  arrangements,  insuring  and  transporting  the  cultural 
object.  

In  this  context,  4  Member  States  suggested  building  a  network  of  mutual  legal  assistance  among 
Member States under Article 6 of the Directive and creating a European Prosecutor to act in the interest 
of the requesting Member State.  

4.  CONCLUSIONS 

The Directive appears to have a determinant effect. Member States have noted the positive impact on 
raising  awareness  among  stakeholders  about  the  protection  of  cultural  objects  in  the  EU  and  the 
development of art trade.  

The following aspects where the application of the Directive may be improved were identified: 

- 
- 

Technical arrangements to facilitate and rationalise IMI use for the purpose of the Directive. 
Fostering  mutual  legal  assistance  among  Member  States  under  Article  6  to  help  the  requesting 
Member States when initiating judicial proceedings before other Member States’ courts. 

29 Time-limit of 3 years for initiating return proceedings after the requesting Member State became aware of the 
location  of  the  cultural  object  and  of  the  identity  of  its  possessor  or  holder.  Time-limit  of  75  years  for  return 
proceedings  concerning  objects  forming  part  of  public  collections  and  objects  belonging  to  inventories  of 
ecclesiastical or other religious institutions on the Member States and subject to special protection (Article 8 of the 
Directive). 
30  The  procedure  may  be  particularly  costly,  since  the  cost  of  compensation  is  added  to  the  high  cost  of  the 
proceedings, e.g. lawyers’ fees. This may lead to a de facto limitation of the intention to initiate this procedure to 
objects of major financial interest for which the Member States are prepared to commit substantial funds. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
- 

Promoting  uniform  understanding  and  application  of  the  Directive’s  provisions  by  fostering 
exchange of best practices and common interpretation of due diligence for professional art dealers 
and research on the provenance of cultural objects falling in the scope of the Directive. 

In light of this report, the Commission will continue monitoring the implementation of the Directive and 
explore ways to improve its effectiveness, in cooperation with the Member States. 

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

5.  ANNEX 

INTERNAL MARKET INFORMATION SYSTEM (IMI)  – FIGURES FROM MEMBER STATES NOTIFICATIONS AND EXCHANGES 
ON CULTURAL OBJECT (CO) 

i. 

Notification about a cultural object that has been unlawfully removed 

Over the period of 2016-2020, there were 310 CO-F1 notifications, 304 if excluding those that have been 
withdrawn31. 

CO-F1 - Last location prior to unlawful removal 

TOTAL by year

150

100

50

0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

There  was  a  roughly  identical  number  of  cases  in  2016  and  2017  (around  60  to  70),  followed  by  two 
drops in 2018 and 2020 (less than 5) with a peak in 2019 (> to 125)  

31 The notification was always from X to X (same country). 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Stacked by year by category

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

The  majority  of  IMI  notifications  concerned  the  following  categories  of  cultural  objects:    “Pictures, 
paintings,  icons  executed  entirely  by  hand…”  (178)  and  “Archaeological  objects  (from  land  or 
underwater excavations and finds, archaeological sites or archaeological collections)” (55). 

ii. 

Request to seek an unlawfully removed cultural object and the identity of the 
possessor/holder 

The evolution by year shows a constant decrease between 2016 and 2018, going from 14 cases to less 
than 5 and an increase in 2019 (20) and 2020 (19). 

Stacked by year by category

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

13 

 
 
 
 
 
The  most  affected  categories  are  “Original  sculptures  or  statuary  and  copies  produced  by  the  same 
process as the original” (25) and “Pictures, paintings, icons executed entirely by hand” (21). The number 
of notifications for other cultural objects is always less than 5.  

iii. 

Notification about finding of an unlawfully removed cultural object 

TOTAL by year

20

15

10

5

0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

The number of notifications fell sharply between 2017 (19) and 2019 (3) and increased sharply in 2020 
(15). 

Stacked by year by category

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

The  two  categories  that  stand  out  are  archaeological  objects  (products  from  land  or  underwater 
excavations and finds, archaeological sites or archaeological collections) (17) and the Collection or single 
item of historical, paleontological, numismatic, philatelic or other interest (14).  

iv. 

Notification that return proceedings are initiated 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Since 2016, 6 notifications on initiated return proceedings were recorded in IMI and 1 notification was 
withdrawn (2 of them concerned archaeological objects, 1 was on collection of coins, 1 on books and 1 
on work of plastic/sculpture). 

15