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 2018 to 31 December 2020
Date: 2022-08-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: administrative cooperation, application of EU law, art trade, cultural object, customs inspection, export (EU), export licence, external border of the EU, heritage protection, illicit trade

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.8.2022  COM(2022) 424 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 2018 to 31 December 2020      
 
 
Contents 
1.  Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 2 

2. 

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

3.  Context of the regulation .................................................................................................... 4 

3.1 European context ............................................................................................................. 4 

3.2 International context ........................................................................................................ 4 

4. 

Implementation of the regulation ....................................................................................... 5 

4.1 Objectives and Performance ............................................................................................ 5 

4.2 Definition of cultural goods ............................................................................................. 6 

4.3 Age thresholds ................................................................................................................. 8 

4.4 Financial thresholds ......................................................................................................... 8 

4.5 Standard export licence figures ........................................................................................ 9 

4.6 Specific and general open licences .................................................................................. 9 

4.7 Exemption from the export licence requirement ........................................................... 11 

4.8 Reasons for rejecting a licence application .................................................................... 11 

4.9 Licence issues ................................................................................................................ 12 

4.10 Cancellation or revocation of licences ......................................................................... 12 

4.11 Use of electronic systems/databases ............................................................................ 13 

4.12 Material and human resources ..................................................................................... 14 

5.  Conclusions and outstanding issues ................................................................................. 14 

6.  Annexes ............................................................................................................................ 15 

Table 1. Standard Licences issued by Member States ......................................................... 15 

Table 2. Specific Open Licences in circulation ................................................................... 16 

Table 3. General Open Licences in circulation .................................................................... 17 

Table 4. Applications for Standard Licences refused .......................................................... 18 

Table 5. Infringement/non-compliance cases ...................................................................... 19 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  report  reviews  the  implementation  of  the  export  licencing  system  for  cultural  goods 
established  by  Regulation  (EC)  116/2009  on  the  export  of  cultural  goods  and  Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 1081/2012.1  

The  report  is  based  mostly  on  data  provided  by  the  Member  States2  in  response  to  a 
questionnaire covering all aspects of implementation of the export licencing system. It covers 
the period from 2018 to 2020 included. The figures reported in annex relate to three types of 
export  licences:  standard  licences,  specific  open  licences  (repeated  temporary  exports  by 
private  persons)  and  general  open  licences  (repeated  temporary  exports  by  museums  and 
similar institutions).   

The report also provides information on current initiatives and challenges for the future, such 
as  improving  the  cooperation  between  Member  States  authorities  involved  in  the 
implementation  of  the  Regulation,  promoting  a  common  understanding  of  the  Regulation’s 
provisions  by  the  Member  States,  identifying  best  practices  for  competent  authorities  and 
customs  in  investigating  the  provenance  of  cultural  goods,  and  exploring  the  technical, 
financial  and  legal  possibilities  to  use  electronic  means  for  the  issue  and  control  of  export 
licences,  such  as  the  development  or  link  to  a  centralised  electronic  system  which  would 
interface with national customs clearance systems. 

1 Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 requires the  Commission to periodically present a report on the 
implementation  of  the  Regulation  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European  Economic  and 
Social Committee. 
2 As it covers a period ending on 31 December 2020, this reports includes statistics from the United Kingdom 
among  those  of  EU  Member  States.  As  of  1  January  2021,  EU  law  ceased  to  apply  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
except in respect of Northern Ireland. For that reason, reports covering future periods will only include statistics 
of the 27 EU Member States and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland. 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.  INTRODUCTION 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  116/2009  on  the  export  of  cultural  goods3  (hereafter  'the 
Regulation')  subjects  the  export  of  certain  cultural  goods  outside  the  Union's  customs 
territory  to  the  presentation  of  an  export  licence  and  ensures  that  exports  of  those  goods 
undergo uniform controls at the Union's external borders. Annex I defines the material scope 
of the Regulation by listing the categories of cultural goods to which it applies, as well as by 
setting age and/or value thresholds for the majority of the categories listed.  

The objective of the Regulation is to reconcile the fundamental principle of free movement of 
goods with that of the protection of national treasures within the historical framework of the 
creation in 1993 of the Internal Market, which abolished all internal borders between Member 
States.  

Export licences are issued by the competent authority of the last Member State in the territory 
of  which  the  cultural  object  was  “definitively  and  lawfully  located”4.  The  export  licence  is 
granted  or  refused  on  the  basis  of  the  laws  and  regulations  of  that  Member  State.  Customs 
controls then ensure that cultural goods can only leave the Union's customs territory if they 
are accompanied by a valid export licence.  

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  export  licences  are  uniform,  it  was  necessary  to  lay  down  rules 
governing the drawing up, issuing and use of the licence form. The Implementing Regulation 
(EU)  No  1081/20125  provides  for  three  types  of  export  licences  (standard  licence,  specific 
open licence and general open licence) and sets out the rules for their application.  In certain 
Member  States  –  but  not  all  –  the  applicant  is  required  to  pay  a  fee  to  obtain  an  export 
licence. Certain Member States’ laws impose additional restrictions, such as the requirement 
to obtain a national licence – as well as an EU export licence - for the lawful movement of 
objects designated as ‘national treasures’ out of the national territory.  

The updated lists of Member States competent authorities empowered to issue export licences 
are  published  in  the  Official  Journal,  as  well  as  the  list  of  customs  offices  empowered  to 
handle export formalities6.  

In accordance with Article 10 of the Regulation, the Commission is required periodically to 
present  a  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council and the European Economic and Social Committee.  

The  present  report  draws  on  information,  including  statistical  data  on  the  use  of  licences, 
provided  by  Member  States  in  response  to  a  questionnaire  covering  all  aspects  of 
implementation  of  the  export  licencing  system,  and  on  discussions  at  the  Cultural  Goods 
Committee or the Expert Group on customs issues related to cultural goods.  

As it covers a period ending on 31 December 2020, this reports includes statistics from the 
United Kingdom among those of EU Member States. As of 1 January 2021, EU law ceased to 
apply in the United Kingdom, except in respect of Northern Ireland. For that reason, reports 
covering  future  periods  will  only  include  statistics  of  the  27  EU  Member  States  and  the 
United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland. 

3  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  116/2009  of  18  December  2008  on  the  export  of  cultural  goods  (OJ  L  39, 
10.2.2009, p. 1). 
4 Article 2(2). 
5 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1081/2012 of 9 November 2012 for the purposes of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 on the export of cultural goods (OJ L 324, 22.11.2012, p. 1). 
6 The most recent publication of these references can be found in the OJ C 71, 24.2.2018, p. 5.  and OJ C 184, 
12.5.2021, p. 13 

3 

 
 
                                                 
3.  CONTEXT OF THE REGULATION 

3.1 European context 

The system introduced at EU level by the Regulation is complementary to other instruments 
and  initiatives  aiming  at  the  protection  of  cultural  property.  The  most  relevant  of  those  is 
Directive 2014/60/EU on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory 
of  a  Member  State7.  The  Directive  allows  the  return  of  any  cultural  object  identified  by  a 
Member State as a national treasure possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value. For 
this purpose, the central authorities in charge of the Directive in Member States are required 
to  cooperate  and  exchange  information  on  unlawfully  removed  cultural  objects  by  making 
use of the Internal Market Information system (IMI).  

Another  important  complement  to  the  Regulation  is  the  European  Parliament  and  Council 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/880  on  the  introduction  and  the  import  of  cultural  goods8.  This  new 
instrument lays down the rules and conditions for the temporary or permanent import in the 
Union  of  cultural  goods  which  were  created  or  discovered  in  third  countries.  Due  to  its 
external  trade  dimension,  the  typology  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  2019/880  was  primarily 
inspired by the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the 
Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property9.  

The  Import  Regulation  was  recently  complemented  by  the  adoption  of  implementing 
provisions10 laying down detailed arrangements for import licences and importer statements 
and for the development, operation, maintenance and use of a centralised electronic system 
(the  ‘ICG  system’)  for  the  storage  and  exchange  of  information  between  Member  State 
authorities  and  the  accomplishment  of  formalities  by  operators  in  a  paperless  environment. 
The ICG system is to become operational for import purposes by 28 June 2025 at the latest. 

Lastly,  two  related  ad  hoc  Union  measures,  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1210/200311  and 
Council Regulation (EU) No 36/201212, prohibit trade in cultural goods with Iraq and Syria. 

3.2 International context  

At international level the most relevant instrument with regard to the export of cultural goods 
is  the  1970  UNESCO  Convention  on  the  Means  of  Prohibiting  and  Preventing  the  Illegal 
Import,  Export  and  Transfer  of  Ownership  of  Cultural  Property.  To  date,  the  Convention 
numbers 141 states-Parties and has been ratified by 26 EU Member States. 

7 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) (OJ L 159, 28.5.2014, p. 1). 
8 European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 2019/880 of 17 April 2019 on the introduction and the 
import of cultural goods (OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 1). 
9 Paris, 14 November 1970. 
10  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2021/1079  of  24  June  2021  laying  down  detailed  rules  for 
implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2019/880 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the introduction and the import of cultural goods (OJ L 234 of 2.7.2021, p. 67). 
11 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).  
12  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  36/2012  of  18  January  2012  concerning  restrictive  measures  in  view  of  the 
situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1).  

4 

 
 
                                                 
4.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGULATION 

4.1 Objectives and Performance  

Overall,  Member  States  consider  that  the  Regulation  has  achieved  its  objectives.  However, 
areas for improvement have also been identified.  

In particular regarding the fight against the illicit trade in cultural goods, the Regulation has 
performed quite well. As reported by a Member State, an important effect of the Regulation 
has been the growing awareness with heritage institutions, as well as with the legitimate art 
trade  and  collectors,  of  the  importance  of  having  sufficient  provenance  information  before 
acquiring or placing a cultural good on the market. Objects which were exported without an 
EU licence – although this was required – suffer market value loss and are more difficult to 
trade via the legitimate art trade.  

According  to  the  same  Member  State,  the  legal  art  market  is  still  reticent  to  provide  full 
provenance information to the competent authorities for cultural goods which they previously 
sold to an applicant for an export licence.  

A few Member States point out that their national heritage legislation has a wider scope than 
the Regulation and thus leaves certain types of cultural goods unprotected. On that it has to 
be  noted  that,  while  the  material  scope  of  the  Regulation  was  conceived  at  the  time  as  the 
common  denominator  of  national  provisions  and  might  be  narrower  than  certain  Member 
States’ range of protected goods, the Regulation provides an additional protection for cultural 
goods which national laws are not in a position to offer.  

Specifically, in the absence of internal borders in the Union, goods from one Member State 
could  exit  its  territory,  in  spite  of  national  prohibitions,  and  be  exported  legally  from  the 
Union  via  the  territory  of  a  different  Member  State,  where  the  prohibitions  of  the  first 
Member State do not apply. So the material scope of certain national heritage laws may be 
more comprehensive, but these laws cannot protect the cultural goods of a Member State that 
are taken outside its territory in the way the Regulation can. 

On a related issue, certain Member States expressed the opinion that the Regulation does not 
ensure  sufficiently  the  uniformity  of  heritage  protection  rules  across  the  Union.  National 
legislation  forms  the  basis  on  which  export  licences  are  granted  or  not.  In  that  sense,  the 
export of cultural goods belonging to a given category of Annex I may be allowed in Member 
State  A  –  so  the  licence  would  be  granted  there  -  but  not  in  Member  State  B  –  where  the 
licence would be refused. This  is normal  and cannot  be changed, as cultural  affairs matters 
are  of  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  Member  States.  Consequently,  the  Union  could  not 
harmonise  such  provisions  and  dictate  which  cultural  goods  they  should  designate  as 
“national treasures, possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value”13.  

The issue of value thresholds  has also  been mentioned as  a potential  means  to  improve the 
effectiveness  of  the  Regulation  by  a  number  of  Member  States  (on  this  see  Section  4.4 
below). 

In  this  round  of  consultations,  Member  States  reiterated  the  need  for  more  information  on 
each  other’s  national  heritage  legislation,  so  competent  authorities  in  charge  of  issuing 
licences would be able to fight illicit trade more effectively. However, it is to be noted that 
quite  a  few  Member  States  do  not  have  their  legislation  available  online,  which  has  so  far 

13 Article 36 TFEU. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
prevented the Commission services from creating an online compendium with hyperlinks to 
that legislation for the use of other Member States administrations and for exporters.  

In  the  context  of  the  future  extension  of  the  ICG  system  which  will  digitalise  also  export 
licences  under  Regulation  (EC)  116/2009,  a  compendium  could  be  added  with  basic 
information on the national provisions of the Member States, as will be the case for the laws 
and regulations of third countries. In the meantime, the Commission services could attempt to 
enrich the cultural goods webpage on the Europa server with information on Member States 
legislation (if not published online at national level, a PDF file with the legal text). 

Other  means  identified  by  Member  States  to  improve  the  overall  performance  of  the 
Regulation  include  guidance  for  understanding  the  terms  'definitively  and  lawfully  located' 
which  determine  the  Member  State  which  is  competent  to  issue  the  export  licence14.  This 
would prevent unscrupulous operators from temporarily moving a cultural good to a different 
Member State only for the purposes of applying for a licence in a Member State other than 
the one which designates and protects the object as a national treasure. Until now there have 
not been any cases15 that reached the European Court of Justice which is the sole competent 
to provide an authentic interpretation of these terms, so differences persist in the way they are 
understood and applied by administrations and stakeholders. 

The  Project  Group  that  was  created  in  2017  with  the  aim  to  examine  the  Member  States 
working methods used for the purpose of investigating the provenance of cultural goods and 
to  identify  best  practices  and  develop  practical  advice  for  issuing  licences  and  customs 
controls has completed its work successfully and delivered its report and guidance documents 
to the Expert Group for customs issues related to cultural goods in 2020.  

Among the issues examined, the Group attempted to define the concept of ‘provenance’, i.e. 
the information elements that a competent authority should  request from  an applicant about 
the object to be exported, in order to make a decision on granting the licence. In this context, 
the Group concluded that the provenance of a cultural good can be defined as “the history and 
ownership of an item  from  the time of its discovery or creation to  the present  day, through 
which authenticity and ownership are determined”. 

4.2 Definition of cultural goods  

The  Regulation  does  not  define  what  is  a  cultural  good.  Instead,  it  lists  in  its  Annex  I  15 
categories of objects, which are those  falling  within its scope. Most of  the categories listed 

14 There have been no related cases that have ever reached the European Court of Justice, and as a result there is 
no specific definition of these two terms. 
15  While  there  has  been  no  ECJ  jurisprudence  on  the  matter,  a  case  reached  recently  the  United  Kingdom 
Supreme Court. The Court was called to pronounce itself on whether a painting had been “lawfully” dispatched 
to the United Kingdom from another Member State (Italy), and therefore whether Arts Council England (ACE) 
was  competent  to  grant  the  Claimant  a  licence  to  remove  it  from  the  European  Union  within  the  meaning  of 
Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation. ACE had refused to issue an export licence for the painting to leave the EU in 
2015. 
The case was first heard in 2018 before Mrs Justice Carr DBE who upheld ACE’s refusal and found that:  
(i) The  concept  of  “lawful”  was to “be  judged  by  reference  to  the  law  of  the  Member  State  of  dispatch,  here 
Italy” (at [64]), in light of the language, structure and purpose of the EU coordinating rules (at [57]-[63]);  
(ii) This  requirement  of  Italian  law  did  not  fall  foul  of  the  EU  law  on  the  free  movement  of  goods,  which 
recognised a substantial discretion for Member States to protect their national treasures ([87]-[94]). 
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/1822.html  
Leave to appeal was given and the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in 2020: 
https://www.blackstonechambers.com/documents/883/R_Simonis_v_Arts_Council_England.docx 
An application was then made to the Supreme Court but that too was rejected: 
http://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/permission-to-appeal-2021-01-2021-02.pdf (see page 3). 

6 

 
 
                                                 
are  accompanied  by  age  and  value  thresholds.  In  general,  it  is  considered  that  Annex  I 
provides an adequate framework.  

With regard to  understanding the exact  scope of the categories listed in  Annex  I, particular 
difficulties with uniform reading by Member States have been identified in this consultation 
round – as have been in previous reports - with certain types of cultural goods: 

  ancient coins;  
 
 
  whether  the  listing  of  certain  types  of  goods  in  category  15.a  is  exhaustive  or 

the coverage of collections of items as opposed to single specimens in category 13.b;  
the classification of liturgical icons as paintings or as parts of monuments16;  

 

indicative; 
the  matching  of  a  specific  category  with  the  appropriate  tariff  classification  (CN 
code).  

The  Commission  services  have  consistently  promoted  dialogue  and  exchange  of  opinions 
among the Member States on those issues, including within the Project Group ‘Interpretation 
of Categories’ composed by Member States representatives (from 2013 to 2017), which was 
tasked  with  compiling  the  prevailing  opinions  on  how  to  read  the  different  categories  of 
cultural goods and has identified the main differences between Member States on the above 
issues.  

It should be also noted that, in particular with regard to the classification of liturgical icons, 
the clarifications brought by the new Regulation (EU) No 2019/880 on the import of cultural 
goods  are  expected  to  settle  the  matter  (liturgical  icons  and  statues  are  parts  of  religious 
monuments).  

With  regard  to  matching  a  specific  category  of  cultural  goods  with  the  appropriate  tariff 
classification, there seem to be two kinds of problems.  

The first concerns cultural goods which are classified under Chapter 97 of the EU Combined 
Nomenclature.  That  Chapter  contains  very  few  subdivisions  and  lumps  together  under  the 
same  tariff  heading  several  distinct  categories  of  cultural  goods.  This  makes  difficult  to 
determine the applicable tariff code in each case and, therefore, the category  under which a 
cultural  good  should  be  classified  for  the  purposes  of  the  Regulation  and/or  the  tariff 
classification under which it should be declared at customs. The World Customs Organisation 
(WCO)  which  is  in  charge  of  tariff  nomenclature  at  international  level,  has  recently 
announced  the  intention  to  create  more  subdivisions  for  Chapter  97  and  this  will  hopefully 
resolve the issue. 

Another  problem  results  from  the  periodic  amendments  of  the  Harmonised  Commodity 
Description  and  Coding  System  (the  ‘HS’)  –  on  which  the  EU  Combined  Nomenclature  is 
based - at international level. Since the Regulation entered into force in 1993, there have been 
many successive amendments of the HS and, as a result, certain tariff codes that are listed in 
Annex I to the Regulation have been modified in the meantime and it is sometimes difficult, 
depending  only  on  the  category  description  given  in  that  annex,  to  find  which  is  the 
appropriate one for a given category of cultural goods. 

16 The  main practical difference is that paintings (category  3) has a  value  threshold of 150,000 euro,  whereas 
parts of monuments (category 2) would require an export licence regardless of market value. It should be noted 
however that, in particular with regard to the classification of liturgical icons, the clarifications brought by the 
new Regulation (EU) No 2019/880 on the import of cultural goods are expected to settle the matter (liturgical 
icons and statues are parts of religious monuments). 

7 

 
 
                                                 
With  regard  to  producing  guidelines  for  the  interpretation  of  categories,  even  if  such 
guidelines were agreed by the Member States  – which has not always been the case – they 
would  still  not  be  legally  binding  and  therefore  they  would  not  be  able  to  provide  legal 
certainty  to  stakeholders.  Only  the  European  Court  of  Justice  can  interpret  EU  law  and,  as 
previously  mentioned,  the  Court  has  not  had  the  opportunity  so  far  to  rule  on  any  of  those 
questions.  That  been  said,  the  considerable  amount  of  work  carried  out  by  the  Group 
‘Interpretation  of  Categories’  could  still  be  of  use,  according  to  Member  States,  e.g.  its 
analysis  and  conclusions  could  be  taken  into  consideration  in  a  future  revision  of  the 
Regulation and its Annex I.  

4.3 Age thresholds  

The  age  thresholds  set  by  the  Regulation  for  certain  categories  of  cultural  goods  are 
considered adequate by the majority of the Member States.  

A  few  Member  States  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  age  thresholds  are  too  high  to  cover  and 
protect  the  entirety  of  the  objects  which  are  designated  as  ‘national  treasures’  within  their 
own territory. On the other hand, certain other Member States consider the age thresholds too 
low,  especially  for  the  categories  without  a  value  threshold  (e.g.  archives;  manuscripts), 
where  customs  and  competent  authorities  may  be  called  to  handle  massive  numbers  of 
serially-produced, contemporary objects which, although technically within the scope of the 
Regulation  and  therefore  subject  to  licencing,  they  would  not  be  generally  perceived  as 
“important for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science”17. 

In the absence of a definition of cultural goods in the Regulation – such as the one provided 
for  in  Article  1  of  the  1970  UNESCO  Convention  –  any  object  which  fulfils  the  technical 
criteria of age and/or value, regardless of whether it has an actual cultural significance, may 
fall within the scope of the Regulation and must be issued an export licence to exit lawfully 
the Union territory.   

4.4 Financial thresholds 

With regard to the value thresholds for cultural goods set out in Annex I.B to the Regulation, 
these  are  considered  rather  high  by  a  significant  number  of  Member  States,  while  a  small 
minority of Member States consider that they should be further raised.  

One Member State – in favour of increasing the value thresholds in Annex I.B – pointed out 
that  the  minimum  values  have  not  been  revised  since  the  original  Regulation  was  adopted 
(apart  from  the  addition  of  a  separate  monetary  threshold  for  watercolours,  gouaches  and 
pastels in 1996) and suggested that they should be reviewed on the basis of Article 10(2), 2nd 
subparagraph, in order to take account of inflation.  

Other  Member  States  –  in  favour  of  decreasing  the  thresholds  –  recommend  the  use  of  an 
adjustment  mechanism,  to  take  into  account  monetary  fluctuations,  and  a  ‘country 
coefficient’,  in  order  to  take  into  consideration  the  differences  between  Member  States  art 
market selling prices. As one of these Member States points out, numerous objects which are 
exhibited  and  form  part  of  permanent  collections  in  their  museums  would  not  come  within 
the scope of the Regulation solely because of its high value thresholds - in spite of the fact 
that  the  objects  in  question  are  clearly  designated  as  national  treasures  with  historical  and 
cultural significance.  

17 Definition of cultural property in the 1970 UNESCO Convention, Article 1. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
4.5 Standard export licence figures  

The  number  of  standard  licences  issued  by  Member  States  during  the  period  2018  to  2020 
was 44,138 (see also Table 1 in annex for yearly data).  

Standard licences by Member State 2018-2020 

Others Member 
States
1048
2%

NL
875
2%

BE
873
2%

UK
20750
47%

DE
3686
8%

ES
5717
13%

FR
7895
18%

PT
1363
3%

AT
1931
5%

In descending order, the main categories for which licence applications were received during 
the  reporting  period  were:  works  of  art  (paintings,  mosaics,  watercolours  and  gouaches, 
engravings,  sculptures),  archaeological  goods  (mostly  temporary  export  for  exhibitions); 
incunabula,  manuscripts  and  maps;  objects  of  numismatic  interest  (coins),  followed  by 
various  types  of  antiques  of  category  15  such  as  jewellery,  musical  instruments,  furniture, 
clocks,  arms,  toys,  carpets,  etc.  (mostly  for  definitive  export).  Several  Member  States 
reported  a  significant  drop  in  the  number  of  exports  for  certain  categories  (e.g.  paintings) 
during  the  year  2020,  which  they  attribute  to  the  Covid-19  pandemic.  However,  according 
again  to  Member  States,  significant  increase  was  observed  in  the  number  of  national  (‘free 
movement’)  licences  during  the  same  period  which  indicates  an  increase  in  demand  within 
the Union market.  

4.6 Specific and general open licences  

Specific open licences may be issued for a specific cultural good temporarily exported on a 
regular  basis  by  a  private  person  (Art.  10  of  the  Implementing  Regulation).  During  the 
period 2018-2020, the number of specific open licences issued was 3,828 (see also Table 2 in 
annex for yearly data). About half of the Member States report that they do not provide for 

9 

 
 
 
the  issue  of  such  licences.  The  Member  States  which  issue  specific  open  licences  do  so 
mostly  for  musical  instruments  exported  for  artistic  performances  or  for  antique  means  of 
transport exported for exhibitions.  

Apart  from  two  Member  States,  all  the  others  have  issued  relatively  low  numbers  of  such 
licences within the reporting period.  

Specific Open Licences in circulation by Member State 2018 – 2020 

PL
36
1%

UK
310
8%

Other Member 
States
10
0%

NL
1124
30%

DE
2348
61%

The  maximum  period  of  validity  of  specific  open  licences  is  set  by  the  Implementing 
Regulation  at five  years. The majority of the Member States who issue such licences apply 
that  limit;  however,  some  exceptions  exist  where  the  maximum  length  of  validity  is  either 
unspecified  or  shorter  (1-3  years).  During  the  validity  period,  the  repeated  export  of  the 
objects concerned is allowed. 

General  open  licences  (Art.  13  of  the  Implementing  Regulation)  allow  for  the  temporary 
export on a regular basis of cultural goods by museums and similar institutions. During the 
period 2018-2020 the number of general open licences issued was 1,727 (see also Table 3 in 
annex  for  yearly  data).  The  maximum  period  of  validity  of  such  licences  is  also  set  at  five 
years. The majority of the Member States which issue such licences apply a shorter limit. The 
length generally depends on the insurance coverage or the needs for the loan or exhibition. 

10 

 
 
 
 
General Open Licences in circulation by Member State 2018-2020 

SI
113
7%

PL
31
2%

SE
26
1%

Other Member 
States
37
2%

DK
150
9%

ES
575
33%

DE
795
46%

4.7 Exemption from the export licence requirement  

This exemption, based on Article 2(2) of the Regulation, allows Member States not to require 
an export licence for items of category 1, 1st and 2nd indents, when such items are considered 
of limited archaeological or scientific interest.  

In previous reporting periods, only one Member State had reported that they had made use of 
this provision. However, during the present reporting period, two  additional Member States 
reported that they have exempted archaeological objects of limited interest from the licencing 
requirement. It appears that the criterion employed to determine ‘limited interest’ is based on 
the  type  of  items,  in  particular,  whether  they  are  objects  which  were  produced  in  great 
numbers  in  the  past  and  are  quasi-identical  (e.g.  ancient  coins)  or  whether  they  are  items 
which have been ‘in display’ for many years and, therefore, they can no longer be considered 
to be ‘the direct product of excavations’.    

4.8 Reasons for rejecting a licence application  

As in previous reporting periods, cases of rejection of an export licence application are quite 
rare.  With  the  exception  of  the  United  Kingdom  which  represents  two  thirds  of  the  EU  art 
market  and  which  reported  14  rejections,  the  majority  of  the  other  Member  States  have 
rejected  on  average  less  than  one  application/year  of  the  reporting  period.  Several  Member 
States report that they have not rejected any applications during the reporting period and two 
Member States even report that they have never rejected a licence application.  

11 

 
 
 
As  for  the  grounds  on  which  applications  were  rejected,  apart  from  the  designation  of  the 
object  as  a  national  treasure  the  export  of  which  is  prohibited,  the  grounds  more  often 
invoked  are  that  the  operator  did  not  submit  the  application  to  the  correct  Member  State 
competent  authority;  that  the  applicant  refused  or  otherwise  failed  to  provide  the  requested 
licit provenance information; that the object is a fake; that the object does not fall within the 
scope  of  the  Regulation;  or  that  the  applicant  failed  to  obtain  the  required  national  free-
movement licence.   

With regard to the last grounds for rejection, certain Member States legislation requires that, 
additionally  to  the  EU  export  licence,  an  exporter  needs  also  to  obtain  a  national  ‘free-
movement’ licence, which authorises the exit of the cultural good from the national territory. 
In  the  case  of  certain  Member  States  laws  which  provide  for  national  ‘free-movement’ 
licences,  the  EU  export  licence  must  be  applied  for,  either  simultaneously  or  within  a  set 
amount of time after the national ‘free-movement’ licence is issued, i.e. obtaining a national 
licence is a precondition and the basis for granting the EU export licence.  

4.9 Licence issues  

Photographs.  The  inclusion  of  photographs  in  the  licence  application  is  a  very  important 
element,  as it allows to  identify the object  by customs when controlling the export licence. 
All Member States require photographs when it comes to definitive exports, with particular 
emphasis  on  the  export  of  collections  covered  under  a  single  licence.  Some  exceptions  are 
made  by  certain  Member  States  in  cases  of  temporary  exportation  or  low  value/interest 
objects (e.g. collections of books or objects lacking identifiable markings).  

Return of Sheet N° 3. The Implementing Regulation provides in its Article 5 that Sheet N° 
318 of the export licence form should be returned by the customs office of exit to the issuing 
competent authority to confirm that the export has indeed taken place and that the licence was 
used. However, Member States report that this is not done in all cases.  

Only  two  Member  States  which  have  developed  and  are  using  an  electronic  system  for 
issuing export licences can verify whether all the licences have been used, as their system is 
connected  to  customs.  Even  in  these  cases,  the  verification  is  difficult  when  the  cultural 
goods exit the Union via the territory of a different Member State. The use of a centralised e-
licencing  system  with  interface  to  customs  IT  systems  -  such  as  the  one  currently  in 
development  for  the  purposes  of  the  Import  Regulation  -  is  generally  seen  by  the  Member 
States as the ideal solution to this problem.  

4.10 Cancellation or revocation of licences  

About half of the Member States have legislation providing for the revocation or cancellation 
of licences after they have been issued, either by specific provisions related to cultural goods 
or  on  the  basis  of  general  administrative  law  which  calls  for  the  revocation  of  an 
administrative act when it is based on misleading or false information.  During the reporting 
period,  only  one  Member  State  has  revoked  export  licences  (one).  Another  Member  State 
reported  that  they  have  revoked  13  national  ‘free-movement’  licences,  which  are  a 
precondition in that Member State for granting an EU export licence. 

18 The form comprises three sheets : No 1 constitutes the application, No 2 is for the holder of the licence and 
No 3 is to be returned to the issuing authority, once the cultural good has exited the Union.  

12 

 
 
                                                 
 
4.11 Use of electronic systems/databases 

As stated above (see Section 3.1), the Commission services are in the process of developing a 
centralised  electronic  system  for  the  accomplishment  of  formalities  and  for  administrative 
cooperation in the context of Regulation 2019/880, the so-called ‘ICG system’ for the import 
of  cultural  goods.  As  this  system  is  expected  to  facilitate  controls  and  contribute  to 
combatting  illicit  trade  in  cultural  goods  originating  in  third  countries,  it  was  deemed 
appropriate that the same effort should be made  and an equal protection should be afforded 
for cultural goods of European origin. The Commission services took therefore care to design 
the  ICG  system  in  such  a  way  that  it  may  be  also  used  in  the  future  –  with  the  necessary 
adaptations – for the purposes of the Union export licencing system. 

A  growing  number  of  Member  States  have  digitalised  or  are  currently  in  the  process  of 
digitalising  their  export  licencing  system.  In  certain  Member  States  the  application  can  be 
filled in and submitted electronically (e.g. by filling in an active PDF file online) but then the 
export licence itself  is  still  signed and issued on paper. This  is  due to  the provisions of the 
implementing act, which imposes the use of a paper licence. 

In  this  context  it  has  to  be  noted  also  that,  national  legislation  in  several  Member  States, 
currently  provides  for  the  right  of  citizens  to  be  able  to  submit  applications  to  public 
authorities in a digital format, online. This concerns all types of applications - not only those 
related  to  the  export  of  cultural  goods  -  and  creates  the  corresponding  obligation  for  the 
administration to develop the appropriate IT platforms and systems in order to digitalise their 
procedures  and  to  be  able  to  receive  electronic  applications  from  applicant  citizens. 
Consequently,  several  Member  States  have  developed  such  national  electronic  systems,  to 
handle  both  Union  export  licences  and  national  free  movement  licences,  i.e.  licences  for 
intra-Union movement of cultural goods. 

The benefits of a digital EU system for export licences are numerous, as well as self-evident: 
better cooperation and communication between customs and cultural competent authorities at 
national and also at Union level; better monitoring of the use of licences, especially when the 
customs office of exit is in a different Member State than the one which issued the licence; 
interface to customs IT systems via the European Single Window environment for customs; 
trade  facilitation  for  exporters;  greater  uniformity  in  implementing  the  Regulation;  faster 
accomplishment  of  formalities  in  a  paperless  environment  and  effective  prevention  of 
forgeries  -  to  name  but  a  few,  so  the  vast  majority  of  the  Member  States  are  strongly  in 
favour  of  digitalisation.  Two  Member  States  however  have  expressed  certain  concerns 
regarding  the  use  of  a  centralised  electronic  system  of  the  same  type  as  the  one  that  is 
currently being developed for the purposes of import. 

Specifically,  the  Member  States  in  question  have  pointed  out  that  the  national  systems  or 
databases they are currently using are adapted to  their specificities, in particular when their 
legislation  provides  for  national  licences  that  must  be  obtained  additionally  to  the  Union 
export licence or when the national licence is a precondition for the issue of the Union export 
licence.  Additionally,  in  view  of  the  investment  made,  it  might  seem  counter-productive  to 
completely scrap their national systems to replace them by a centralised EU system. 

For this reason, the Commission services launched a feasibility study which will analyse and 
examine  -  among  other  digitalisation  aspects  -  the  business  case  of  developing  a  ‘hybrid’ 
extension of the ICG system for export purposes, which would centralise the functionalities 
that provide the advantages of digitalisation, while leaving other elements that are better dealt 
at Member State level to the national systems (with possibility to interface). 

13 

 
 
The  digitalisation  of  the  export  licences  system  will  require  an  amendment  of  the 
Regulation’s  implementing  provisions  (Regulation  (EU)  1081/2012).  The  same  instrument 
should  also  determine  the  relation  between  export  and  import  licences,  in  order  to  ensure 
legal certainty and avoid duplication of documentary requirements19.  

4.12 Material and human resources  

The  needs  in  personnel  and  resources  for  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  have 
remained  stable  in  the  majority  of  the  Member  States  during  the  reporting  period.  In  three 
Member  States  human  resources  have  increased  in  response  to  increasing  policy  and 
administrative needs and in another two Member States needs have increased but they are yet 
unmatched  by  hiring  the  necessary  resources  (one  of  these  Member  States  referred  to  the 
Covid-19 pandemic as  being  the reason for  the delay in  hiring additional  personnel). Three 
Member  States  reported  that  their  needs  have  decreased  because  of  lower  export  licences 
numbers (Covid-19 was stated again as the cause of the decrease). 

5.  CONCLUSIONS AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES 

Based on the feedback received from Member States for the reporting period 2018-2020, the 
Regulation seems to be performing well in terms of achieving its objectives and is perceived 
by them as a very important legal instrument for combatting the illicit trade in cultural goods.  

As  was  the  case  in  previous  reports,  the  administrative  co-operation  and  communication 
between the authorities in charge of applying the Regulation across the Union is identified as 
one of the main aspects where implementation can be improved.  

The differences in understanding certain provisions of the Regulation and, in particular, the 
scope of categories of cultural goods and the key term of [where the goods are] ‘definitively 
located’ – which determines which Member State has competence to issue the export licence 
- are also identified as possible obstacles to the uniform implementation of the Regulation.  

Several Member States also point out that the value thresholds are not well adapted to local 
prices  and  markets  and,  by  being  too  high,  they  exclude  from  the  scope  and  the  protection 
offered  by  the  Regulation  many  cultural  objects  which  are  designated  by  their  laws  as 
national treasures. 

Finally, Member States reaffirmed their willingness to move from a system of paper export 
licences to an electronic, paperless system. They consider that the digitalisation of the export 
licences  will  facilitate  the  accomplishment  of  formalities  by  operators;  will  speed  up  the 
treatment  of  applications;  improve  the  verification  of  provenance  by  competent  authorities; 
and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of customs controls. 

19  In  fact,  in  two  Member  States,  national  import  licences  or  certificates  can  be  granted  on  request  (for 
temporary imports), so importers of cultural goods would be exempted from having to obtain and present an EU 
export licence at customs when the goods in question are returning to the third country of origin. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.  ANNEXES 

Table 1. Standard Licences issued by Member States 

Member 
State 

Year 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2018 - 2020 

Share of total in 
% 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT (1) 

CY 

LV 

LT (2) 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

Total 

(1)  

340 

0 

12 

59 

1368 

0 

16 

0 

1694 

3064 

19 

67 

2 

0 

6 

4 

0 

368 

858 

58 

385 

0 

16 

11 

7 

134 

8351 

16839 

352 

1 

96 

61 

1387 

0 

17 

0 

1838 

2990 

9 

99 

5 

1 

3 

9 

19 

289 

702 

9 

396 

0 

16 

12 

1 

70 

181 

0 

2 

24 

931 

0 

11 

0 

2185 

1841 

14 

87 

2 

0 

1 

1 

7 

218 

371 

2 

582 

0 

20 

5 

0 

33 

8177 

16559 

4222 

10740 

873 

1 

110 

144 

3686 

0 

44 

0 

5717 

7895 

42 

253 

9 

1 

10 

14 

26 

875 

1931 

69 

1363 

0 

52 

28 

8 

237 

20750 

44138 

1,98% 

0,00% 

0,25% 

0,33% 

8,35% 

0,00% 

0,10% 

0,00% 

12,95% 

17,89% 

0,10% 

0,57% 

0,02% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,02% 

0,03% 

0,06% 

1,98% 

4,37% 

0,16% 

3,09% 

0,00% 

0,12% 

0,06% 

0,02% 

0,54% 

47,01% 

100,00% 

2018 

2019 

Permanent export licences 64 
Temporary export licences 3 

Permanent export licences 94 
Temporary export licences 5 

2020 
Permanent export licences 85 
Temporary export licences 2 

(2) No statistical data provided 

15 

 
 
  
  
  
 
Table 2. Specific Open Licences in circulation 

Member 
State 

Year 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2018 - 2020 

Share of total in 
% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

555 

965 

828 

2348 

61,34% 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT (1) 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

Total 

(1) No statistical data provided 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

336 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

0 

146 

1047 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1124 

1 

36 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

310 

3828 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,18% 

0,03% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

29,36% 

0,03% 

0,94% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,03% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

8,10% 

100,00% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

394 

1 

15 

0 

0 

1 

0 

- 

0 

22 

1264 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

394 

0 

15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

0 

142 

1517 

16 

 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Table 3. General Open Licences in circulation 

Member 
State 

Year 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2018 - 2020 

Share of total in 
% 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT (1) 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

0 

4 

0 

50 

228 

0 

0 

2 

233 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

14 

0 

0 

0 

12 

0 

0 

38 

0 

0 

9 

0 

0 

1 

0 

50 

286 

0 

0 

10 

252 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

11 

0 

0 

38 

0 

0 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

50 

281 

0 

0 

2 

90 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

37 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

5 

0 

150 

795 

0 

0 

14 

575 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 

0 

0 

0 

31 

0 

0 

113 

0 

0 

26 

0 

0,00% 

0,29% 

0,00% 

8,69% 

46,03% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,81% 

33,29% 

0,00% 

0,17% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,87% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

1,80% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

6,54% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

1,51% 

0,00% 

Total 

593 

658 

476 

1727 

100,00% 

(1) No statistical data provided 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4. Applications for Standard Licences refused 

Member 
State 

Year 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2018 - 2020 

Share of total in 
% 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT (1) 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

82 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

50 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0,46% 

0,00% 

0,69% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

72 

116 

270 

61,93% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

41 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

42 

2 

1 

3 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

133 

30,50% 

4 

1 

5 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0,92% 

0,23% 

1,15% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,46% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

0,00% 

16 
436 

3,67% 
100,00% 

Total 

144 

125 

167 

(1) No statistical data provided 

18 

 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
Table 5. Infringement/non-compliance cases 

Year 

Number of MS with seizures 

Total infringement cases 

2018 (1) 

2019 (2) 

2020 (2) 

Total 

(1) 1 Member State did not provide data 
(2) 2 Member States did not provide data 

12 

12 

8 

117 

84 

52 

253 

19