The aim of the new Directive is to improve the efficiency of mechanisms to secure the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State, on or after 1 January 1993, introduced initially by way of Council Directive 93/7/EEC. Over the years it had been concluded that the application of Council Directive 93/7/EEC had, for a variety of reasons, a limited effect in terms of the actual return of cultural objects. The new Directive attempts to address these deficiencies and introduces substantial changes to the 1993 Directive. In particular, it extends the scope of the Directive to all cultural objects classified or defined as national treasures. It introduces the use of the Internal Market Information System (IMI) for administrative cooperation and exchange of information within national authorities. It extends the time-limit to initiate return proceedings. Finally, it establishes that the burden of proof of due diligence lies with the possessor for the purpose of compensation. The new Directive had much support during the legislative procedure, both in the European Parliament and in the Council. Adopted on 15 May 2014, the Directive was due to be transposed by the Member States by 18 December 2015. It now remains to be seen whether the new rules are applied in practice and will bring about the expected results.

This article deals with the implementation 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 in France. The implementing act was adopted in February 2015 with general consensus amongst members of Parliament that it was necessary to improve the protection of cultural heritage within Europe (loi n° 2015 – 195, 20 February 2015). By contrast, the relevant sections of the code that require implementing regulation, such as the use of the Internal Market Information System (“IMI”) have not yet been adopted. The 2015 Act amended the relevant sections of the Cultural Heritage Code to include the new dispositions of the 2014 Directive, mostly word by word. Those sections, in their original drafting, implemented the 1993 Directive on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State which was inspired by both the 1970 UNESCO and 1995 UNIDROIT Conventions. This article successively examines three questions with the aim to assess the impact of the 2014 Directive on the protection of cultural objects in France: 1) it analyses to what extent the implementation of the 2014 Directive has improved the protection of French cultural objects; 2) it presents cases of restitution by France to other State Members as well as to countries outside the European Union; 3) it assesses the wider impact of the 2014 Directive on French civil law and cultural heritage law, in particular, the fundamental change caused by the requirement of due diligence on the presumption of good faith in favour of a good faith purchaser.

Greece takes a strong stance towards the protection of cultural heritage and the return of cultural goods to their country of origin. Several cases in recent years have taken place with regard to cultural goods that have been returned from third countries to Greece, and which have left the country in either an illegal or an ambiguous manner. Returns were affected either on the basis of legal proceedings or an amicable resolution. Greece’s role in the EU and international fora has been important for the protection of cultural heritage. Greek law is one of the most comprehensive and protective laws in the area, especially by reason of the fact that the country has occasionally suffered from looting, is rich in cultural treasures and does not always offer adequate means to effectively protect all treasures found in its soil and waters. This article examines the notion of a “cultural object” under Greek law and what constitutes – according to this law – “unlawful removal” from the country’s territory. It also discusses how Greek courts understand the notion of “due care and attention”, according to Article 10 of the Directive 2014/60/EU, and why it is important that in cases where return is ordered, the possessor is the one to demonstrate that s/he exercised due care and attention in acquiring the object in order for her/him to be compensated. Comments are made as to changes that need to be introduced in Greek law by reason of implementing the Directive. Finally, this article discusses future functioning and efficiency of this new EU legal instrument.

Directive 2014/60/EU on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State, which replaced Council Directive 93/7/EEC, was implemented in Italy by legislative decree in January of 2016. This article provides a summary of the key provisions and changes under the recast Directive, an overview of its implementation in Italy, and an analysis of its relationship with the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. The main Italian legislation on the circulation of cultural property is also examined in order to provide a critical analysis of the problems concerning its consistency with the corresponding international and EU rules.

This article analyses the new German cultural property law in the context of EU law and the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the protection of cultural property. The analysis starts by looking at the circumstances that led to the 2016 reform of Germany’s cultural property law. It then widens the perspective by looking at the overall legal framework of the Single European Market (SEM) in the context of the free movement of goods and the protection of cultural property. Both, the new Directive 2014/60/EU on the return of cultural property as well as the EU Regulation 116/2009 on the export of cultural property are scrutinized with a specific focus on their impact in shaping and developing national cultural property law. Specific focus is placed on the divergent notions of “national treasures” and “national patrimony” in Article 36 of the EU Treaty. On the basis of this overall legal framework, the four pillars of the 2016 German cultural property reform are described. The article concludes by showing what is lacking in current EU law: an import regulation for cultural property. Without such an import regulation, the 1970 UNESCO Convention cannot have full effect in the SEM and its EU Member States.

The Implementation Act for Directive 2014/60/EU on the return of cultural objects was published in the “Netherlands Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees” in June 2015. Even though this new instrument represents a considerable enlargement of the protection of cultural heritage in the EU, its implementation has not led to major changes in Dutch legislation. The implementation of the previous Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 already resolved the impasse in the Netherlands over a reasonable balance between the interests of original owners and those of innocent purchasers. With the 1992/93 adjustments to Dutch law the most important steps for accepting the 1970 UNESCO Convention were also taken. The Netherlands’ definition of protected works of art is in accordance with the criteria of a cultural object as stated in Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/60/EU. At the same time, facilitating a greater awareness of due diligence and research into provenance is high on the Dutch agenda, as they are considered important aspects in the fight against illicit trafficking in cultural objects.

This article presents the process of implementing Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council in Austrian law, focusing on a presentation of the solutions set out in the draft act as well as of amendments made in the course of parliamentary proceedings. In particular, the analysis includes: the work record, aims and objective scope of the act, the notion of “unlawful removal of a cultural object”, the ban on imports, legal definitions, the obligations of care and attention, pursuing claims, court jurisdiction, compensation and other claims, and Austria’s claim to return a cultural object. The article concludes that Austria’s interest in combating illegal imports of cultural objects has grown considerably. It seems that the Act as adopted can significantly reduce the illicit trafficking of cultural objects from other states to the territory of Austria. The new solutions, including longer periods for pursuing claims, will allow authorised persons to recover lost cultural objects in more cases.

The process of implementation of the EU cultural goods Directive is more complicated than it would seem prima facie. Member States have been given a large degree of freedom in defining their national treasures, ecclesiastical goods, and public collections. This gives the Member States the opportunity of either narrowing these notions to the most treasured cultural goods, or expanding them to cover almost everything that can be classed as a “heritage item”. Both extremes may lead to unexpected and potentially harmful results. Furthermore, it is the job of the Member States to define procedural rules for internal restitution proceedings, and to establish rules of representation for claims brought before foreign courts. Last but not least, there will be the perennial problem of determining the proper law to rule on the validity of ownership transfers of the returned object. The final outcome of the implementation thus depends largely on lawmakers’ ability to predict the future outcome of proposed solutions, but since law is not an exact science, in the end it will be reduced to the old fashioned “lady or the tiger” dilemma. The purpose of this paper is to show possible ways of avoiding the tiger.

This article aims to present the two main international conventions on the fight against trafficking in cultural property, and show how the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects remedies the main weaknesses of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, while building on its strengths. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, by virtue of its international private law approach to the matter of the illegal trade in stolen or illegally exported goods, has provided the basis for European developments in the field. The international principles already established in the preparatory works to the 1995 Convention are reflected, firstly, in the wording of Council Directive 93/7/EEC, and have been subsequently incorporated into Directive 2014/60/EU. In addition the use of the UNIDROIT Convention has become a benchmark for the evaluation of due diligence.

This article explores the relationship between the regime of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects and the Directive 2014/60/EU from the perspective of the Polish legislative experience. In fact, Poland is just about to ratify the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. Consequently, a two-level system for the protection of movable cultural heritage will be established: the 1995 UNIDROIT and the EU Directive 2014/60. This article critically discusses how such a complex system is going to be introduced to the existing legal framework in the area of cultural heritage. It also endeavours to foresee how both instruments will practically operate together.

This paper discusses the European Directive 2014/60 within a broader regime of international law applicable to claims for the return by states of cultural objects that have been unlawfully removed from the territory of other states. The foundation of this regime is international trade law, based on national import and export controls within a framework established by the 1994 GATT. Claims for the return (and restitution) of objects, after the fact of an international transfer, are based on national laws of cultural patrimony and provisions of international instruments, primarily the 1970 UNESCO and 1995 UNIDROIT Conventions. International human rights law is also important. Article XI of the 1994 GATT, which prohibits quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, would appear to inhibit national controls over trade in cultural objects. But the prohibition is subject to an exception in Article XX for measures imposed on the protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value. This exception is reiterated in Article 36 of the TFEU and Directive 2014/60. It will be apparent that private international law necessarily plays a significant role in governing the transnational movement and return of cultural objects. National export and import laws that pertain to cultural objects vary from non-existent or neglected to highly restrictive and effective. The scope of national compliance with the international regime governing the restitution and return of objects and the requirements of the national administrative processes involved also vary widely. In all, legal pluralism flourishes unsurprisingly, given the complexity of the international regime, inevitable discrepancies among its components, and the multiplicity of actors and political currents in the process of cooperation.

The art market is very important from an economic point of view. It contributes to employment and positively influences adjacent industries. The economic context is particularly meaningful to understanding the relevancy and significance of the cultural market and the need to regulate it accordingly. At the same time, the economic value of art makes it evident why this sector is of interest to criminal and/or terrorist-led organisations. The fight against the illicit global art trade seems to be very difficult given the lack of effective international rules. The aim of this paper is to analyse the effects of the Directive 2014/60/EU on the European and global art markets.

The protection of cultural property from illegal trade practices is an ongoing issue faced by the international community. In an attempt to combat the various problems at the local, domestic, regional and international levels, various organisation have taken steps to curb the illicit trade in cultural property through the implementation of trade restrictions. This article will assess the developments and shortcomings in this area, focusing on the legal frameworks part of the European Union, the Organization of American States and the African Union. The article provides a concise overview of the key initiatives in this area undertaken by these regional organisations and the broader international community, before concluding that the way forward in combating the illegal trade of cultural property is to learn from – and enhance – the methods employed by each respective organisation.

Chapter 4 of the German Cultural Property Protection Act (hereinafter: the “Act” or “CPPA”) contains due diligence obligations of individuals as well as businesses that deal with cultural property. The aim of this contribution is to present the scope and requirements imposed, on whoever purchases or sells art, following the entry into force of the Act. In doing so, this article refers to the European Union Directive which led to the introduction of the new due diligence obligations in German law. The paragraphs of the Act are either introduced verbatim or paraphrased, followed by commentary. Wherever applicable, the arguments put forth by various actors in the art world are presented in order to demonstrate the different arguments from “both sides of the art market isle”.

An analysis of the phenomenon of crimes against cultural heritage may apply various methods for diagnosing the level of actual threats. Arguably, annual studies of examples of crimes involving cultural object(s) allow for the evaluation of tendencies within perpetrators’ actions, and may also help to devise methods to counteract future incidents. Many years of research into crimes against cultural heritage facilitate, in a complimentary way, measuring the level of threat caused by such actions and to minimise the risk of their occurrence. This article is a continuation of the annual cycle of articles published by the “Santander Art and Culture Law Review” aimed at a systematic presentation of the phenomenon of criminality against cultural heritage in Poland. It offers a selection of cases that constitute auxiliary material for the diagnosis of the level of threat for cultural objects within the designated period. Incidents of various criminal acts against cultural heritage are presented in the form of short informative pieces; these include cases of theft, robbery, or the destruction of valuable cultural property.

The aim of this study is to present and critically analyses a new special module of the Internal Market Information System (IMI), designed for the purposes of Directive 2014/60/EU. The module will serve as both a platform for the exchange of information between the Member States of the European Union (EU) and mean for realising the objectives of the Directive 2014/60/EU. First, the study presents the underlying causes and reasons behind the change in rules on the return of cultural objects in the EU, which gave basis for the employing the IMI system for the cultural heritage purposes. Next, it explains legal foundations for the use of this module and discusses the benefits and shortcomings of this new instrument for the protection of cultural heritage from illicit trafficking within the EU. Finally, the study also examines the differences and similarities with other instruments used in the search for cultural objects lost as a result of criminal acts.