Starting with a brief account of the general importance ascribed to cultural heritage in European policy making and past initiatives in this field, this article examines the importance and actual role of the European Parliament in initiating and implementing the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018. It  analyses the political reasoning and priorities of the European Parliament with regard to the Year, and concludes with some reflections on the ex-post evaluation of the Year’s achievements and  Parliament’s future priorities pertaining to cultural heritage at the European political level.

Europe’s cultural heritage plays a strategic role in European Union (EU) politics. Heritage is viewed as a shared resource and common good that eventually can produce a broader acceptance of the EU. This article focuses on the exploration of European heritage in the context of the European Heritage Label (EHL), a recent EU heritage action. It first gives an overview of the EHL action and examines the significance attributed to the European dimension of heritage. Next the article discusses the added value of the EHL network of heritage sites for the promotion of European heritage in the context of the European Year of Cultural Heritage (EYCH) 2018. The two initiatives share similar approaches and create opportunities to complement one another. The designation of the EYCH 2018 was an attempt to communicate to a broader European public the understanding that cultural heritage is more than just conservational memory, but also a source of new perspectives for the future. The EHL offers new approaches to heritage that challenge national discourses and exclusionary narratives of belonging. The article concludes that the promotion of European heritage serves the political objectives of European integration and may indeed strengthen a sense of belonging to Europe as a cultural and political community.

Since the beginning of the Iraqi and Syrian conflicts, the illicit trafficking of their cultural property has increased exponentially. Beside States, several international organizations are engaged in the fight against this illicit trafficking, such as the United Nations, UNESCO, and the European Union (EU). According to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, the EU has adopted Council Regulation No. 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq, and Council Regulation No. 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, both of which address issues related to the illicit trafficking of cultural property. Beside these Regulations, the relevant existing EU legal framework comprises some other instruments: some articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the free movement of goods, and Council Regulation No. 116/2009 on the export of cultural goods. Finally, this legal framework is about to be complemented by a new Regulation on the introduction and the import of cultural goods adopted, in first reading, by the EU Parliament on 12 March 2019. The main aim of this article is an analysis of the EU legal framework in order to assess whether it can effectively contribute to the fight against the illicit trafficking in cultural property coming from situations of armed conflicts.

Since 2009 the Eastern Partnership has become an important element of the European Union (EU) external policy. It constitutes an institutionalized forum of cooperation and dialogue between the EU, its Member States, and six states which emerged in the process of dissolution of the Soviet Union: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. It brings a new dimension to the European Neighbourhood Policy, complementing its Northern Dimension and the Union for the Mediterranean. Arguably, its establishment also marks a new dimension of the EU’s international cultural cooperation. Now is a good time to reflect upon and evaluate the decade-long period of operation of the Eastern Partnership initiative. This article addresses the following questions with respect to the Eastern Partnership: What is the nature of the cultural cooperation?; How does it address the cultural heritage objectives of the EU?; and Has the Partnership contributed to the development of the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood?

The struggle to save Hasankeyf from the now imminent flooding in connection with the construction of the hydroelectric dam at Ilisu on the Tigris river in the southeastern part of Turkey has been the subject of international attention for decades. The first part of this paper describes the process with respect to the financing and construction of the dam, examining in particular the lessons learned as to the role of international standards on the protection of cultural heritage in development and their implementation through different actors and processes. The second part discusses the case against Turkey brought by Turkish citizens before the European Court of Human Rights in connection with the construction of the Ilisu dam, highlighting that – despite the outcome of the case – it might still be considered a step forward toward advancing public interest liti- gation for the protection of cultural heritage. Part three offers conclusions.

The Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property (2017) includes relevant provisions on preventive actions to be implemented by States Parties in order to achieve stronger cooperation under the purpose and within the scope of the treaty. This article focuses on the increasing importance of preventive measures for the protection of cultural property against transnational criminality, both at the domestic and international levels. It scrutinizes the most relevant treaty norms related to preventive and other administrative measures (Chapter IV) to be taken by States Parties by coordinating various activities and precautionary mechanisms for the protection of cultural property, in accordance with the ultima ratio principle governing the application of criminal law and criminal sanctions. By adopting and applying risk-preparedness tools, States can focus their efforts in the field of cultural property protection in a most effective and efficient way.

The characteristics of crimes which relate to works of art belong to a kind of “noble” tradition of organized crime, encompassing the high value and extensive “pedigrees” of the stolen objects and even larger incomes and profits from the criminal enterprises. Money gained from the sale of stolen works of art can be used, in addition, for other illegal purposes and actions. This article first analyses the current state of play in the field of art crimes in Slovenia, which has (in terms of protecting works of art as objects of crimes) adopted good legislation, but unfortunately the measures are not fully and properly implemented. Due to this state of affairs, the authors have carried out pilot research about  art crime in Slovenia – research which identifies and examines the problems surrounding art crime and people’s opinion about art culture in Slovenia. The results show that most respondents do not own or possess important and valuable works of art and art culture does not play a significant role in their life. They do not often go to museums, and do not feel any connections to any specific types of artwork, neither in Slovenia nor in the world. On the other hand, they would in any case be very affected if somebody stole their work of art from their home. Besides, respondents said that they would protect and secure works of art using combination of physical and technical measures (respondents have more trust in technical protection measures than in the human factor). The vast majority of respondents would not buy works of art on the black market.

The aim of this article is to offer an introduction to the Russian Federation’s cultural property legislation. More precisely, this article focuses on the civil and criminal law provisions for cultural property acquisition, commerce, and protection. First it offers an overview of the definition of cultural valuables, its status under Russia’s legislation, and its commercial turnover. It explains that cultural valuables constitute “res commercium”, with free commercial circulation within the territory of the State, i.e. it is not “res extra commercium”, albeit its legal status demonstrates it is subject to certain restrictions concerning the import and export of cultural property. It further outlines recent amendments to the Law on the export and import of cultural goods and explores the construction of inheritance funds as a potential option for managing cultural property and art collections. This article also argues that problems presented by the illegal circulation of cultural property are often resolved at the national level and courts play a major role either favouring bona fide purchasers or true owners. Hence the status of bona fide purchaser is addressed herein by way of interpretation of the court practice. Finally, from perspective of criminal law this article explains that Russia – in order to offer a better system for protecting cultural property against destruction and theft – is currently considering ratification of the 2017 Council of Europe’s Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property. The article is based on laws of the Russian Federation as of March 2019.

international conventions clearly establish the rule that misappropriated artefacts should be returned, the situation with respect to losses that predate these conventions is highly fragmented. The question of whose interests are given priority in title disputes that regard such losses – those of the former owner or a new possessor – vary per jurisdiction. Given the fragmented situation, international soft-law instruments promote an ethical approach and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a way of filling this “gap”. A lack of transparent neutral procedures to implement and clarify soft-law norms has proven problematic in this regard. The questions raised in this paper are: why is ADR necessary; and what about guarantees in terms of access to justice in such an “ethical” framework? Two recent initiatives are discussed in this article: the European Parliament resolution of 17 January 2019 on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars; and the newly established Court of  Arbitration for Art in The Hague.

This contribution refers comprehensively to the issues surrounding the legal and practical aspects of the Polish-German relationship in the area of cultural heritage between 1990-2019, taking into account the Second World War trauma which still shapes such mutual relations. The main research problems focused on the contexts of Poland’s and Germany’s policies towards the problems related to cultural heritage. Interestingly, mutual cooperation in many instances takes place regardless of the official political line of a given State and engages non-state institutional subjects on many levels. The point is that Polish-German relations in the area of cultural heritage proceed regardless of the Polish and German official political narratives and claims in the context of the cultural heritage lost and/or not returned during and after the Second World War. Paradoxically, the wider perspective shows that Polish-German relationships in the area of cultural heritage refer currently not only to lost goods but to broader cooperation in many aspects of cultural heritage, such as the preservation of cultural goods, regional cooperation, etc., which is conducted and developed by non-governmental organizations, societies, and foundations (including ordinary people). They seem to have a leading role in the reconciliation processes of the two States.

Cultural heritage protection has risen to the forefront of EU politics and policies in recent years, as a response to its intrinsic value and social benefits. Nonetheless, each Member State has its own legal definitions and approaches to cultural heritage protection, corresponding to their respective historical, social, political, and economic contexts. The principle of subsidiarity also entails a substantial amount of delegation, which means that bureaucratic obstacles are added to functional ones (lack of funds, geographical divides, etc.), which can inhibit the free exchange of information and communication. Accordingly, heritage protection is uneven across the EU not only due to varying conceptions  of what constitutes heritage, but also as to who is considered an appropriate caretaker or stakeholder, and to what extent they should be involved. The present article provides an overview of the ongoing challenges to cultural heritage preservation and presents recommendations for improvement, from a non-EU citizen’s perspective. It focuses on two countries – the UK and Italy – as practical examples, given their wealth of cultural heritage but different approaches to protecting and managing the same. By investigating the results of these approaches from a critical and outside perspective, it is possible to glean what the underlying problems are and how they should be addressed for greater effectiveness.

The involvement of non-state actors in legal regimes concerning the protection of cultural heritage has been identified as a key challenge facing the development of international law in this field. This challenge is intensified when the relevant cultural heritage under consideration takes the form of religious sites whose use by a church community (non-state actor) for the purposes of its religious activities has been impacted upon by circumstances such as war or inter-ethnic conflict resulting in the displacement of that church community. This article contributes to this discussion by reference to a significant non-state actor in the field of religion and global affairs – the Orthodox Church – and specifically by reference to the Church’s heritage in Turkey. After providing the reasons which justify a scholarly legal examination of the Church’s assertion of rights with respect to its heritage in Turkey, as well as an outline of the main measures which have been applied by Turkish authorities to this heritage, the article proceeds to offer a tentative overview and analysis of the relevant legal and policy framework and suggests certain issues requiring further scholarly exploration. It is argued that in addition to providing useful insights about the role of nonstate actors in the cultural heritage field, such further exploration can offer useful insights about a related topic which is currently relatively unexplored by cultural heritage commentators, namely, the post-conflict management of religious sites.