In accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 93/7/EEC, the Commission presents its fourth report on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. The report covers the period 2008-2011.

The Commission recalls that the third report indicated that cooperation and exchange of information between Member States could be improved still further. Member States considered that the lack of use made of the Directive (with regard to both administrative cooperation and proceedings before the national courts) was due to its limited scope and the restrictive conditions imposed on initiating return proceedings.

Application of the Directive during the period 2008-2011: the national reports noted certain points.

1) The infrequent application of the Directive : Member States ascribed this to the limitations of legal scope, in particular the categories defined in its Annex, and on the short period of time allowed to bring return proceedings and the difficulty in ensuring uniform application by national judges of Article 9 concerning compensation for the possessor in the event that the object is returned. In addition, some Member States mentioned the financial costs associated with return proceedings, or the difficulties in identifying the competent court in another Member State.

2) Progressive improvement in administrative cooperation and exchange of information between the central authorities of Member States, which should be continued for better implementation of the Directive.

3) The need to revise the Directive : Member States are in support of revising the current provisions, using the proposals of the "Return of Cultural Goods" working group which reported in 2011.

Evaluation of the application of the Directive : the Commission lists in the report the cases where the Directive has been applied but notes that the information may be incomplete.

The most frequent acts of administrative cooperation carried out by national authorities relate to the search for a cultural object that has been unlawfully removed from their territory, or notification of the discovery of such an object. Several Member States highlight the limitations of the Directive as regards securing the return of goods, due, notably, to the financial thresholds that apply to certain national treasures and the one-year time limit for bringing return proceedings. They also point to the difficulty of securing the return of archaeological goods taken from illegal excavations due to the difficulty in proving the object's provenance and/or the date on which it was unlawfully removed (Bulgaria and Italy). The national reports state that administrative cooperation between the central authorities of the Member States has improved, but is still poorly structured and faces problems relating to language barriers. The reports also identify shortcomings in the exchange of information between the authorities concerned, which reduce efficiency.

The Commission notes that the process of revising Directive 93/7/EEC was started in 2009, with the public consultation completed in March 2012, and that it is also looking at how to improve implementation of the Directive.

This is the third report from the Commission reviewing the application of Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. It covers the period 2004-2007.

Council Directive 93/7/EEC introduced mechanisms for cooperation between the national authorities and a legal procedure for the return of cultural objects taken unlawfully from the territory of a Member State. Pursuant to the EC Treaty, Member States retain the right to define cultural goods which they consider to be national treasures and to take measures to protect them. Directive 93/7/EEC is therefore a measure to support the internal market with the aim of reconciling the operation of the internal market with a guarantee for the Member States that their cultural objects with the status of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value will be protected.

In line with the conclusions of the last two assessment reports, most of the Member States take the view that the Directive is a useful tool for the recovery of certain cultural objects removed unlawfully from the territory of a Member State, and for protecting heritage. These Member States acknowledge that the Directive has a preventive effect and discourages the unlawful removal of objects. However, the Member States regret that the Directive has certain restrictions, such as the one-year deadline for initiating recovery proceedings.

Regarding administrative cooperation and the exchange of information on the Directive, the Commission has seen an improvement both within and between the Member States. However, it has noted some shortcomings, on the one hand in the collection and exchange of information between the authorities responsible for implementing the Directive and the other national authorities responsible for protecting cultural objects and, on the other hand, between the various national authorities responsible for the Directive. The Commission therefore suggests that the Member States take the necessary action to improve cooperation between the various national authorities. In order to support them, the Commission will update the guidelines on administrative cooperation and publish lists of the national authorities responsible for implementing the Directive. To this end, the Commission would emphasise the Member States' obligation to notify it every time the national authority designated changes so that the list published in the Official Journal of the European Union can be updated.

Regarding actions for recovery , the Commission notes that the small number of proceedings launched could also be the result of successful administrative cooperation and, in particular, of negotiations for amicable out-of-court settlements. However, there is a consensus among the Member States that the current one-year deadline is too short, rendering the Directive less effective, and that is should be extended. On the other hand, there is no similar consensus regarding other proposals for amending the Directive, for example the addition of other categories of goods to the list in the Annex, or the amendment of the financial thresholds.

Next step : the Commission takes the view that the amendment of the Directive should be considered. It is of the opinion that any proposal to amend the Directive should be analysed in depth by the national authorities responsible for implementing the Directive with regard to its impact. Accordingly, the Commission will suggest to the Committee on the Export and Return of Cultural Goods that an ad hoc working group be created under its auspices in 2009. The role of this group will be to identify problems associated with the application of the Directive and to suggest solutions which are effective and acceptable to all the Member States with a view to possibly amending the Directive.