BETA


2017/2023(INI) Cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead JURI SVOBODA Pavel (icon: PPE PPE) ROZIÈRE Virginie (icon: S&D S&D), ZŁOTOWSKI Kosma (icon: ECR ECR), CAVADA Jean-Marie (icon: ALDE ALDE), CHRYSOGONOS Kostas (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), HAUTALA Heidi (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), BERGERON Joëlle (icon: EFDD EFDD), BOUTONNET Marie-Christine (icon: ENF ENF)
Committee Opinion CULT CHOUNTIS Nikolaos (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL) Damian DRĂGHICI (icon: S&D S&D), Santiago FISAS AYXELÀ (icon: PPE PPE), María Teresa GIMÉNEZ BARBAT (icon: ALDE ALDE), Ian HUDGHTON (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2019/05/28
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2019/01/17
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2019/01/17
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 544 votes to 62 with 20 abstentions a resolution on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars. Parliament described cultural heritage as one of the basic elements of civilisation, given, for example, its symbolic value and cultural memory of humankind uniting people . It noted that that the looting of works of art and other cultural goods is a major shared concern that needs to be addressed in terms of both prevention and restitution of looted cultural property. According to the impact assessment of the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the import of cultural goods, 80 to 90 % of global antiquities sales are of goods of illicit origin.

Need for comprehensive listing

Parliament considered that care should obviously be taken to create a comprehensive listing of all cultural objects, including Jewish-owned cultural objects plundered by the Nazis and their allies, from the time of their spoliation to the present day. The Commission was urged to support:

- a cataloguing system , to be used also by public entities and private art collections, to gather data on the situation of looted, stolen or illegally obtained cultural goods and the exact status of existing claims;

- digitisation projects that would establish digital databases or connect existing ones in order to facilitate the exchange of such data and provenance research.

Need for a regulatory framework

Members pointed out that no EU legislation exists that explicitly and comprehensively governs restitution claims for works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts by private individuals. Restitution claims have mainly been addressed by means of public international law. The insufficiently developed dimension of private law, both at international and European level, contributes to legal uncertainty in cross-border restitution, not only as regards completed transactions in Nazi-looted art but also with respect to future cases. Members stressed that in order to set up a comprehensive regulatory framework, private law must be taken into account more intensely. They called on the Commission and the Member States to issue recommendations and guidelines to raise awareness of the need to support national institutions in the Member States as regards restitution claims.

Provenance

Whilst provenance research and European cooperation have proven useful for the identification and subsequent restitution of looted objects, and have in some cases prevented the financing of terrorist groups or wars, Members regretted that due to the absence or differences in rules between Member States concerning provenance research and due diligence, many cross-border restitution claims cannot be carried out in an effective and coordinated way. They asked the Commission, therefore, to harmonise the rules on provenance research and to incorporate some of the basic principles of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. Parliament suggested the development of common principles on access to public or private archives containing information on property identification and location and the creation of a central meta-database that takes account of the available information, is updated regularly and can be accessed by all relevant actors.

Members also advocated:

- special training programmes in provenance research at Union and national level, in order to improve expertise, including through cross-border projects;

- the creation of a documentary record or a transaction register that is as detailed as possible;

- Member States sharing information on existing practices with regard to the provenance check of cultural goods, and intensifying cooperation in order to harmonise the control measures and administrative procedures aimed at establishing the provenance of cultural goods.

Statutes of limitations

Parliament noted that these often create difficulties for claimants in restitution matters, and it called on the Commission to assess the issue and strike the right balance for the limitation period applicable to looted art restitution claims, including Nazi-looted art restitution claims, which should take into account both the protection of the interests of the victims of looting and theft and those of the market. The resolution cites the US Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act as an example.

Other measures

Parliament called on the Commission and Member States to:

- establish reliable statistics on the precise scale of looting of and illicit trade in cultural property;

- identify civil law measures to help overcome the difficult problems encountered by private parties seeking the restitution of works of art genuinely belonging to them, and develop a new debating framework for the identification of best practices and solutions for the present and the future;

- adopt measures aimed at making both the art market and the potential buyers of artefacts aware of the importance of provenance research, given that such research is linked to the due diligence obligation;

- cooperate with third countries with a view to establishing fruitful partnerships, taking into account, to this end, the principles set out in the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects;

- consider establishing a specific alternative dispute resolution mechanism for dealing with cases of restitution claims of looted works of art and cultural goods in order to overcome existing legal obstacles, such as a hybrid form of arbitration and mediation

Lastly, Parliament supported the idea that cross-border restitution procedures, and the active promotion of provenance research, should be addressed in the context of the 2018 European Year of Cultural Heritage initiative.

Documents
2019/01/17
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2018/12/13
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Pavel SVOBODA on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars. The report noted that that the looting of works of art and other cultural goods, during armed conflicts and wars, as well as in times of peace, is a major shared concern that needs to be addressed in terms of both prevention and restitution of looted cultural property. According to the impact assessment of the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the import of cultural goods, 80 to 90 % of global antiquities sales are of goods of illicit origin. Members noted that valuable artworks, sculptures and archaeological artefacts are being sold and imported into the EU from certain non-EU countries, with the profits potentially being used to finance terrorist activities . They felt that it was essential to make a firm commitment against illicit trafficking in cultural goods such as works of art plundered during the armed conflicts and wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq .

Need for a regulatory framework

Members pointed out that no EU legislation exists that explicitly and comprehensively governs restitution claims for works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts by private individuals. Restitution claims have mainly been addressed by means of public international law. The insufficiently developed dimension of private law, both at international and European level, contributes to legal uncertainty in cross-border restitution, not only as regards completed transactions in Nazi-looted art but also with respect to future cases. Members stressed that in order to set up a comprehensive regulatory framework, private law must be taken into account more intensely . They called on the Commission and the Member States to issue recommendations and guidelines to raise awareness of the need to support national institutions in the Member States as regards restitution claims.

Provenance

Whilst provenance research and European cooperation have proven useful for the identification and subsequent restitution of looted objects, and have in some cases prevented the financing of terrorist groups or wars, Members regretted that due to the absence or differences in rules between Member States concerning provenance research and due diligence, many cross-border restitution claims cannot be carried out in an effective and coordinated way. They asked the Commission, therefore, to harmonise the rules on provenance research and to incorporate some of the basic principles of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. The report suggested the development of common principles on access to public or private archives containing information on property identification and location and the creation of a central meta-database that takes account of the available information, is updated regularly and can be accessed by all relevant actors.

Members also advocated:

- special training programmes in provenance research at Union and national level, in order to improve expertise, including through cross-border projects;

- digitisation projects that would establish digital databases or connect existing ones in order to facilitate the exchange of such data and provenance research;

- a comprehensive listing of all cultural objects, including Jewish-owned cultural objects plundered by the Nazis and their allies, from the time of their spoliation to the present day;

- the creation of a documentary record or a transaction register that is as detailed as possible;

- Member States sharing information on existing practices with regard to the provenance check of cultural goods, and intensifying cooperation in order to harmonise the control measures and administrative procedures aimed at establishing the provenance of cultural goods.

Statutes of limitations

The report noted that these often create difficulties for claimants in restitution matters, and it called on the Commission to assess the issue and strike the right balance for the limitation period applicable to looted art restitution claims, including Nazi-looted art restitution claims, which should take into account both the protection of the interests of the victims of looting and theft and those of the market.

The committee also called on the Commission and Member States to:

- establish reliable statistics on the precise scale of looting of and illicit trade in cultural property;

- identify civil law measures to help overcome the difficult problems encountered by private parties seeking the restitution of works of art genuinely belonging to them, and develop a new debating framework for the identification of best practices and solutions for the present and the future;

- adopt measures aimed at making both the art market and the potential buyers of artefacts aware of the importance of provenance research, given that such research is linked to the due diligence obligation;

- cooperate with third countries with a view to establishing fruitful partnerships, taking into account, to this end, the principles set out in the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects;

- consider establishing a specific alternative dispute resolution mechanism for dealing with cases of restitution claims of looted works of art and cultural goods in order to overcome existing legal obstacles, such as a hybrid form of arbitration and mediation

Lastly, the committee supported the idea that cross-border restitution procedures, and the active promotion of provenance research, should be addressed in the context of the 2018 European Year of Cultural Heritage initiative.

Documents
2018/11/20
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2018/11/09
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2018/11/05
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2018/06/28
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/03/16
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2017/03/16
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2017/02/27
   EP - CHOUNTIS Nikolaos (GUE/NGL) appointed as rapporteur in CULT
2016/10/12
   EP - SVOBODA Pavel (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI

Documents

Votes

A8-0465/2018 - Pavel Svoboda - Vote unique

2019/01/17 Outcome: +: 544, -: 62, 0: 20
DE FR IT ES RO BE AT NL EL SE CZ PT HU BG SK PL IE FI HR SI LT LU MT EE LV DK CY GB ??
Total
82
66
52
46
21
20
17
22
16
19
19
14
14
15
13
47
9
9
10
8
9
6
6
5
6
10
4
58
1
icon: PPE PPE
180

Finland PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Latvia PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

1

United Kingdom PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
164

Netherlands S&D

3

Czechia S&D

3

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Croatia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Denmark S&D

2

Cyprus S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
58

Germany ALDE

3

Romania ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Latvia ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
37

Italy GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
31

Germany EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
33

Germany ENF

For (1)

1

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

4
icon: NI NI
14

Germany NI

2

France NI

2

United Kingdom NI

Against (2)

2

NI

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
62
2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Sweden ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

Against (1)

1

Slovakia ECR

Against (1)

3

Finland ECR

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
103 2017/2023(INI)
2018/11/09 JURI 103 amendments...
source: 630.473

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/3/body
EC
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2018-0465&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0465_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2019-0037
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0037_EN.html
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: SVOBODA Pavel date: 2016-10-12T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2016-10-12T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: SVOBODA Pavel group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Culture and Education
committee
CULT
rapporteur
name: CHOUNTIS Nikolaos date: 2017-02-27T00:00:00 group: European United Left - Nordic Green Left abbr: GUE/NGL
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Culture and Education
committee
CULT
date
2017-02-27T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CHOUNTIS Nikolaos group: European United Left - Nordic Green Left abbr: GUE/NGL
activities
  • date: 2017-03-16T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2017-02-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture and Education (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: GUE/NGL name: CHOUNTIS Nikolaos body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: CAVADA Jean-Marie group: GUE/NGL name: CHRYSOGONOS Kostas group: Verts/ALE name: HAUTALA Heidi group: EFD name: BERGERON Joëlle group: ENF name: BOUTONNET Marie-Christine responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2016-10-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel
commission
  • body: EC dg: Education, Youth, Sport and Culture commissioner: NAVRACSICS Tibor
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2016-10-12T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: SVOBODA Pavel group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
CULT
date
2017-02-27T00:00:00
committee_full
Culture and Education (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: GUE/NGL name: CHOUNTIS Nikolaos
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Culture and Education
committee
CULT
date
2017-02-27T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CHOUNTIS Nikolaos group: European United Left - Nordic Green Left abbr: GUE/NGL
committees/1
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
JURI
date
2016-10-12T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel
docs
  • date: 2018-06-28T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE610.922&secondRef=03 title: PE610.922 committee: CULT type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2018-11-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE622.144 title: PE622.144 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2018-11-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.473 title: PE630.473 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2019-05-28T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=31955&j=0&l=en title: SP(2019)355 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2017-03-16T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2017-03-16T00:00:00 type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2018-11-20T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2018-12-13T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2018-0465&language=EN title: A8-0465/2018 summary: The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Pavel SVOBODA on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars. The report noted that that the looting of works of art and other cultural goods, during armed conflicts and wars, as well as in times of peace, is a major shared concern that needs to be addressed in terms of both prevention and restitution of looted cultural property. According to the impact assessment of the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the import of cultural goods, 80 to 90 % of global antiquities sales are of goods of illicit origin. Members noted that valuable artworks, sculptures and archaeological artefacts are being sold and imported into the EU from certain non-EU countries, with the profits potentially being used to finance terrorist activities . They felt that it was essential to make a firm commitment against illicit trafficking in cultural goods such as works of art plundered during the armed conflicts and wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq . Need for a regulatory framework Members pointed out that no EU legislation exists that explicitly and comprehensively governs restitution claims for works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts by private individuals. Restitution claims have mainly been addressed by means of public international law. The insufficiently developed dimension of private law, both at international and European level, contributes to legal uncertainty in cross-border restitution, not only as regards completed transactions in Nazi-looted art but also with respect to future cases. Members stressed that in order to set up a comprehensive regulatory framework, private law must be taken into account more intensely . They called on the Commission and the Member States to issue recommendations and guidelines to raise awareness of the need to support national institutions in the Member States as regards restitution claims. Provenance Whilst provenance research and European cooperation have proven useful for the identification and subsequent restitution of looted objects, and have in some cases prevented the financing of terrorist groups or wars, Members regretted that due to the absence or differences in rules between Member States concerning provenance research and due diligence, many cross-border restitution claims cannot be carried out in an effective and coordinated way. They asked the Commission, therefore, to harmonise the rules on provenance research and to incorporate some of the basic principles of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. The report suggested the development of common principles on access to public or private archives containing information on property identification and location and the creation of a central meta-database that takes account of the available information, is updated regularly and can be accessed by all relevant actors. Members also advocated: - special training programmes in provenance research at Union and national level, in order to improve expertise, including through cross-border projects; - digitisation projects that would establish digital databases or connect existing ones in order to facilitate the exchange of such data and provenance research; - a comprehensive listing of all cultural objects, including Jewish-owned cultural objects plundered by the Nazis and their allies, from the time of their spoliation to the present day; - the creation of a documentary record or a transaction register that is as detailed as possible; - Member States sharing information on existing practices with regard to the provenance check of cultural goods, and intensifying cooperation in order to harmonise the control measures and administrative procedures aimed at establishing the provenance of cultural goods. Statutes of limitations The report noted that these often create difficulties for claimants in restitution matters, and it called on the Commission to assess the issue and strike the right balance for the limitation period applicable to looted art restitution claims, including Nazi-looted art restitution claims, which should take into account both the protection of the interests of the victims of looting and theft and those of the market. The committee also called on the Commission and Member States to: - establish reliable statistics on the precise scale of looting of and illicit trade in cultural property; - identify civil law measures to help overcome the difficult problems encountered by private parties seeking the restitution of works of art genuinely belonging to them, and develop a new debating framework for the identification of best practices and solutions for the present and the future; - adopt measures aimed at making both the art market and the potential buyers of artefacts aware of the importance of provenance research, given that such research is linked to the due diligence obligation; - cooperate with third countries with a view to establishing fruitful partnerships, taking into account, to this end, the principles set out in the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects; - consider establishing a specific alternative dispute resolution mechanism for dealing with cases of restitution claims of looted works of art and cultural goods in order to overcome existing legal obstacles, such as a hybrid form of arbitration and mediation Lastly, the committee supported the idea that cross-border restitution procedures, and the active promotion of provenance research, should be addressed in the context of the 2018 European Year of Cultural Heritage initiative.
  • date: 2019-01-17T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=31955&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2019-01-17T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2019-0037 title: T8-0037/2019 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 544 votes to 62 with 20 abstentions a resolution on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars. Parliament described cultural heritage as one of the basic elements of civilisation, given, for example, its symbolic value and cultural memory of humankind uniting people . It noted that that the looting of works of art and other cultural goods is a major shared concern that needs to be addressed in terms of both prevention and restitution of looted cultural property. According to the impact assessment of the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the import of cultural goods, 80 to 90 % of global antiquities sales are of goods of illicit origin. Need for comprehensive listing Parliament considered that care should obviously be taken to create a comprehensive listing of all cultural objects, including Jewish-owned cultural objects plundered by the Nazis and their allies, from the time of their spoliation to the present day. The Commission was urged to support: - a cataloguing system , to be used also by public entities and private art collections, to gather data on the situation of looted, stolen or illegally obtained cultural goods and the exact status of existing claims; - digitisation projects that would establish digital databases or connect existing ones in order to facilitate the exchange of such data and provenance research. Need for a regulatory framework Members pointed out that no EU legislation exists that explicitly and comprehensively governs restitution claims for works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts by private individuals. Restitution claims have mainly been addressed by means of public international law. The insufficiently developed dimension of private law, both at international and European level, contributes to legal uncertainty in cross-border restitution, not only as regards completed transactions in Nazi-looted art but also with respect to future cases. Members stressed that in order to set up a comprehensive regulatory framework, private law must be taken into account more intensely. They called on the Commission and the Member States to issue recommendations and guidelines to raise awareness of the need to support national institutions in the Member States as regards restitution claims. Provenance Whilst provenance research and European cooperation have proven useful for the identification and subsequent restitution of looted objects, and have in some cases prevented the financing of terrorist groups or wars, Members regretted that due to the absence or differences in rules between Member States concerning provenance research and due diligence, many cross-border restitution claims cannot be carried out in an effective and coordinated way. They asked the Commission, therefore, to harmonise the rules on provenance research and to incorporate some of the basic principles of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. Parliament suggested the development of common principles on access to public or private archives containing information on property identification and location and the creation of a central meta-database that takes account of the available information, is updated regularly and can be accessed by all relevant actors. Members also advocated: - special training programmes in provenance research at Union and national level, in order to improve expertise, including through cross-border projects; - the creation of a documentary record or a transaction register that is as detailed as possible; - Member States sharing information on existing practices with regard to the provenance check of cultural goods, and intensifying cooperation in order to harmonise the control measures and administrative procedures aimed at establishing the provenance of cultural goods. Statutes of limitations Parliament noted that these often create difficulties for claimants in restitution matters, and it called on the Commission to assess the issue and strike the right balance for the limitation period applicable to looted art restitution claims, including Nazi-looted art restitution claims, which should take into account both the protection of the interests of the victims of looting and theft and those of the market. The resolution cites the US Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act as an example. Other measures Parliament called on the Commission and Member States to: - establish reliable statistics on the precise scale of looting of and illicit trade in cultural property; - identify civil law measures to help overcome the difficult problems encountered by private parties seeking the restitution of works of art genuinely belonging to them, and develop a new debating framework for the identification of best practices and solutions for the present and the future; - adopt measures aimed at making both the art market and the potential buyers of artefacts aware of the importance of provenance research, given that such research is linked to the due diligence obligation; - cooperate with third countries with a view to establishing fruitful partnerships, taking into account, to this end, the principles set out in the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects; - consider establishing a specific alternative dispute resolution mechanism for dealing with cases of restitution claims of looted works of art and cultural goods in order to overcome existing legal obstacles, such as a hybrid form of arbitration and mediation Lastly, Parliament supported the idea that cross-border restitution procedures, and the active promotion of provenance research, should be addressed in the context of the 2018 European Year of Cultural Heritage initiative.
  • date: 2019-01-17T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/ title: Education, Youth, Sport and Culture commissioner: NAVRACSICS Tibor
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
JURI/8/09247
New
  • JURI/8/09247
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 52
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Procedure completed
procedure/subject
Old
  • 4.45.06 Heritage and culture protection, movement of works of art
  • 7.40 Judicial cooperation
New
4.45.06
Heritage and culture protection, movement of works of art
7.40
Judicial cooperation
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/5/mepref
Old
53b2d6fbb819f205b0000001
New
53b2d787b819f205b000001d
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/5/name
Old
ADINOLFI Isabella
New
BERGERON Joëlle
committees/1/shadows/5/mepref
Old
53b2d6fbb819f205b0000001
New
53b2d787b819f205b000001d
committees/1/shadows/5/name
Old
ADINOLFI Isabella
New
BERGERON Joëlle
procedure/legal_basis/0
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 046
New
Rules of Procedure EP 52
procedure/reference
Old
2017/2023(INL)
New
2017/2023(INI)
procedure/subtype
Old
Request for legislative proposal
New
Initiative
procedure/type
Old
INL - Legislative initiative procedure
New
INI - Own-initiative procedure
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/6
group
ENF
name
BOUTONNET Marie-Christine
committees/1/shadows/6
group
ENF
name
BOUTONNET Marie-Christine
other/0
body
EC
dg
commissioner
NAVRACSICS Tibor
activities/0
date
2017-03-16T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
JURI/8/09247
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Preparatory phase in Parliament
New
Awaiting committee decision
activities
    committees
    • body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2017-02-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture and Education (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: GUE/NGL name: CHOUNTIS Nikolaos
    • body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: CAVADA Jean-Marie group: GUE/NGL name: CHRYSOGONOS Kostas group: Verts/ALE name: HAUTALA Heidi group: EFD name: ADINOLFI Isabella responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2016-10-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel
    links
    other
      procedure
      reference
      2017/2023(INL)
      title
      Cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars
      legal_basis
      Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 046
      stage_reached
      Preparatory phase in Parliament
      subtype
      Request for legislative proposal
      type
      INL - Legislative initiative procedure
      subject