A collection of dealers and professional bodies have come together to push against a new European Union regulation that comes into force in June 2025 and will significantly tighten controls on the flow of cultural goods into the EU.
Concerns over the practicality and harmful impacts of the measures, which will prohibit the introduction of cultural goods that have been illegally exported from a “third country”into the EU, were flagged at a media conference held by The Syndicat National des Antiquaires in late February, at the Pagoda of Paris. A panel at this month’s TEFAF (its High Expert Dialogue, which tackles a specific challenge facing the art world, annually) also raised concerns.
“The fundamental principle behind the regulation is that cultural property illegally exported from a third country should not be allowed into the EU. In theory, this is a laudable principle,” noted art lawyer Pierre Valentin, in a LinkedIn article published late last year. “In practice, establishing the legality of an export that may have occurred centuries ago could be an evidential nightmare for collectors.”
Rules will apply to anyone who owns or purchases “non-European art” (for example pre-Columbian art, Chinese art, or tribal art) outside the EU. They will be obliged to obtain an import license based on heightened due diligence requirements. A new centralised electronic system is being designed to support the measurements’ rollout, which is planned for June 2025. Two categories of cultural goods will be created; high risk, primarily covering artefacts from archaeological excavations, and low risk, covering a broad of objects that are more than 200 years old and have a minimum value of €18,000, including ethnological interest, paintings, prints, sculptures and coins.
“Legitimate art dealers, museums and traders who have already been practicing due diligence should not need to worry about extra compliance burdens. They should already be aware and complying with those countries’ laws and regulations on the export of cultural property,” says an EU official. The official adds that: “The new law should also change attitudes among buyers, who will learn to expect some form of documentation providing information on the provenance and guaranteeing the legitimate character of the goods, thereby improving the market standing of law-abiding traders.”
Critics argue that the regulations could severely disrupt imports for temporary exhibitions and fairs, potentially conferring an unfair advantage on non-EU markets and “infringing” upon EU citizens‘ rights. They also challenge the proportionality of the measures and criticise the lack of clarity in their application.
The UK, having previously legislated the regulations [EU (Reg) 2019/880] in April 2019, has opted not to implement the new EU stipulations post-Brexit, instead choosing to maintain its existing framework that mandates the declaration and taxation of cultural property at customs.
Nevertheless, the new rules will impact specific elements of the UK trade. Notably dealers in works that are more than 200 years old and not originating in the EU will need to ensure they have signed the appropriate legally binding documents affirming provenance. Paul Hewitt, the director general of trade association The Society of London Art Dealers, says: “[Our] members feel that the art market is being becoming more regulated but with suboptimal regulations that are often over complex/unrealistic to enforce.”
The Syndicat National des Antiquaire in Paris also issued an “alert” which argued that the European Commission’s justification for introducing the regulation was predicated on a belief that illicit trade in cultural property was linked to terrorism—a belief that the group argues has now been proven to be flawed.
The EU official, in response, says: “While it is true that the armed conflict in the Middle East and North Africa during the period of 2014-17 and the shocking images of looting and destruction by ISIS and other warring factions provided the political impetus for the adoption of this legislation, its objective is far wider than just combating terrorist financing”. The official adds: “The Commission stands by the estimates contained in its impact assessment supporting the new rules which come from very reputable sources, including world-renowned archaeologists, criminologist reviews and publications and international law enforcement reports. That said, they are estimates. Criminals do not submit tax declarations or balance sheets that make it easy for authorities to come up with statistics.”
Valentin tells The Art Newspaper that “there is still time to engage in a dialogue with the national competent authority (typically the ministry of culture and customs), with the objective of persuading them to apply the regulation flexibly and reasonably.”
