by ADA | Jun 25, 2026 | News |
Antiques Trade Gazette has just published an excellent guide to permissions regarding non-European Union goods returning to the EU with a three-year period.
Following clarification from the European Commission, legal columnist Milton Silverman confirms that these goods do not need an import licence or statement if they have been in free circulation within the EU, are exported from the EU and then return there within a three-year period. Importantly, the item does not have to return to the same person or EU member state from which it was exported.
The article sets out a case study where a Belgian collector who understood the rules came up against a shipper who did not. While the rules may now be clear, ensuring that customs enforcement and others involved along the way are fully conversant with the rules is another matter.
Silverman adds information relating to duty relief and VAT, as well as the rights and process of appeal if customs do not honour the three-year rule.
by ADA | Mar 22, 2026 | Views |
Countless millions are spent investigating cultural property trafficking to little effect
Preventing trafficking in cultural goods is a major preoccupation of the European Union.
It is one of the key objectives of the constantly updating anti-money laundering regulations; it is the main plank of the import licensing regulation introduced last year; and it led to the creation of Germany’s highly restrictive Cultural Property Protection Act in 2016.
Fears of cultural property trafficking, especially within Europe, have resulted in an ongoing series of co-ordinated law enforcement crackdowns across more than 80 countries since 2014, namely: Operations Odysseus (2014), Aureus (2015) Pandoras I, II, III, IV, V and more (2017-), Sardica (2018), and Achei (2019). These all come under the umbrella of the EMPACT initiative (European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats).
Four current projects running for several years and funded by Europe’s Horizon Project to the tune of €18 million follow on from countless others of the same ilk as they investigate the scourge of trafficking. They are Anchise (€4m), Aurora (€3.5m), Enigma (€4m), and Rithms (€5m) plus another €1.5m being assigned.
Their various remits include:
– Developing methods and digital tools for the protection, identification and traceability of cultural goods.
– Protection, tracing, restitution and safeguarding, as well as provenance research.
– The production of evidence-based research to support the deployment of preventative measures against looting and illicit trade of cultural goods.
– Raising awareness, mobilising and further strengthening cooperation among citizens, stakeholders, experts, policy makers and all actors involved.
Plenty of research but nothing to show for it
In Germany from 2015 to 2019, the €1.2m ILLICID Project analysed over 6,100 ancient objects as it attempted to identify the level and patterns of crime and how they might support money laundering and terrorism financing. At no point did its concluding report identify any trafficked goods or any terrorism financing, the prime goal of the whole project.
Now, a project headlined Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society will enjoy another €5 million for ‘capacity building’, ‘evidence and intelligence gathering’, ‘cross domain co-operation’ and ‘consolidated tools and platforms’ – for which read more of the same.
So, with all this time and money spent on assessing the scope, methods and other characteristics of the trafficking of cultural goods in Europe and beyond, how big is the problem and what is this illicit trade worth?
The answer so far is that no one has a clue.
Organisations like UNESCO have tried to get round this in the past by quoting substantial figures (in UNESCO’s case $10 billion annually, first quoted in October 2020) that do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny, and which they have since stopped using, admitting that they had no basis in fact.
In March 2025, The European Commission published its final report under the title Study on measures to increase traceability of cultural goods in the fight against cultural goods trafficking at the Member State level and at the EU level.
It detailed the outcomes of Operations Odysseus, Aureus, Pandora and the rest (costs unknown but certainly in the tens of millions of euros based on minimal available data).
Arrest and seizures but no record of outcomes
Of the operations from 2015-2023, it reported: “These operations seized over 234,000 cultural objects (including small items such as coins), with at least 1,255 investigations initiated and 534 arrests made.”
However, despite these figures, no attempt has been made to measure the effectiveness of these operations. Europol, which helped co-ordinate the operations, has admitted to having no data on how many arrests have led to convictions, nor about how many seized items later had to be returned as licit.
The Commission report also reveals that in at least five of the operations, no data is available relating to the number of investigations launched as a result, and in at least three of them no record is available relating to the number of arrests.
The Commission’s publication of the report in March 2025 coincided with the Antiquities Forum’s launch of a survey of a dozen leading bodies concerned with the issue of cultural heritage crime across the world, from the European Commission itself to the FBI, UNESCO, Europol, Interpol and others. What independently verifiable data did any of them have to demonstrate the level and extent of trafficking, money laundering and terrorism financing using cultural property? Not all of them answered, but those that did provided no data at all.
After so many years of investigations and enforcement operations, what is the problem? Why are Europol and Interpol not tracking outcomes from their operations? With so little hard data to go on, one must ask what the point of these exercises are beyond propaganda and to justify the funding for law enforcement bodies.
Art market risk downgraded by the authorities
Art market representatives at the January 2026 meeting of experts with the European Commission to discuss progress with the import licensing regulation put the question again: what data does the European Union have to show the size and scope of trafficking, as well as the actual value of the illicit market in such objects? This is important bearing in mind the enormous level of resources – including public money – being spent on researching this issue. We await an answer.
After countless investigations, operations and reports over the past 15 years, none of the leading bodies among government, law enforcement and the NGOs can provide any idea whatsoever of the scale of the problem, nor any reliable data beyond the extremely occasional case, which almost never involves the art market. Even where it supposedly does – for example with The Louvre scandal – years after the arrests and claims are made, we still await any concrete result. So what does that tell us?
The European Union continues to fund multiple projects and initiatives to prevent the trafficking and looting of cultural property, primarily through Horizon Europe, the Internal Security Fund (ISF), and direct cooperation with UNESCO. While there is no single, isolated budget line for this, the EU Action Plan (2022–2025) provides a comprehensive framework, with millions allocated to specific research, technological, and law enforcement projects.
Among other recent and current initiatives in addition to those listed above are:
– Specific Horizon 2026 Call: A dedicated call in 2026 for ‘Preventing and fighting illicit trafficking of cultural goods’ – €5 million.
– ARTDETECT, which focuses on cutting-edge technologies like AI and blockchain to detect stolen items. Part of an EU-funded €7.5 million research project via the Horizon programme led by Global technology company Orfium called AIXpert, the ultimate objective is to improve transparency and accountability in artificial intelligence systems across sectors.
– PRISM (2025-2027), which aims to fight trafficking in museums. This is part of a multiple set of distinct EU-funded ‘PRISM’ initiatives, the most recent being a €7.6 million project (PEACEPLUS programme) for manufacturing innovation and another focusing on cultural heritage protection.
– The European Commission has co-delegated €2.8 million to UNESCO for a 36-month project (ending roughly 2025-2026) to fight illicit trafficking of cultural property in the Western Balkans.
In all, current projections account for a total of €22.9 million dedicated to future related initiatives. With the €18 million already accounted for, that’s a total of more than €40 million being funneled into multiple projects essentially doing the same thing. And yet, hard data showing the size, nature and scope of trafficking in cultural property, and its links to terrorism financing, remain all but non-existent.
What are these generous budgets really for?
Is it possible that the funds spent on research into cultural property looting and trafficking are actually greater than the value of the property looted and trafficked globally? Of course we cannot know because despite all the money spent, no one has any idea of what that figure is. What these budgets do ensure, however, is significant funding for academics, technocrats, civil servants and law enforcement as part of the incessant NGO/public policy forum gravy train, with the travelling circus of symposia and forums in plush hotels and conference centres around the globe. Enormous focus is put on process and projects, but precious little on effective outcomes and reliable intelligence. This extraordinarily lavish largesse seems unstoppable. Exactly who is holding those with the purse strings to account as the money disappears over the horizon?
by ADA | Jan 21, 2026 | Views |
Lack of data, high costs, poor resources and risks to human rights continue to blight the mission to trace trafficked cultural property
Study on measures to increase traceability of cultural goods in the fight against cultural goods trafficking at the Member State level and at the EU level (Final report)
This report into what the European Commission believes should be done next to tackle the blight of cultural property trafficking is an eye-opener. It is telling that initial publication should take place just three months before the final enforcement of the previous mass enforcement measure, Reg 2019/880 on import licensing.
Nonetheless, this new report is fascinating because of what it reveals: specifically, the ongoing lack of data despite decades of study and multi-million euro funding for research; and high levels of self-awareness indicating an overwhelming lack of confidence in the viability of what is being proposed here. A continent-wide system linking up all existing databases (and adding new ones where needed) after they have adapted to a single standard could be a very effective means of combatting crime. However, as this 320-page report makes abundantly clear, too many obstacles persist to render this ambition anything but a fantasy.
Essentially the objective of the report is to pave the way for the introduction of a compulsory EU-wide registration and standardised due diligence system for reporting cultural property transactions. The idea is that this would allow national databases to interact with each other to create an EU-wide safety net and monitoring system.
EU-wide standardised network of databases
A continent-wide system linking up all existing databases (and adding new ones where needed) after they have adapted to a single standard could be a very effective means of combatting crime. However, as this 320-page paper makes abundantly clear, too many obstacles persist to render this ambition anything but a fantasy. Here are a few of the issues it raises:
– What would an effective single standard look like?
– Who would decide on what should be included?
– How do you define the parameters of what should be included on the databases?
– How do you get all Member States to comply when only nine of the 27 currently have databases and they are incompatible?
– What value threshold would you introduce if, as stated, the intention is to focus on high value goods (a wise course)? Matching the AML standard, as mooted, would mean €10,000, but that is very low and would risk overwhelming business, customs and possibly the databases themselves.
– Who would have access to the databases bearing in mind the historic protectionism exercised by existing databases? The report acknowledges that they would be ineffective if not publicly accessible.
– How do you persuade Member States to proceed when they have been unwilling so far and would largely have to fund the project themselves and set up support and enforcement teams? Initial estimated costs are €36.8 million, with an extra €383 million to link up Member States effectively.
– Why do we need further regulation when the same objectives are covered by existing measures such as EU Reg 2019/880 on import licensing?
– The report repeatedly emphasises the need for EU standards and human rights to be honoured, yet acknowledges just as repeatedly that what is being proposed risks breaching them.
As revealing is what comes in the preamble, where we discover the following:
– Data is hard to find and reliable data is largely non-existent, but art and antiques are seen as relatively high risk because they can be traded.
– Compliance value thresholds and claims of crime levels rely largely on guesswork.
– Law enforcement and others mostly extrapolate international crime levels from a few individual cases.
– Many of those cases involve art and criminals but not the art market.
– Risk categorisation for Terrorism Financing and Money Laundering are guesswork, with nation states acting on wish lists from law enforcement bodies and the belief that the risk must be high because it involves goods that can be traded.
Art Market input
As explained on page 277 of the report, apart from a few unspecified targeted interviews, consultation on this study with the art market was as follows:
An online survey targeting art market participants was launched in April 2024 and data was exported in July 2024. The survey aimed at gathering information about perceptions of the prevalence of trafficking, transaction recording practices and administrative costs and compliance costs incurred. A total of 32 replies were received from art dealers, galleries, auction houses, antique dealers and gallerists from Austria (1), Belgium (1), Czechia (1), Germany (11), France (2), Portugal (1), Sweden (6), Switzerland (1), the Netherlands (4) and the United Kingdom (3).
by ADA | Jun 26, 2025 | Views |
Supranational authority’s failure to join the European Convention of Human Rights – despite promising to 15 years ago – protects it from legal action by citizens unfairly suffering under import licensing law
Although every member state is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union itself is not.
It committed to joining as long ago as 2010, but concerns arose that submitting itself to the ECHR might cause conflicts between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Joining the ECHR would also lead to fundamental changes to EU powers.
Essentially, as an autonomous body, the EU would be ceding sovereignty to the ECHR, allowing individuals to challenge it legally over human rights in a way that they cannot do now.
While the EU remains committed to joining, 15 years after saying it would, the debate over resolving these conflicts continues.
This is important for those subjected to the EU import licensing regulation for Cultural Goods (2019/880), which comes into full force on June 28.
The fundamental driver for the legislation was the requirement to prevent illicit cultural goods that might have funded terrorism from entering the EU.
Finding evidence of this threat was essential to justifying the regulation under the terms of the European Commission President’s guiding principles for making policy. They stipulated that regulation had to be “targeted, easy to comply with and does not add unnecessary regulatory burdens… we must send a clear signal to citizens that our policies and proposals deliver and make life easier for people and for businesses.”
Ursula von der Leyen also ordered her commissioners to operate a policy of one-in-one-out so that “every legislative proposal creating new burdens” would “relieve people and businesses of an equivalent existing burden at EU level in the same policy area”.
“Proposals must be evidence based, widely consulted upon and subject to an impact assessment reviewed by the independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board. You will ensure that they respect the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity and show the clear benefit of European action.”
So, what happened here?
– No one-in-one-out. In fact, with additional anti-money laundering legislation, it has been at least two in and none out.
– No evidence of terrorism financing could be found, according to the two official reports (Deloitte and Ecorys) ordered by the European Commission.
– Data published by the European Commission to justify the regulation turned out to be wrong.
– The European Parliament concluded that the Impact Assessment conducted to see how the regulation would hit home lacked “sufficient and reliable background evidence” and “robustness and depth” in its analysis, and it dismissed it as “not always entirely convincing”.
– The Regulatory Scrutiny Board was highly critical of the regulation even as it passed it on the second review. Its recommendations were not followed up.
– Few dispute that the regulation will make life for citizens and businesses considerably harder.
Protocol 1. Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, meaning everyone is entitled to own property and have it protected. This right isn’t absolute; it can be limited in certain situations, but any interference must be lawful, serve a legitimate public interest, and be proportionate.
Likewise, Article 17.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”.
So, the ECHR recognises that such interference must be legitimately in the public interest and proportionate. The UDHR says interference must not be arbitrary. ‘Arbitrary’ here means without justification or in a way that is not proportionate.
Now, as the law was introduced to counter the threat of terrorism financing AND no evidence of such terrorism financing was found after extensive official and expert investigation, the measures brought in seem wildly disproportionate.
They:
– Do not make the lives citizens or businesses easier
– Do not honour the one-in-one-out principle
– Arguably breach human rights conventions to which all member states are signatories because they appear to be neither justified nor proportionate, and so could reasonably be termed arbitrary in their interference.
In addition, while they deprive ordinary citizens of fundamental human rights and blight honest business, they are unlikely to have any serious impact on crime, because this crime has not been identified as taking place in the EU, and criminals tend to smuggle illicit material, not submit it to customs. On top of that, other financial crimes such as fraud and money laundering are already addressed through alternative existing legislation.
The next few months will reveal just how damaging the new regulation is. Let’s just hope that dealers, auction houses, collectors and ordinary EU citizens can stay the course while this highly inadvisable experiment continues.
Recent Comments