CINOA Perspectives
Printed from www.CINOA.org

Perspectives

2021 04 20 CINOA submission to the EC Have Your Say consultation on draft Implementing Rules of Import of Cultural Goods

CINOA Position paper on the proposed implementation rules for the Import of Cultural Goods (ICG) into the EU regulation (EU) 2019/880

Submission for EC Have Your Say on ICG -April 20, 2021

As we were only given four weeks to provide comments to this proposal, despite continuous requests for information during the drafting of these rules, we do not feel that we had adequate time to study the complicated implementation of this regulation which could have far reaching consequences for the art and antiquities market in the EU.
CINOA’s preliminary analysis of the proposed detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Import of Cultural Goods (ICG) Regulation (EU) 2019/880 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the introduction of the regulations reveals that the legality of some of the rules may be questionable. Many of the rules are unnecessary complicated, burdensome, and disproportionate for the majority of ordinary cultural goods that are traded legally and unworkable unless modified. The rules will limit the circulation of cultural property that has been legally owned for decades or even centuries, without succeeding in its prime objective of combatting terrorist financing.

We have some concerns about the overall scope of the proposed implementation of the regulation and how it compares and if it is compatible with other legislation, particularly the Export Licence Regulation (EU) 116/2009 which is considerably simpler, and the simplicity of which it should mirror. It would now be more complicated to import cultural goods than to export them.
We believe that there are legal problems inherent in Regulation (EU) 2019/880 stemming from the requirements to know third countries’ export laws, (not just their current laws, but those in existence during all periods in history when cultural property was created) if citizens are not provided an opportunity to consult a code or official journal, in the official languages of the member states, to inform them whether their actions are compliant with the law. The nulla poena sine lege scripta principle has not been followed; Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2019/880 requires holders of goods to provide “evidence of the absence of such laws” without being provided access or tools to obtain the information. It is an arbitrary law since a citizen cannot readily know whether they are in breach of it or not. From a human rights perspective, how can it be ..TO READ MORE, DOWNLOAD OUR DOCUMENT HERE

Back to All Perspectives