EU Regulation 2019/880 on the importation of cultural goods – The EU Commission Q&A Part 2

In this blog, we address some of the issues raised by the 43 questions and answers in the first part of the Q&A.

As our loyal readers will know by now, the gates are closing on the unregulated importation of cultural property into the European Union. With Regulation (EU) 2019/880 (the “Regulation”) and its Implementing Regulation 2021/1079 (the “Implementing Regulation”) set to come into full force on 28 June 2025, the EU is ushering in a new era of digital oversight and historical accountability. These twin Regulations aim to curb the influx of looted or illicitly exported cultural objects.

As a quick reminder, Regulation 2019/880 introduced a structured classification system that divides cultural goods into three categories set out in Parts A, B, and C of the Annexe of the Regulation. Each category corresponds to a different regulatory treatment, and understanding the differences between the categories is essential for compliance.

All goods listed under Part A (which includes Part B and Part C goods) are subject to the “general prohibition” laid down in Article 3. Essentially, the Regulation’s general prohibition provides that, if these goods were unlawfully exported from their country of origin, no introduction is permitted into the EU. If they find themselves in the EU, they are liable to be confiscated.

Lawfully exported goods are free to enter the Union.  However, there is a process to import cultural goods falling within the categories set out in Parts B and C:

• Items under Part B will require an import licence;
• Those falling within Part C will necessitate an importer statement.

The General Prohibition has applied since 28 December 2020. The obligation to obtain an import licence or submit an importer statement will become applicable from 28 June 2025.

Thus, with full enforcement of Regulation 2019/880 forthcoming, anyone intending to import a Benin bronze, a Qing dynasty vase, or a carved Māori figure (i.e. cultural goods not originating from the EU) into the Union should brace themselves for a compliance process as layered as the object’s history.  

The General Prohibition

Under Article 3 of the Regulation, the introduction of goods which are listed in Part A of the Regulation’s Annex is prohibited if those goods were illicitly removed from the country where they were created or discovered.

The general prohibition does not merely prohibit the “importation” of these goods but goes further and forbids their “introduction” into the European Union.  According to the European Commission, “introduction” is to be understood as “the physical entry, by any means, of a cultural good into the Union customs territory. In particular, the term introduction would cover goods in transit through the Union’s territory”.

“Introduction” also includes “import” which indicates the release of cultural goods for free circulation or the placing of cultural goods under the special customs procedures of storage (comprising storage in customs warehouses and free zones), specific use (comprising temporary admission and end-use) and inward processing.

In short, “introduction” covers any physical entry into the EU.

If EU competent authorities (Customs, Ministry of Culture or government body responsible for vetting applications to export the goods) suspect that any of the goods listed in Part A of the Annex were illicitly exported from their country of origin, they may order seizure, and potentially confiscation if the evidence shows that they were illegally exported. 

The burden of proof of legal export from the third country is always borne by the importer. So, it is the importer’s duty to verify that the object they intend to bring into the Union was lawfully exported.

This is why it is important to get it right. The looming “general prohibition” acts as a bogeyman of sorts, scaring art market participants and threatening to seize cultural goods without proper paperwork.

We commented in our first blog on the Q&A on the absurdity of the general prohibition applying to cultural property lawfully imported in the EU because the importer adduced evidence of lawful export from the last country where it was located for at least 5 years.  You may have a valid EU import license, or you may have the evidence to justify filing a legitimate EU importer statement, yet the cultural object may fall foul of the general prohibition and could be confiscated.  This is highly unsatisfactory, but for now, we are stuck with it.

The Licence vs. The Statement: Know Thy Burden.

Cultural goods falling under Part B (such as archaeological objects over 250 years old or architectural fragments removed from their original context) require an import licence.

Cultural goods listed in Part C (generally objects more than 200 years old and valued above €18,000) are subject to a lighter compliance burden. An importer statement must be submitted through the ICG system (see below), attesting that the goods were lawfully exported.

In both cases, evidence must be obtained that the object was lawfully exported from its so-called “country of interest”. While the “country of origin” refers to the place where the object was created or discovered, the “country of interest” is a broader concept and may be either:

• The country of origin; or,
• Where that cannot be satisfactorily established or the object left before 24 April 1972, the last country in which the object was lawfully and continuously held for more than five years (excluding transit, temporary storage, or re-export).

Regulation 2019/880 mandates that applicants provide evidence proving the cultural good’s lawful export from the country of interest. At a minimum, this typically includes an export certificate and photographs of the item. However, the Regulation casts a wide net in what it considers acceptable proof of lawful export, allowing for a broad spectrum of supplementary documentation.

Such documents include sales invoices, customs records, insurance papers, expert appraisals, and transport documentation. The goal is to present a coherent and persuasive picture that the item was lawfully removed.  For owners of cultural property, this will transform import preparation into a form of regulatory archaeology, forcing them to piece together a paper trail from multiple jurisdictions and sources (to the extent they are available).

In the Q&A, the Commission indicates that “the last country where the cultural good was located for more than 5 years’ does not necessarily have to be a third country, it can also be a Member State”.

Classification and TARIC Codes.

Before introducing/importing cultural goods into the European Union, art market participants should weigh the risks. Could the goods be seized under the general prohibition if they were unlawfully exported? If the answer is no, do you need to apply for an import license or importer statement? This depends on whether the goods fall within one of the Part B or Part C categories.

If it doesn’t fall within one of these categories, there is no need to apply at all.

But are you sure it isn’t caught by Part B or Part C? Does it fall under both Part B and Part C? Classification of cultural goods is not a trivial task. It requires both legal understanding and practical familiarity with the object in question. Cultural goods often resist tidy categorisation, and the line between categories can be blurry.

In the Q&A, the Commission notes that if the object can be correctly classified in one or more categories of Part B and Part C, then the importer must apply for an import licence, except in the case of “ancient coins”, where they have the possibility to choose between  category (c) “products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of archaeological discoveries on land or underwater” (a Part B category; requiring an import licence) and category (e) “antiquities, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals” (a Part C category; requiring an importer statement).

The category “(e) antiquities” was a concern because the category in other languages of the Regulation was described as, for example, “objet d’antiquité” or “oggetti di antichità” which has a broader meaning than “antiquity” in English.  In the Q&A, the Commission notes that “antiquities, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals” refer to “antiquities of relatively small size, which might have been produced in great numbers in the past and which may have very similar appearance, e.g. it could be very difficult to distinguish one silver denarius minted during the reign of the same Roman emperor from another or one ancient Egyptian scarab seal from another”. In other words, “antiquities, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals” is a special category of antiquities for which only an importer statement can be filed, as opposed to other “antiquities” that require an import license.

As a side note, the EU’s TARIC codes are set to be updated to align with the Regulation. These codes, part of the EU’s integrated tariff system, are essential for categorising goods during the import process. For cultural goods, specific TARIC codes are set to be introduced to align with the Regulation’s classification under Parts B and C. Legal practitioners and importers should therefore stay updated on code rollouts via national customs portals and, where needed, seek advice from customs consultants or legal experts.

The Online Platform – from bovine animals to cultural property

One of the most important features of the Regulation is the development of a centralised electronic system (the ‘ICG system’) for the storage and exchange of information between the Member State authorities in charge of implementing the Regulation, and the online accomplishment of formalities by operators, namely the online submission of applications for import licences to the competent authority and the issue of those licences, and the submission of importer statements by operators to EU customs.

To operationalise the new license/statement regulatory framework, the EU will use an existing electronic platform called TRACES.  This is the European Commission's online platform for animal and plant health certification required for the importation of animals, food and feed of non-animal origin and plants into the EU.  Already used to import meat of bovine animals, for example, it will now be used to import cultural property.

The ICG will be a module of TRACES, and the sole point of contact between importers and competent authorities. The system is expected to go live no later than 28 June 2025, at which point compliance will become mandatory.

No interaction with the ICG will be possible without an EORI (Economic Operators Registration and Identification) number. This identifier is required for any individual or entity wishing to import cultural goods into the Union, regardless of the size or value of the transaction. Fortunately, obtaining an EORI number is a relatively straightforward process. Most applications take approximately 15 minutes to complete, and the EORI is typically issued on the same day.

As for the online procedure for submitting an importer statement or applying for an import license, it appears relatively simple, yet it entails assembling a fair amount of paperwork beforehand.

The import license application process through the ICG shall be a dialogue with the national competent authority, and it will follow a defined sequence.

First, the importer must identify the country of interest.

Secondly, the cultural property must be described. This includes the object type, materials, techniques used, title (if known), subject matter, maker (or “unknown”), historical origin, and a concise narrative description. Dating conventions vary depending on whether the object falls under Part B or Part C, with more precise dating required for the latter. Applicants must also disclose the object’s customs value and provide high-quality photographs; multiple angles, distinguishing features, marks, inscriptions, and any notable dimensions must all be recorded.

Thirdly, the importer must include their personal or corporate information: name, address, ISO country code, and EORI number.

Finally, a legal declaration must be signed under penalty of law, affirming that the information is truthful and that the item was exported in accordance with the laws of the country of interest.

The holder of the goods then submits the application, including supporting documentation.

The competent authority reviews the application and may request additional information. If they do, the applicant has 40 days to respond, and the review clock resets upon resubmission. Once the application is complete, the competent authority has 90 days to reach a decision.

The absence of a decision within that timeframe may, depending on national law, amount to either an implicit rejection or approval.

The submission of an importer statement on the ICG does not entail delays, like the import license. The importer statement will consist of a declaration and a standardised description of the object and does not require document uploads. Nevertheless, the importer must have evidence of lawful export readily available should it be requested by the competent authority. Penalties for false declarations (for example, declaring lawful export with no basis) can be substantial and vary depending on the member state.

Licence Transferability

One question that often arises in the context of import licences is whether they are transferable. Can a licence granted to one individual or entity be used if the cultural good changes ownership before it reaches EU customs?

There are two narrow scenarios where reference to a previous licence may be possible. First, if a cultural good was previously imported into the Union under a valid licence, later exported, and is now returning, a new applicant may cite the earlier licence, provided they can demonstrate that the object is the same (typically with photographs and documentation) and that it left the EU after the original licence was granted. This may simplify the new application, but it does not eliminate the need to submit one.

In contrast, if person A obtains a licence and then sells the object to person B before the item is imported, the Commission recommends applying for a separate license to avoid any confusion as to who is liable for the declarations made.  The Commission’s logic is clear: responsibility for the accuracy of the information and the consequences of any false statements should lie with the actual importer. If ownership changes, the new holder should submit a fresh application using the same supporting documents, and it would likely be granted without issue.