Shuttered Building Carica 15, São Paulo Downtown, Brazil, photo Wilfredor, 14 May 2016, CCA-SA 4.0 international license. On June 28, 2025, the EU will enact a sweeping cultural import regime under Regulation 2019/880 that demands impossible documentation for decades-old, lawfully traded antiquities—threatening to paralyze the European art market under the guise of anti-trafficking reform. By shifting the burden of proof entirely onto importers and imposing personal liability, the regulation weaponizes bureaucracy against legitimate cultural exchange, dismantling a centuries-old tradition of collecting and scholarship.
In just two weeks, the European Union will bring into full force Regulation (EU) 2019/880 on the import of cultural goods, accompanied by its Implementing Regulation 2021/1079. Together, these regulations will usher in an unprecedented customs regime controlling the lawful import of non-EU origin cultural goods, reshaping the European market for global ancient and ethnographic art.
Though presented as a tool to combat trafficking and terrorism financing, the likely effects of the regulation point to a much broader transformation—one that will curtail legitimate trade, sow confusion among market participants, and strain regulatory systems across Europe. Rather than combating illicit trafficking, Regulation 2019/880 is poised to cripple the legitimate European antiquities market. Many cultural objects in lawful circulation for decades lack the newly mandated documentation because export systems rarely existed in source countries, even after they were proposed in the 1970 UNESCO Convention. As proof of legal export was not required in the past for lawful circulation of art between nations, if such documentation did exist, it is unlikely to have been preserved for 30, 40, or 50 years.
Graffiti door closed Greece, credit www.Pixel.la Free Stock Photos, 29 September 2014, CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
The predictable result of requiring documentation that does not now and probably never existed will be to shrink the European market to objects already in the EU. It will make a legitimate transnational trade in antiques, antiquities, and manuscripts impractical if not impossible, will restrict cultural exchange and will make the preservation of diverse heritage in European collections far more difficult.
Implementing regulation 2021/1079 establishes the processes through which Regulation 2019/880 will be applied. It introduces a licensing system for Category B goods, which include archaeological objects over 250 years old, and a standardized importer statement requirement for Category C goods, covering non-archaeological cultural goods over 200 years old valued above €18,000. Both processes will operate through the new ICG electronic system.
There are limited exceptions built into the system for returned goods, items at risk, and objects intended for fairs or academic use. However, any object imported for a fair would have to complete the full import process if it was sold and retained in the EU.
A major legal innovation is the imposition of personal liability on importers. Applicants for both licenses and importer statements must sign a formal declaration assuming full responsibility for the truthfulness of all statements provided (Article 8(1)(a) of the Implementing Regulation). The burden of proof rests entirely with the importer, who must demonstrate that the object was exported in accordance with the laws of the source country—or, if no such laws existed at the time, prove the absence of those laws.
The documentation required to comply is extensive. To obtain a license for Category B goods, importers must compile full files, including export permits where available, customs records, sales invoices, shipping documents, titles of ownership, catalog entries, and photographs. For Category C importer statements, a due diligence declaration is also required, with the understanding that customs authorities may request additional documents at any time.
A specific provision applies to objects where the country of origin is uncertain or where the object left the origin country before April 24, 1972. In such cases, lawful export from the last country in which the object was continuously held for more than five years may suffice—but only under narrowly defined circumstances – and with a risk that the object may be seized later under a conflicting provision of the law.
The Import Process Under the Regulation
The import process involves a series of careful, legally informed decisions. Importers must carefully assess the legal requirements and potential risks. Determining whether the object is prohibited, classifying the object accurately, and selecting and filing the correct documentation —each step has challenges due to ambiguous classifications, language differences, and legal nuances.
There are three general categories of cultural goods:
- Part A goods are subject to the general prohibition against introduction if they were illicitly exported.
- Part B goods require an import license.
- Part C goods require an importer statement.
The general prohibition set out in Article 3 is sweeping in scope. It prohibits not merely the importation but the “introduction” of illicitly exported cultural goods into EU territory. This term covers physical entry into customs territory, including transit or storage. Goods suspected of illicit export may be seized and ultimately confiscated, and the burden of proving lawful export lies entirely with the importer.
Door closed, Bucharest, photo Rhys Sherring, 6 May 2015, CCA 3.0 license.
If the goods are not prohibited under Article 3, the next step is to determine whether an import license or an importer statement is required. This depends on whether the goods fall within Part B or Part C of the Regulation’s Annex:
Goods not classified under Part B or Part C require no further application. They can be imported without additional documentation. However, confirming whether or not goods fall under Part B or Part C is often not straightforward. Classification of cultural goods is a complex process, demanding both expertise to interpret the Regulation, and knowledge of the specific object.
Many cultural goods do not fit neatly into a single category and boundaries between categories are often unclear, making classification a significant challenge.
One notable complexity involves the classification of ancient coins and other small ancient objects produced in large lots. According to the European Commission’s guidance (Q&A):
Coins may potentially be classified under:
- Part B, category (c): “products of archaeological excavations or discoveries,” requiring an import license, OR
- Part C, category (e): “antiquities, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals,” requiring only an importer statement.
Importers are instructed to choose the more appropriate category based on the object’s characteristics and provenance.
A further challenge of interpretation arises with the wording of category (e) “antiquities.” Perhaps influenced by broader connotations of the meaning of “antiquities” in French or Italian, the European Commission stated that category (e) refers specifically to small, mass-produced antiquities, such as Roman silver coins or ancient Egyptian scarab seals, objects that are common and very similar to type. Only a similarly narrow class of small objects can be imported with an importer statement; all other antiquities require an import license.
For other Part C goods—generally objects over 200 years old and valued above €18,000—importers must submit an importer statement, again via the ICG system. Though this process is procedurally far simpler than licensing, importers remain legally responsible for maintaining complete records and are subject to post-import audits that might reclassify the objects.
The ICG System
The new ICG system will serve as the central online platform for license and statement submissions, built upon the existing TRACES system used for import certification of goods, including agricultural products. All importers must obtain an EORI number to access the system. This EORI importer identification number is simple and quick to obtain.
Completing the application requires inputting specific information on the “cultural good.” The first step is to identify the “country of interest.” The “country of interest” is either the country of origin (where the object was created or discovered), or—if that cannot be established or the object left the origin country before April 24, 1972—the last country where the object was legally and continuously held for more than five years.
Closed door, Taormina, Sicily, photo Esin Üstün, 20 April 2014, CCA 2.0 Generic license.
Then the importer must describe the object in detail, its material composition, the techniques used to make it, its dimensions, its subject, its author and title if known, and its history. The importer must also provide quality photographs and identify any marks or inscriptions if present – and of course, its value for customs.
For import license applications, the national authorities (normally Customs but some countries or situations may also require review by a cultural ministry) must review submissions and may request further documentation. If an application is incomplete, the importer has forty days to respond. National authorities then have ninety days to decide whether to approve or reject the application.
For importer statements, the process is faster and simpler, but importers remain obligated to maintain full supporting documentation and are subject to inspection. The importer must swear that the information provided is the truth – and that the object was lawfully exported under the laws of the “country of interest.” Penalties for false declarations vary by country but can include significant fines and criminal liability.
Import licenses are not transferable if the ownership of the object changes prior to import. In such cases, the new holder must submit a fresh application.
Problems and Legal Risks
Several serious problems and risks have been identified in the structure and anticipated application of the regulation:
Liability for unknowns. Importers must swear to their statements and bear full liability for proving lawful export. For many legitimate antiquities, provenance records are incomplete or non-existent, particularly for objects exported decades ago from countries without formal export regimes.
The high level of liability for making a false statement – when often, little is known of the history of an object – may deter many potential importers. Importers face criminal penalties for false statements, with potential fines, seizure of goods, and even imprisonment.
Ambiguous categories. Classifying objects into Part B or Part C categories can be complex and ambiguous. Many objects, such as ancient coins, may straddle categories, increasing the risk of misclassification and subsequent liability.
The General Prohibition “Catch-22.” Even if an importer holds a valid license or submits a compliant statement, the object may still be seized under Article 3 if the country of origin challenges the original export. This creates a scenario where compliance does not guarantee protection from seizure.
There is significant ambiguity on how the five-year holding rule applies. This alternative import process can be used only if the country of origin cannot be clearly determined, and if the object left that country prior to April 24, 1972. If the origin is known and export occurred after that date, lawful export from the origin country must be proven— often an impossible task.
[See Conflict Between Article 3 (General Prohibition) and Article 4(4) (Pre-1972 Exports) — Regulation (EU) 2019/880 appended below.]
Street art on the door of a closed shop on Brick Lane, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, photo Robert Lamb, August 26, 2017, CCA-SA 2.0 license.
The regulation demands detailed provenance data, yet General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) privacy laws may restrict disclosure of prior ownership records, especially for private sales. (The European Commission has stated that the law allows for GDPR restricted information to be submitted and used for verification purposes under the regulation. However, where GDPR compliance under earlier transactions has left gaps in the provenance, there is no way to resolve this.
Member State authorities are expected to face processing bottlenecks due to the volume and complexity of applications. The EU Parliament’s initial estimate of the number of objects that would require the more complex import processes was absurdly low – some 30 items a year! Further, without fully harmonized procedures across the EU, enforcement will likely vary from country to country.
In his incisive analysis of the European Commission’s Q&A on Regulation (EU) 2019/880, “EU Regulation 2019/880 on the importation of cultural goods – The EU Commission Q&A (Part 2),” legal expert Pierre Valentin raises serious concerns about how the European Commission’s recent Q&A guidance on Regulation (EU) 2019/880 will function in practice, especially in light of the hypothetical case scenarios presented.
The treatment of the General Prohibition and the 5-year derogation creates a logical and legal contradiction that leaves importers legally exposed even when they comply with the derogation—an outcome Valentin describes as “beyond absurd.” The classification rules in the Regulation are unclear and inconsistently applied, particularly regarding objects of “artistic interest.” Without clearer guidance, importers face arbitrary compliance risks and legal uncertainty.
In sum, Valentin’s analysis highlights that despite its good intentions, the European Commission’s Q&A guidance reveals deep structural flaws in the practical operation of Regulation 2019/880. Rather than providing legal certainty, the current framework creates confusing obligations, conflicting rules, and significant commercial risks for the legitimate art and antiquities market. The full impact on the European art market remains to be seen, but a profound shift is clearly underway.
ADDENDUM
Conflict Between Article 3 (General Prohibition) and Article 4(4) (Pre-1972 Exports) — Regulation (EU) 2019/880
The issue is whether Regulation (EU) 2019/880 permits the lawful import into the EU of cultural goods that were exported from their country of origin prior to 24 April 1972, when the five-year holding rule is met — and whether such imports remain vulnerable to seizure under Article 3’s General Prohibition.
- Article 3 of the Regulation imposes a General Prohibition on the introduction of Part A cultural goods “removed from the territory of the country where they were created or discovered in breach of the laws and regulations of that country.” No date limitation is specified.
- Article 4(4) explicitly allows importers to rely on a derogation for certain goods:
“Where the country of origin of the cultural goods cannot be reliably determined, or where such goods were exported from their country of origin before 24 April 1972, the importer may instead demonstrate that those goods were lawfully exported from the last country where they were located for a period of more than five years.”
- The European Commission’s April 2025 Q&A (Scenario 1, Q6) states that:
“In the context of the general prohibition rule, the only reference to determine legal provenance would be the country of creation and/or discovery […] the exemption […] only applies in the context of import licence applications. If that country cannot be reliably determined, the legal export from there cannot be determined either, and the French authorities may prohibit out of caution the introduction of the object into the Union.”
Article 4(4) clearly provides that cultural goods exported before 24 April 1972 may be imported under the Regulation, provided they meet the five-year lawful holding rule. This provision reflects the drafters’ intent to permit import of certain older objects that predate modern cultural property regimes.
Article 3 contains no corresponding exception for pre-1972 exports. Its reference to “breach of the laws and regulations of that country” could encompass retroactive ownership laws from many source countries — potentially reaching back before 1972. Thus, even if an object is imported in full compliance with Article 4(4), Customs authorities could invoke Article 3 to seize it post-import.
The Commission’s Q&A compounds this risk by asserting that the 5-year derogation only applies during the license application stage and provides no protection once the object is physically in the EU. This contradicts the apparent intent of Article 4(4) and undermines legal certainty.
As observed by legal expert Pierre Valentin (Fieldfisher), this situation creates a paradox:
“The Regulation gives with one hand and takes away with the other.”
Importers may rely on Article 4(4) to obtain a license or file an importer statement yet still face seizure of the object under Article 3 once it enters the EU.”
Pierre Valentin,“EU Regulation 2019/880 on the importation of cultural goods – The EU Commission Q&A (Part 2)” Fieldfisher (3 June 2025)
Under current drafting and guidance, Regulation (EU) 2019/880 permits pre-1972 exports to be imported under Article 4(4) — but the lack of a corresponding exception in Article 3 exposes such imports to post-import seizure. The European Commission’s April 2025 Q&A reinforces this risk, leaving importers in a state of legal uncertainty even when fully compliant.
SELECTED SOURCES
Antiquities Coalition, #CultureUnderThreat: Recommendations for the U.S. Government, 6 (Apr. 2016)
Antiquities Dealers Association, Unesco Marks 50th Anniversary Of 1970 Cultural Heritage Convention With Fake Campaign (Dec 2021)
Anna Brady, About to throw a wrench in the market: a legal expert’s view on upcoming changes to EU import law, The Art Newspaper (3 June 2025).
Anna M. de Jong, The Cultural Goods Import Regime of Regulation (EU) 2019/880: Four Potential Pitfalls, Santander Art and Culture Law Review 2/2021 (7): 31-50.
Kate Fitz Gibbon, Katherine Brennan, Bearing False Witness: The Media, ISIS and Antiquities, Art and Heritage Law Report, Committee for Cultural Policy (December 2017)
Kate Fitz Gibbon, RAND Corp Report Demolishes Assumptions on Antiquities and Terror, Cultural Property News (July 30 2020)
Deborah Lehr, Middle East Institute, Stolen Heritage: Cultural Racketeering in Egypt, YouTube (April 24, 2014)
Ivan Maquisten, No EU problem with terrorist antiquities, so let’s legislate for it, Cultural Property News, (Sep 21 2017)
Matthew Sargent, James V. Marrone, Alexandra Evans, Bilyana Lilly, Erik Nemeth, Stephen Dalzel, Tracking and Disrupting the Illicit Antiquities Trade with Open-Source Data, RAND Corporation, (2020)
Tom Seymour, The EU law that’s threatening to up-end the antiquities market,
Financial Times Ben Taub, The Real Value of the ISIS Antiquities Trade, The New Yorker, (Dec 4 2015)
Pierre Valentin,EU Regulation 2019/880 on the importation of cultural goods – The EU Commission Q&A (Part 2) Fieldfisher (June 3 2025).
Pierre Valentin,EU Regulation 2019/880 on the importation of cultural goods – The EU Commission Q&A (Part 1) Fieldfisher (April 4 2025).
