The internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). According to Article 36 TFEU, the relevant provisions on free movement of goods do not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit, justified on grounds of the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value.

Under the terms and within the limits of Article 36 TFEU, Member States retain the right to define their national treasures and to take the necessary measures to protect them. Nevertheless, the Union plays a valuable role in encouraging cooperation between Member States with a view to protecting cultural heritage of European significance, to which such national treasures belong.

Directive 93/7/EEC established administrative cooperation between Member States as regards their national treasures, closely linked to their cooperation with Interpol and other competent bodies in the field of stolen works of art and involving, in particular, the recording of lost, stolen or illegally removed cultural objects forming part of their national treasures and their public collections.

The procedure provided for in Directive 93/7/EEC was a first step in establishing cooperation between Member States in this field in the context of the internal market, with the aim of further mutual recognition of relevant national laws.

Regulation (EC) No 116/2009, together with Directive 93/7/EEC, introduced a Union system for the protection of Member States' cultural objects.

The objective of Directive 93/7/EEC was to ensure the physical return of the cultural objects to the Member State from whose territory those objects have been unlawfully removed, irrespective of the property rights applying to such objects. The application of that Directive, however, has shown the limitations of the arrangements for securing the return of such cultural objects. The reports on the application of that Directive have pointed out its infrequent application due in particular to the limitation of its scope, which resulted from the conditions set out in the Annex to that Directive, the short period of time allowed to initiate return proceedings and the costs associated with return proceedings.

The scope of this Directive should be extended to any cultural object classified or defined by a Member State under national legislation or administrative procedures as a national treasure possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value within the meaning of Article 36 TFEU. This Directive should thus cover objects of historical, paleontological, ethnographic, numismatic interest or scientific value, whether or not they form part of public or other collections or are single items, and whether they originate from regular or clandestine excavations, provided that they are classified or defined as national treasures. Furthermore, cultural objects classified or defined as national treasures should no longer have to belong to categories or comply with thresholds related to their age and/or financial value in order to qualify for return under this Directive.

The diversity of national arrangements for protecting national treasures is recognised in Article 36 TFEU. In order to foster mutual trust, a willingness to cooperate and mutual understanding between Member States, the scope of the term ‘national treasure’ should be determined, in the framework of Article 36 TFEU. Member States should also facilitate the return of cultural objects to the Member State from whose territory those objects have been unlawfully removed regardless of the date of accession of that Member State, and should ensure that the return of such objects does not give rise to unreasonable costs. It should be possible for Member States to return cultural objects other than those classified or defined as national treasures provided that they respect the relevant provisions of the TFEU, as well as cultural objects unlawfully removed before 1 January 1993.

The time-limit for checking whether the cultural object found in another Member State is a cultural object within the meaning of Directive 93/7/EEC was identified as being too short in practice. Therefore, it should be extended to six months. A longer period should allow Member States to take the necessary measures to preserve the cultural object and, where appropriate, prevent any action to evade the return procedure.

The time-limit for bringing return proceedings should also be extended to three years after the Member State from whose territory the cultural object was unlawfully removed became aware of the location of the cultural object and of the identity of its possessor or holder. The extension of this period should facilitate the return and discourage the illegal removal of national treasures. In the interest of clarity, it should be stipulated that the time-limit for bringing proceedings begins on the date on which the information came to the knowledge of the central authority of the Member State from whose territory the cultural object was unlawfully removed.

Directive 93/7/EEC provided that return proceedings may not be brought more than 30 years after the object was unlawfully removed from the territory of the Member State. However, in the case of objects forming part of public collections and of objects belonging to inventories of ecclesiastical institutions in the Member States where they are subject to special protection arrangements under national law, return proceedings are subject to a longer time-limit under certain circumstances. Due to the fact that Member States may have special protection arrangements under national law with religious institutions other than ecclesiastical ones, this Directive should also extend to those other religious institutions.

In its Conclusions on preventing and combating crime against cultural goods adopted on 13 and 14 December 2011, the Council recognised the need to take measures in order to make preventing and combating crime concerning cultural objects more effective. It recommended that the Commission support Member States in the effective protection of cultural objects with a view to preventing and combating trafficking and promoting complementary measures where appropriate. In addition, the Council recommended that the Member States consider the ratification of the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property signed in Paris on 17 November 1970, and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects signed in Rome on 24 June 1995.

It is desirable to ensure that all those involved in the market exercise due care and attention in transactions involving cultural objects. The consequences of acquiring a cultural object of unlawful origin will only be genuinely dissuasive if the payment of compensation is coupled with an obligation on the possessor to prove the exercise of due care and attention. Therefore, in order to achieve the Union's objectives of preventing and combating unlawful trafficking in cultural objects, this Directive should stipulate that the possessor must provide proof that he exercised due care and attention in acquiring the object, for the purpose of compensation.

It would also be useful for any person, and in particular those who are involved in the market, to have easy access to public information on cultural objects classified or defined as national treasures by the Member States. Member States should try to facilitate access to this public information.

In order to facilitate a uniform interpretation of the concept of due care and attention, this Directive should set out non-exhaustive criteria to be taken into account to determine whether the possessor exercised due care and attention when acquiring the cultural object.

Since the objective of this Directive, namely to enable the return of cultural objects classified or defined as national treasures which have been unlawfully removed from the territory of Member States, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

Since the tasks of the committee set up by Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 are rendered obsolete by the deletion of the Annex to Directive 93/7/EEC, references to that committee should be deleted accordingly. However, in order to maintain the platform for the exchange of experience and good practices on the implementation of this Directive among Member States, the Commission should set up an expert group, composed of experts from the Member States' central authorities responsible for the implementation of this Directive, which should be involved, inter alia, in the process of customising a module of the IMI system for cultural objects.

Since the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 contains a list of provisions on administrative cooperation in Union acts which are implemented by means of the IMI, that Annex should be amended to include this Directive.

The obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive amendment as compared to the earlier Directives. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises from the earlier Directives.

This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for the transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex I, Part B,