Vincent Geerling: Europe Hobbles the Art Market

First, it is important to understand why this measure has come in. Initially, what lay behind the European Commission's proposals was the belief that ISIS-looted artefacts from conflict zones were making their way onto the European market to fund terrorism, and this had to be stopped. The Commission ordered two studies to look into the extent of the problem. The second report is yet to come, but the first study by Deloitte, which consulted all 28 EU Members States, found no evidence at all of this happening. Despite this, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament decided to legislate anyway, putting forward new arguments that the proposals would harmonise regulations across the EU and act as preventative measures for the future. This change in direction is extremely significant because it alters not only the premise for adopting the legislation but also the balance of interests between public security and the international art market. As the EU has consistently promised, any measures adopted should be proportionate and not unduly damage the legitimate market. It may be reasonable to argue that the art market must accept the burden of highly restrictive legislation in order to stop an existing crime wave of terrorism funding, but, equally, measures to mitigate the risk of something that might or might not happen in the future – a lower risk level, in other words – should acknowledge that…