The main differences between the Directive 93/7/EEC and the Directive 2014/60/EU are the following

by Posted on

The main differences between the Directive 93/7/EEC and the Directive 2014/60/EU are the following: first of all, according to the Article 1 of the Directive 93/7/EEC “cultural objects” belong to one of the categories listed in the Annex or does not belong to any of them and form an integral part of it, meanwhile, in the 2 Article of the Directive 2014/60/EU “cultural objects” are defined as other than those listed in the Annex. Secondly, according to the Article 4 of the Directive 93/77/EC the application that should be applied to request whether particular cultural object was illegally stolen is made within two month, but according to the Article 5 of the Directive 2014/60/EU it is made within six month. Also, according to the Article 5 of the Directive 2014/60/EU the central authorities should use the Market Information System (IMI) platform in order to cooperate with each other and spread information on the illegally stolen cultural object, to make other Member States aware. Moreover, Member States need to decide to appoint the use of IMI by other competent authorities. Furthermore, according to the Article 7 of the Directive 2014/60/EU the cooperation between Member States in the means of exchanging data should be in accordance with the protection of the personal data. Also, competent authorities can use other means of exchanging information besides IMI. According, to the Article 7 (1) of the Directive 93/7/EEC it is important that the Member States provide in their legislation that the return proceedings may not be brought more than one year after requesting and according to Article 8 (1) of the Directive 2014/60/EU more than three years after requesting of the competent central authority. Unlike the Directive 93/7/EEC in the Article 10 of the Directive 2014/60/EU it is mentioned in order to determine whether the possessor of the requested cultural object exercised due care and attention, it is necessary to check all the circumstances of the acquisition beginning from the documents on the origin of the provenance, permit of the removal from the territory of the Member State, the amount of money paid, also whether possessor had registered all the stolen cultural objects or has done reasonable steps in order to preserve the cultural object and keep it in good conditions.
According to the Article 16 of the Directive 93/7/EEC should send a report on the application of this Directive to the Commission every three years as for the Directive 2014/60/EU in Article 17 it is provided that Member States should submit the report to the Commission every five years. Moreover, according to Article 16 of the Directive 93/7/EEC the Commission shall send a report reviewing the application of the Directive to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee every three year, meanwhile, according to the Article of the Directive 2014/60/EU the Commission shall send the report reviewing application and also its effectiveness every five year. According to the Article 16 of the Directive 93/7/EEC after a period of three years it was necessary to make the adaptations of the proposals from the Commission but there is no information about it in the second Directive. However, it is said that the report should be supplemented by appropriate proposals. Also, according to the 4th paragraph of the Article 16 of the Directive 93/7/EEC taking into the consideration the proposal from the Commission, which should be examined, every three years and the information in the Annex should be updated where it is necessary. Finally, according to the Article 18 of the Directive 93/7/EEC Member States should have conformed with the Directive within nine month from its adoption and also there are some countries that as exceptions shall conform with the Directive within twelve month. According to the Article 19 of the Directive 2014/60/EU shall comply with the preceding articles and also besides the fact that measures should be accompanied by the references they also should include the statement and they should be communicated to the Commission as the text of the main provisions of national law.

Related posts:

  1. The above paper gave me an insight that it very necessary now for the insurers to constantly monitors its solvency issues in terms the major driving parameters
  2. Introduction Defining what age a person is or ceases to be a child is a constant debate in the India
  3. Government College University Lahore Department of Economics Nature of Document
  4. This target of universalization of primary education seems to be difficult to achieve with the current pace of students participation
  5. From 2004 until 2007 Samsung SDI
  6. MUHIMBILI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND ALLIED SCIENCES
  7. CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE/AGREEMENT
  8. VII
  9. Part One – Understand the role of the leader and leadership styles and behaviours in supporting and developing the team and its members and providing a common sense of purpose
  10. Systematic review of Human-like intelligent systems in manufacturing
  11. AN APPRAISAL OF MOTHER TONGUE EDUCATION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING IN LOWER CLASSES IN SELECTED PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN NANDI COUNTY
  12. Table of contents Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Background of the study The Statement of the Research Problem The Purpose of the study Research questions/Hypotheses The Significance of the study Definition of Key Terms Delimitation of the Study Chapter 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2
  13. Assignment Cover Sheet Student Number1625717Unit codeKAP015-3Assignment No
  14. 6
  15. Impact of Vitamin D Therapy in treating X-linked hypophosphatemic rickets Kate Barratt Research Proposal For the degree of Masters by Research