In determining whether the possessor exercised due care and attention, consideration shall be given to all the circumstances of the acquisition, in particular the documentation on the object’s provenance, the authorisations for removal required under the law of the requesting Member State, the character of the parties, the price paid, whether the possessor consulted any accessible register of stolen cultural objects and any relevant information which he could reasonably have obtained , or took any other step which a reasonable person would have taken in the circumstances.

Your rapporteur is also suggesting changes to the paragraph in Article 9 which deals with good faith, with a view to eliminating certain legal ambiguities and specifying clearly the link between the right to compensation and the exercise of due care and attention by the possessor of the cultural object which is the subject of proceedings for return.

In the United States, France indeed, everywhere, photographers, because they are the first owners of the copyright, can resell their photographs several times, whereas we can only sell them once and are not able to participate in the image bank system, which brings in revenues of about $50,000 a year.

How can we speak of fundamental rights, however, when the right to employment and the right to a decent salary are not guaranteed because decision belongs to a moneyed minority who have the majestic power to close their businesses and plunge their employees into poverty?

When the return of a cultural object is ordered, the possessor is entitled to fair compensation if s/he proves that due care was exercised when acquiring the object.

In certain circumstances, the person in possession of the object is entitled to fair compensation from the Member State securing its return if he can prove that he acquired it in good faith.