Cleveland Museum of Art · CC0 1.0Sixty-one States out of sixty-seven
At the end of 2024, sixty-one Member States had transposed the seven 2019 directives, four had done so partially and two were under way. The thirty-six-month transposition period elapsed in 2022.
This page presents the state of progress, the difficulties States have encountered and the support the Secretariat provides.
It also explains the consequences for operators of incomplete transposition.
Implementation of the directives in figures
Source: OIMAP Legal Affairs Department.
Obstacles to transposition
States encounter three main difficulties. Resources, first: a small administration does not always have the lawyers it needs. The timetable next: a law has to go through Parliament, which can take several years. Finally coherence: the directive has to fit with existing law.
The Secretariat responds with model laws, support missions and peer workshops. Fifteen States have received a support mission since 2020.
What the annual monitoring checks
Each year, the Secretariat assesses transposition against four criteria: existence of a law, coverage of all obligations, existence of sanctions and designation of a supervisory authority. The results are published as a dashboard.
A State whose transposition is judged insufficient is invited to present an action plan within six months. If the plan is not followed, the matter may be brought before the Assembly, which may adopt a public recommendation.
Observed effects
Transposition has had measurable effects: the number of reports to the BIOP has risen by 38% since 2019, the average processing time for a certificate has fallen by 12%, and the rate of provenance disputes has dropped by 21%. This progress is more marked in States that transposed early.
It goes hand in hand with greater confidence among foreign buyers, as measured by the Observatory's surveys. It is one of the arguments put forward by States seeking to speed up their timetable.
The monitoring criteria
| Criterion | Question | Satisfactory States |
|---|---|---|
| Law | Does a law transpose the directive? | 61 |
| Coverage | Are all the obligations taken up? | 57 |
| Sanctions | Are sanctions provided for? | 54 |
| Authority | Is a supervisory authority designated? | 59 |
Landmarks
- Adoption
Start of the period.
- End of the period
Interim review.
- 61 full transpositions
Monitoring report.
- Revision
Evaluation of the directives.
For the operator in a State that has not transposed
Full or partial transposition
Full
All obligations taken up- Sanctions and supervision
- Legal certainty
- Recognition by peers
Ideal framework.
Partial
Some obligations missing- Areas of uncertainty
- Risk of litigation
- Secretariat support
To be strengthened.
Helping a State to transpose
- Assess
Diagnose the existing law.
- Write
Use the model law.
- Consult
Involve the professionals.
- Adopt
Have the text passed.
- Follow
Assess the application.
Questions to ask your administration
A head of administration
« Transposition forced us to clarify practices we followed out of habit. It is an unexpected benefit. »
Vocabulary of implementation
- Transposition
- Incorporation of a text into national law.
- Dashboard
- Summary of monitoring indicators.
- Support mission
- Technical help given to a State.
- Action plan
- Timetable of corrective actions.
Frequently asked questions
Where can I see my State's status?
In each Member State's sheet: list of States.
What sanction applies to a State that does not transpose?
A public recommendation by the Assembly.
Can OIMAP help me?
Yes: see Recommendations to States.
Are operators sanctioned?
Only if they breach the transposed obligations.
Useful documents
Contacts
Related pages
OIMAP Directives 2019The seven directives adopted in 2019: registry, mutual recognition, diligence, transparency, circulation, good faith and authentication.›
Transposing the directivesGuide for States: steps, model law, fit with existing law, supervisory authority and timetable.›
List of the 67 StatesThe 67 OIMAP Member States, presented in alphabetical order, by date of accession and on an interactive map.›
See the frequently asked questions
Image credits (16)
- Dr. James Stuart; Mary Campbell Stuart, Gilbert Stuart (c. 1815) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Leaf from a Psalter and Prayerbook: Calendar Page with Labors (recto) and Calendar Page with Peasant (verso) (c. 1524) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- The Calumny of Apelles, Giorgio Ghisi (1560) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Seal Color Box (1662–1722) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Sketches in Belgium and Germany, Volume I: Hall of Justice of the Magistrates du Franc, Bruges, Louis Haghe (1840) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Leaf from a Missal: The Crucifixion (recto) and Text (verso) (c. 1330–40) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- The Antechamber of the Palace of Justice, Paris, Charles Meryon (1855) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Plaque (1500s–1600s) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- The Judgment of Solomon and Esther before Ahasuerus (pair), Dirk Vellert (c. 1530) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Miniature from a Manuscript of the Apocalypse: The War in Heaven (c. 1295) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- St. Catherine of Siena and the Beggar, Giovanni di Paolo (1460s) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- The Grotto of Posillipo, Hubert Robert (c. 1769) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Hours of Queen Isabella the Catholic, Queen of Spain, Master of the First Prayerbook of Maximillian (c. 1500) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- The Dance at the Court of Herod, Israhel van Meckenem (c. 1500) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Nuova pianta di Roma data in luce da Giambattista Nolli l’anno MDCCXLVII, known as La Pianta Grande di Roma, Giovanni Battista Nolli (1748) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Mercury (Budha), from a Mandi Astrology Series, Sanju (c. 1810) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0