German High Court Rules Export Permits Not Required for Collectors' Coins in Trade

Germany's highest regulatory court has ruled  that coins in trade will not be treated as archaeological objects requiring an export permit under EU law. The court said that because they are objects created in quantity, they have lost any archaeological value, and to require export permits for them would put an unreasonable restraint on trade. The decision in its entirety can be read here.   

UPDATE 5/4/13:  Not surprisingly, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford is in denial about the implications of Court's ruling and has even implied the court's decision-making was corrupted by "commercial interests."  As to the former, I think a well known numismatist said it best:

Of course Mr. Barford is in denial of the court's actual ruling: �coins coming from Antiquity generally have no archeological value and thus are not archeological objects�. It doesn�t come much clearer than that. Nor is this �the Bavarian judiciary� as Mr. Barford would like to believe; it is the supreme court of Germany for cases involving customs and taxes.

As to the latter, I think Mr. Barford should compare what Transparency International says about Germany and places whose views of cultural property matters he champions, like Greece, Cyprus, Italy and China.

Nanny State Empowered to Regulate Hemingway's Cats

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision allowing the Department of Agriculture to regulate how the Hemingway Museum treats the descendants of Hemingway's cats that live on the property.  In so doing, the Court concluded that the Museum met the definition of an an animal exhibitor and that agency regulations and advertisements featuring the cats were enough to provide the necessary nexus to interstate commerce.  Now, the DOA can force the Hemingway Museum to cage the cats individually at night, to construct a higher electrified fence or to hire a night watchman, and to build additional cat resting areas.  As with coin collecting, even if the Government has the right to regulate something, one can still question its stupidity in doing so. Perhaps the Supreme Court might consider taking both the Hemingway cat case and ACCG coin case.  Each would present a good opportunity for the Court to consider Government overreach at its most ridiculous. 

Over-regulated America

The Economist Magazine, Feb. 18th 2012, states, "The home of laissez-faire is being suffocated by excessive and badly written regulation."

After reviewing the dismal situation, the Economist suggests,

"America needs a smarter approach to regulation. First, all important rules should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis by an independent watchdog. The results should be made public before the rule is enacted. All big regulations should also come with sunset clauses, so that they expire after, say, ten years unless Congress explicitly re-authorises them.

More important, rules need to be much simpler. When regulators try to write an all-purpose instruction manual, the truly important dos and don�ts are lost in an ocean of verbiage. Far better to lay down broad goals and prescribe only what is strictly necessary to achieve them. Legislators should pass simple rules, and leave regulators to enforce them."

For more, see http://www.economist.com/node/21547789 and

http://www.commongood.org/blog/entry/philip-k.-howard-on-the-need-for-results-based-regulation

A smarter approach certainly needs to be tried with respect to import restrictions on cultural artifacts.

Currently, the US State Department and US Customs apply a one size fits all approach to all artifacts, i.e., the same onerous documentation is required to import the $1o million dollar statue as the $10 coin. Moreover, the regulations restrict artifacts by their "country of origin" or manufacture, giving lip service to the statutory requirement that any restricted artifact must be "first discovered" in and be "subject to the export control" of a specific country. Finally, it was never thought that restrictions would be renewed over and over again every five years. Rather, the point of the governing legislation was to give source countries time to get their own house in order, not to forever ban imports of cultural goods from a given country.

Instead, why not target restrictions better, get rid of the one size fits all approach, and sunset restrictions after giving source countries a reasonable time to get their act together?

It should be about conservation not control. The current system has failed because the real costs to our museums, collectors and businesses that deal in cultural goods are not factored into the equation whatsoever. Instead, it's all about making foreign cultural bureaucracies "look good" rather than really encouraging them to "do good" for their own cultural treasures and citizens.

Generally Pro MOU Media Outlets Question Greek MOU

The Art Newspaper and "Culture Grrl" have been generally supportive of repatriation efforts, but each has expressed some misgivings about the recently announced MOU with Greece. See http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Clinton+signs+memorandum+with+Greece+restricting+import+of+antiquities/24369
and http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2011/07/greek_cultural-property_agreem.html

And no wonder. The articles point to the lack of transparency, the apparent overbreath of the coming restrictions and Greece's own abysmal record in protecting its own cultural patrimony.

They might have also mentioned that approximately 70% of the public comment posted on the regulations.gov website either opposed the MOU in toto or the extension of import restrictions to coins.

Apparently, Secretary Clinton considers "confidence building measures" for the bankrupt Greeks to be more important than the views of American citizens or the legal limitations the governing statute places on such MOUs. But does the ordinary Greek citizen really care? See http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2011/07/repatriation-effects-greeces-national.html

And what will American voters who collect ancient art and coins think about these new restrictions? The ever political Hillary Clinton should also consider that as well.