New legislative developments in France regarding the restitution of cultural property

Originally published on the UNESCO Chair on Cultural Heritage Law - Renmin University of China

Original Source : http://chl.ruc.edu.cn/uc/chair/en/item/itemContent?itemId=617

On 13 April 2026, the French National Assembly adopted at first reading the “draft law on the restitution of cultural property to States that have been deprived of it through spoliation”. This draft law, presented to the Senate in July 2025 by the French Minister of Culture, had been adopted at first reading by the Senate on 28 January 2026. In view of the substantive amendments proposed by the National Assembly during its first examination of the bill adopted at first reading by the Senate, and in accordance with French legislative procedure, a “joint committee” comprising seven members of the National Assembly and seven senators drafted, on 30 April, a compromise text which was adopted by the National Assembly on 6 May, by the Senate on 7 May and published in the Official Journal on 9 May 2026: “Act no. 2026-351 of May 9, 2026, relating to the restitution of cultural property subject to illicit appropriation."

In recent years, there has been a multiplication in restitution claims made by foreign governments concerning French public collections. However, under the provisions of the current Heritage Code, movable cultural property belonging to public collections is subject to the principle of inalienability. Consequently, each item of looted movable cultural property must be covered by special legislation in order to be returned to its country of origin. To this end, France has adopted two laws, in 2020 and 2022 respectively, to respond to requests for the restitution of cultural property made by countries such as Benin and Senegal, as well as by the descendants of the original owners of property looted by the Nazis. In 2023, following the publication of the report ‘Shared Heritage: Universality, Restitution and the Circulation of Works of Art’ by Jean-Luc Martinez, former director of the Louvre and ambassador for international cooperation on heritage at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the French government decided to draft a framework law aimed at establishing a mechanism for the restitution of cultural property in the public domain, allowing certain cultural property to be removed from public collections so that it can be returned to its country of origin.

PART 1 Structure and content of the law

This law comprises three articles. The first article adds a Section IV to Chapter V of Part I of Book I of the Heritage Code, in order to clarify matters relating to the scope, conditions and procedures for the restitution of cultural property held unlawfully and forming part of public collections. Article 2 amends the date of unlawful appropriation from which the judicial restitution procedure provided for in Article L.124-1 of the Heritage Code applies, from the date of entry into force of the 1970 Convention in respect of France and the countries of origin of the cultural property to the date of its entry into force at the international level, in order to extend the scope of the possibility for public bodies owning cultural property belonging to the public domain of movable property to bring an action for the annulment of the sale, inter vivos donation or bequest of such property where proof is provided that it was stolen or unlawfully exported in breach of the Convention. Article 3 specifies that this Act applies to claims for restitution under consideration on the date of its publication.

PART 2 Scope of application and criteria for the restitution of cultural property

The draft Act provides that public cultural property belonging to legal persons governed by public law, which is of public interest from a historical, artistic, archaeological, scientific or technical interest, as listed in Article L. 2112-1 of the General Code of Assets of Public Entities, with the exception of documents retained for the purposes of national memory and public archives, may be subject to restitution under this Act if they are included in public collections and meet the following conditions and criteria:

Firstly, they originate from the current territory of the State making the request for restitution.

Secondly, there is evidence or serious, precise and consistent indications establishing that these items were acquired by means such as theft or looting, or by transfer or gift obtained through coercion or violence or granted by a person who was not entitled to dispose of the item, during the period between 20 November 1815 and 23 April 1972. The explanatory memorandum to the bill specifies that the starting date corresponds to the date of signature of the Second Treaty of Paris, which redefined the territorial borders of France and its overseas territories; the end date corresponds to the day before the date of entry into force of the 1970 Convention for the first three States, this date applying generally to all States Parties, regardless of their date of ratification. The return of cultural property acquired unlawfully on or after 24 April 1972 is governed by the 1970 Convention.

Thirdly, this law does not apply to cultural property acquired unlawfully which: 1. has already been dealt with by France pursuant to international agreements concluded prior to the entry into force of this law; 2. relates to archaeological excavations which have already been subject to distribution or exchange for the purposes of scientific research; 3. military property seized by the armed forces which, by virtue of its nature, intended use or actual use, contributes substantially to military activities. However, if its nature, intended use or actual use does not contribute to military activities, it falls within the scope of this Act.

PART 3 Restitution procedure established by law

Under this Act, the restitution of cultural property held unlawfully must follow the following procedure.

Firstly, the requesting country submits a request for restitution.

The Act provides that, regardless of the original owner of the cultural property, ownership thereof is transferred to the requesting country. If one country submits a request for the return of cultural property and another country also claims rights to that property, the countries concerned must determine, through diplomatic consultations, which request for return will be examined in accordance with this Act.

Secondly, the two countries shall establish a scientific committee responsible for the examination. Once the request for restitution has been submitted by the requesting State, France shall, in consultation with the latter, establish a scientific committee responsible for examining whether the property meets the aforementioned criteria laid down by law and for issuing an opinion. The scientific committee shall draw up a report which it shall submit to the Government, to the standing committees on culture and foreign affairs of the National Assembly and the Senate, and to the requesting State. If the requesting State consents, this report shall be made public.

Thirdly, the National Commission for the Restitution of Cultural Property issues an opinion. The law provides that the High Council of French Museums shall meet in a specialised formation known as the National Commission for the Restitution of Cultural Property, convened by the French Minister of Culture, and shall issue a public and reasoned opinion on the request for restitution. The law defines the composition of this commission, specifying that it must include museum professionals with the requisite qualifications, as well as experts in history, art history, cultural heritage law, legal history, archaeology, ethnology and documentary heritage. This commission may also issue advisory opinions on any matter relating to the restitution of cultural property held in public collections, for the attention of the relevant minister as well as the competent standing committees of the National Assembly and the Senate.

Fourthly, an administrative decree reviewed by the Council of State decides on the removal of cultural property from public collections. The law stipulates that the decision on whether or not to remove the cultural property in question from public collections is taken by an administrative decree published by the Government following review by the French Council of State. When referring the matter to the Council of State, the Government must submit to it the report of the aforementioned scientific committee as well as the opinion of the National Commission for the Restitution of Cultural Property. The draft law expressly states that the sole purpose of the lawful removal of public movable cultural property from public collections is to return such cultural property to the State from which it was unlawfully deprived, so that its people may once again take possession of the cultural property constituting a fundamental part of their heritage.

Where the cultural property in question belongs to a legal person governed by public law other than the State, the decision to remove it from the public heritage may only be taken after obtaining the consent of that legal person. With regard to the restitution of cultural property that has entered public collections by way of donation or bequest, if the deed of donation or bequest contains clauses contrary to the draft law, the provisions of the latter may only be applied with the consent of the donor (or legatee) or their successor in title.

The draft law sets out specific provisions concerning the procedure for notifying these successors of the intention to return the property and for awaiting their response.

PART 4 Implications for the restitution of cultural property illegally removed from China

The legislative rationale behind this bill stems primarily from the ‘historical accounts’ between France and its former African colonies.

In the form of a framework law, it removes legal obstacles such as the principle of the inalienability of the public domain enshrined in the Heritage Code, as well as the institutions of ‘adverse possession’ and ‘acquisition in good faith’, and resolves within French domestic law the issue of the restitution of foreign cultural property acquired unlawfully since 1815. With the adoption of the bill, in addition to the drafting of special legislation, France will be able to return foreign cultural property acquired unlawfully by means of an administrative decree, which could significantly shorten processing times. The scope of the bill is not limited to any particular country or region, which objectively offers China a new institutional avenue for claiming cultural property lost in France. On the one hand, the period covered corresponds to a key period in the dispersal of Chinese cultural property. The bill applies to the period between 20 November 1815 and 23 April 1972, thus covering almost the entire most painful period in China’s modern history in terms of the plundering and dispersal of cultural property. The treasures looted by the joint Anglo-French forces following the burning of the Summer Palace (Yuanmingyuan) during the Second Opium War in 1860; the various cultural artefacts stolen during the invasion of China by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900; the Buddhist murals and statues cut out and illegally removed from caves and temples during the Republic of China period, as well as bronze and jade objects from illegal excavations, could meet the conditions for restitution. Furthermore, the criterion of “illicit appropriation” applies to cultural property looted from China. The draft bill broadens the criteria for restitution from a specific colonial context to the general concept of “illicit appropriation”, clearly stipulating that the property concerned may be that which has been “appropriated by theft, plunder, or by transfer or gift obtained through coercion or violence, or consented to by a person who was not entitled to dispose of the property”. This broadening of the concept offers a viable legal route for the restitution of looted cultural property to countries that are not former French colonies, including China.Although the draft law offers China an opportunity for the restitution of its cultural property that has been unlawfully appropriated, its adoption does not mean that looted Chinese cultural property currently in France will automatically be returned. China still faces the following challenges in its efforts to secure restitution from France:

Firstly, the draft bill does not establish a mandatory automatic restitution mechanism. Requests for the restitution of looted Chinese cultural property must be formally submitted by the Chinese government, then examined by a balanced Franco-Chinese scientific committee before being submitted for review by the cultural property restitution committee. The final power of approval rests with the French government; whether or not cultural property is returned, the speed of such restitution and the order in which it takes place will be closely linked to Franco-Chinese relations.

Secondly, China must bear the burden of proof and present ‘serious, precise and consistent evidence’ demonstrating that the objects formerly belonged to China and that they were acquired by France through illicit means. A large proportion of the cultural objects illegally removed from China were taken out over 100 years ago by various means; at the time, the archives relating to the collections were not yet complete and there were few corresponding iconographic documents. Even in the presence of evidence establishing ownership of the cultural property, the French side could invoke documents such as transaction receipts to assert the legality of their provenance, which would oblige the Chinese side to present even stronger evidence demonstrating that they were illicitly exported.

Furthermore, the draft law applies only to movable cultural property held by French public institutions and public collections; it does not apply to private collections. The exception clause relating to “property seized by the armed forces” could also lead to the exclusion of certain cultural property looted during wars. The draft law expressly excludes the restitution of “property seized by the armed forces”; the wording relating to “property seized by the armed forces” is partly borrowed from the provisions of Article 52 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, dated 8 June 1977. However, for reasons of legislative compromise, its precise meaning is not clearly defined in the draft bill, which leaves considerable scope for interpretation. For example, although the cultural property looted from the Summer Palace has no military utility in itself and was not used as military equipment, it would logically meet the bill’s criteria for applicability, namely that it has “not contributed to military activities by its nature, intended use or use”. However, certain cultural property and works of art considered to be ‘war booty’ could, upon concrete examination, be excluded from the scope of restitution due to the broad definition of “property seized by the armed forces”.

Furthermore, cultural property excavated in China and exported at the beginning of the Republic of China under the guise of archaeological research could be exempt from restitution by the museums currently holding them, as these institutions could argue that the items are finds from archaeological excavations allocated or exchanged for scientific research purposes.

Finally, although the law does not restrict its scope to specific countries or regions, the former Minister of Culture, Rima Abdul-Malak, has made it clear that efforts to return illicitly acquired cultural property will focus primarily on Africa. Legislative documents indicate that, at present, 15 countries in Europe, Africa, the Asia-Pacific region and the Americas have already submitted requests for the restitution of cultural property to the relevant French museums ; these requests are still under consideration. China may not be the priority when it comes to restitution.

Authors’ biographies

Hu Shanchen, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Minzu University of China, and member of the UNESCO Chair in Cultural Heritage Law team.

Anne-Laure BALDACCHINO, postgraduate student at the Faculty of Law, Minzu University of China.