Exporting a Work of Art: To What Extent May The Authorities Prevent It?

On 17 February 2026, following the opinion of the Advisory Commission for National Treasures, the French Minister of Culture refused to issue an export certificate for a Gustave Caillebotte oil painting, Boulevard vu d’en haut. At the same time, Gustave Courbet’s Le Désespéré, acquired by Qatar Museums, remains blocked inn France pending final authorization for export. 

These cases are a reminder that, in France, the circulation of works of art is not governed solely by market forces. In certain circumstances, the authorities may lawfully prevent a cultural asset from leaving the national territory, whether for temporary removal or for definitive export following a sale abroad—the situation addressed here. 

This power, however, is strictly regulated. It is exercised neither on a discretionary basis nor outside a clearly defined procedure, at the intersection of property law, freedom of trade, European Union law, and the protection of national heritage. 

When Does a Work Fall Within the Scope of Export Control? 

The principle is straightforward: not all works of art are subject to the same legal regime. 

Article L.111-1 of the Code du patrimoine distinguishes several categories of national treasures: certain public assets and archives, property listed as Monuments historiques, as well as other assets of a major interest for the national heritage from the point of view of history, art, archaeology, or knowledge of the French language and regional languages. 

In practice, export control first requires that the item fall within the scope of the export certificate regime. This scope is defined in the regulatory part of the Code and in the annex to Article R.111-1, which combine categories of objects, an age requirement, and value thresholds. 

For example, a watercolor, gouache or pastel may fall within the regime if the work is more than fifty years old and worth more than €50,000; for other paintings the threshold is €300,000; for sculptures it is €100,000, subject to the same age requirement. 

Outside these categories, no certificate is required. In other words, the administration may prevent export under this regime only with respect to items falling within its scope. The determination of that scope—and in particular the value thresholds—has changed several times, the Conseil d’État exercising only limited review of the relevant decree for manifest error of assessment (CE, 17 March 2022, SPPEF, no. 454057). 

Caution is therefore required, since exporting or attempting to export a cultural asset in breach of the Code du patrimoine is punishable by two years’ imprisonment and a €450,000 fine. 

The Decisive Criterion: Classification as a National Treasure 

The key rule is set out in Article L.111-4 of the Code du patrimoine: an export certificate may be refused only for cultural property classified as a national treasure. 

Only under this condition may the administration block a definitive export. Refusal of the certificate is not merely an administrative formality; it has substantive consequences, as the property is thereby treated as a national treasure, meaning that its departure from the national territory must be prevented in view of the major heritage interest it represents. 

For assets so classified, the rule is clear: definitive export is not permitted. Only certain temporary removals remain possible, in limited circumstances, notably for restoration, expert appraisal, participation in a cultural event, or deposit in a public collection (Article L.111-7). 

Conversely, for assets falling within categories subject to certification but not recognized as national treasures, export remains possible. When export outside the European Union is contemplated, a separate authorization may also be required under EU Regulation (EC) No. 116/2009, which operates in conjunction with the export certificate confirming that the asset has not been retained as a national treasure. 

For all other items not included in the list, no certificate is required. 

A Regulated Procedure 

The export certificate is issued by the Minister of Culture, who must reach a decision within four months (Article R.111-6). 

This period may be interrupted or suspended where serious and consistent indications exist that the asset belongs to the public domain, was illicitly imported, constitutes a forgery, or derives from a criminal offence. In such cases, provided for by Article L.111-3-1, the administration may require additional documentation, thereby significantly altering the procedural framework. 

In a decision of 13 February 2026 (no. 497557), the Conseil d’État held that, in principle, the silence of the administration for four months on a complete application constitutes implicit approval. However, this solution applies only where the application file was complete from the outset and no request for additional information was sent to the owner, particularly regarding authenticity or provenance. 

In practice, a difficulty remains in such situations: when implicit approval arises, proving its existence at the customs stage may be difficult. In the absence of an express document, it may be useful to seek confirmation from the administration. Failing that, the owner may establish the existence of the implicit decision by any appropriate means, in particular by producing the acknowledgment of receipt of the application together with evidence that statutory time limit has expired. 

Conversely, where the procedure has been suspended under Article L.111-3-1 and the owner fails to provide the requested evidence within the prescribed period, the application becomes inadmissible and no tacit approval may arise. In the case judged by the Conseil d’Etat, the administration had been seized regarding two Renaissance sculptures for which there was a strong presumption that they belonged to the public domain. Should the court, in proceedings challenging the legality of the export refusal, confirm that the property belongs to the public domain, restitution to the State—initiated by the administration—may be one of the consequences of the procedure. 

The issue of tacit approval has already generated significant litigation, notably in relation to Judith and Holofernes attributed to Caravaggio. In 2016, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal (26 June 2018, no. 17PA02775) held that even if tacit authorization had arisen, it was unlawful in light of the major artistic interest of the work and could therefore be withdrawn within four months, provided that adversarial proceedings were respected. In that case, the court neutralized the alleged procedural irregularity by applying the Danthony jurisprudence (CE, Ass., 23 December 2011, Danthony, no. 335033), since the owners had been able to present their observations at several stages of the process. 

The Certificate Does Not Protect the Work from Subsequent Reversal 

Even once issued—and subject to judicial review initiated by a third party—the export certificate does not definitively guarantee the free circulation of the asset, contrary to what the wording of Article L.111-2 of the Code du patrimoine might suggest. 

First, for assets less than one hundred years old, the certificate is issued for a renewable period of twenty years. 

Second, even when issued “permanently,” the certificate does not prevent either a subsequent listing as a historical monument or a later classification as a national treasure (Conseil d’État, 6 April 2018, no. 402065). 

In other words, the owner should not regard the certificate as an immutable title: it reflects a legal situation at a given time but does not protect the asset from a later change in its heritage status. 

Refusal of Authorization and Available Remedies 

Where the administration intends to refuse a certificate, it must refer the matter to the Advisory Commission for National Treasures, which issues a reasoned opinion. The refusal itself must also be reasoned in both law and fact and must be published together with that opinion. 

It should be noted that if the review process concludes that the property belongs to the public domain, the Minister of Culture is bound to refuse the export certificate (CAA Paris, 13 January 2017, no. 15PA04256). 

When a certificate is refused, the work remains on French territory, but the law provides for a mechanism combining this refusal with the possibility for the owner to sell the asset to the State. 

Article L.111-6 provides that a new application for a certificate cannot be submitted before the expiry of a thirty-month period. During that time, the State may make a purchase offer under the procedure set out in Article L.121-1, which aims—through the appointment of experts—to determine a price consistent with the market value. 

If the State does not make such an offer within two months, the certificate “may no longer be refused” and must be issued, if necessary following an injunction by the administrative court. If the State makes an offer at the expert-determined price but the owner refuses it (or remains silent for two months), the refusal of the certificate is renewed; no compensation is due and the situation may persist. 

In other words, although the procedure may appear unbalanced, it does not necessarily result in a permanent blockage for the owner, who may under certain conditions regain the ability to export the asset. 

A Restriction on Property Rights Without Compensation 

Refusal of an export certificate constitutes a significant restriction on the prerogatives of ownership, and the Code du patrimoine expressly provides that no compensation is payable (Article L.111-4). 

In practice, an owner wishing to sell the asset must turn to the domestic market, even though a broader international market might have offered a higher price. This economic constraint is accepted by the legislature in the name of the superior heritage interest attached to certain assets. 

The Conseil d’État has also held that the administration does not incur liability when, prior to a public auction, it announces that it does not intend to authorize export, even if such a statement discourages foreign buyers and affects the bidding process (CE, 7 October 1987). 

Heritage Policing Under Judicial Oversight 

Ultimately, the administration may oppose the export of a work of art only within a strict framework: the asset must fall within the export certificate regime, it must qualify as a national treasure, and the procedure must have been properly conducted. 

The current legal framework therefore seeks to reconcile competing interests: the owner’s freedom to dispose of property, the fluidity of the art market, the requirements of European Union law, and the protection of elements considered essential to the national heritage. 

This balance is sometimes tense and frequently litigated—and always highly concrete. Behind the technical mechanism of the export certificate lies a deeper question: what, in the end, should remain in France.