What changed

B90180/2024

B90176/2024

European Parliament resolution on the return of Romanian national treasure illegally appropriated by Russia

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), particularly to Articles 6, 36 and 167 thereof,

– having regard to its previous resolutions on Russia,

– having regard to the Treaty onArticle European167 Unionof (TEU),the particularlyTreaty toon the preamble theretoFunctioning andof tothe ArticleEuropean 3(3)Union thereof,(TFEU),

– having regard to Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

– having regard to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,

– having regard to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its 16th session on 14 November 1970,

– having regard to Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012,

– having regard to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects,

– having regard to the Commission communication of 13 December 2022 on the EU Action Plan against Trafficking in Cultural Goods (COM(2022)0800),

– having regard to Rule 132 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the Council of Europe Framework Convention of 27 October 2005 on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (CETS No 199),

A. whereas in 1916, Romania’s national treasure was under threat from the Central Powers and Romania’s Government and National Bank of Romania representatives signed a protocol with Russia stipulating the terms and conditions for a first shipment of this national treasure to Moscow for safekeeping; whereas this protocol states that the Romanian treasure was ‘under the Russian Government’s guarantee as regards the safety of shipment, the security of the deposit and the return to Romania’; whereas a second shipment and accompanying signed protocol followed in 1917;

– having regard to the Council of Europe Convention of 19 May 2017 on Offences relating to Cultural Property (CETS No 221),

B. whereas the term ‘national treasure’ here refers to the gold reserve of the National Bank of Romania, made up of gold ingots and rare coins, as well as of cultural and artistic goods belonging to the country’s national heritage;

– having regard to the general principles of international law recognised by states, such as the principle of sovereignty and non-interference, the principle of good faith and the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes,

C. whereas the total national treasure legally given into Russian custody comprised 91.5 tonnes of fine gold belonging to the reserve of the National Bank of Romania, royal collections of jewels and rare coins, together with assets of cultural and historical importance such as state archives, documents, precious historical manuscripts, heritage paintings, rare books and collections of many public and private institutions spanning over five centuries of Romanian history;

– having regard to Rule 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

D. whereas Russia has since refused to fully return the national treasure to Romania despite what was stipulated in the signed protocols; whereas the restitution of the appropriated Romanian national treasure is of significant cultural, historical and institutional importance for the people of Romania;

A. whereas a state’s gold reserves serve as a crucial financial asset, providing stability to its currency and bolstering confidence in the nation’s economic strength;

E. whereas Russia has been carrying out an illegal, unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine since 24 February 2022, in a blatant and flagrant violation of the UN Charter and the fundamental principles of international law;

B. whereas a state’s gold reserves play a unique and long-term role in finance and economics, representing a key component of the currency reserves that nations hold; whereas during financial crises, central bank gold reserves function as a safe-haven asset in periods of market turmoil;

1. Condemns the Russian Federation for illegally appropriating and wilfully withholding Romania’s national treasure in breach of the accompanying protocol documents and legal guarantees of return as signed by both Romania and Russia in 1916 and 1917;

C. whereas the preamble to the TEU states that the signatories draw ‘inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe’ and desire to ‘deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting their history, their culture and their traditions’, and Article 6 TFEU lists culture as a policy area under the ‘categories and areas of Union competence’, with different actions that can be undertaken by the EU to ‘support, coordinate or complement the action of Member States’; whereas under Article 36 TFEU, Member States have the prerogative to define their national treasures within their jurisdiction and to implement the requisite measures for their safeguarding;

2. Stresses the numismatic and cultural value of the artefacts that were sent to Russia for safekeeping owing to the risks they faced during the First World War; highlights that while the majority of the cultural, artistic and archival goods were returned to Romania in 1935 and in 1956, the outstanding 91.5 tonnes of fine gold, part of the reserve of the National Bank of Romania, were never returned by Russia despite the protocols signed upon the transfer of the treasure to Russia; notes that the total amount of Romanian fine gold deposited in the Kremlin has a total value today of more than EUR 5.5 billion;

D. whereas EU law does not offer guidelines or a general classification of what constitutes a national treasure, since defining this is not a competence of the EU; whereas the term ‘national treasure’ is often subsumed under a variety of umbrella terms, such as ‘cultural goods’ and ‘cultural objects’;

3. Notes the establishment in 2003 of the Romanian-Russian Joint Commission, made up of experts mandated to enable discussions and efforts to achieve the return of the national treasure; regrets that meetings of this commission held during the years that followed, and most recently in 2019, did not lead to an agreement by the parties for the return of the treasure; notes that the Russian Federation, and the USSR before it, has never formally recognised that the treasure belongs to Romania and should be returned;

E. whereas the term ‘Romanian national treasure’ comprises the gold reserves of the National Bank of Romania, which consist of gold ingots and rare coins with a numismatic and cultural value that is distinct from the value of the gold itself, as well as cultural and artistic goods belonging to the country’s national heritage;

4. Calls on Russia to return to Romania the remainder of Romania’s national treasure, as transferred in 1916 and 1917, in accordance with the stipulations of the signed protocols, without delay;

F. whereas there are legislative grounds for the return of cultural goods and national treasures that have been removed from the territory of an EU country unlawfully through a breach of the legislation in force or a breach of the conditions under which temporary authorisation was granted for their removal;

5. Underlines that Russia’s illegal, unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine has fundamentally changed the context in which EU policy towards Russia, including diplomatic relations, can be discussed and determined; notes the possibility of including the call for the return of Romania’s national treasure on a future agenda of resumed EU-Russia relations when Russia has met the requirements for normalisation of relations with the EU, most importantly the complete termination of all of its military activities in Ukraine and the unconditional withdrawal of all of its forces and military equipment from the entire internationally recognised territory of Ukraine;

G. whereas the illegal seizure of Romania’s national treasure by Russia is a flagrant breach of international norms and customs, as the transfer of the state’s gold reserves, along with a substantial collection of cultural, artistic and archival goods, into the custody of another state for safekeeping in exceptional circumstances was covered by an official agreement supported by appropriate protocol documents and legal guarantees of return, the stipulated obligations of which were ignored;

6. Calls on the Commission to support the Romanian authorities in exploring legal avenues to ensure the return of the national treasure to Romania without delay;

H. whereas the restitution of the appropriated Romanian national treasure is of great importance for both the institutional and national memory of the country;

7. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European External Action Service, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and the President, Government and the Parliament of the Russian Federation.

I. whereas Romania has a fully valid claim to its gold reserves that were evacuated to Moscow in 1916 and 1917;

J. whereas bringing about the return of the Romanian national treasure requires a tailor-made European response;

1. Recalls that the illicit appropriation of Romania’s national treasure by Russia is the only international case in which a state’s monetary gold reserves and objects that are part of that state’s national heritage were entrusted to another country for safekeeping, under an agreement set out in proper protocol documents giving legal guarantees of return, and the obligations were ultimately disregarded, in breach of international norms and customs;

2. Recognises that the national treasure deposited for safekeeping in Moscow in 1916 and 1917 during the difficult times of the First World War, with the Government of Imperial Russia’s guarantee regarding the safety of transport, the safety of deposit and the safety of return to Romania, is an unparalleled international case of illegal appropriation of gold reserves and heritage objects and a matter of perpetual concern to Romanian society;

3. Notes that the First World War forced the Romanian Government of the time to entrust Romania’s national treasure to an allied state for protection against destruction; recalls that, during the wartime hardships, dozens of train carriages transported the majority of Romania’s national treasure to Tsarist Russia for safekeeping until times of peace, with a detailed inventory documenting the gold reserves of the National Bank of Romania, under Russia’s guarantee of protection and return, as witnessed by other states at the time; underlines that the national treasure legally given into Russian custody comprised 91.5 tonnes of fine gold belonging to the reserves of the National Bank of Romania, royal collections of jewels and rare coins, together with priceless cultural and historical assets, such as state archives, documents, precious historical manuscripts, heritage paintings, rare books and collections from many public and private institutions, spanning over five centuries of Romanian history;

4. Emphasises that, despite several attempts at diplomatic negotiations in the aftermath of the First World War, the Romanian national treasure has never been fully returned by Russia, as had been legally stipulated in the official bilateral agreement between the two states;

5. Notes that most of the cultural, artistic and archival goods belonging to the national treasure illegally appropriated by Russia were returned to Romania in 1935 and 1956; highlights that, to date, however, none of the outstanding 91.5 tonnes of fine gold, which are part of the reserves of the National Bank of Romania, have been returned;

6. Expresses its concern that, despite the creation of the Romanian-Russian Joint Commission of experts mandated to enable discussions on this issue, efforts to bring about the return of the Romanian national treasure – and thus to ensure the return of the illegally seized gold reserves of the National Bank of Romania – through bilateral diplomatic channels between Romania and Russia have been met with reluctance on Russia’s part to return what previous regimes have unlawfully kept in disregard of the restitution protocols that were signed;

7. Considers that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia must lead to a reassessment of EU-Russia relations in the future, which will comprise unprecedented diplomatic dynamics and requests, such as the return of the appropriated gold reserves to the National Bank of Romania;

8. Highlights that special attention must be paid to the preservation of Member States’ national treasures, as stipulated in the EU Treaties;

9. Welcomes the EU’s substantial efforts to protect national, cultural and historical heritage by implementing legislation and cooperation mechanisms governing the return of cultural and heritage assets unlawfully taken from EU countries’ territories and its efforts to combat the traffic in cultural goods; acknowledges that Directive 2014/60/EU is the key pillar of the EU’s commitment to safeguarding national treasures and cultural objects, while the EU Action Plan against Trafficking in Cultural Goods has confirmed the EU’s broader commitment to protecting cultural heritage; emphasises that unlawfully removed cultural objects must be returned, regardless of whether they have been relocated within the Union or exported to a non-EU state; notes that, while under the relevant provisions of the TFEU, current EU legislation covers the return of cultural goods and national treasures unlawfully removed before 1 January 1993 by one Member State to another, the repatriation of the Romanian national treasure remains a special case requiring a specific solution; highlights that the exceptional nature of the Romanian national treasure’s illegal appropriation underscores unique specificities that demand a tailor-made European response to facilitate its return, thus expanding the scope of the EU’s approach towards the restitution of cultural assets unlawfully removed from EU countries’ territories;

10. Emphasises that bringing about the return of an EU Member State’s cultural assets and national treasures that are unlawfully retained by a non-EU state requires substantial diplomatic dialogue, both bilaterally and within international forums;

11. Calls on the Commission to expand the scope of the EU policies governing the protection of cultural goods to include the recovery of national treasures relocated during wartime under bilateral agreements between states;

12. Calls on the Commission and the European External Action Service to include the return of the Romanian national treasure on the diplomatic bilateral agenda governing EU-Russia relations once the regional context permits the resumption of political dialogue between the parties;

13. Calls on the Commission to create concrete synergies with the Romanian State and the National Bank of Romania in order to mobilise coordinated efforts and to pursue all diplomatic means of mediating, promoting communication with Russian counterparts and seeking solutions to ensure that the missing national treasure is returned to where it belongs;

14. Calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of acting as a partner to the Romanian representatives involved in the Romanian-Russian Joint Commission mandated to discuss the return of the Romanian national treasure;

15. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European External Action Service and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.