International circulation of works of art: what changes with Law No. 40/2026

The 50,000-Euro threshold and the certificate of free circulation: what changes when exporting a work

The most visible change introduced by Law No. 40/2026 concerns the economic threshold for the permanent export of works of art from Italian territory.

Before the reform, for works by deceased artists, created more than seventy years ago, the reference value was 13,500 euros. Above that threshold, permanent export from Italy was subject to authorisation. Below that threshold, a simplified regime applied.

Law No. 40/2026 raises this threshold to 50,000 euros.

More specifically, Article 5 of the law amends Article 65, paragraph 3, letter a), of the Cultural Heritage Code. The provision now states that the permanent export from the territory of the Republic of objects that are of cultural interest, are works by deceased artists, are more than seventy years old and have a value exceeding 50,000 euros is subject to authorisation, with the exception of the objects referred to in Annex A, letter B, no. 1.

The same threshold is coordinated in Article 65, paragraph 4, letter b), for works with a value below 50,000 euros, whose export is not subject to authorisation.

The practical point is this: many works that previously required a certificate of free circulation now fall under the simplified regime.

This is not a marginal difference.

The certificate of free circulation, governed by Article 68 of the Code, is the document required in order to permanently export from Italy the objects referred to in Article 65, paragraph 3. Anyone wishing to export the work must present it to the export office, state its market value and wait for the administration’s assessment. The office may issue the certificate or refuse it with reasons. In the event of refusal, the procedure for declaring the cultural interest of the work begins.

This is why the economic threshold matters. It does not, by itself, determine whether a work has cultural value. It does, however, determine which procedure applies.

Above the threshold, the owner enters the authorisation procedure under Article 68.

Below the threshold, the work may leave under the declaratory regime provided for by Article 65, paragraphs 4 and 4-bis.

The reform therefore moves many works from the first regime to the second.

The legislative choice is quite clear: public control is not eliminated, but is concentrated on works that exceed a higher economic threshold. This is a way to reduce the administrative burden on assets of more limited value and to bring Italian rules closer to European standards, already present in EC Regulation No. 116/2009 on the export of cultural goods.

However, caution is needed: the threshold is not a “certificate of cultural irrelevance.”

A work under 50,000 euros may still have cultural interest. Economic value does not coincide with historical, artistic or documentary value. The threshold serves to regulate the export procedure, not to establish in absolute terms whether the asset deserves protection.

This distinction must be kept firmly in mind, because it avoids a frequent misunderstanding: the reform does not say that works below 50,000 euros do not matter. It says that, for many of them, permanent export no longer requires the prior authorisation provided for works above the threshold.

There is also an important clarification.

The 50,000-euro threshold does not apply to all cultural assets. For archaeological assets, a stricter regime remains in place, because control does not depend on the economic value of the individual object, but on its nature and possible historical, scientific and documentary interest.

Moreover, the 13,500-euro threshold does not disappear entirely from the Code. Law No. 40/2026 introduces a specific regime for library materials.

The new Article 65, paragraph 3, letter a-bis) provides that library materials, regardless of ownership, which are of cultural interest, are works by deceased authors, date back more than seventy years and have a value exceeding 13,500 euros, are subject to authorisation, with the exception of the objects referred to in Annex A, letter B, no. 1.

In parallel, the new Article 65, paragraph 4, letter b-bis) governs the export not subject to authorisation of library materials below that threshold.

In essence, the general threshold for many ancient works of art rises to 50,000 euros; for library materials, an autonomous threshold of 13,500 euros remains.

The reform also intervenes on the duration of declarations relating to works not subject to authorisation.

Article 5 adds the new paragraph 4-ter to Article 65. The provision states that the temporal validity of the declarations provided for in paragraph 4-bis is equal to the duration of the certificate of free circulation. Since Article 68, paragraph 5, provides that the certificate is valid for five years, declarations for simplified export also have a duration of five years.

This is a technical, but useful, amendment.

For galleries, auction houses, collectors and professional operators, it means greater documentary stability. A declaration does not have to be repeated after a short time merely because the commercial, logistical or exhibition-related operation requires longer time frames.

Finally, the law amends another delicate point: the possibility of withdrawing the application for a certificate.

Article 4, paragraph 4, of Law No. 40/2026 intervenes on Article 68, paragraph 1, of the Code. The new text provides that the person submitting the declaration, and their successors in title, may withdraw it before notification of the communication of the certificate of free circulation or of the refusal.

This provision changes the relationship between the private party and the administration.

Under the previous system, submitting an application for a certificate could be perceived as a risky step: once the procedure had begun, the owner feared that they would no longer be able to control the effects of the request. The reform instead introduces an exit window. The applicant may withdraw the declaration before the administration formally communicates the certificate or the refusal.

This does not mean that the owner can evade all control. It means that the export application becomes less rigid.

The amendments to Articles 65 and 68 therefore produce several practical effects.

For many ancient works, the threshold rises from 13,500 to 50,000 euros. For library materials, a specific threshold of 13,500 euros remains. For archaeological assets, control remains stricter. Declarations below the threshold have a duration aligned with that of the certificate, namely five years. The application for a certificate may be withdrawn before notification of the certificate or of the refusal.

The result is a more workable system. More works will be able to leave under a simplified procedure. Declarations will have a more stable duration. The application for a certificate becomes less irreversible.

Public protection remains, but the boundary of automatic preventive control is moved back.

This new structure, however, does not concern only the economic value of the work. It becomes particularly relevant when the asset has foreign provenance or is the work of a foreign artist: and it is here that the reform introduces an even more selective criterion.

Foreign works and import certification: the new boundary between Italian protection and international transit

Law No. 40/2026 intervenes on a delicate point of the international circulation of works of art: not every work located in Italy must be treated as part of Italian cultural heritage.

The issue concerns two different situations.

The first is that of works by foreign artists present in Italy, for which a certificate of free circulation is requested. The second is that of works arriving from abroad and temporarily introduced into Italian territory for an exhibition, restoration, sale, fair, expert assessment or deposit.

In the first case, the work is located in Italy and the owner asks to export it. In the second, the work comes from abroad and it is necessary to document that its entry into Italy is temporary.

In both cases, the reform affirms a more selective criterion: physical presence in Italy alone is not enough to justify the full application of Italian protection rules.

For works by foreign artists, Article 4, paragraph 5, of Law No. 40/2026 introduces a precise rule: for the purposes of Article 68 of the Cultural Heritage Code, the certificate of free circulation may not be refused unless the specific relevance of the work to the history of culture in Italy has been ascertained.

The consequence is practical. In order to block the export of a work by a foreign artist, it is not enough to state that the work is important, that the artist is well known or that the asset has significant economic value. The administration must give reasons for the qualified connection with Italian culture.

Artistic value alone is not enough. A specific link with Italian cultural history is required: for example provenance, commission, long-term presence in Italy, belonging to a historic Italian collection, a relationship with a national artistic context or another element capable of justifying protection.

The same need for distinction emerges in the amendment to Article 72 of the Code, dedicated to entry certification.

Entry certification serves to document that a work has arrived in Italy from abroad. The Code distinguishes between the certificate of dispatch, for works coming from a Member State of the European Union, and the certificate of importation, for works coming from a third country.

The certificates are issued by the export office, upon application, on the basis of documentation suitable to identify the asset and prove its foreign provenance. Affidavits or substitute declarations are not sufficient.

Entry certification is not a merely formal requirement. It serves to prevent a work temporarily entered into Italy from being treated as if it were permanently present in the national territory.

Law No. 40/2026 amends precisely this point. Before the reform, Article 72, paragraph 1, referred to the objects and assets indicated in Article 65, paragraph 3. The new law removes the words “paragraph 3”. Today, therefore, Article 72 refers to the objects and assets indicated in Article 65 as a whole.

The amendment is brief, but significant. Entry certification is no longer connected only to works subject to prior authorisation. It extends to the broader scope of Article 65, including categories that previously risked remaining outside the certification system.

This means that even works not subject to prior authorisation, or in any case placed under lighter circulation regimes, may have an interest in obtaining entry certification. For operators, the point is not only to know whether the work may enter Italy. It is to be able to prove, when it later has to leave, that the work came from abroad and was located in Italy only temporarily.

The issue is connected to Judgment No. 51/2026 of the Constitutional Court, which clarified the function of entry certification in distinguishing between a foreign work in transit and a work permanently present in Italy. The Court declared Article 72, paragraph 1, constitutionally unlawful insofar as it did not provide for certification, upon application by the interested party, for ancient works with a value below 13,500 euros.

The Court thus strengthened a principle already central for operators: anyone temporarily introducing a work into Italy must be able to document its entry, even when the asset does not fall among those subject to prior authorisation for export.

For art market operators, the consequence is concrete.

A gallery bringing a work to Italy for a fair, a restorer receiving an asset from abroad, an auction house moving a work for sale or a collector temporarily depositing an asset in Italy needs certainty regarding the subsequent exit of the work.

Without clear documentation of entry, the risk is that the asset will be treated as permanently present in Italy, with significant consequences for its future circulation.

The new criterion can be read as follows: for foreign works, blocking export requires specific relevance to the history of Italian culture; for works coming from abroad, entry certification serves to document transit.

The reform does not eliminate controls. It does, however, shift the focus from the mere material fact of presence in Italy to the actual relationship between the work, its provenance and national cultural history.

This approach also affects the internal and temporary movements of works: movements, loans for exhibitions and circulation of non-displayed assets become the operational testing ground of the reform.

Movement of cultural property, loans for exhibitions and non-displayed works: what changes for museums, owners and operators

Law No. 40/2026 also amends certain operational rules affecting museums, collectors, restorers, local authorities and exhibition organisers.

The main issues are three: movement of movable cultural property, loans of works of art for exhibitions and displays, and temporary circulation of works from State museums not displayed to the public.

The first change concerns the movement of movable cultural property.

Before the reform, the movement of a movable cultural asset fell among the interventions subject to ministerial authorisation. Law No. 40/2026 repeals Article 21, paragraph 1, letter b), of the Cultural Heritage Code and amends Article 21, paragraph 2.

Today, the movement of cultural property no longer requires prior authorisation in the full sense, but it must be reported in advance to the superintendent. Within thirty days of receiving the report, the Superintendency may prescribe the measures necessary to ensure that the asset does not suffer damage during transport.

The practical question is simple: can a cultural asset be moved without authorisation?

The answer must be distinguished.

The prior authorisation provided for by the former Article 21, paragraph 1, letter b), is no longer required. However, prior notice to the Superintendency is still required. Movement is therefore not free. It is simplified.

The difference matters. The owner, holder or restorer no longer has to wait for full authorisation for every movement, but must communicate the transfer in advance. The Superintendency retains a power of control, limited, however, to any prescriptions aimed at preventing damage during transport.

The second change concerns loans of works of art for exhibitions and displays.

Law No. 40/2026 amends Article 48 of the Cultural Heritage Code and introduces an express time limit: authorisation for the loan must be issued within ninety days of the request.

This does not mean that the loan is automatic. Authorisation remains necessary and must take account of the conservation needs of the asset and, for assets belonging to the State, also of the needs of public enjoyment.

The time limit, however, makes the procedure more predictable. For museums, foundations, galleries and exhibition organisers, time is not a detail. A loan authorised late may affect the exhibition calendar, transport contracts, communication, insurance and agreements with lenders.

The reform also intervenes on the issue of insurance for works on loan.

The new Article 48, paragraph 5-bis, provides that IVASS and the Italian Competition Authority shall ensure, within the exercise of their respective functions, the transparency and sustainability of the insurance market relating to policies taken out for assets on loan.

This point is useful because the circulation of works does not depend only on administrative authorisation. It also depends on risk management: declared value, insurance coverage, transport, conservation conditions and the responsibilities of the parties involved.

The third change concerns works from State museums not displayed to the public.

Article 6 of Law No. 40/2026 provides for the establishment of a list of works belonging to the collections of State museums, not displayed to the public and suitable for temporary circulation within the national territory because they have no conservation issues. The list must be established by decree of the Ministry of Culture and updated every twenty-four months.

The question is inevitable: will works kept in the storage facilities of State museums be able to circulate more?

They will be able to circulate more, but within defined conditions.

Italian municipalities may request the temporary movement into their territory of works included in the list, but they must meet precise conditions: the presence of a public museum with an appointed director, the drafting of a cultural project also connected to tourist, food and wine or sports circuits, the availability of spaces suitable for the conservation and custody of the work, and possible involvement of territorial museum networks. The costs remain borne by the requesting authority.

The logic is concrete: to make visible works that are currently not on display, without compromising their conservation.

This part of the reform responds to a well-known problem: many State museums keep works in storage that the public does not see. The law attempts to create an orderly channel for their temporary circulation, especially within the national territory.

The new balance can be read as follows.

The movement of movable cultural property becomes simpler, but remains subject to prior reporting. Loans for exhibitions and displays have a more certain time limit, but remain subject to conservation requirements. Non-displayed works from State museums may circulate, but only if they are included in a list and intended for verifiable cultural projects.

The reform does not make every movement free. Rather, it seeks to prevent protection from always coinciding with immobility.

After Law No. 40/2026, moving, lending or making a work temporarily accessible becomes more predictable. However, it remains necessary to document the movement, comply with conservation prescriptions and distinguish simplification from free circulation without controls.