<h3>EU Regulation 2019/880 Introduces Import License and Importer Statement Requirements, Effective June 28, 2025</h3>
<h3>A. Introduction</h3>
<p>The aim of regulation (EU) 2019/880 (the <strong>Regulation</strong>) and the implementing regulation (EU) 2021/1079 is to safeguard cultural heritage and combat the financing of terrorism and organized crime through the trafficking of cultural goods. With full effect as of June 28, 2025, the Regulation establishes a strict framework to prevent the import of cultural goods of illicit origin into the EU. The Regulation applies only to cultural goods created or discovered outside the EU.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a></p>
<p>But what exactly are cultural goods? Cultural goods are movable objects that are of <em>importance</em> for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and belong to one of the three categories (A-C) in the Regulation’s annex. Cultural goods can be, for example, archaeological objects, antiquities, inscriptions, coins and items of artistic interest such as paintings, drawings or sculptures.</p>
<h3>B. Risk-based Import Rules</h3>
<p>Not all cultural goods are equally vulnerable to illegal trade, looting or illicit excavations.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> Therefore, the Regulation introduces a risk-based import regime:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>General Prohibition Rule:</strong> The introduction of cultural goods into the EU that were illicitly exported from their countries of origin is prohibited since December 28, 2020. This applies to all cultural goods listed in Annex Part A of the Regulation, irrespective of their age or value.</li>
<li><strong>Import License:</strong> It is required to obtain an import license from the EU state of destination for archaeological cultural goods and components of architectural monuments older than 250 years, irrespective of their value. This applies to all cultural goods listed in Annex Part B of the Regulation.</li>
<li><strong>Importer Statement:</strong> Certain categories of cultural goods older than 200 years and a minimum value of EUR 18,000 require an importer statement. The statement consists of two parts: <em>firstly</em>, online registration of a description of the object and, <em>secondly</em>, a declaration by the importer on the licit origin of the cultural good. This applies to all cultural goods listed in Annex Part C of the Regulation.</li>
</ul>
<p>A major change of the Regulation is that the burden of proof for the legal export of cultural goods from their state of origin lies with the importer. Importer means the holder<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> of the cultural good who applies for the import license or submits the importer statement. This may be the owner, for example, but also an auction house or an art gallery. The importer is responsible for verifying that any cultural goods intended for import into the EU were lawfully exported from their non-EU state of origin. This must be proven by documents when applying for an import license – regardless of whether any record-keeping requirements existed at the time of previous exports, imports and transfers. Proof that a cultural good has been legally exported from its state of origin must be provided <em>primarily</em> in the form of export certificates and <em>secondarily</em> by other documents proving lawful export from the state of origin. If the laws of the state of origin did not require an export license at the time of export, this must also be proven.</p>
<p>Both the import license and the self-declaration procedure of the importer statement can be handled via the central electronic system (the <strong>ICG System</strong>), which is due to launch on June 28, 2025. The processing of import license applications up to issuance can take up to 90 days. This lengthy process has been criticized within the art market, as it may create uncertainty for cross-border trade. The competent authority (often the ministry for culture) of the EU member state, into which a cultural good is to be imported, will examine the application and issue the import license. The import license or importer statement should then be submitted to the destination EU member state’s customs authority together with the customs declaration. EU member states shall introduce their own rules on penalties for infringements of the Regulation, which means that penalties may vary from state to state. In addition to fines, monetary penalties and imprisonment, authorities may order seizure and confiscation of cultural goods.</p>
<h3>C. Exemptions from the Import License and Importer Statement</h3>
<p>No import license or importer statement is required for cultural goods:</p>
<ul>
<li>temporarily imported into the EU by educational, scientific or research institutions or museums for the purpose of conservation and/or exhibition;</li>
<li>re-imported into the EU as returned goods; or</li>
<li>sent by a foreign authority to the authorities of an EU member state for safe custody due to an imminent threat of destruction.</li>
</ul>
<p>An exception to the import license requirement also applies to the temporary importation of cultural goods for presentation at commercial art fairs: in such cases, an importer statement is sufficient for the temporary import. However, if the cultural good is sold at the art fair and subsequently remains in the EU, the import must be declared retrospectively, and an import license must be obtained.</p>
<h3>D. Derogations</h3>
<p>The geographical extent of ancient empires and their cultures often does not correspond with today’s national borders. In practice, it may not be possible to reliably attribute a cultural good to the state in which it was created or discovered. Furthermore, a cultural good may have been exported from its state of origin long before export regulations were introduced.</p>
<p>Proving that an export was lawful 20, 40 or even 100 years ago can be a difficult hurdle for an importer to overcome. Today’s standards of provenance and documentation requirements have not always been the norm. With that in mind, the Regulation provides for a derogation if the state of origin cannot be reliably determined or if the cultural good was removed from that state before April 24, 1972.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a> If either of these two conditions is met, the application for an import license may instead be accompanied by documents proving that the object was legally exported from the last state it resided in for more than five years (excluding temporary use, transit, re-export, or transshipment). An analogous rule applies to the importer’s statement, declaring that these conditions have been met.</p>
<h3>E. Implications for the Art Market, Collectors and Freeports in Switzerland</h3>
<p>The full entry into force of the Regulation introduces uncertainty for all stakeholders involved in the cross-border movement of cultural goods and will require particular diligence when exporting cultural goods from Switzerland to the EU. Market participants, including art dealers, auction houses, collectors, freeports or shipping companies in Switzerland will face new compliance requirements and potential delays due to the need for extensive documentation and the risk of divergent interpretations by customs authorities in different EU member states. This regulatory environment may deter transactions, as parties may be unsure whether a cultural good can ultimately be lawfully imported into the EU.</p>
<p>Early familiarization with the new requirements is recommended to prevent complications in the sale, loan or exhibition of cultural goods from Switzerland to the EU. In addition to carefully examining whether an import license or an importer’s declaration is required for the introduction of cultural goods into the EU, it must also be clarified whether the necessary documents for the objects are available or can at least be obtained. Since, under Swiss law, persons active in the art trade and auction business in Switzerland are obliged to inform their customers about the import and export rules of the signatory states to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, this duty to provide information now also covers the new EU import rules.</p>
<p>It is evident that the Regulation will impact the trading of cultural goods between Switzerland and the EU member states. At this point it is too early to predict whether the Regulation will give new impetus to art markets outside the EU or if Switzerland will lose its appeal as an international hub for the trade of art and antiques.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> The term &#171;state in which a cultural object was created or discovered&#187; is used synonymously with &#171;state of origin&#187; in this bulletin.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Specific EU regulations have been implemented to provide special protection for cultural goods from conflict zones in the Iraq war (Council Regulation (EU) No 1210/2003) and the Syrian war (Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012).</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Under EU Customs Code, the &#171;holder&#187; is the person who owns the goods or has similar power of disposal or who has actual control over the goods.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> On April 24, 1972, the UNESCO Convention 1970 on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property came into effect and calls upon its State Parties to take measures to prohibit and prevent the illicit trafficking of cultural goods. In Switzerland, the Federal Act on the International Transfer of Cultural Property (CPTA, SR 444.1) came into effect on June 1, 2005 and implemented the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 2001 UNESCO Convention into domestic law.</h6>


Bulletin-Preview-EU-Verordnung-Kunst_1000x1000

Stricter Rules for Importing Cultural Goods Into the EU

<p>The Swiss National Council has completed its deliberations on the partial revision of the Cartel Act (CartA), adopting several core elements of the reform. This marks a significant step toward modernizing Swiss competition law. The draft legislation now enters the conciliation process. The revised provisions are not expected to take effect before 2026.</p>
<h3><strong>1. Clarity on Key Points of the Revision</strong></h3>
<p>The following elements were broadly supported and have been adopted:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Modernization of merger control</strong> through the introduction of the SIEC test (significant impediment to effective competition), along with streamlined notification requirements.</li>
<li><strong>Strengthening of private antitrust enforcement</strong>, particularly by expanding legal standing for civil claims.</li>
<li><strong>Adjustments to procedural law</strong>, including a reinforcement of the ex officio investigation principle in administrative proceedings.</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>2. Key Issues Pending in the Conciliation Process</strong></h3>
<p>Several differences between the National Council and the Council of States remain to be resolved:</p>
<ul>
<li>For <strong>hardcore restrictions of competition</strong>, the National Council supports a case-by-case effects-based assessment, relying on both qualitative indicators and quantitative elements.</li>
<li>The National Council rejects the Council of States’ proposed limitation of the <strong>presumption of price-fixing</strong> to minimum and fixed prices and maintains the current, broader wording.</li>
<li>The National Council further advocates for a <strong>similar effects-based test for abuse of dominance cases</strong>.</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>3. What This Means for Businesses</strong></h3>
<p>Companies operating in Switzerland should anticipate the following impacts:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Lower intervention thresholds in merger control</strong>, potentially resulting in more frequent in-depth (Phase II) reviews.</li>
<li><strong>Stricter evidentiary standards for competition authorities</strong>, if the effects-based approach is adopted, when proving anticompetitive agreements or abuse of dominance.</li>
<li><strong>Facilitated access to civil litigation</strong>, with lower hurdles for filing antitrust damages claims.</li>
</ul>


Cartel Act Revision: National Council Sets the Course

<h3>Background</h3>
<p>As per 1 January 2022, the antitrust prohibition of abusive conduct has been extended to companies with relative market power: Not only dominance, but also relative market power must not be abused. A company is considered to have relative market power if another company does not have sufficient and reasonable alternative options and therefore is dependent on the former company. Companies with relative market power must in principle treat dependent companies equally with respect to prices, discounts as well as other terms and conditions. In addition, the possibility for dependent companies to purchase goods or services from outside of Switzerland at the local prices and conditions must not be restricted. The introduction of relative market power aims at the so-called &#171;high-price island&#187; Switzerland and is a result of the Fair-Price Initiative (see the <a href="https://homburger.ch/en/insights/fair-price-initiative-implemented-by-parliament" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Homburger Bulletin dated 17 March 2021</a>).</p>
<p>After the existence or abuse of relative market power has been rejected in earlier rulings by both the Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO) and the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft (in a case under civil law), the COMCO has now, for the first time, found an abuse of relative market power and ordered measures.</p>
<h3>Abuse of Relative Market Power Regarding French-language Books</h3>
<p><em>Distribution of French-language books in France and Switzerland</em></p>
<p>French-language books are mainly marketed by publishing houses. Booksellers at the retail level generally purchase books directly from the publishing houses. There are a few regional wholesalers in France for smaller booksellers and to address gaps in the product range.</p>
<p>In France, publishers such as Madrigall are legally obliged to set fixed retail prices (book price fixing), on the basis of which they grant discounts to booksellers.</p>
<p>Since 2007, Swiss booksellers have no longer been subject to such fixed book prices and set their own retail prices. However, their purchase prices in Switzerland for French-language books are based on the retail prices set in France, which are adjusted by a surcharge (e.g. customs duties and exchange rate adjustments) and converted into recommended Swiss retail prices. From these prices, Swiss booksellers receive individual discounts from the publishing houses, which determine the final purchase price.</p>
<p>It is generally permitted for Swiss booksellers to purchase books directly in France and import them into Switzerland independently, as the Swiss bookseller Payot intended to do.</p>
<p><em>Market power of Madrigall</em></p>
<p>In order to determine whether a company has relative market power, the COMCO relies on the following criteria:</p>
<ol>
<li><em>Dependency</em>: Does the undertaking concerned have sufficient and reasonable alternative options? The COMCO examines this question in three steps:
<ol>
<li>Determination of the alternative options</li>
<li>Determination of the possible implications of alternative options</li>
<li>Assessment of the proportionality of the implications</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><em>Lack of countervailing power of the dependent company</em>: Is there an uneven distribution of power between the companies with regard to the business in question?</li>
<li><em>Gross negligence</em>: Is the dependency due to the dependent company&#8217;s own misconduct?</li>
</ol>
<p>Madrigall is one of the largest publishing groups in France, comprising approximately 15 publishing houses. The COMCO has concluded that Payot is dependent on Madrigall as a bookseller, as there are no sufficient and reasonable alternative options for Payot. Neither wholesalers in France and Switzerland nor the grey market can supply Payot with the required quantity of books under acceptable conditions. A complete withdrawal from Madrigall books would result in a considerable loss of sales and a notable reduction in the attractiveness of Payot as a generalist bookseller, given that Madrigall offers a highly renowned product catalogue.</p>
<p>With regard to the question of countervailing power, the COMCO found that there is a clear imbalance in the disadvantages that the two companies would face if the distribution relationship were to be terminated. While Madrigall has numerous distribution options in French-speaking Switzerland, Payot is completely dependent upon Madrigall. The question of gross negligence was deemed irrelevant, since generalist booksellers like Payot are effectively forced to offer Madrigall&#8217;s books. Furthermore, these books can only be obtained through Madrigall&#8217;s (exclusive) distribution system. Madrigall therefore has a relative market power over Payot as a bookseller in French-speaking Switzerland.</p>
<p><em>Abuse</em></p>
<p>It is not prohibited for an undertaking to have a relative market power. It is prohibited to abuse such relative market power.</p>
<p>The COMCO has determined that Madrigall has abused its relative market power in this case by demanding significantly higher purchase prices from Payot than from French booksellers. Madrigall sought to justify the higher purchase prices for Payot by arguing that additional costs were involved in direct delivery to Switzerland. However, according to the COMCO, Madrigall can only prove that a small part of these additional costs arise solely because Payot operates in Switzerland and not in France. These include higher labour costs in Switzerland and damages incurred from removing labels before returning books. According to the COMCO, the other costs claimed (e.g. conversion costs) do not justify a permanent increase in purchase prices. Consequently, there is an abuse of Madrigall&#8217;s relative market power.</p>
<p><em>Measures of the COMCO</em></p>
<p>The COMCO obliges Madrigall to offer Payot the same conditions as those granted to French booksellers in the event of direct delivery from France. However, Madrigall has the option of increasing the purchase price based on proven additional costs or adjusting the discount accordingly.</p>
<p>Should Madrigall infringe the imposed measures, the COMCO can open a new investigation and, if necessary, impose sanctions. However, the abuse of relative market power in itself, in contrast to the abuse of a dominant market position, does not result in any direct sanctions.</p>
<h3>Previous Rulings on Relative Market Power</h3>
<p><em>COMCO&#8217;s order of discontinuation of 24 June 2024 regarding Fresenius Kabi</em></p>
<p>On 24 June 2024, the COMCO closed its investigation into the international pharmaceutical company Fresenius Kabi. The subject of the investigation was the accusation of abuse of relative market power in that Fresenius Kabi prevented or refused Galexis AG from purchasing products (drink and tube feeding solutions) from abroad at more favorable conditions.</p>
<p>The COMCO dismissed the existence of relative market power due to a lack of dependency. It came to the conclusion that Galexis AG had sufficient and reasonable alternative options. However, even if Fresenius Kabi had relative market power, the COMCO considered that there would be no abuse of this power, since the conditions offered by suppliers abroad were at most only slightly better and Galexis AG would therefore not have been exploited.</p>
<p><em>Decision of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft of 13 December 2023</em></p>
<p>On 13 December 2023, the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft ruled on precautionary measures requested by A. GmbH against B. GmbH, based in Germany, for abusing relative market power. A. GmbH had been the sole distributor of B. GmbH products in Switzerland for 27 years and in 2022 purchased approximately 90% of its total sales volume from B. GmbH. A. GmbH claimed that B. GmbH abused its relative market power by terminating the long-standing partner conditions with a notice period of only six months. This threatened the existence of A. Ltd. as it was unable to reorganize itself within this timeframe.</p>
<p>The Cantonal Court came to the conclusion that A. GmbH was not able to sufficiently demonstrate that it would suffer a disadvantage that could not be easily remedied as a result of the termination of the partner conditions. The alleged price increases and the risk of insolvency were not sufficiently substantiated. Furthermore, A. GmbH was unable to demonstrate the existence of a relationship of dependency between the two parties. The mere assertion of dependency, whether product-related or company-related, was insufficient. Even if a dependency had existed, it would have been the result of unsound business decisions on the part of A. GmbH. The latter should have taken measures in a timely manner to diversify its suppliers and to provide contractual safeguards.</p>
<h3>Implications for Companies</h3>
<p>The decision taken by the COMCO regarding French-language books has implications for companies operating internationally. They should review, on a case-by-case basis, the dependency of their respective Swiss contractual partners. In contrast to the assessment of market dominance, the determination of relative market power is not based on the characteristics of the company in question, but on the nature of the relationships with its individual contractual partners.</p>
<p>If there is relative market power, the company in question should take appropriate steps to prevent an abuse. For example, it should ensure that requests from Switzerland to be supplied abroad are not rejected. While price increases with reference to Switzerland are not excluded in principle, such increases must be convincingly justified with specific additional costs in view of the COMCO decision regarding French-language books.</p>
<p>In general, a company with relative market power must adapt its behavior to comply with the prohibition of abuse set forth in Article 7 of the Swiss Cartel Act. In particular, dependent companies must, in principle, be treated equally with regard to prices, discounts and other terms and conditions. In addition, companies with relative market power may be required to demonstrate that contract terminations or exclusivity agreements can be justified based on objective reasons.</p>


Homburger Bulletin Fair Price Initiative

First Finding of Abuse of Relative Market Power

IP / IT

Regulatory

CDR-Life

Homburger News

Homburger advised CDR-Life AG on a new global licensing agreement with Boehringer Ingelheim

<p>On November 4, 2025, CDR-Life and Boehringer Ingelheim announced a new global licensing agreement to develop CDR-Life’s unique antibody-based molecule CDR111 for autoimmune diseases. The agreement builds on the companies’ successful collaboration on an investigational antibody fragment. Under the terms of the agreement, CDR-Life is eligible for up to a total of CHF 456 m in payments, including CHF 38 m in upfront and near-term payments, plus tiered royalties on future sales.</p>
<p>Homburger acted as counsel to CDR-Life AG. The Homburger team was led by Luca Dal Molin (IP / IT) and included Richard Stäuber (Regulatory) and Joel Fink (IP / IT).</p>


Corporate / M&A

Share-Image Teamplate Deals-and-Cases

Homburger advises Marex Group plc on the acquisition of Valcourt SA

<p>On October 22, 2025, Marex Group plc, a diversified global financial services platform, announced that it had agreed to acquire Valcourt SA.</p>
<p>Valcourt is a fixed-income market maker based in Geneva, Switzerland, specializing in fixed-income instruments such as high-yield, subordinated, emerging markets, private, illiquid, and sustainable debt. The acquisition will add 700 clients, ranging from banks, independent wealth managers and asset managers.</p>
<p>The acquisition is expected to enhance Marex’s fixed-income business and bring a substantial distribution offering that serves the Swiss institutional community, in particular private banks, and wealth and asset management companies, consistent with Marex’s strategy to add new clients and new capabilities to its platform to diversify earnings.</p>
<p>The deal is subject to regulatory approval and is expected to close in the first half of 2026.</p>
<p>The Homburger team comprises Andreas Müller, Thierry Burckhardt (both Corporate / M&amp;A), Benjamin Leisinger, Carla Bertossa (both Regulatory), and Philippe Gobet (Tax).</p>


Technology and Digital Economy

Litigation

Competition

Healthcare / Life Sciences

Georg Rauber-web-640x140

Homburger partner Georg Rauber new Chairman of the Swiss Bar Association SAV

<p>At the delegates&#8250; meeting of June 20, 2025, the members of the Swiss Bar Association (SAV) elected <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/en/team/georg-rauber">Georg Rauber</a> as the successor to the previous Chairman, Matthias Miescher. After Eric Homburger, he is the second lawyer from the Homburger law firm to hold the office of the SAV Chair.</p>
<p>Dr. iur. Georg Rauber has been a partner at Homburger since 1996 and headed the IP / IT practice team during more than 15 years. He has extensive and long-standing experience in all areas of the IP / IT practice team. He focuses on supporting transactions and represents clients in litigation and arbitration proceedings relating to the enforcement and licensing of IP rights, in particular software and copyrights, in IT projects and outsourcing as well as in the marketing of rights in sport events. From 2011 to 2012 he presided over the Zurich Bar Association (ZAV). Since 2016 he has been member of the Supervisory Board of the Zurich Bar, and since 2019 he is a member of the Board of the Swiss Bar, which he will now chair from 2025 to 2027.</p>


Regulatory

Main Contacts

Stricter Rules for Importing Cultural Goods Into the EU

Cartel Act Revision: National Council Sets the Course

First Finding of Abuse of Relative Market Power

Homburger advised CDR-Life AG on a new global licensing agreement with Boehringer Ingelheim

Homburger advises Marex Group plc on the acquisition of Valcourt SA

Homburger partner Georg Rauber new Chairman of the Swiss Bar Association SAV

Intellectual Property Licensing and Competition Law

Fintech 2026: Switzerland

Proposed Amendment of Swiss Capital Adequacy Ordinance regarding AT1 Instruments – a First Assessment by Practitioners