the questions raised by the Court of Auditors

Paris. The Court of Auditors was keen to publish as quickly as possible, after the burglary of the Apollo gallery which caused a stir around the world, the report it had been preparing for a long time on the Louvre Museum. Especially since pages devoted to security had been communicated to the press, undoubtedly by one of the recipients of the pre-report outside the Court, according to a magistrate interviewed by the Arts Journal. The Court worked hard to solicit and integrate responses from the respondents, mainly the management of the Louvre.

The strong media coverage of this report, as evidenced by the countless television cameras present in the press room, contributes to fueling the debate on the museum’s responsibilities, and even more to influencing its strategic choices. Starting with the thorny subject of the safety of works.

A lack of interest in security issues?

The leaked pre-report suggested a heavy charge against the museum, which was accused of not having taken much interest in the safety (protection against accidents) and safety (protection against intentional acts) of the works. This is not what we understand from the final report despite the complexity of the subject. This complexity arises from the fact that the protection of works goes beyond the simple installation of surveillance cameras and involves the modernization of security PCs, the cabling network, detection software, fire-fighting equipment, air conditioning, etc.

Strictly speaking, it is correct that the deployment of cameras in the rooms has fallen significantly behind schedule since, at the end of 2024, only 39% of the rooms were equipped with them compared to 34% in 2019. But on the other hand, the Louvre has developed several work master plans, including one focused specifically on security launched in 2018 and for which the contracts were notified… in October 2025. Thus, Generally speaking, it seems that the museum has not always been diligent in the study phase of the different plans nor very thorough in their implementation, sometimes making them budgetary adjustment variables.

A lack of interest in the maintenance and renovation of the building?

During his speech to the press, the first president of the Court of Auditors, Pierre Moscovici, compared the 87 million euros spent on the maintenance and restoration of the palace with the 169 million committed for the museography and acquisitions of works. He insisted that the “Louvre has accumulated a considerable delay in bringing the technical infrastructure and restoration of the palace up to standard.” Once again, an undeniable delay, but it does not prejudge a lack of interest from the two directors of the period covered. Laurence des Cars, the current president and director, launched at the end of 2023 “an approach to developing an overall renovation master plan, taking into account both urgent short-term needs and work to be planned over a period of ten years”. This plan was taken up during Emmanuel Macron’s announcement of a “Louvre – New Renaissance”, associated with the project of a new entrance and new spaces for the Mona Lisa under the Cour Carrée. The cost of “Louvre Demain” (according to its name) is estimated at 481 million euros. During his Senate hearing, Laurence des Cars indicated that following the robbery, the Denon wing where the Apollo gallery is located would be placed in the priority areas, which was not the case in the initial plan.

Expensive acquisitions?

Between 2018 and 2024, the Louvre spent 145 million euros (including 105 million from its own resources) to acquire 2,754 works. A sum that the Court finds excessive – it is true that the sum is twice the payment appropriations from the Ministry of Culture to help all other museums, national and territorial, to purchase works. She also points out that less than one in four works has been exhibited since. To which the museum responds that, among these, 488 works are not intended to be presented on a regular basis. The report notes that the museum sometimes pays a little dearly for its purchases and underlines, as in its 2022 report, that curators should be more discreet when a work comes up for public sale, in order to avoid raising the stakes. Furthermore, the recent hanging of works commissioned by the Louvre from the South African artist Marlene Dumas is not very appropriate for a museum of ancient art, and at a time when the Ministry of Culture wishes to favor the French scene. To limit the Louvre’s acquisition budget, the report recommends removing the rule of 20% of ticketing revenue allocated to acquisitions and no longer using revenue from brand royalties for this purpose.

Reserves already saturated?

Inaugurated in 2019, the Louvre Conservation Center (CCL) in Liévin (Pas-de-Calais) has made it possible to accommodate 246,000 works, a large part of which was until now located in flood-prone areas within the palace. But while emphasizing the success of the project, the magistrates note that the center is used more and more “against use”as a temporary storage space intended for works transferred due to work at the museum. So the establishment must start work on the planned extension faster than expected and therefore finance it. The Louvre defends itself weakly, arguing that this temporary storage is “secondary with regard to the overall activity of the CCL”, preferring to highlight the 55% of flood-prone reserve areas evacuated…, which still leaves 45%.

An endowment fund under the influence of the Louvre?

Made up of royalties from the Louvre Abu Dhabi for 260 million euros, donations and bequests for 43 million euros, and the capitalization of financial products, the Louvre Museum endowment fund today has a portfolio of more than 360 million euros. It has paid more than 80 million euros to the Louvre since its origin with an overpayment of 23 million euros in 2023. While welcoming the good management of the financial portfolio whose annual return is almost 6%, the report denounces the low autonomy of the fund in relation to the museum, which has three members out of six on the board of directors and can dismiss its general director at any time. It recommends modifying the statutes of the fund so that the museum is in the minority and that an agreement governs the relationship between the fund and the museum with regard to canvassing patrons. Finally, and above all, he asks that the museum return to the fund the 207 million euros from the brand royalty that it has retained. The museum does not agree on this last point and a great battle awaits if parliamentarians take up the subject.

Friends who are too spoiled?

The Society of Friends of the Louvre has long managed subscription cards for access to the museum. A real windfall since it has more than 67,000 members, or more than 4 million euros in revenue, largely donated to the Louvre. But the magistrates believe that it is up to the museum to manage its subscription offers, which is not really in favor of them. The Louvre has, however, promised to regulate the delegation of this activity to the Friends through an agreement. The magistrates also point out that the competition between the Louvre, the endowment fund and the Society of Friends in seeking patrons is not optimal and should be better coordinated.

Is there a need for a new entrance to the east?

The Court was careful not to comment on the relevance of the project for a new entrance into the Grande Colonnade which would lead to new spaces under the Cour Carrée for exhibitions in particular. There Mona Lisa. Announced and therefore supported by the President of the Republic, this project has a strong political dimension. But by multiplying the attacks against the “Louvre-Grande Colonnade”, the magistrates of Rue Cambon show that they are not in favor of it. They regret that the project was launched at full speed without prior studies and in the absence of other solutions to streamline traffic in the museum, recalling that there are entrances to the Porte-des-Lions and the Sessions pavilion. They emphasize that the newly created spaces will be in a flood zone and that the entrance is conveniently close to the Samaritaine. But above all, they affirm that the museum does not have the means to finance the 667 million for this project (“a low hypothesis”) which was estimated at 445 million euros just a few weeks ago.

Does the Louvre have the means to achieve its ambitions?

The Louvre is not poor, repeated Pierre Moscovici. Thanks to its 210 million euros of own resources (ticketing, development of the estate, income from the endowment fund, etc.) and the 105 million euros of state subsidies, it largely covers its operating expenses and even generates a positive result of 19 million euros in 2024. But taking into account the increase in personnel expenses, and according to the museum’s own studies, the trajectory will deteriorate to the point of generating only 1.5 million of euros in revenue in 2029. Difficult in these conditions to finance the 1.1 billion euros of the “Renaissance” project, even relying on the higher pricing for non-European visitors which is due to come into force in January 2026 as well as on sponsorship revenue.

The financing of the 481 million euros of the vast master plan for the works (“Louvre Demain”) is itself not assured, while the renovation work has not yet all been budgeted and the envelope is in the low range. This is why the report recommends pausing the “Grande Colonnade” project, reducing the acquisition budget and returning the money from the brand royalty that the Louvre keeps in its coffers to the endowment fund in order to secure financing for the work in the medium and long term.

Ultimately, did the museum “favored visible and attractive operations to the detriment of the maintenance of the palace”as the Court insists, alluding to the creation of the future department of the Arts of Byzantium and the Christendoms in the East as well as to expensive acquisitions? If this was true in the past, nothing says that a more rapid implementation of the security master plan would have avoided the burglary of the Apollo gallery, while there were no fires, floods or attacks on the square. The skill of Laurence des Cars was to link the vast renovation plan of the palace to the “Grande Colonnade” project. But after the Court’s report on the impossible financing of it, it will be difficult to maintain the project as it is.