Page 42 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol. 5(1) (2017)
P. 42
dia universitatis her editati, letnik 5 (2017), številk a 1 42located in the near vicinity of cultural heritageble in both countries. Furthermore, in Italy, cul
applies as well, if required for the needs of land tural heritage whose renovation has been funded
hereditatiscaping. This was critically reviewed,13 since the by the ministry must be at least partially accessi
purpose of landscaping does not require perma ble to public, which reflects the concept of a quid
nent ownership but only temporary occupation pro quo – public use for public funds.
(occupazione) against compensation for the time
of landscaping procedures; however, such in in It seems particularly beneficial, that in Cro
strument is not implied in the “Cultural Herit atia the state of cultural heritage is surveyed at
age and Landscape Code” – but it is in the case least once every five years, for which a special
of archaeological research (Article 88). form is available (Articles 51 through 53 of the
Cultural Heritage Protection and Preservation
In all three countries, mobile archaeologi Law – Zakona o zaštiti i očuvanju kulturnih do-
cal finds are state property according to the law. bara), which would be a good idea in Slovenia
In Italy, this extends to the immobile archaeo as well, monitoring is an immensely important
logical heritage; according to Italian legislature, aspect of preventive action and integral preser
(archaeological) goods under the ground are ex vation of heritage; regular maintenance would
empted from ownership rights. In practice, in It greatly reduce the costs of heritage maintenance.
aly, too, access to these remains is ensured in the
disownment and pre-emption act. As in the case of maintenance, public ac
cessibility also relates to the owner’s capabilities
In Italy, the procedure of keeping record of in Slovenia – provided it is implied in the prom
cultural heritage is also different in regards to its ulgation act. It is only mandatory to allow ac
ownership. In the case of public ownership, cul cess to authorized personnel of the Institute for
tural heritage is automatically any cultural good the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia
of a deceased author, which is older than 50 (ZVKDS) for the purposes of documenting and
years. The ministry can conduct surveys of cul research. It is also mandatory to tag the monu
tural interest – prompted by the owners them ment in a prescribed manner, provided it is not
selves; if no such interest is established, a cultur contrary to the benefits of protection.14
al good is exempted from the protection regime
(Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, Arti There is no such concept of relative owners’
cle 12). Real estate and objects in private own responsibility regarding access in Croatian legis
ership are required to be proclaimed objects of lature, according to which all owners of cultural
cultural interest, which needs to be established heritage must allow its public accessibility. Just
according to its special meaning (cf. Articles 10 like in Slovenia, a unified tagging system is de
and 12). For this particular reason, cultural her vised (Pravilnik o označavanju nepokretnih kul-
itage is mainly in public property in Italy. turnih dobara i objekata u kojima su smještene
zbirke kulturnih dobara).
The responsibility of maintenance of the
monuments by their owners is reduced accord Italian legislature exhibits important differ
ing to their capabilities in the Slovenian legis ences regarding access: only publicly owned cul
lature; no such proportional share is expressed tural heritage is intended for public use, while
in either Italian or Croatian legislature, which the public accessibility of privately owned cul
tasks the owners with equal responsibilities in tural heritage must be based on either its special
the preservation of cultural heritage in their meaning or the public funds used for its renova
ownership. In order to make these responsibil tion. This difference relates to the instrument of
ities bearable, considerable subsidies are availa disownment of cultural heritage, which is used
particularly for the purpose of public accessibil
13 Gabriele Torelli, “L'acquisizione sanante nel codice dei beni cul- ity.
turali e del paesaggio.” Aedon Rivista di arti e diritto on line 2 (2016),
http://www.aedon.mulino.it/archivio/2016/2/torelli.htm (date of 14 Ministry of Culture, Priročnik za označevanje nepremičnih kulturnih
access: 1.5.2018). spomenikov (Ljubljana: Ministry of culture RS, 2010).
applies as well, if required for the needs of land tural heritage whose renovation has been funded
hereditatiscaping. This was critically reviewed,13 since the by the ministry must be at least partially accessi
purpose of landscaping does not require perma ble to public, which reflects the concept of a quid
nent ownership but only temporary occupation pro quo – public use for public funds.
(occupazione) against compensation for the time
of landscaping procedures; however, such in in It seems particularly beneficial, that in Cro
strument is not implied in the “Cultural Herit atia the state of cultural heritage is surveyed at
age and Landscape Code” – but it is in the case least once every five years, for which a special
of archaeological research (Article 88). form is available (Articles 51 through 53 of the
Cultural Heritage Protection and Preservation
In all three countries, mobile archaeologi Law – Zakona o zaštiti i očuvanju kulturnih do-
cal finds are state property according to the law. bara), which would be a good idea in Slovenia
In Italy, this extends to the immobile archaeo as well, monitoring is an immensely important
logical heritage; according to Italian legislature, aspect of preventive action and integral preser
(archaeological) goods under the ground are ex vation of heritage; regular maintenance would
empted from ownership rights. In practice, in It greatly reduce the costs of heritage maintenance.
aly, too, access to these remains is ensured in the
disownment and pre-emption act. As in the case of maintenance, public ac
cessibility also relates to the owner’s capabilities
In Italy, the procedure of keeping record of in Slovenia – provided it is implied in the prom
cultural heritage is also different in regards to its ulgation act. It is only mandatory to allow ac
ownership. In the case of public ownership, cul cess to authorized personnel of the Institute for
tural heritage is automatically any cultural good the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia
of a deceased author, which is older than 50 (ZVKDS) for the purposes of documenting and
years. The ministry can conduct surveys of cul research. It is also mandatory to tag the monu
tural interest – prompted by the owners them ment in a prescribed manner, provided it is not
selves; if no such interest is established, a cultur contrary to the benefits of protection.14
al good is exempted from the protection regime
(Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, Arti There is no such concept of relative owners’
cle 12). Real estate and objects in private own responsibility regarding access in Croatian legis
ership are required to be proclaimed objects of lature, according to which all owners of cultural
cultural interest, which needs to be established heritage must allow its public accessibility. Just
according to its special meaning (cf. Articles 10 like in Slovenia, a unified tagging system is de
and 12). For this particular reason, cultural her vised (Pravilnik o označavanju nepokretnih kul-
itage is mainly in public property in Italy. turnih dobara i objekata u kojima su smještene
zbirke kulturnih dobara).
The responsibility of maintenance of the
monuments by their owners is reduced accord Italian legislature exhibits important differ
ing to their capabilities in the Slovenian legis ences regarding access: only publicly owned cul
lature; no such proportional share is expressed tural heritage is intended for public use, while
in either Italian or Croatian legislature, which the public accessibility of privately owned cul
tasks the owners with equal responsibilities in tural heritage must be based on either its special
the preservation of cultural heritage in their meaning or the public funds used for its renova
ownership. In order to make these responsibil tion. This difference relates to the instrument of
ities bearable, considerable subsidies are availa disownment of cultural heritage, which is used
particularly for the purpose of public accessibil
13 Gabriele Torelli, “L'acquisizione sanante nel codice dei beni cul- ity.
turali e del paesaggio.” Aedon Rivista di arti e diritto on line 2 (2016),
http://www.aedon.mulino.it/archivio/2016/2/torelli.htm (date of 14 Ministry of Culture, Priročnik za označevanje nepremičnih kulturnih
access: 1.5.2018). spomenikov (Ljubljana: Ministry of culture RS, 2010).
