Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Journals help
Authors help
Years help

Results found: 25

first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  restitution
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
EN
Directive 93/7/EEC created a legal framework for the return of cultural goods illegally removed from the territory of a Member State. The procedure for the return of cultural goods proved to be ineffective for numerous reasons, including a very narrow definition of a cultural good, flawed instruments of administrative cooperation, or risky court proceedings connected with the indemnification of the possessor. Directive 2015/60/EU is a new step towards the creation of an effective European system of return of cultural goods. Pursuant to the new directive each Member State can now define which cultural goods constitute national treasures. The directive has also provided for the creation of new, electronic means of fostering administrative cooperation, while court proceedings have been amended to minimize the aforementioned legal risks. Thus, once the new directive has been implemented by Member States, the result may be a greater number of returns of illegally exported cultural goods, based on adherence to its provisions.
EN
The increasing popularity of restitutive justice in criminal law — characterised by development of measures which enable compensation of damage caused by a crime to the victim and at the same time place the victim of a prohibited act in a signifi cant position in the proceedings — encourage refl ection on the degree to which compensation is refl ected in the petty offence law. The author analyses the penal measure of damage compensation in petty offences. Her de lege ferenda conclusions may contribute to an enhancement of the role of compensation in petty offence law.
EN
One of the hallmark policies implemented post-apartheid, the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994, is a rights-based program aimed at addressing the loss of land resulting from past racially discriminatory laws or practices. The aim of this research was to identify what are the factors that determine the different outcomes of the restitution process when claimants are demanding the return of land rights and to highlight the challenges regarding the implementation of this land restitution policy. Focusing on two specific yet contrasting areas in Cape Town, Constantia and Kensington, it was determined that due to factors pertaining to the lands in question, the neighborhood surrounding the lands, the claimants, as well as the organization, function, and performance of different public entities, the policy has managed to fulfill restorative justice, but has yet to fulfill its ultimate goal of returning land rights to the claimants and undoing the injustices of the apartheid regime.
EN
The present paper discusses the American law of unjust enrichment as found in the Restatement the Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (R3RUE) published by the American Law Institute in 2011. The author begins with the short history of the Restatements of the Law movement (1). He attempts to describe both the formal structure of the treatise (2) and the meaning of its keywords such as “unjust enrichment” and “restitution” (3). In the following sections the premises of restitution claims are presented: the absence of basis (4), the defendant’s enrichment at the plaintiff’s expense (5). The paper covers such separate doctrines included in the Restatement’s provisions as the unrequested intervention (negotiorum gestio) either (6). The author researches also the remedies that could be applied in restitution cases (7), issues on the concurrence of claims (8) and the limitation (9). In the final section he attempts to draw conclusions on conflicting nature of the unjust enrichment law in America (10).
EN
The Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague (UPM), established in 1885, is a specialist institution collecting, studying and presenting the history and contemporaneity of Czech art. After the onset of fascism and at the time of the Second World War UPM became the owner of works of art from former collections of citizens of Jewish descent, many of whom, aware of the threat posed by further residence in Central Europe, decided to leave. According to the then prevailing law art collection owners were obligated to demand state consent (an export license) for taking their works of art with them. The classification of artworks was determined by representatives of such cultural institutions as the National Gallery but also museums in Prague (e.g. UPM), Brno, Opava and other cities. Citizens of Jewish descent were compelled to pay for permits for emigrating by entrusting part of their collections as museum deposits. Some made the deposits in 1938 but soon regained them and the further fate of these artworks remains unknown. Others handed over their artistic assets in a clear-cut arrangement with the museum. Artworks from personal property belonging to citizens of Jewish descent were entrusted to UPM, the National Gallery and other institutions also from the amassed collections of the Board for Third Reich Property in 1944 and February 1945. It is precisely those collections and prewar deposits that decades later could be identified and connected with the history of concrete persons. After November 1989 one of the first acts compensating years of injustice suffered by the legitimate owners of real estate and mobile monuments was restitution based on resolution no. 87/1991Sb. The claimants were individual persons and Church institutions. In 2001 the Czech Republic established the Documentation Centre for Property Transfers of Cultural Assets of WW II as part of the Academy of Sciences. Archival material at home and abroad was rendered accessible to members of the staff for the purpose of provenance studies regarding Czech museum exhibits. The Centre research encompasses also the UPM collections in Prague with due attention paid to the cultural assets of victims of the Holocaust. The outcome has been issued in the publications: Memories Returned and Ransom for a Life, and in 2008 UPM held an exhibition: “Memories returned” upon the occasion of an international conference on Holocaust Era Assets on show in Prague. The Centre attempts to present to the public the results of its research, to determine the location of exhibits originating from the property of the victims of the Holocaust, and to draw the attention of present-day owners that their collections contain objects originating from property stolen from the Jews.
EN
The work concerns the restitution of museum remains as a special cultural asset found in archaeological museums. The research problem concerns reverence towards human remains constituting museum exhibits on the example of Singapore museums. This type of museum inventory has become the subject of intensified restitution activities on the part of tribal minorities, indigenous peoples, who claim the right to them based on the right to worship after their deceased ancestors, the right to protect cultural, religious, and traditional heritage. Such law is based particularly on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The research objective focuses, first of all, on the legal grounds resulting from the Declaration, and secondly, on the analysis of the inventory of selected Singaporean museums, which contain exhibits that are human remains in their collections. The main research hypothesis focuses on the statement that Singapore, as one of the few Asian countries, maintains a special regime of pietism towards the deceased, which is manifested in the way of treating and storing human remains as museum exhibits. It may be due to the country’s cultural conditions on the one hand, and religious and legal conditions on the other. That, in turn, translates into the approach of museums to restitution claims, which are increasingly being put forward by representatives of indigenous peoples in connection with the return of the remains of their deceased ancestors. These claims find their legal basis in acts of international law and collective human rights. Therefore, the work answers the questions whether museums in Singapore duly respect international law in protecting human remains and the rights of indigenous peoples, and how this translates into reverence for this type of exhibits in museum practices in connection with ICOM regulations.
EN
This article presents the problem of lack of restitution in Poland in the political, social and economic context. The author presents the theory of institutional lock-in, referring to the hitherto course of the political, social and economic transformation processes in Poland. She is focusing on the research problem in form of an institutional lock-in on the route to general restitution process. The author examines the path shaping and path dependence to understand the current negative attitude toward restitution presented by the government and society. The author also indicates the costs caused by lack of restitution. Through analysis of past attempts of restitution regulations the author indicates the most important flashpoints. A hypothesis constructed by the author focuses on the negative effects of institutional lock-in, lack of restitution increases transaction costs influencing the Polish economy. The study is based on the legal documents and the results of public opinion polls.
EN
This paper unpacks the legitimacy gap existing between post-communist policies of citizenship restitution, the experiences of these policies, and the media coverage of these policies. Considering citizenship restitution first as analogous to property restitution, theoretically citizenship restitution appears as compensatory, to right the wrongs of communist- and Soviet-era seizures and border changes, and appears to establish citizenship restitution as a right. Using UK media coverage of Romania’s policy of citizenship restitution vis-à-vis Moldova, the paper shows the extent to which this policy is framed as an illegitimate loophole propagated by a ‘Romanian Other’ which is ‘giving out’ EU passports, exploited by an impoverished and criminal ‘Moldovan Other’, and inflicted on a ‘UK Self’ that is powerless to stem the tide of migration and block routes to gaining access to the EU via such policies. However, the paper also contrasts, and challenges, this media framing by using interviews with those acquiring Romanian citizenship in Moldova to demonstrate the extent to which acquiring Romanian citizenship in Moldova is a costly and lengthy procedure. Overall, the paper shows the extent to which citizenship restitution is a contested procedure, constructed as a right by the state seeking to compensate former citizens, and as illegitimate by those who construct a logic resulting from feeling threatened by policies of citizenship restitution.
EN
Having been discharged from hospital in January 1945, Jan Morawiński became a curator at a new Branch of the National Museum in Warsaw. His main task was guardianship of the collection and Palace’s preservation. On 13 January 1946, Morawiński left for Berlin’s Polish Military Mission as a specialist in restituting Polish cultural assets from Germany. Morawiński’s scope of activities covered first of all the issues of the restitution of Polish cultural assets, acquisition of Polonica from German collections, and purchase of art works. In the course of his mission he operated mainly within the British occupation zone in Germany. The Polish claims submitted by Morawiński to the British were related mainly to the Grasleben depository and the bells amassed in Hamburg. After months-long efforts, he succeeded in leaving for Hamburg in order to ascertain the presence of about a thousand bells of Polish provenance there. Furthermore, Morawiński operated within the Soviet occupation zone. In Saxony’s Nossen he discovered nine paintings which had come from Cracow. One of his greatest successes was to win the permission of the English to recover the archival resources originally from Gdansk, Elbląg, Szczecin, and Toruń. With the financing provided by the Ministry of Culture and Art he purchased, among others, the painting by Teodor Lubieniecki Family in the Park Background, a cup of Augustus II (1698), and two etchings featuring John III Sobieski. Having finished his Berlin assignment, he became head of the Polish Military Mission in the French occupation zone in Germany. In May 1949, he returned to Poland to become a Cultural Counselor at Poland’s Embassy in Rome. Morawiński died suddenly in Warsaw on 13 December 1949.
|
2017
|
vol. 62
|
issue 6 (377)
92-103
EN
The process of recovery of works of art lost during the Second World War was not audited by the Supreme Audit Office before. However, the information that appeared about recovered cultural achievements is broadly presented and commented on in the public media, which shows that the issue is very important from the perspective of the social interest and cultural heritage. Taking this into account, NIK has carried out an audit at the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Institute of Museology and Protection of Monuments. The objective of the audit was to evaluate whether the process of recovery of lost works of art is organised and financed in an appropriate manner. The article presents the main findings of the audit.
EN
The article takes up the issue of the development of various state institutions which were implemented in order to protect historical castles and chateaux in Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic after the year 1918, due to the confiscation of property. It describes the transformation of regulations governing the right of ownership, associated with historical and political events, which had a significant influence on the status of residential buildings - nationalization processes after both World Wars, the impact of the communist doctrine and the privatization and restitution after 1989. The current state of preservation and functioning of the most representative residences, as places open and available to the public, has to do with administration policy - pursued in the present form after divesting original owners their objects. It has an impact on the modern social perception of the current functions which these residences are supposed to perform as a consequence of transfers of ownership after 1989. The statement is intended to illustrate the process of the development of a strategy for the protection and administration of residences, launched after 1918, by presenting phenomena in both contexts - legal and political, as well as by showing the historical and social aspects of the process.
EN
The article deals with the question of the importance of the so-called social sins in the contemporary consciousness of the faithful, their sense of responsibility for personal sins which have serious social consequences, as well as with confessing those sins during the sacrament of reconciliation. The new situations of sins are being analysed, particularly those emerging from current transformations of the socio-economic and cultural spheres of life.
PL
W artykule zwrócono uwagę na znaczenia tzw. grzechów społecznych we współczesnej świadomości wiernych oraz ich poczucie odpowiedzialności za grzechy osobiste, które mają poważne konsekwencje społeczne - szczególnie tych powstających z obecnych przemian sfery społeczno-ekonomicznych i kulturowych w obecnych czasach.
EN
If the property has been taken over for public purposes by State Treasure or local government units against the will of property owner and is not used for the intended purposes it should be resituated immediately. Unfortunately, it is not the case. In a democratic state the above situation should not take place. In the light of binding legal regulations we deal with disregarding the law which, in the end, makes property restitution impossible. Current regulations regarding taking over the property for public road investment do not provide an actual legal instrument for property restitution which could be used by former owners in case their former property turns out to be useless for the intended purpose. The analysis of legal acts only confirms that the present situation breaks a fundamental principle of rule of law. It also undermines the principle of protecting the acquired rights provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The lack of possibility of restitution of immovable property in cases covered by the so-called Special Purpose Road Act is neither rational nor fair.
PL
Zwrot nieruchomości przejętych na cele publiczne wbrew woli właścicieli przez Skarb Państwa, czy też jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, w przypadku niewykorzystania ich zgodnie z przeznaczeniem, powinien być zasadą. Jednakże tak nie jest. W demokratycznym państwie prawa od powyższego nie powinno być wyjątku. W obowiązujących przepisach ma miejsce pominięcie prawodawcze, które uniemożliwia skuteczną realizację zasady zwrotu. Obecne regulacje dotyczące przejmowania nieruchomości w celu realizacji inwestycji drogowych nie dają rzeczywistego instrumentu byłym właścicielom na jego zwrot w sytuacji, gdy stało się ono zbędne dla celu określonego w decyzji. Analiza aktów prawnych pozwala stwierdzić, iż zachodzi tu ewidentne naruszenie fundamentalnej zasady państwa praworządnego oraz z podważeniem zasady ochrony praw nabytych, odzwierciedlonej w ustawie zasadniczej Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Brak możliwości dokonywania zwrotów mienia nieruchomego w sytuacjach dotyczących tzw. specustawy drogowej nie jest racjonalny oraz społecznie sprawiedliwy.
PL
W jednym ze swoich najnowszych artykułów Walter Block twierdzi, że przepadek korzyści pochodzących w niebezpośredni sposób z przestępstwa byłby niekompatybilny z libertarianizmem. W naszym artykule argumentujemy, że twierdzenie to jest błędne. Na wsparcie naszej tezy wysuwamy dwa ogólne argumenty. Pierwszy z nich wychodzi od rozróżnienia pomiędzy restytucją a karą i wskazuje, że utrata rzeczonych korzyści nie skutkowałaby – wbrew twierdzeniom Blocka – nierównością horyzontalną w ramach sprawiedliwości retrybutywnej. Drugi z nich odnosi się do libertariańskich zasad sprawiedliwości dystrybutywnej i dowodzi, że rzeczone korzyści należą do stron poszkodowanych działaniem przestępcy. Razem wzięte, argumenty te konkluzywnie wskazują, że przepadek korzyści pochodzących niebezpośrednie z przestępstwa jest kompatybilny z libertarianizmem.
EN
In his recent publication, Walter Block claims that disgorgement of indirect proceeds of crime is incompatible with libertarianism. The present paper argues that Block’s claim is incorrect. In support of this position two general arguments are offered. The first one builds on the distinction between restitution and punishment, showing that forfeiture of assets derived indirectly from crime would not – contra Block – result in unequal punishment under retributive justice. The second one refers to libertarian principles of distributive justice and demonstrates that indirect proceeds of crime are owned by the aggrieved parties. Put together, these arguments conclusively show that the idea that indirect proceeds of crime should be forfeited is compatible with libertarianism.
EN
The main aim of the paper is to present the course of the restitution proceedings concerning the church property of the parish of the Polish Evangelical Christian Baptist Church in Wrocław, as well as to analyse the administrative decisions issued during the proceedings. Special attention is given to the legal issues related to applying art. 2 para. 4 of the decree of 8 March 1946 on abandoned and post-German properties and to the consequences of the resolution of the Supreme Court of 19 December 1959 for the legal effects in the interpretation of art. 2 para. 4 of the decree. A definitive decision on this issue that refused to grant the right of ownership to the Church was issued only 13 years after the restitution application had been submitted. The excessive duration of the proceedings was confirmed by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Application no. 32045/10). The Second Congregation in Wrocław (the legal successor of the above-mentioned parish) did not recover the property lost after World War II under the provisions of the act regulating the legal situation of the Church of Christian Baptists in the Republic of Poland. A close examination of the circumstances of the lengthy restitution litigation indicates that in order to resolve the question of the right of ownership of this property, it is necessary to pursue another route than the administrative one.
PL
Zasadniczym celem niniejszego artykułu jest ukazanie przebiegu postępowania rewindykacyjnego nieruchomości kościelnej należącej do parafii Polskiego Kościoła Ewangelicznych Chrześcijan Baptystów we Wrocławiu, wraz z analizą wydanych w toku postępowania decyzji administracyjnych. Szczególna uwaga została zwrócona na zagadnienia prawne związane z zastosowaniem art. 2 ust. 4 dekretu z dnia 8 marca 1946 r. o majątkach opuszczonych i poniemieckich oraz konsekwencjami uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z 19 grudnia 1959 roku co do skutków prawnych interpretacji art. 2 ust. 4 tego dekretu. W tej sprawie prawomocna decyzja o odmowie przyznania Kościołowi prawa własności została wydana dopiero po 13 latach od złożenia wniosku rewindykacyjnego. W toku całego postępowania doszło do przewlekłości, co potwierdził wyrok Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w sprawie ze skargi nr 32045/10. Drugi Zbór we Wrocławiu (następca prawny wspomnianej wyżej parafii) nie odzyskał prawa własności nieruchomości utraconej po II wojnie światowej na podstawie przepisów ustawy regulującej sytuację prawną Kościoła Chrześcijan Baptystów w Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Okoliczności faktyczne przedstawione w niniejszym artykule na kanwie wieloletniego sporu rewindykacyjnego pozwalają na wyprowadzenie wniosków o konieczności uregulowania prawa własności tej nieruchomości w innym trybie niż administracyjny.
PL
Państwa wchodzące w skład Grupy Wyszehradzkiej charakteryzują się zróżnicowanym poziomem rolniczym, co decydowało m.in. o tym, w którym momencie przestanie obowiązywać tzw. okres przejściowy na nabywanie gruntów rolnych przez obcokrajowców. Głównym celem napisania artykułu było zidentyfikowanie procesów zachodzących w poszczególnych państwach należących do Grupy Wyszehradzkiej w zakresie zmian zachodzących na tych rynkach w aspekcie znaczenia zasobu ziemi, a także dokonania przeglądu prawnych aspektów nabywania gruntów rolnych przez obcokrajowców. Stwierdzono, iż zakończenie okresów przejściowych w krajach Grupy Wyszehradzkiej nie wpływa na obniżenie poziomu cen gruntów rolnych na krajowych rynkach. W ramach badań przeanalizowano przepisy prawa oraz przeprowadzono analizę danych statystycznych z bazy Eurostat, raportów IERiGŻ-PIB, a także raportów państwowych urzędów statystycznych badanych państw.
EN
The countries included in the Visegrad Group are characterized by a diversified agricultural level, which determined when the so-called transition period for the acquisition of agricultural land by foreigners would cease. The main purpose of the article was to identify the processes taking place in individual countries belonging to the Visegrad Group within the scope of changes occurring on these markets in terms of the importance of the land resources as well as to carry out a review to the legal aspects of agricultural land acquisition by foreigners. It was found that the end of the transitional periods in the Visegrad countries does not impact the decrease of agricultural land prices within the national markets. The research is based on an analysis of legal regulations as well as analysis of statistical data from the Eurostat databases, IERiGŻ-PIB reports and statistical reports by offices of statistics of the studied countries.
EN
The “communist” regime nationalized church property also in Romania. Minority (Hungarian and German) churches were traditionally extensively involved in school maintenance and were particularly hard hit. In the interwar period, these schools provided education in minority languages. Nationalization affected the entire property of the denominational schools and often broke centuries of tradition. The property included school buildings, teachers’ residences, and economic assets that served to finance the school. After the regime change, the state gradually established a framework for restitution. Still, after a positive start, the trend was reversed and restitution of the nationalized property to churches, without any change in the legal framework, began to be prevented by administrative and judicial practice. Through a concrete example, the article illustrates contraditictions in case law, ideological obstacles to restitution, and the complex legal history and civil law issues that arise.
PL
Mienie kościelne w Rumunii zostało znacjonalizowane przez reżim komunistyczny. Kościoły mniejszości narodowych (węgierskich i niemieckich), które tradycyjnie były szeroko zaangażowane w utrzymanie i prowadzenie szkół, zostały szczególnie dotknięte przez proces nacjonalizacji. W okresie międzywojennym szkoły te prowadziły nauczanie w językach mniejszości narodowych. Nacjonalizacja objęła cały majątek szkół wyznaniowych, często niszcząc wielowiekową tradycję. Majątek podlegający upaństwowieniu obejmował zarówno budynki szkolne, jak i mieszkania nauczycieli oraz aktywa gospodarcze, które służyły do finansowania działalności szkoły. Po transformacji ustrojowej państwo rumuńskie stopniowo tworzyło ramy prawne restytucji. Po obiecujących początkach tendencja uległa zmianie, a zwrot znacjonalizowanego majątku kościołom zaczęto utrudniać w praktyce orzeczniczej sądów i organów administracji. Zmianie praktyki nie towarzyszyły jednak zmiany legislacyjne. Niniejszy artykuł ilustruje na konkretnym przykładzie sprzeczności w orzecznictwie, przeszkody o charakterze ideologicznym utrudniające reprywatyzację, a także złożone tło historyczne i pojawiające się problemy cywilnoprawne.
EN
Poland is a country with one of the most dispersed archival resources. This situation was clearly influenced by important historical events, including, in particular, the catastrophe of partitions at the end of the 18th century and the two subsequent world wars. From the 17th century until the Second World War, there were looting or relocating Polish cultural goods to Poland’s neighboring countries (mainly Russia and Germany). The article presents the main stages of recovery proceedings in relation to archival materials undertaken by the Polish state against its neighbors from Eastern and Western Europe. The first attempts to restore the plundered collections took place in the 17th century, based on the provisions of the peace treaties in Oliwa (with Sweden concluded in 1660) or in Andruszów (truce with Russia in 1667). The first major recovery action, which brought concrete results and concerned lost cultural goods, was the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty of Riga of March 18, 1921. Article XI of the Treaty was of fundamental importance for archival matters. It provided for the return from Soviet Russia of all materials taken from Poland after January 1, 1772. A Mixed Polish-Soviet Special Commission was established to implement these decisions, with the participation of eminent specialists (historians, archivists, librarians). Their activities resulted in the return to 1924 of 31 wagons of archival materials, including archives from the period of the First Polish Republic and files taken by the Russians in 1915. Files from Austria and Germany were restored during the Second Polish Republic on a much smaller scale. The second wave of recovery took place after 1945. The main materials recovered from Germany were the result of the so-called Adam Stebelski’s mission in 1946-1949. Archives from the USSR returned to Poland twice, in the years 1945-1952 and 1957-1964. Until today, many source materials taken from Poland to the USSR or Germany have not been recovered, therefore recovery remains a topical and open issue in relations with these countries.
PL
Polska jest krajem posiadającym jeden z najbardziej rozproszonych zasobów archiwalnych. Wyraźny wpływ na taką sytuację wywarły ważne wydarzenia dziejowe, w tym przede wszystkim katastrofa rozbiorów w końcu XVIII stulecia oraz dwie późniejsze wojny światowe. Począwszy od XVII wieku aż do okresu II wojny światowej trwały grabieże lub przemieszczenia polskich dóbr kultury do państw sąsiadujących z Polską (głównie Rosji i Niemiec). W artykule ukazano główne etapy postępowań rewindykacyjnych w odniesieniu do materiałów archiwalnych, podejmowanych przez państwo polskie wobec sąsiadów z Europy Wschodniej i Zachodniej. Pierwsze próby restytucji zagrabionych zbiorów miały miejsce już w XVII wieku na podstawie zapisów w traktatach pokojowych w Oliwie (ze Szwecją zawarty w 1660 r.) czy w Andruszowie (rozejm z Rosją w 1667 r.). Pierwszą większą akcją rewindykacyjną, która przyniosła konkretne rezultaty i dotyczyła utraconych dóbr kultury, była realizacja postanowień traktatu ryskiego z 18 marca 1921 r. Podstawowe znaczenie dla spraw archiwalnych miał artykuł XI Traktatu. Przewidywał on zwrot z Rosji radzieckiej wszystkich materiałów wywiezionych z Polski po 1 stycznia 1772 r. Do wykonania tych postanowień powołano Mieszaną Polsko-Sowiecką Komisję Specjalną, z udziałem wybitnych specjalistów (historyków, archiwistów, bibliotekarzy). Efektem ich działań był powrót do 1924 r. 31 wagonów materiałów archiwalnych, w tym archiwów z okresu I Rzeczypospolitej oraz akt wywiezionych przez Rosjan w 1915 r. Na znacznie mniejszą skalę rewindykowano w okresie II Rzeczypospolitej akta z Austrii oraz Niemiec. Druga fala rewindykacji nastąpiła po 1945 r. Główne materiały odzyskane z Niemiec były efektem tzw. misji Adama Stebelskiego w latach 1946-1949. Archiwalia z ZSRR powracały do Polski dwukrotnie, w latach 1945-1952 oraz 1957-1964. Do dnia dzisiejszego nie odzyskano wielu materiałów źródłowych wywiezionych z Polski do ZSRR lub Niemiec, dlatego rewindykacja pozostaje aktualną i otwartą kwestią w relacjach z tymi państwami.
EN
Although science has long been aware of the problem set in the title of the work (Władysław Semkowicz, Karol Potkański, Michał Sczaniecki, Franciszek Bujak, Jerzy Luciński), yet it still calls for further research. This essay is only a little step towards elucidation. It concerns the role of officials in taking over estates for the Treasury. Therefore, it disregards the cases where officials used their position to increase their own estates. Nor does it encompass the appropriations that, although increased the assets of the monarch, were performed by right holders acting in such a case as private people. The source base for the article are documents from Wielkopolska and Małopolska reaching as far as mid-15th century. The analysis of source materials makes the author draw a number of conclusions. In the reign of Casimir the Great (Kazimierz Wielki), the officials participating in arrogations were Kraków palatines, castellans, and also individuals defined in the sources as officialis and procurator, therefore presumably administrators of estates that belonged to the royal domain. In later days, these were usually the starosts. The sources show officials primarily as the executors of the monarch’s orders. On a royal decree, they would perform sovereign intromission into private estates. Yet they would also act on their own initiative and start border disputes, aiming at taking over neighbouring estates. There also harassed the neighbours, and used violence towards them.
XX
Problem postawiony w tytule pracy został wprawdzie dostrzeżony w nauce (Władysław Semkowicz, Karol Potkański, Michał Sczaniecki, Franciszek Bujak, Jerzy Luciński) wszakże wciąż wymaga dalszych badań. Niniejszy szkic stanowi tylko mały krok w tym kierunku. Dotyczy roli urzędników w dokonywaniu zaborów majątków ziemskich na rzecz skarbu. Pomija zatem te sytuacje, w których osoby piastujące urzędy wykorzystywały swoją pozycję dla powiększenia własnych dóbr. Pomija też zabory powiększające wprawdzie majątki panującego ale dokonywane przez tenutariuszy, działających w danym wypadku jako osoby prywatne. Podstawę źródłową artykułu stanowią dokumenty z terenu Wielkopolski i Małopolski sięgające po połowę XV w. Analiza przekazów źródłowych skłania autora do sformułowania kilku wniosków. Za czasów Kazimierza Wielkiego urzędnikami, którzy uczestniczyli w zaborach, byli wielkorządcy krakowscy, zarządcy grodów, a także osoby określane przez źródła terminami „officialis”, „procurator” a więc przypuszczalnie zarządcy majątków należących do monarszej domeny. W okresie późniejszym z reguły działali starostowie. Źródła ukazują urzędników przede wszystkim jako wykonawców poleceń panującego. Na jego rozkaz dokonywali wwiązania (intromisji) władcy w cudze dobra. Urzędnicy działali również z własnej inicjatywy. Wszczynali spory graniczne, zmierzając do zawładnięcia przyległymi nieruchomościami. Uprzykrzali życie sąsiadom, stosując względem nich przemoc.
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.