Search results

1

PRAWNOKARNE ASPEKTY OCHRONY DÓBR KULTURY REFLEKSJE NA TLE ZMIANY STANU PRAWNEGO

100%

Chlebowicz P.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2003

|

issue 3-4

122-126

EN

Despite the fact that the legal aspects of the protection of historical monuments comprise a separate and interesting domain, they remain on the peripheries of Polish legal sciences. The presented sketch deals with assorted problems of the protection of historical monuments perceived from the perspective of penal law. Apparently, the implementation of the statute of 23 July 2003 on the protection of, and care for historical monuments constitutes a convenient pretext for a survey of penal law institutions. The “new” statute appears to be better than its predecessor, i. e. the statute on the protection of cultural property; the same holds true for its penal elements, and the clarity of legal language deserves particular attention. The copious article 3 of the statute, which contains as many as 15 legal definitions, should considerably facilitate the application of the regulations of this normative act which, after al,l is a basic source of the rights and duties of the owners of historical monuments. An indubitable novelty is article 108 of the statute which re-introduces the misdemeanour of destroying or damaging a historical monument. It should be kept in mind that up to now the conservation services applied a legal foundation composed of article 288 paragraph 1 of the penal code, in connection with article 294 paragraph 3 of the penal code. The mentioned foundation of the charge produced numerous problems associated with its interpretation. After all, not every historical monument constitutes property of particular significance for culture. Moreover, penal cases concerning historical monuments are rather rarely encountered. The described construction was successfully applied in cases of the devastation of archaeological sites in the voivodeship of Warmia- Mazuria. A penal-legal analysis of the protection of cultural property should draw attention to the statutory symptoms of misdemeanours which occur in great numbers in the penal regulations of the statute. Taking into consideration the subjective criteria, the misdeeds are divided into two groups : the first encompasses regulations concerning everyone, and thus each person may become a subject of the misdemeanour, while the second deals only with the owners of historical objects. Essential significance is ascribed to the norms expressed in article 109 of the statute penalising the behaviour of the owner who has ignored securing the object. Finally, it is also worth indicating the executive regulations which define the manner of protecting the historical object. The sociological premise of the effectiveness of the regulations is the legal awareness of the addressees of the norms. Unfortunately, the level of the legal culture of Polish society is far from desired. This question remains particularly topical within the realm of the protection of national heritage.

2

Zabytek, rezerwat, park kultury - muzeum w plenerze

75%

Piwocki K.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1961

|

issue 3-4

3-4

3

Czy ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach dojrzała do nowelizacji : artykuł dyskusyjny

75%

Sieroszewski W.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1971

|

issue 3

163-172

EN

Analysing the Act of February 15, 1962 covering the problems of cultural property protection and museums in view of experiences gathered during nine years elapsed from the date of its coming into force the author expresses an opinion that, considering the problem from a general viewpoint, though it has satisfactorily wiithstood the test of practical application and considerably contributed to stabilization and to making the protection of cultural property in this country more efficient some of its detailed provisions, no doubt, require corrections and amendments. Remarks made by the author to particular articles of the Act in question are listed below. Above all the article 4 seems to him to be inconsistent and even conflicting with some others elsewhere in the text (e.g. articles 18 and 4*1). He also advances c ritical opinions as to the definition of „an evident historical monument” considering it as being not precise enough and thus causing misunderstandings and controversial interpretations. Furthermore, commenting the article 6 concerning the „monuments of history”, the author suggests the abolition of their compulsory inscription in the International Register of Cultural Property under Special Care in accordance with provisions of the Hague Convention of 1954 since the stipulations accompanying this particular provision practically make it impossible ,at all to declare a monument as „a monument of history”. The author also suggests the need to define more precisely in the Act itself or in regulations issued on its basis by the Minister of Culture and Art the responsibilities of historical monument conservators at the district and town levels (article 8) and, in addition, to include to th e Act provisions with respect to voivodship offices of historical monument documentation which, although already put into being, have not up to now been provided with ,an unquestionably legal basis for the ir activities (proposed article 8 a). It also seems to the author to be necessary to call a new advisory body assisting the Minister of Culture and Art able to replace the freshly abolished Council of Culture and Art (article 10). To protect the sites of archaeological interest the author proposes to include them provisionally to the Register of Historical Monuments. On completion of excavations and examination of cultural s tra ta and with the relics found transferred to a respective museum such a reg istration should automatically be cancelled (article 1/6). Other proposals regard the augmenting the au th o rities of conservators to enable them to make examinations of alleged cultural property at any place it can be found which th e procedure has been made difficult according to existing provisions requiring from conservator to agree previously this examination with the owner of cu ltu ral property (article 18). At the isame time, however, th e author declares himself for confining the number of cases and reducing the time of temporary requisition of cultural property endangered by destruction, damage or illicit exportation. This temporary requisition could, for instance, last three years and a fte r th a t period the cultural property should be alienated or returned to its owner or user (article 37). With regard to collections (article 55 and the next ones) the author proposes to reserve to the Minister of Culture and Art the right tp define precisely what requirements should be fulfilled by a collection th a t it could be considered as one in accordance with provisions of the Act, and also how it can be augmented and managed by the owner. In addition to 'the above, the author puts forward a number of proposals aimed a t harmonizing the Act’s provisions with Other acts published a fte r its coming into force and particularly with an uniform te x t of th e Building Repair and Reconstruction Act in its version from il968 (article 32), the Code of Civil Laws from 1964: (article 24) and the Code of Criminal Laws from 1969 (articles 73—> 79) and also at enabling to adapt to provisions of the Convention of 1969 referring to measures that should be undertaken to prevent the illicite imports, exports and tran sfe rs of cultural property (new articles 76 a, b, and c).

Refine search results

3 Ochrona Zabytków

1 2003

1 1971

1 1961

1 Chlebowicz P.

1 Piwocki K.

1 Sieroszewski W.

PRAWNOKARNE ASPEKTY OCHRONY DÓBR KULTURY REFLEKSJE NA TLE ZMIANY STANU PRAWNEGO

Zabytek, rezerwat, park kultury - muzeum w plenerze

Czy ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach dojrzała do nowelizacji : artykuł dyskusyjny