Search results

1

Prawne aspekty ochrony funkcji zabytków nieruchomych

100%

Dobosz P.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1997

|

issue 1

1-11

EN

The protection o f the immobile monument ascribed great importance not only to the latter’s technical state but also to the preservation o f non-material values, connected with that monument, including its pragmatic purpose, i.e. its functions. The author consideres classifications o f the function o f the immobile monument: original (extant, nonextant, restored following the stage o f a secondary function) and secondary, architectonic and extra-architectonic (e. g. tourist), those whose replacement by other functions is undesirable, and those which can be supplanted by others, primary and supplementary, without any harm to the monuments. In accordance with one o f such divisions, the author classifies monuments as: those with a single function and several, parallel functions occurring during the same period. The legal protection o f the function o f the historical monument is described upon the basis o f the binding regulations of laws about the protection o f cultural property as well as about the construction law and pertinent executive regulations. The author conducts a critical appraisal from the point of view o f the imprecise nature o f institutional solutions introduced into the protection o f the function of immobile monuments. By citing examples o f historical functions, the author discusses in detail the historical outfitting o f pharmacies in Krakow, threatened by the change o f functions and liquidation. The article ends with a description concerning Krakow, and select examples o f administrative and legal-administrative solutions as regards the problem in question.

2

DEFINICJA ZABYTKU NIERUCHOMEGO W PRAWIE POLSKIM I FRANCUSKIM

84%

Drela M.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2008

|

issue 1

111-118

EN

The term 'historical monument' appeared in the vernacular, but has numerous designates since a characteristic feature of the vernacular is the spontaneous emergence of concepts, without the necessity of their rigid systematisation. Defining an immobile historical monument for the purposes of the application of the law calls for resorting to suitable regulations foreseen in the statute of 23 July 2003 on the protection of historical monuments, the regulations of the statute of 21 August 2007 on real estate administration, and the civil code. The aforementioned regulations state that an immobile historical monument can denote real estate as a whole, its component or real estate complexes. An immobile monument can also designate space historically shaped due to man's activity, containing the products of civilisation and natural elements (the cultural landscape), while protection foreseen for immobile monuments may encompass also their surrounding. French law does not have a special statute formulating a definition of the historical monument. Book VI of 'Code du patrimonie', in force since 2004, concerns historical monuments and contains separate regulations on immobile and mobile monuments, presented in distinct sections. Immobile monuments are divided into two groups, but affiliation is based on a formal criterion of inclusion in a suitable register. The text of the statute does not define the nature of a monument and merely describes which real estate can be registered as historical monuments, and which - placed on a supplementary list (literally known as an additional inventory). The difference between classified (i. e. registered) monuments and listed ones relates to the range of state intervention and the scope of subsidizing the construction work conducted in the case of such monuments. France is familiar also with the concept of the natural monument, whose legal status is defined by the regulations of 'Code de l'environnement'. Both types of immobile monuments can be subjected to the procedure of view protection, which either coincides with work on the registration (or the list) or is performed later. In Poland and France conservation authorities deciding on the historical character of real estate or the need to protect an immobile monument, act independently of the decisions of spatial development plans.

3

Prawna opieka nad zabytkami – wybrane aspekty

84%

Brudnicki J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2014

|

issue 2

49-72

EN

This article aims at discussing the legal issue of guardianship of monuments by analysing the definition of guardianship of monuments, specifying the activities carried out by the individual entities under the guardianship and comparing the definitions of guardianship and protection of monuments. The term of guardianship of monuments was reintroduced to the Polish legal system along with entrance of the Act of 23 July, 2003 on the protection of monuments and of the guardianship of monuments into force. According to the legislators, this term, construed directly, lays down the scope of rights and obligations of the owner or holder of monument, related for the most with custody of the monument. However, the term of monument guardianship refers also to the other entities, being not the holders of the monument. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 23 July, 2003 on the protection of monuments and of the guardianship of monuments, also the governmental administration authorities, self-governmental administration authorities and institutions of culture specialized in the guardianship of monuments and social guardians shall be competent for carrying-out specific activities in the area of guardianship of monuments. The guardianship of monuments is of individualized nature, and the entity competent for its performance is the owner or holder of the monument. From the civil law perspective, the guardianship of monument constitutes a set of obligations resulting in limitation of the property right. The guardianship is performed by taking specific actual actions (e.g. carrying-out conservation, restoration or construction works in the monument) and by ensuring proper conditions for carrying-out scientific activities. From the legal perspective, the guardianship refers to the monuments i.e. the objects compliant with the legal definition of the ‘monument’, laid down in Article 3 (1) of the Act of 23 July, 2003 on the protection of monuments and of the guardianship of monuments, regardless of the fact, whether these are covered by any form of protection (e.g. entry into the register or record of monuments), or not. The author reviews the definition of ‘monument’ currently in force critically, pointing out at relativisation of this term. The Act of 23 July, 2003 on the protection of monuments and of the guardianship of monuments introduces for the first time the terms of protection and guardianship of monuments. The basic differences between these two terms include designating the competent entity and specifying its rights and obligations. The obligations related to guardianship of monument, in direct approach, are targeted on its owner or holder, whereas the protection of monuments is performed by the public administration. Key similarities between the protection and guardianship of monuments include common object of the protection and guardianship (monument) and common purpose behind them i.e. preservation of monument in possibly best condition. The territorial self-government units play a double role as the entities performing the guardianship of monuments. On one hand, as the owners or managers of monuments, are obliged to take care of them, whereas on the other hand, guardianship of monuments is also one of public tasks, for delivery of which such territorial self-government units have been appointed. The tasks of the commune include establishing and keeping the record of monuments in order to deliver the key task of the territorial self-government units within the guardianship of monuments i.e. drawing-up the monument guardianship programmes. The institutions of culture specialized in the guardianship of monuments are also involved. The National Heritage Board of Poland is responsible, on behalf of public authorities, for performing scientific research and documenting the monuments as well as popularization and distribution of knowledge on the monuments and their importance for both history and culture. The tasks of the National Institute for Museums and Public Collections include, among others, collecting and propagating knowledge on the museums, museum exhibits, public collections and historical objects as well as forming social awareness in the area of values and preservation of cultural heritage. Also the museums, with significant amounts of movable and archaeological monuments, play an important role in the guardianship of monuments. The specific nature of the activity of the social guardians of monuments lays behind the motivation, the heart of which is their interest in monuments and internal need to care of them. The social guardians of monuments take the actions targeted on preserving the monuments’ value and maintaining them in possibly best condition as well as propagating knowledge about them. The summary consists in evaluation of distinction between the protection and guardianship of monuments. This differentiation seems to be transparent and straightforward only at the very first moment. Thorough analysis reveals that the term of guardianship of monument covers numerous meanings and connotations, depending on the targeted entity. The author points out the issue of unequal allocation of obligations related to preservation of cultural heritage between the public authorities and monuments’ holders. Therefore the afterthought, whether maintaining of the differentiation between protection and guardianship of monuments is necessary, seems to be reasonable. At the same time, the role of the state in the area of its constitutional obligation to preserve the national heritage should be defined anew to impose more tasks on the public authorities.

4

Przewidywany termin rozpoczęcia i zakończenia robót budowlanych przy zabytku a termin ważności pozwolenia wojewódzkiego konserwatora zabytków

84%

Krzanowski M.

Zeszyt Studencki Kół Naukowych Wydziału Prawa i Administracji UAM

|

2017

|

issue 7

121-135

PL

Niniejszy artykuł porusza tematykę obowiązywania w czasie pozwoleń wojewódzkiego konserwatora zabytków. Na jego łamach dochodzi do polemiki ze stanowiskiem sądów administracyjnych, uznających przewidywany termin rozpoczęcia i zakończenia robót budowlanych przy zabytku wpisanym do rejestru zabytków za jedynie informacyjny oraz niewywołujący skutków prawnych. Autor przedstawia argumenty przemawiające za koniecznością przyjęcia odmiennej optyki, tj. uznania, że termin ten służy ograniczeniu obowiązywania w czasie decyzji administracyjnej. W pracy podejmowana jest również problematyka zgodności z Konstytucją obecnie obowiązujących rozwiązań. Chodzi o dopuszczalność określania w drodze aktu podustawowego elementów akcesoryjnych decyzji administracyjnej.

EN

This article deals with the issue of the validity period of the permit of the provincial officer for the protection of monuments. It questions the position of administrative courts, recognizing the expected date of commencement and completion of construction works at the monument entered in the register of monuments as only informative and without legal effects. The author presents arguments in favor of the necessity to adopt a different view, i.e., to recognize that this period serves to limit the validity of the administrative decision in time. The paper also deals with the issue of compliance of the currently binding solutions with the Constitution. It is about the admissibility of determining the accessory elements of an administrative decision by means of an act of lower rank.

5

Stwierdzenie nieważności decyzji o wpisie do rejestru zabytków

67%

Brudnicki J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2016

|

issue 2

69-104

PL

W niniejszym artykule autor charakteryzuje instytucję stwierdzenia nieważności decyzji administracyjnej, analizując następnie wybrane wady nieważności w kontekście decyzji o wpisie do rejestru zabytków, w oparciu o wydane już w tym zakresie rozstrzygnięcia ministra kultury i dziedzictwa narodowego oraz z uwzględnieniem stanowisk wyrażanych w orzeczeniach sądów administracyjnych. Przeprowadzona analiza umożliwia przyjęcie, iż decyzje o wpisie do rejestru zabytków w największym stopniu obarczone są wadami nieważności polegającymi na wydaniu decyzji w sprawie poprzednio rozstrzygniętej inną decyzją ostateczną (art. 156 par. 1 pkt 3 k.p.a.) oraz wydaniu decyzji trwale niewykonalnej (art. 156 par. 1 pkt 5 k.p.a.). W kontekście drugiej z wyżej wymienionych wad pojawia się przy tym istotne pytanie o to, czy warunkiem wykonalności decyzji o wpisie do rejestru zabytków jest określenie granic obszaru objętego wpisem. W dwóch sprawach dotyczących stwierdzenia nieważności decyzji o wpisie do rejestru zabytków parku krajobrazowego w Faszczycach oraz decyzji o wpisie do rejestru zabytków założenia urbanistycznego Wilanowa sądy administracyjne stanęły na stanowisku, że decyzja o wpisie do rejestru zabytków, która nie precyzuje w swej treści granic terenu poddanego ochronie prawnej ani nie posiada załącznika graficznego, który precyzowałby granice tego obszaru jest decyzją niewykonalną w rozumieniu art. 156 par. 1 pkt 5 k.p.a., co stanowi podstawę do stwierdzenia jej nieważności. W ocenie autora zaprezentowane w orzecznictwie stanowisko powoduje, że byt prawny wielu decyzji o wpisie do rejestru jest zagrożony, jako że obarczone są one wadą trwałej niewykonalności. Z tego względu zasadne wydaje się wyjście naprzeciw istniejącemu już od lat problemowi wadliwości decyzji o wpisie do rejestru zabytków poprzez dokonanie ogólnej oceny skali i charakteru tego problemu, a następnie podjęcie działań prawnych służących kompleksowej sanacji zbioru decyzji dotkniętych wadami nieważności, w tym w szczególności wadą trwałej niewykonalności decyzji.

EN

In this article, the author characterises the remedy of the declaration of the invalidity of an administrative decision and subsequently gives an analysis of selected defects resulting in invalidity in respect of decisions on entry into the register of monuments, based on rulings of the Minister of Culture and National Heritage that have been issued so far and taking into account positions expressed in decisions of administrative courts. The analysis enables the assumption that defects resulting in invalidity affect decisions on entry into the register of monuments to the highest degree are defects consisting in issuing a decision in a case that has previously been settled by another final decision (art. 156 § 1 (3) of the Administrative Procedure Code) and issuing a decision that is permanently unenforceable (art. 156 § 1 (5) of the APC). As for the latter of these defects, the question that arises is whether the condition for the enforceability of a decision on making an entry into the register of monuments is the definition of the boundaries of the site covered by that entry. In two cases regarding the declaration of the invalidity of a decision on entering into the register of monuments the landscape park in � � Faszczyce and the urban layout of Wilanów, administrative courts took the position that a decision whose contents do not specify the boundaries of the site covered by legal protection and which does not include a graphical appendix specifying the boundaries of that site is an unenforceable decision within the meaning of art. 156 § 1 (5) of the APC, which provides a basis for declaring such a decision invalid. In the author’s opinion, the position adopted in judicial decisions threatens the legal existence of many decisions on entry into the register of monuments, as they are burdened with the defect of permanent unenforceability. For this reason, it seems justified to address the long-existing problem of defectiveness of decisions on entry into the register of monuments by making a general evaluation of the scale and character of that issue and subsequently taking legal steps aimed at curing comprehensively the body of decisions containing defects resulting in invalidity, including, in particular, the defect of the permanent unenforceability of a decision.

6

Gloss to the Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court of 8 May 2018 (II OSK 1926/17)

67%

Ostrowska A., Polanowski J.

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia

|

2019

|

vol. 28

|

issue 2

EN

By the judgement of 8 May 2018 (II OSK 1926/17), the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Lublin Provincial Heritage Conservation Officer against the judgement of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Lublin of 6 April 2017 (II SA/Lu 1119/16), in which the Court found ineffective inclusion of a real estate monument record card (the area of the former Jewish cemetery in Biłgoraj at Maria Konopnicka Street) in the provincial record of historical monuments. The Supreme Administrative Court stressed that although the judgement under appeal was incorrectly reasoned, it was in accordance with the law since there were grounds for declaring the contested act ineffective. The aforementioned judgement deserves attention due to the fact that it expresses the position that it is impossible to apply the general principles of the Code of Administrative Procedure in the proceedings conducted by the provincial heritage conservation officer concerning the inclusion of the record card of a historical monument in the provincial record of monuments. The purpose of the gloss is to refer to this view.

PL

Wyrokiem z dnia 8 maja 2018 r. (II OSK 1926/17) Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny oddalił skargę kasacyjną Lubelskiego Wojewódzkiego Konserwatora Zabytków od wyroku Wojewódzkiego Sądu Administracyjnego w Lublinie z dnia 6 kwietnia 2017 r. (II SA/Lu 1119/16) stwierdzającego bezskuteczność czynności polegającej na włączeniu do wojewódzkiej ewidencji zabytków nieruchomości położonej w Biłgoraju przy ul. Marii Konopnickiej jako obszaru byłego cmentarza żydowskiego. NSA podkreślił, że choć zaskarżony wyrok został wadliwie uzasadniony, to odpowiada prawu, gdyż istniały podstawy do stwierdzenia bezskuteczności zaskarżonej czynności. Wyrok NSA zasługuje na uwagę, ponieważ wyraża stanowisko o braku możliwości stosowania przepisów ogólnych Kodeksu postępowania administracyjnego w postępowaniu prowadzonym przez wojewódzkiego konserwatora zabytków w przedmiocie włączenia karty ewidencyjnej zabytku do wojewódzkiej ewidencji zabytków. Celem glosy jest rewizja tego poglądu.

7

Postawy społeczeństwa polskiego wobec zabytków i polityki ich ochrony w świetle badań ankietowych

51%

Obłąkowska-Kubiak K.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2017

|

issue 1

239-267

PL

W artykule podjęty został temat stosunku społeczeństwa polskiego do zabytków oraz do polityki publicznej ochrony zabytków i opieki nad nimi jako ważnego czynnika sukcesu przekazania ich następnym pokoleniom. Jest on podsumowaniem metod i wyników przeprowadzonych dotychczas ankietowych badań społecznych oraz reprezentacyjnego badania zrealizowanego przez autorkę artykułu wraz z firmą Millward Brown S.A. w sierpniu 2016 roku. Badanie to skupione było na postawie społecznej wobec zabytkowych budynków. Rozpoznane zostały jej komponenty, co pozwoliło na wyróżnienie pięciu rodzajów postaw wobec zabytków – od bardzo pozytywnej do bardzo negatywnej – oraz na wskazanie, że dla większości społeczeństwa ta część dziedzictwa kulturowego nie jest czymś obcym ani obojętnym. Analiza stosunku do kluczowych narzędzi trzech filarów polityki wobec zabytków (prawno-administracyjnego, wiedzy, finansowego) pozwoliła na podzielenie respondentów na pięć segmentów różniących się poparciem dla tych narzędzi. Ponadto dostrzeżono współzależność pomiędzy czytaniem i przekazywaniem informacji o zabytkach, zwiedzaniem ich czy też nieodpłatną pracą na ich rzecz a negatywnym emocjonalnym odbiorem ich niszczenia, co dało podstawy dla rekomendacji.

EN

This article addresses the issue of attitudes of Polish society to monuments and to public policy on monument protection and conservation as an important factor in the successful saving of monuments for the next generations. It summarises the methods and results of social surveys conducted so far and a sample survey carried out by the author in cooperation with Millward Brown S.A. in August 2016. The survey focused on the social attitude towards historic buildings. Determination of its components enabled identification of five types of attitudes towards monuments — from very positive to very negative. The survey showed that the majority of society was not unfamiliar with or indifferent to this part of cultural heritage. Analysis of the attitude towards the key tools of the three pillars of monument policy (law and administration, knowledge, and finance) enabled classification of respondents into five groups according to the level of support for those tools. Moreover, a correlation was observed between reading and communicating information about monuments, visiting monuments, and engaging in voluntary work for the sake of monuments and negative perception of monument destruction, which provided a basis for offering recommendations.

Refine search results

5 Ochrona Zabytków

1 Studia Iuridica Lublinensia

1 Zeszyt Studencki Kół Naukowych Wydziału Prawa i Administracji UAM

1 2019

2 2017

1 2016

1 2014

1 2008

1 1997

2 Brudnicki J.

1 Dobosz P.

1 Drela M.

1 Krzanowski M.

1 Obłąkowska-Kubiak K.

1 Ostrowska A.

1 Polanowski J.

Prawne aspekty ochrony funkcji zabytków nieruchomych

DEFINICJA ZABYTKU NIERUCHOMEGO W PRAWIE POLSKIM I FRANCUSKIM

Prawna opieka nad zabytkami – wybrane aspekty

Przewidywany termin rozpoczęcia i zakończenia robót budowlanych przy zabytku a termin ważności pozwolenia wojewódzkiego konserwatora zabytków

Stwierdzenie nieważności decyzji o wpisie do rejestru zabytków

Gloss to the Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court of 8 May 2018 (II OSK 1926/17)

Postawy społeczeństwa polskiego wobec zabytków i polityki ich ochrony w świetle badań ankietowych