Czy ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach dojrzała do nowelizacji : artykuł dyskusyjny IS THE REVISION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND MUSEUM ACT NECESSARY?
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).
Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies
Informacja
SZANOWNI CZYTELNICY!
UPRZEJMIE INFORMUJEMY, ŻE W OKRESIE WAKACYJNYM BIBLIOTEKA BĘDZIE FUNKCJONOWAŁA W ZMIENIONYCH GODZINACH::
od 15 do 31 lipca:
Wypożyczalnia i Czytelnia Główna:
9.00 - 15.00
(poniedziałek-piątek)
Czytelnia Działu Zbiorów Specjalnych:
9.00 - 15.00
(poniedziałek-piątek)
od 1 do 31 sierpnia:
BIBLIOTEKA BĘDZIE NIECZYNNA
UWAGA:
Zwrotu wypożyczonych materiałów można dokonać u dyżurującego bibliotekarza w Wypożyczalni Głównej od 9.00 do 15.00.
Na pozycje, których termin zwrotu przypadnie od 1 do 31 sierpnia, wprowadzona zostanie prolongata (nowy termin zwrotu – 6 września).