Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

English (EN)·Polski (PL)·Yкраїнський (UK)
Przejdź do strony domowej biblioteki Centralna Biblioteka Wojskowa Link otwiera się w nowym oknie Logo biblioteki Prolib Integro - strona głównaCentralna Biblioteka Wojskowa

Wyszukujesz frazę "ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury" wg kryterium: Temat

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-11 z 11
    Tytuł:
    PRAWNOKARNE ASPEKTY OCHRONY DÓBR KULTURY REFLEKSJE NA TLE ZMIANY STANU PRAWNEGO
    PENAL LAW ASPECTS OF THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY. REFLECTIONS AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF AN ALTERED LEGAL STATE
    Autorzy:
    Chlebowicz, Piotr
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/536091.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2003
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    ochrona zabytków
    pojęcie zabytku
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury
    Opis:
    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.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 2003, 3-4; 122-126
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Nad Ustawą o ochronie dóbr kultury - nie wykorzystane możliwości
    ABOUT THE DECREE ON THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL VALUES — MISSED OPPORTUNITIES
    Autorzy:
    Eksner, Janusz
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/536454.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    1978
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury
    obowiązki właściciela zabytku
    środki egzekucji administracyjnej
    Opis:
    As it is well-known, Poland can boast o f unique in the world initiatives on preservation, revaluation and protection o f cultural values. Despite o f that, the number o f historic buildings in the country is getting lower and lower, while the number o f monuments completly ruined and devastated or just neglected is increasing. Main causes o f failures in counteracting the devastation o f historic buildings are insufficient repressive measures on the one hand and shortcomings o f the law binding in the field o f the protection o f monuments on the other. The amendment o f the Decree of February 15, 1968 ,,On the Protection o f Works o f Art and on Museums” (Dz. U. No 10, item 48) has thus become a must and should be aimed at raising the rank o f decisions taken by conservators and securing their full execution. The Decree o f June 17, 1966 on executive procedures in the administration (Dz. U. No 24, item 151) secures the execution, i.e. carrying out o f the order or ban expressed in the conservator’s decision. So, the conservator is not powerless against checks on part o f users from either a private or socialized sector; he may simply enforce their submission. However, none o f conservators has as yet made in fact use o f that weapon and thus in practice the law binds on paper only. As for penalty repression applied in cases of devastation, destroying and lawless demolition o f old buildings, then we must consider it as unsatisfactory or totally non-existent. The conservator o f historic monuments should more thoroughly examine every singular instance o f a historic monument being devastated, with a view to advise o f it the public prosecutor’s office. The system of the protection o f works o f art against devastation and their irreversible loss is composed o f a few elements at least. In the first place we should mention economic and financial resources allocated for that purpose, proper personnel o f highly qualified conservators in the number meeting actual needs, providing them with adequately equipped workshops, further promotion o f the front o f social support for the idea o f the protection o f historic monuments, and finally, the law binding in this field. The law plays a significant, albeit not all important role in the system. A successful functioning o f the entire system depends on a faultless operation o f individual elements, mutually dovetailed and harmonously interlinked. There is no need o f exchanging any o f the elements and replacing it with a nee one, because as yet it has not been installed and one cannot say how it will be operating in future. And so, instead of amending let us all try fully observe the rules.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 1978, 4; 221-223
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Zakaz wywozu dóbr kultury i jego praktyczne konsekwencje
    THE PROHIBITION OF EXPORTING CULTURAL PROPERTY AND ITS PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES
    Autorzy:
    Zeidler, Kamil
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/538739.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2002
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    zakaz wywozu dóbr kultury
    wywóz dóbr kultury
    ochrona dóbr kultury
    nielegalny wywóz dóbr kultury
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury
    nowe projekty ustaw o ochronie dziedzictwa narodowego
    Opis:
    Among assorted legal institutions foreseen in the statute of 15 February 1962 on the protection of cultural property an extremely prominent role is played by a prohibition relating to the export of cultural goods. This is by no means a new regulation, since it had been enforced already upon the basis of a decree from 1946 on the registration and prohibition of the export of works of art and objects of artistic, historical or cultural value. The protected cultural property encompasses portable or stationary objects, old or contemporary, and of significance for cultural heritage and development owing to their historical, scientific or artistic value. The prohibition was established by the legislator primarily owing to the immense devastation of Polish cultural legacy during the second world war. Doubts concerning the retention of the prohibition in its present-day form are voiced mainly in view of the regulation of this problem by the law of the European Communities. On the other hand, it remains indubitable that owing to obligatory international agreements prohibition of this sort must pertain to cultural goods obtained by means of crime (theft, fencing). This issue is regulated by two international conventions: the convention signed on in Paris on 17 November 1970, and dealing with measures intent on banning and preventing the illegal export, import and transference of the ownership of cultural goods, and the convention on co-operation and mutual assistance in intercepting and returning cultural property illegally transported across state frontiers, signed in Plovdiv on 22 April 1986. The legal situation of the import of cultural property is different, since such transportation is supported by the legislator. At present, the Parliament of the Republic of Poland is examining two competing projects of statutes (on the protection of national legacy and on the protection of historical monuments), both regulating the titular subject.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 2002, 3-4; 410-412
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Dziesięciolecie Ustawy o Ochronie Dóbr Kultury i o Muzeach
    THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CULTURAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND MUSEUMS LAW, 1962
    Autorzy:
    Malinowski, Kazimierz
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/537259.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    1973
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i muzeach
    Towarzystwo Opieki nad Zabytkami Przeszłości
    powstanie służby konserwatorskiej
    dobra kultury
    Opis:
    It is namely this tenth year elapsing from the date on which The Cultural Property Protection and Museums Law has been passed in the Polish Seym that gave the author rise to write his article where he reminds that the above Law may be regarded as a consequence of the progressively, from the 18th century onward, growing respect for antiquities. At the same time the author points to the fact that this Law contains a number of provisions that are extending both scope of notions and range of activities in conservation and in museums in this country. From among the newly adopted conceptions to be emphasized here deserves the term „cultural property” but at the same the fact of retaining of the term „historical monument” with the use of which the Law determines the objects of cultural property that are recorded in museum inventories or in those kept by the Voivodship Conservators. As especially important the author considers the first article of the Law reading as follows: „The protection of cultural property is an obligation for the State and the duty of its citizens”. This basic statement is followed by all further provisions. Under the term „cultural property” also the modern objects are meant provided, hovewer, that they can prove important from the point of view of the nation’s cultural heritage and development of its culture. According to the author’s further reasoning the Law extends its legal protection also to battlefields and to sites connected with the Nazi persecutive actions during the last war, to objects of material culture, to monuments of nature, etc. While providing the possibility to act in many different ways the Law at the same time requires that the all conservation tre a tments be based on scientific assumptions. As a fu rther consequence of obligations that by the force of the Law in question were put on all citizens the following can be considered: the calling into being of advisory bodies supporting the Minister of Culture and Arts and those acting at Voivodship Conservators Offices; the provisions determining the use to be made of historical monuments as well as those settling the manner in which they should be made accessible to the public; or, finally, those dealing with their popularization and social contributions for the sake of their protection. The due attention has been devoted to individual collectors who were granted with a number of special privileges. What concerns museums it must be considered as appreciable that in addition to the term „museum” has been introduced that of „collection of exhibits” who are otherwise called the „museum objects”. As fully adequate as to its ability to characterize the museums practice is to be regarded a review of functions that should be performed by a museum; of them, of course, as the most important are to be considered those scientific and educational. However, it must also be stated that the ten-year experience has shown not only the advantages resulting of the Law under discussion, but also pointed to some failures the sources of which, according to the author’s opinion, must mainly be sought in the executive regulations. So, for example, as the author suggests, the Voivodship Conservators should be supplied with decisive powers while collaborating with the local authorities responsible for spatial development and townplanning; an ex officio recording of the movable monuments of the past should be made also more extensive, and especially in cases where they are kept under unfavourable conditions; obligatory practices should be introduced for persons graduating in movable monument conservation divisions a t the high schools; and, finally, much more care should be devoted to decisions concerning the cancelling the historical buildings in a Register of Historical Monuments and their demolishions. There is no doubt that provided that the more thorough consideration be paid to these decisions it would become possible to safeguard a considerable number of objects without any more serious disadvantages or burdens to national economy. Toward those demanding th a t serious alterations or amandments be introduced to the Cultural Property Protection and Museums Law the author of the present assumed a critical or even negative attitude as it is his view th at a document of such fundamental nature as a Law should be one sound enough and, thus all its provisions represent an obvious standard or even a habit governing the attitudes of the society. It is then only that it will be possible to hope th a t our cultural heritage might survive without any further losses.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 1973, 2; 85-88
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Co wnosi nowego ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach?
    Autorzy:
    Malinowski, Kazimierz
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/536235.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    1962
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury o muzeach
    radziecka uchwała o ochronie zabytków
    czechosłowacka ustawa o zabytkach kultury
    ochrona zabytków w Niemieckiej Republice Demokratycznej
    użytkownictwo zabytków
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 1962, 2; 3-10
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    W sprawie nowelizacji "Ustawy o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach"
    PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAW ON PROTECTION OF CULTURAL GOODS AND MUSEUM PRACTICE
    Autorzy:
    Pawłowski, Zbigniew
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/539084.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    1976
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    Ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i muzeach
    nowelizacja ustawy o ochronie dóbr kultury
    zabytki w rękach prywatnych
    dotacja na roboty konserwatorskie
    społeczny opiekun zabytków
    Opis:
    The author, dealing for several dozen years past with social protection of historical monuments, discusses the legal aspect of monument protection against the background of the relevant Law of 1962. What is tackled in greater detail is the question of the possibilities of saving monuments which are privater or social property. Stress is laid on lack of coordination between the provisinons of the Law and those binding on other ministries and bodies liable to command of historical buildings and monuments (e.g. the Ministry of Agriculture). A postulate is made for incorporating in the Law of a more explicit ban on building work being conducted on the area of, or within, historical monuments without the permission of the Head of the Voivodship Conservator’s Office. The final part of the article is devoted to the importance of, and the part played by, social coustodians of monuments who encounter in their work lack o f understanding on the part of the local authorities and users of historical buildings as well as other monuments. The author concludes in a postulate for amending the Law of 1962 in regard to all the questions raised in his article.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 1976, 4; 295-297
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Zespół Ekspertów – 10 lat w służbie ochrony zabytków
    The Team of Experts – 10 years serving the protection of monuments
    Autorzy:
    Nekanda-Trepka, Ewa
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/538925.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2012
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    Generalny Konserwator Zabytków
    Biuro Dokumentacji Zabytków
    Ośrodek Ochrony Zbiorów Publicznych
    rzeczoznawca ministra kultury i sztuki
    adaptacja zabytków
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury
    Opis:
    The Team of Experts was formed on the rising tide of the changes that occurred in our country and in the system of monument protection after 1989. An independent office of the General Conservator of Monuments which, apart from the Centre for Documentation of Monuments, needed a team of experts and specialists who could advise on adjudicating cases of the second instance. In the autumn of 1992, a decision was made that the Team of Experts on Architecture, Urban Planning, and Cultural Landscape would be created from the 1st of January 1993 as a department of the Centre for Documentation of Monuments. I was entrusted with the task of creating it in September 1992. An action programme was created at the time, along with an interdisciplinary team made up of a former member of the Team of Experts of the Interdepartmental Committee and new employees connected with Warsaw’s universities. In November 1993, we managed to create a list of experts, a group of several hundred people the help of whom could be used by both the monument protection services and the Team. We cooperated closely with the Regional Centres that we asked to prepare opinions on the cases from their areas. The Team of Experts mainly received cases investigated by the General Conservator of Monuments. In accordance with the 1962 Act on the protection of cultural property, we tried to protect all the monuments whose owners applied for removing from the register. Applications for removal were the inspiration to look for new solutions to save the monuments: the faience factory in Włocławek (the reason for organising an international conference on the revitalisation of monuments of technology), factories in Żyrardów and Sosnowiec, and the “Guido” coal mine in Zabrze. The Team maintained numerous international relations, the employees took part in courses, conferences, trade shows, and study tours, and our experience was desirable in the East (Kamyanets-Podilsky 1994). Our report concerning the church in Tum near Łęczyca presented to the main conservation committee enabled the use of financial resources, saving the church. We also began working on a new standard of urban documentation. However, field works and works on the conservation guide were discontinued after some changes have been introduced in the ministry. By the decision of the Minister of Culture and Art, the Centre for the Protection of Public Art Collections was transformed into the Centre for the Protection and Conservation of Monuments, and the Team of Experts along with the specialists was moved to that centre. In the autumn of 1998, the CPCM returned to its previous name and scope of activity, and the Team of Experts returned to the CDM. Unfortunately, the entire structure of the monument protection services has already disintegrated. The reconstruction of the Team in its previous make-up was impossible, and expectations towards the Team were limited. In 2000, after a new group of experts has been appointed and introduced under the supervision of the General Conservator of Monuments, a return to a strong monument protection service was no longer possible. This is why in 2001, I left the Team and took up the post of the Warsaw Conservator of Monuments.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 2012, 1-2; 95-100
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Zabytki w kompetencji samorządów?
    Historical Monuments in the Competence of Self-governments?
    Autorzy:
    Makowiecki, Ryszard
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/537683.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2001
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    dobra kultury
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury
    obowiązki i prawa samorządów wobec zabytków
    zadania gmin wobec zabytków
    samorządy a zabytki
    analiza stanu prawnego ochrony zabytków
    Opis:
    In the face of the progressing transference of rights and duties to self-governments we may expect that soon they latter will be burdened with greater privileges are regards undertakings connected with the protection of historical monuments. The author underlines that this process calls for flexibility: it is impossible to ascribe identical tasks to all self-governments. The range of the rights and duties of particular self-governments should stem from their staff and financial potential as well as the degree of familiarity with cultural property in a given area. With few exceptions (the largest cities) the preparation of self-governments for a proper realisation of tasks must take years, and a one-time introduction of a uniform system of obligations on a national scale would be highly unsuitable. It is important that the right to decide about historical monuments be given to qualified persons and not to offices.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 2001, 2; 175-177
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Zniszczenie stanowiska archeologicznego w świetle obowiązującego prawa oraz działań prokuratury i sądu
    The Destruction of an Archaeological Site in the Light of Binding Law and the Activity of the Prosecutors Office and Courts
    Autorzy:
    Wysocki, Jacek
    Górny, Piotr
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/538013.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2002
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    zniszczenie stanowiska archeologicznego
    w świetle obowiązującego prawa
    przestępstwo zniszczenia stanowiska archeologicznego
    prawo o ochronie zabytków
    przepisy prawa o ochronie dóbr kultury
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury
    nawarstwienia kulturowe w świetle prawa
    wpisanie nawarstwień kulturowych do rejestru zabytków
    podstawa prawna ścigania sprawców zniszczeń stanowisk archeologicznych
    Opis:
    The destruction of an archaeological site is a crime defined in article 288 § 1 of the penal code in connection with article 294 § 2 of the penal code. Albeit both regulations do not make direct mention of an archaeological site or monument, the formulation about “property of particular significance for culture” is interpreted by the prosecutor’s office and courts as a registered historical monument. Experiences of the conservation services in the voivodeship of Varmia and Mazuria show that despite the conviction universally shared by conservators about the ineffectual persecution of felons guilty of incurring damage to archeological sites, successes in this field are possible. In the mentioned voivodeship eight such cases were tried in the years 2000-2002, and all ended with sentences. Nonetheless, the process of attaining success involves many factors which, as long as they are skillfully exploited, may comprise excellent weapons in the battle waged against dishonest investors or persons digging for the purpose of obtaining metal monuments. One of the fundamental premises is the active p a rticipation of conservation services, the provision of information about the committed felony and witnesses testimony or participation as an auxiliary prosecutor during the court trial; determination and consistency are also of great importance. It is insufficient to merely inform about a crime nor is it possible to resign from the possibility of filing a complaint or an appeal in a situation when the prosecutor’s office or court discontinue legal proceedings or adjudicate the slight social harm of the deed and the perpetrator remains unpunished. As a rule, such situations are linked with a misunderstanding of the specificity of archaeological heritage on the part of the administration of justice. Another prominent factor of decisive importance in cases of this kind involves registering historical monuments. Apparently, only registered archaeological sites can be recognised as property of particular importance for culture. The conclusions stemming from cases concerning the destruction of archaeological sites are as follows: 1. effective activity starts not in court or the prosecutor’s office but already at the stage of ordinary administrative work — decisions to register historical monuments, properly conducted coordination of investments, etc.; 2. the specificity of archaeological heritage is, as a rule, unknown to prosecutors and judges, and thus eventual success depends predominantly upon the active participation of the conservation services at all stages of procedure in the prosecutor’s office and court; 3. the more frequently are such cases reported to the organs of persecution, the more often will they have their finale in court and the easier will it be to penalise the perpetrators.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 2002, 2; 217-223
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Ochrona dziedzictwa przyrody na przykładzie zbiorów paleontologicznych z doliny Świśliny
    The Protection of Natural Heritage upon the Example of Palaeonthological Collections from the Świślina Valley
    Autorzy:
    Rdzanek, Kazimierz
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/535738.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2002
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    ochrona dziedzictwa przyrody
    zbiory paleontologiczne z doliny Świśliny
    dolina Świśliny
    „Zbiory z Wiór”
    prawne aspekty ochrony zabytków paleontologicznych
    ochrona zabytków paleontologicznych
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury
    skamieniałości
    muzeum paleontologiczne w dolinie Świśliny
    Opis:
    The palaeonthological collections (220 tons) from the valley of the Świślina, amassed by the author, became a testing field for the state of the protection of natural monuments in Poland at the turn of the century. Legally, such monuments are considered cultural property. Recently, we have witnessed the emergence of new trends in their protection. On the one hand, interest in economic and tourist values has been shown by county self-governments, while on the other hand local communities have disclosed great concern for natural heritage and its exploitation for the promotion of the region. Events on the Świślina have rendered aware the newly established county authorities that their tasks involve care for the cultural and economic development of all communes comprising the county, and that shifting monuments from those communes to the seat of the county authorities results in alienation from the natural environment and the loss of tourist attraction. At the same time, it became apparent that self-government authorities are unprepared to embark upon conservation efforts, and th a t the transference of such tasks to the self-government requires extremely thorough deliberations and supervision, since it could lead to the devastation of the monuments.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 2002, 2; 224-237
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-11 z 11

      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