Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Ochrona zabytków i organizacja urzędów konserwatorskich w Polsce okresu międzywojennego (na przykładzie woj. pomorskiego) a unormowania Ustawy z dn. 23 VII 2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami

100%

Zimna-Kawecka K.

Wiadomości Konserwatorskie

|

2010

|

tom Nr 27

123-144

PL

W artykule podjęto próbę przybliżenia problematyki ochrony zabytków w okresie międzywojennym w Polsce, wraz z organizacją i kompetencjami urzędów konserwatorskich i skonfrontowania z obecnie funkcjonującym w Polsce systemem prawnym. Reguluje go ustawa o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami z dn. 23 VII 2003 r. Organizacja urzędów konserwatorskich w obu omówionych okresach i zakres kompetencji poszczególnych organów związanych z ochroną zabytków posiadają wiele analogii, mimo kilkudziesięcioletniego przedziału czasowego, jakie je dzieli. Dekretem Rady Regencyjnej z 1918 r., a następnie Rozporządzeniem Prezydenta RP z dn. 6 III 1928 r. powołano okręgowych konserwatorów zabytków, którzy zostali włączeni w skład wojewódzkich urzędów, jako fachowi funkcjonariusze do spraw opieki nad zabytkami. Specyficzny status obecnych wojewódzkich konserwatorów podlegających organizacyjnie wojewodzie, a zarazem będących organem zespolonej administracji rządowej w województwie, jest rozwinięciem zasady ukształtowania struktury urzędowej w okresie międzywojennym. Oczywiście nie należy sądzić, że obecnie obowiązująca ustawa o ochronie zabytków pomijając doświadczenia kolejnych kilkudziesięciu lat XX w., czerpie wyłącznie bezpośrednio z ustawodawstwa okresu międzywojennego. Uwidacznia się tu zwłaszcza różnica w polityce administracyjnej państwa zmierzającej do decentralizacji, co widać w przekazaniu właściwości wojewódzkiego konserwatora zabytków jednostkom samorządowym. Ale i w tym wypadku takie przekazanie właściwości odnajdujemy już w okólniku wojewody z 1935 r. Warto zatem uzmysłowić sobie, że dokonania polskiej państwowej ochrony zabytków w latach dwudziestych zeszłego stulecia nie straciły na aktualności u progu XXI wieku. Współczesne konserwatorstwo kontynuuje i twórczo wykorzystuje myśl, doktryny i praktyki przedwojenne.

EN

The article attempts to popularise the issue of monument protection during the interwar period in Poland, with the organisation and competence of conservation offices, and to confront it with the legal system currently functioning in Poland which is regulated by the Ancient Monuments Protection and Preservation Act from July 23, 2003. Organisation of conservation offices in both discussed periods and the competence range of particular bodies associated with monument protection display numerous analogies despite the several decades that separate them. By the Decree of the Regency Council in 1918, and then the Regulation of the President of the Republic of Poland issued on March 6, 1928, regional monument conservators were appointed, who became members of voivodeship offices as professional officials to deal with issues concerning monument protection. The specific status of the present voivodeship monument conservators organisationally subordinate to the voivode, and at the same time being a body representing united government administration in the voivodeship, is a continuation of the principle of forming official structures during the interwar period. Naturally it should not be assumed that the currently binding legal Act concerning monument protection draws directly and exclusively from the legislature of the interwar period, ignoring the experience of the following decades of the 20th century. There is a clearly visible difference in the administrative policy of the state directed at decentralisation, which was noticeable when the rights of a Voivodeship Monuments Conservator were ceded onto local authority units. But even in this case such cession of rights can be found in the circular of the voivode from 1935. It is worth realizing that the achievements of Polish state monument protection service from the 1920s lost none of their relevance on the threshold of the 21st century. Present-day conservation services continue and creatively use the thought, doctrines and practices from the pre-war period.

2

Ewidencja zabytków architektury - kilka uwag i pytań w związku z nowelizacją Ustawy z dn. 23 VII 2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami

100%

Zimna-Kawecka K.

Wiadomości Konserwatorskie

|

2010

|

tom Nr 28

78-90

PL

Artykuł dotyczy problematyki wojewódzkiej i gminnej ewidencji zabytków architektury, w związku z nowelizacją ustawy o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami (dalej: UOZ), która weszła w życie 5 czerwca 2010 r. Zmiany, które zaszły, wprowadzają istotną różnicę w ochronie zabytków, na rzecz gminnej ewidencji. Zabytki w niej istniejące muszą być uzgadnianie w przypadku decyzji o ustaleniu lokalizacji inwestycji celu publicznego, decyzji o warunkach zabudowy, decyzji o zezwoleniu na realizację inwestycji drogowej, decyzji o ustaleniu lokalizacji linii kolejowej lub decyzji o zezwoleniu na realizację inwestycji w zakresie lotniska użytku publicznego. Mimo to pojawia się szereg pytań, m.in. co do kategorii obiektów uwzględnionych w gminnej ewidencji zabytków, a także ich faktycznego statusu prawnego. Ważnym problemem wśród tych zagadnień jest fakt nieprzystosowania teorii prawa do faktycznych możliwości i praktyki urzędowej. Artykuł porusza też kwestie formalno-techniczne dokumentacji ewidencyjnej i organizacji jej wykonywania. Ewidencja zabytków jest najważniejszym etapem podstawowej ochrony i opieki konserwatorskiej. Na jej podstawie tworzy się obszarowe programy ochrony dziedzictwa, a zgodnie ze znowelizowaną UOZ w końcu służyłyby konserwatorskie mają konkretny oręż do ochrony zabytków nie objętych rejestrem. Stanie się to możliwe o tyle, o ile rozpoznane zostaną w równym czasie wszystkie obiekty na terenie kraju, które w danym momencie znajdują się w kręgu zainteresowania konserwatorskiego. Dlatego również rzetelne podejście do wykonania dokumentacji ma ogromną wagę. Jak pokazuje historia polskiego konserwatorstwa, podobne problemy organizacyjno-prawne były znane w przeszłości.

EN

The article concerns the issue of voivodeship and district registers of architecture monuments, in connection with the amendment to the Monument Protection Act (further: MPA) which came into effect on 5 June 2010. The changes which were made introduce significant differences in monument protection in favour of district register. Monuments entered in it have to be agreed on in case of decisions determining the location of investment of public purpose, decision about conditions of building development, decision about permission for realisation of road investments, decision about determining the location of a railway track or decision about permission for realization of an investment in the form of a public utility airport. Nevertheless several questions have appeared e.g. concerning categories of objects included in the district monument register, and their actual legal status. An important problem of the issue is the fact that the theory of law is not adapted to actual possibilities and office practice. The article touches also on the formal and technical issues of the register documentation and the organization of conducting it. Monument register is the most important stage of the elementary conservation protection and care. Area programs of heritage protection have been created on its basis and, according to the amended MPA, conservation services finally have concrete weapons for protecting monuments not included in the register. It will become possible if all objects which at a given moment are the focus of conservation interest are recognised in the whole country at the same time. That is why an honest approach to carrying out documentation is of enormous significance. As the history of Polish conservation has shown us, similar organization and legislation problems were known in the past.

3

Wykorzystanie unormowań art. 95 ustawy o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami do walki z przestępczością przeciwko dziedzictwu narodowemu – propozycje rozwiązań

100%

Jakubowski O.

Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne

|

2011

|

tom VIII

45-52

EN

Cooperation between public administration bodies dealing with combating illegal trade in antiquities and in particular good flow of information between such bodies are key factor of success of their mission. One of the means of improvement of said cooperation are agreements concluded according to Art. 95 of the Monuments Protection Act. This Article may also be used to give certain specialized units the right to act in criminal proceedings relating to cultural goods.

4

Wpłaty nawiązek i kar pieniężnych do Narodowego Funduszu Ochrony Zabytków

100%

Sługocki J.

Prawo w Działaniu

|

2023

|

nr 55

56-71

EN

The National Fund for the Protection of Monuments is a state special purpose fund specified in Article 83b of the Act of 23 July 2003 on the protection and care of monuments. The provisions establishing the National Fund for the Protection of Monuments entered into force on 1 January 2018. The administrator of the NFOZ is the minister competent for culture and protection of national heritage. The current solutions regarding payments to the Fund are still of a temporary nature, as some of the changes entered into force in 2018, and the rest will come into force only in 2024. The aim of the article is to consider the most important aspects of the legal regulation of damages payments and fines to the Fund, including the creation and principles of operation of the Fund. These issues are also closely related to the process of replacing criminal provisions with a system of administrative fines, hence the analysis of this process on the basis of the Act on the Protection and Care of Monuments has also become an important element of the conducted considerations.

PL

Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Zabytków jest państwowym funduszem celowym określonym w art. 83b ustawy z 23.07.2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami. Przepisy powołujące Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Zabytków weszły w życie z dniem 1.01.2018 r. Dysponentem NFOZ jest minister właściwy do spraw kultury i ochrony dziedzictwa narodowego. Aktualne rozwiązania dotyczące wpłat do Funduszu mają nadal charakter przejściowy, gdyż część zmian weszła w życie w 2018 r., a reszta wejdzie dopiero w 2024 r. Celem artykułu jest rozpatrzenie najważniejszych aspektów regulacji prawnej wpłat nawiązek i kar pieniężnych do Funduszu, a także powstania i zasad działania Funduszu. Zagadnienia te związane są też ściśle z procesem zastępowania przepisów karnych systemem administracyjnych kar pieniężnych, stąd analiza tego procesu na gruncie ustawy o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami stała się również istotnym elementem prowadzonych rozważań.

5

Ochrona ruchomego dziedzictwa kulturowego w Polsce – wybrane zagadnienia

100%

Zalasińska K.

Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne

|

2011

|

tom VIII

33-44

EN

Protection of national heritage is state responsibility. Principles of protection are incorporated in two separate sets of rules – one for artifacts and one for archives. Rules on protection of movable heritage are not applied in practice, and the very concept of protection envisioned by the lawmaker seems to be lax. Furthermore duties imposed on private owners of cultural objects are not balanced by their rights. This rises a serious doubt about constitutionality of these laws.

6

Opieka i ochrona dziedzictwa kulturowego na ziemiach Polski

100%

LIPSKA D.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2017

|

nr Dodatek Specjalny. Dziedzictwo w Polsce.

41-54

EN

From the earliest times, caring for heritage took the form of cultivating memory and cherishing the past through the preservation of its remains. Safeguarding the memory of the glory of the past, of people and of places served the purpose of building and shaping community identities. The way the remains of the past were taken care of depended on the history of the respective community and on the nature of its heritage, specifically on the values and principles of said community. Thus, caring for and, in time, also protecting heritage started to reflect social and sometimes political processes. The earliest unambiguously examples of how memory of the past was cherished in Poland are connected with religious practice, in particular the Catholic faith. From the Middle Ages, reverence and care were shown for both churches and the religious images which adorned them, as well as the tombstones placed in churches to commemorate individuals that a given community considered meritorious. They were preserved by successive generations for many centuries. There are many examples where mostly medieval religious representations were intentionally placed as decoration in churches built in subsequent periods. That great attention was paid to preserving both items such as religious representations, furnishings and utensils, as well as buildings such as churches and monasteries, is proven, in turn, by the detailed instructions which were issued in Poland in the early 17th century. The documents created as a result of the reform of the Catholic Church (after the Council of Trent) were mainly concerned with the way care should be exercised over churches and their furnishings. The values such relics of the past started to be identified with over time were not only religious in nature. This is illustrated, for example, by the Gothic form of the storey which was added to the medieval building of the Old Town Hall in Toruń (17th century), which can be interpreted not only as an intentional aesthetic gesture, but one having a symbolic nature, intended to stress the significance and medieval origins of the seat of the City Council. Another phenomenon which underlies the present- day protection of heritage in Poland was the founding of collections of art and unique objects. A major early example was the collection of tapestries bequeathed to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1571) “pro publico bono” by the last king of the Jagiellonian dynasty, Zygmunt August. In turn, the collection of antiques owned by Stanisław Kostka Potocki and exhibited in the Wilanów Palace since 1805 is considered to be the first such collection which was made available to a wider public. As elsewhere in Europe, the most prominent changes in the perception of tangible heritage in Poland, which had lost its independence for 123 years in 1795, occurred in the 19th century. The emergence of historic revivals, drawing on the experience of earlier styles, combined with the effects of accelerated civilisational development during the industrial revolution, led to a clear change in the attitude of Poles to their past treasures, thus fostering their commitment to protecting them. In the years prior to the reestablishment of Polish statehood in 1918, efforts were made to raise people’s awareness of their national identity by securing the physical reminders of their nation’s past, which was seen as crucial for preserving the memory of a motherland which had ceased to exist in administrative terms. Works of architecture and fine art, along with everyday items associated with persons and events important to Poland, were treated as memorabilia and evidence of the past, which testified to a glorious history of the state, nation and society. Such items formed the core of a collection of Princess Isabella Czartoryska, stored with great reverence in specially built garden pavilions in her Puławy residence: the Temple of the Sibyl (1798-1801), which bore the profound motto: “A Gift from the Past to the Future”, and the so-called Gothic House (1809), where the Princess created a “stone anthology” of mementos from Poland, Lithuania and Ruthenia, consisting of carefully selected artefacts (escutcheons, fragments of royal tombs, cannonballs from battlefields, architectural details of medieval castles, prehistoric finds, etc.). Putting emerging conservation principles into practice in partitioned Poland depended on constraints imposed by individual partitioning powers (Austria, Russia and Prussia). The Polish population living under Russian and Prussian rule was subjected to systematic Russification and Germanisation, and faced serious restrictions on a day-to-day basis. As a consequence, efforts that were taken in the 19th century to protect national heritage were predominantly private in nature. The greatest freedom was afforded to the inhabitants of Galicia (under Austrian rule), with its two major cities – Kraków and Lviv. This freedom was crucial for the emergence of a local community of conservators. The campaign to prevent the demolition of Florian’s Gate and the Barbican in Kraków (1816) was one of the first signs of conscious public commitment to the protection of architectural heritage. Such successful initiative brought local newspapers, authorities and residents together. Numerous activities undertaken to protect historic architecture in Galicia, especially in Kraków, largely reflected the predominant trends in European monument conservation. Often, they were “restorations” which verged on new, artistic architectural creation, as proposed by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. This is exemplified by the restoration of Collegium Maius in the years 1839-1858, during which the complex of university buildings (14th-16th centuries) was given a uniform “Gothic” character. Its spatial layout and the appearance of the façade were changed, using, for example, architectural details taken from a variety of medieval buildings in Kraków. In time, restoration towards ensuring a unity of style gave way, in the second half of the 19th century, to gradual acceptance of the accumulation of historical layers, including the aesthetic qualities of early modern styles. This is exemplified by the reconstruction of the medieval Cloth Hall in Kraków in 1875-1879, during which some of the Renaissance additions – the loggia and the attic – were preserved. The second half of the 19th century saw heated public debate about a number of concepts guiding the restoration of Wawel Hill in Kraków to its former splendour. The centuries-old seat of Polish kings was widely considered by Poles as one of their most cherished national symbols, even though it had been reduced to the status of Habsburg army barracks at the time. After much political campaigning, the conservators, who considered it unacceptable to “aim towards some unification of the style or modernising the castle” finally managed to start their work on the Wawel Hill in the early 20th century, as they reinstated the Renaissance character of the courtyard and replaced the roofs. Extensive restoration work, with considerable financial support from the public purse, continued throughout the interwar period and included archaeological surveys and interior design. An important milestone occurred in 1856, when Kraków established the office of the Inspector of Monuments of Western Galicia. This was integrated with the Austro-Hungarian monument protection system, which developed in the second half of the 19th century, in line with the postulates of Max Dvořák and Alois Riegel. In time, the Conservators’ Society was set up (1888). This was a collegial advisory body reporting to the Central Commission for the Preservation of National Heritage Sites in Vienna. The growing availability of public transport, and the resultant growth of tourism, also stimulated public interest in relics of the past, which was slowly ceasing to be the exclusive domain of wealthy patrons and scholars. In 1906, the Society for the Preservation of Historical Monuments was founded in Warsaw, bringing together enthusiasts and professionals. It has operated ever since and it is now known as the Society for the Preservation of Monuments (TOnZ). The activities of its members, focused mainly on documenting monuments, included efforts towards establishing the rules for their protection. In 1909, the Society organised the first conference of conservators in Warsaw, which was attended by representatives of all three sectors of Polish territory under foreign rule. The principles of policy-based protection of monuments were defined during the event drawing on previous experience. It was agreed that actions targeting monuments must be limited to “simple repair and replacement of damaged parts with new ones, insofar as it is necessary for preserving the monument as a whole.” It was also assumed that during restoration work materials and techniques characteristic of the monument should be used, and that any necessary additions should not necessarily be designed in correspondence with its style. The above rules formed the core of the Decree of the Regency Council “On the protection of monuments of art and culture,” which was proclaimed in autumn 1918, when Poland regained its independence. It was one of the first documents of the newly created Second Polish Republic. The definition of a monument protected by law included urban architectural ensembles, wooden architecture, gardens and parks, but also “folk household items and folk craft products.” Attention was also drawn to the surroundings of monuments and the associated vistas. Further legal solutions governing the protection of monuments were introduced in 1928 (“Decree of the President of the Republic of Poland on the guardianship of monuments”). These included replacing the inventory of monuments with the current Register of Monuments and a listing in the Register remains the basic form of monument protection in Poland. In the years 1918-1939, Poland focused its heritage protection efforts on building a monument conservation system and on conservation and museum services, which were being formed with the active participation of the members of the above-mentioned Conservators’ Society and Society for the Preservation… In 1928, the still-existing office of the General Inspector of Monuments was established to oversee the work of district inspectors. Apart from undertaking the restoration work needed to recover from wartime damage, the inspectors focused on taking stock of the surviving resources. In addition to adopting a general timeframe (from the 10th century until Romanticism), they followed the rule that final decisions would be taken on a case-by-case basis, looking at the value of a given property. The Central Monument Surveying Office was then set up, drawing on the experience and achievements of 19th century surveyors, as well as that of Society for the Preservation… Also the academic community, notably the Faculty of Architecture of the Warsaw University of Technology, committed themselves to documenting historic buildings and structures. Upon the initiative of the latter, the houses of Warsaw’s Old Town and selected types of wooden architecture, including synagogues, were inventoried. In the interwar period, legally protected but often declining historic town complexes began to attract researchers’ attention, hitherto focused on monuments of architecture. In an effort to improve their physical condition and restore their attractiveness, comprehensive repair and renovation works were carried out on several towns, including the Old Town Market Place in Warsaw. The earliest large-scale archaeological excavations were also conducted in the interwar period, including the most important, cross-disciplinary investigations of the fortified wooden settlement of the Lusatian culture on the Lake Biskupin peninsula, which were started in 1934 and attracted much attention in Poland and abroad. The comprehensive use of various types of research in the natural sciences and the humanities was a milestone in developing scientific research methods in Polish archaeology. The inventory surveys and various types of research on historic buildings in the interwar period produced documentary material which proved priceless shortly after World War II, when Poles were faced with the task of rebuilding their country, devastated by Nazis who had unscrupulously followed the principle that to destroy a nation you have to destroy its culture. Devastating losses resulted both from military operations and deliberate demolition and torching. Most movable properties had been appropriated and moved out of Poland, but a large proportion were also destroyed. It is still very difficult to estimate the losses accurately. The destruction of Polish cities and their historic districts is estimated to have exceeded 50 per cent, with some cities, such as Warsaw or Gdańsk, having lost over 80 per cent of their historic architecture as classified according to pre-war principles. Estimating the loss of moveable objects from public and private collections, including those belonging to religious communities, is even more difficult. According to estimates, more than 516,000 items from key Polish collections were lost. Today, it is generally estimated that Poland could even have lost up to 70 per cent of its tangible cultural heritage during World War II. Thanks to public commitment, damage to historic objects, such as the furnishings and architectural details of the destroyed Royal Castle in Warsaw, was documented and monitored, and the objects themselves were secured to be later used during post-war rebuilding operations. During the war, an underground system of higher education functioned in Poland, comprising also disciplines as architecture, art history and archaeology. Thanks to all this, as soon as the war was over, restorers were able to start working to help the country rise from the ruins and secure the surviving heritage. As early as July 1945, the first post-war General Inspector of Monuments, Professor Jan Zachwatowicz, formulated a general policy with respect to architectural monuments. Being aware of the material, but above all, the spiritual needs of a society which had lost its cultural heritage on an unprecedented scale, he declared the following: “unable to accept the fact that our cultural monuments have been wrested away from us, we will keep rebuilding them from the foundations, so that we can pass on to future generations an accurate – even if not authentic – form of those monuments, living in our memory and available in tangible form.” In this way, he justified the need to reconstruct buildings in a manner preserving their historic form and the diversity of their styles to reflect the various architectural trends prevailing in Poland until the mid-19th century. In parallel, the principles for securing and restoring the key architectural monuments which survived WWII were formulated. In 1945 alone, despite a significant shortage of skilled workers and materials, some 400 historic buildings were secured and renovated in more than 200 cities and towns, with another 600 buildings restored the following year. As regards to the conservation of movable properties, in particular paintings, the principle of limited intervention was adhered to, as before the war. Reconstruction was allowed only with respect to historic architecture and sculpture. The post-war system for the protection of monuments was highly centralised. As early as February 1945, the Chief Directorate of Museums and Monuments Protection was established, which was responsible for managing both museums and the monuments protection service, which reported to the General Inspector of Monuments. The Chief Directorate included departments responsible for inspection by conservators, restitution, archaeological sites, parks, folk art, landscape, etc. Great importance was attached to the creation of a scientific base by establishing, among others, the State Institute of Art History and Monuments Surveying (currently the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences). The conservation and restoration studios, which were initially part of the Chief Directorate, were transformed into the State Enterprise Ateliers for the Conservation of Cultural Property (PP PKZ) in 1950, with studios set up across the country. Thanks to its structure, which comprised of a number of specialised teams, the Institution was able to carry out specialist, interdisciplinary, and comprehensive conservation and restoration in areas such as architecture, arts and crafts, decorative arts, sculpture, painting and graphic art, etc. The full documentation of an item was compiled within a single organisational structure. The Ateliers conducted historical, archaeological and ethnographic research, diagnosed the various structural, biological and chemical problems, prepared architectural designs, and carried out construction and restoration works. The rich experience gained in this way in the fields of research and conservation was also widely used by Polish conservators and archaeologists during their work in foreign countries, including present-day: Algeria, Belarus, Cambodia, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Macedonia, Mongolia, Russia, Slovakia, Sudan, Syria, and Vietnam. It should be noted here that Professor Kazimierz Michałowski’s commitment to the saving of the monuments of the civilization of the Lower Nile, including the Abu Simbel temples. It was one of the earliest international initiatives to protect cultural heritage under the auspices of UNESCO (1960s). These are not the only examples of the involvement of Polish specialists in international efforts. They also actively contributed to creating international organisations and policy documents. The symbol of the Blue Shield, sketched by Professor Jan Zachwatowicz at an international conference on the protection of cultural properties in the context of armed conflict in the Hague, is a commonly recognised sign of Poland’s commitment to the Hague Convention (Poland ratified it in 1956). Polish conservators took an active part in the sessions of the Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, including the creation of the Venice Charter (1964). The resolution on the establishment of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), which was adopted at that time, was put into effect at the Constitutional Congress in Warsaw and the General Assembly in Kraków (1965). Poland showed further international commitment by ratifying the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (ratified in 1974), as well as the World Heritage Convention (ratified in 1976). Our country was selected in the first World Heritage Committee elections for a two-year term (1976-1978). It was represented by Professor Krzysztof Pawłowski. Poland was also one of the five founding states of ICCROM, and Professor Stanislaw Lorenz was the first chairman of its Scientific Board. In the years 1988-1992, the honourable function of the Director-General of ICCROM, was held by Professor Andrzej Tomaszewski, for many years also involved in the ICOMOS’ international agenda. It must also be remembered that the Polish National Committee of ICOM has existed and operated in an uninterrupted way since 1949. Poland has been involved in the Memory of the World Programme since the 1990s, and since 2011, it has applied the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Interwar legislation on the protection of monuments in Poland was in force until the adoption of the Act on the Protection of Cultural Properties and on Museums (1962), which covered an extremely wide range of cultural goods: archaeological and paleontological sites, buildings, urban complexes, parks and gardens, works of visual art, ethnographic artefacts, industrial and technical heritage, collections, archives and libraries, battlefields and important historical sites, as well as rare species of wildlife, living or dead, provided they do not fall within the scope of the provisions of the Act on the Conservation of Nature. In parallel, the Monuments Documentation Centre was set up (1962). In response to the growing need for expertise in the protection of cultural heritage, the following institutions were also established: the Centre for the Protection of Museum Objects (1988 – currently the National Institute for Museums and Public Collections), the Board for the Protection and Conservation of Palaces and Gardens (1977), and the Centre for Archaeological Rescue Excavations (1995). Three of the above institutions were eventually merged into a central cultural institution with branches in each Polish administrative region. In 2011, the institution was renamed the National Heritage Board of Poland. The 1962 Act on the protection of cultural properties and on museums was replaced by the currently applicable legal acts: the Act on the Protection and Guardianship of Monuments (2003), the Act on Museums (1996), the Act on the National Archival Resource and State Archives (1983) and the Act on Libraries (1997). Under currently applicable Polish legislation, items or sites which are considered to be monuments on account of their artistic, historic and/ or scientific value are legally protected by: being entered in the Register of Monuments; being included in the Heritage Treasure List; being granted the status of a Monument of History; the creation of a cultural park; being protected in local spatial development plans. The centuries-old traditions and commitment to the protection of the legacy of past epochs, is reflected in Article 5 of the Polish Constitution of 1997: “The Republic of Poland shall safeguard the independence and integrity of its territory and ensure the freedoms and rights of persons and citizens, the security of its citizens, safeguard the national heritage and shall ensure the protection of the natural environment pursuant to the principles of sustainable development”.

7

Międzynarodowe Sympozjum "Praha 1860-1960"

100%

Bieniecki Z.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1972

|

nr 1

47-53

8

Czy osoba fizyczna lub prawna może chronić zabytki, pomagając powołanym do tego organom? Czyli słów kilka o społecznych opiekunach zabytków na podstawie rozdziału 10 z ustawy z 23.07.2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami

84%

Skrobisz M.

Młoda Palestra – Czasopismo Aplikantów Adwokackich

|

2024

|

nr 2

106-114

EN

We are all aware that monuments, due to their age and the behaviour of certain members of society, need constant protection, e.g. to prevent devastation. It has been decided to set up appropriate bodies whose main task is to take care of the relics of the past. However, it should be pointed out that these bodies will not always be able to react quickly enough to an action that contributes to the destruction of a monument. Therefore, it was decided to involve individuals who are not strangers to the fate of monuments. In this article I will try to introduce the institution of a social caretaker of monuments based on the Act of 23.07.2003 on the protection and care of monuments. I will present, among others, the requirements to be met by an individual applying for a guardian's card, the manner of appointment and statutory tasks. I will also look at how this institution functions in practice on the basis of a report issued by the National Heritage Institute.

PL

Wszyscy zdajemy sobie sprawę, że zabytki ze względu na swoją wiekowość i zachowania niektórych członków społeczeństwa potrzebują stałej ochrony, np. w celu zapobiegania dewastacji. Zdecydowano się na powołanie odpowiednich organów, których głównym zadaniem jest dbanie o relikty przeszłości. Jednak należałoby wskazać, że owe organy nie zawsze będą w stanie dość szybko zareagować na działanie przyczyniające się do zniszczenia zabytku. Z tego względu postanowiono zaangażować do pomocy jednostki, którym nie jest obcy los zabytków. W niniejszym artykule staram się przybliżyć instytucję społecznego opiekuna zabytków na podstawie ustawy z 23.07.2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami. Przedstawiam m.in. wymagania, jakie powinna spełniać osoba fizyczna ubiegająca się o przyznanie legitymacji opiekuna, sposób powołania czy ustawowe zadania. Przyglądam się również funkcjonowaniu tej instytucji w praktyce na podstawie raportu wydanego przez Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa.

9

Prawna opieka nad zabytkami – wybrane aspekty

84%

Brudnicki J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2014

|

nr 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.

10

Samorządowe programy opieki nad zabytkami : Prawo, praktyka, orzecznictwo, ustalenia kontroli NIK

84%

Trojanowski A.

Kontrola Państwowa

|

2020

|

tom 65

|

nr 5 (394)

117-135

EN

In his article, the author presents self-governmental programmes for monuments pro tection, which have been introduced to the Polish legal system in the Act on monuments protection and maintenance of 2003. The article attempts to combine an analysis of legal basis for monuments protection and maintenance programmes, comments on the respective literature and judicature, and the results of NIK’s audits. Adoption and, consequently, implementation of programmes for monuments protection, has also been entrusted (in addition to State bodies) to self-governmental units on two levels: regional and local (Polish: województwo, and gmina and powiat respectively). Their programmes should play an important role not only in the national heritage system, but in other self-governmental activities as well. The article presents the legal basis for local self-government units as regards monuments protection and maintenance, as well as legal regulations related to self-governmental programmes for monuments maintenance. As for the literature, judicature and NIK’s audit findings, the author of the article discusses, among other, the role of self-governmental programmes as stra tegic tools to integrate local communities, the issues related to the obligation to adopt such programmes and report on their implementation, as well as the relation of pro grammes to the local registers of monuments. The article also comprises NIK’s con clusions related to the programmes discussed.

PL

Mimo istniejącego od ponad 16 lat ustawowego obowiązku, wiele samo rządów terytorialnych nie opracowuje programów opieki nad zabytkami. W artykule przeanalizowano podstawy prawne ich tworzenia, relacje między programami, a prowadzoną przez gminę ewidencją zabytków, przed stawiono stanowisko doktryny i orzecznictwa, a także powiązano je z usta leniami wybranych kontroli NIK. Zaproponowano rozwiązania, których wprowadzenie mogłoby ułatwić samorządom wykonanie tych zadań.

11

Comparing Perceptions: Westerners and Kenyans Facing Swahili Tangible Cultural Heritage. An Inquiry on Gede, Mnarani, and Jumba La Mtwana Ruins

67%

Capriotti G.

Roczniki Kulturoznawcze

|

2023

|

tom 14

|

nr 3

21-34

PL

Materialne dziedzictwo kulturowe na wybrzeżu kenijskim pomiędzy Malindi a Mombasą jest reprezentowane głównie przez ruiny osad miejskich z okresu od X do XVIII wieku, które miały kluczowe znaczenie dla kształtowania się kultury Suahili. Bardzo często w obrębie tych stanowisk archeologicznych tworzone są parki węży, a gady wystawione są w skrzynkach z pleksiglasu. Dzięki sugestiom zawartych w europejskich i amerykańskich przewodnikach, które gorąco polecają zwiedzanie tych ruin jako niezapomniane przeżycie, miejsca te są najczęściej odwiedzane przez turystów zagranicznych. Celem artykułu jest analiza postrzegania wartości tych przybrzeżnych ruin, zrozumienie, w jaki sposób obecni mieszkańcy podchodzą do przeszłości Suahili, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem relacji między tożsamością a kulturą materialną. Pierwszym źródłem tych analiz są przewodniki turystyczne, w których autor tego artykułu poszukiwał odpowiedzi na pytania: w jaki sposób ruiny przedstawiane są w międzynarodowych przewodnikach turystycznych oraz w lokalnych przewodnikach dla obywateli Kenii? Jakie różnice możemy zauważyć pomiędzy tymi przewodnikami? Ponadto podczas dłuższego pobytu na wybrzeżu kenijskim autor artykułu przeprowadził ankietę traktując ją jako narzędzie uzupełniające jego badania, aby lepiej zrozumieć postrzeganie wartości ruin wśród lokalnych społeczności. Wyniki tych ankiet pokazują, że tylko niewielka liczba lokalnych mieszkańców odwiedziła ruiny znajdujące się nieopodal ich miejsc zamieszkania oraz że nie są one postrzegane jako podstawowa cecha tożsamości ludzi wybrzeża, należących do ludu Mijikenda. Z tego względu pojawiają się kolejne interesujące pytania, które zostaną podjęte w artykule: dlaczego tradycyjni mieszkańcy wybrzeża Kenii słabo identyfikują się z kulturowym/historycznym dziedzictwem kamiennych miast? Czy lokalne społeczności promują nowe rodzaje więzi z ruinami i zabytkami obecnymi na terenach, które zamieszkują? Czy materialne dziedzictwo kulturowe jest wykorzystywane do wspierania nowych sposobów interpretacji przeszłości?

EN

The tangible heritage of the Kenyan coastal area between Malindi and Mombasa is mainly represented by ruins of urban settlements that date between the 10th and 18th centuries and are central to the formation of the Swahili culture. Very often, these archaeological sites feature contemporary snake parks, with reptiles displayed in Perspex boxes. As a result of suggestions in European and American guidebooks that strongly recommend visits as unforgettable, these sites are mostly visited by foreign tourists. The aim of this paper is to analyse the perception of value of these coastal ruins, to understand how the current inhabitants approach the Swahili past, and with a focus on the relationship between identity and tangible culture. The first sources for this research are tourist guidebooks: how are the ruins presented in the international guides for tourists and in local guides for Kenyan citizens? What differences can we notice? In addition, during a long stay on the coast, we carried out a survey using a questionnaire as a supplementary tool to better understand the perception of the value of ruins among the local communities. The provisional outcomes show that only a small number of local inhabitants have visited the ruins and that, in general, they are not perceived as a fundamental trait of coastal identity. Why do the Mijikenda, the traditional inhabitants of this area, weakly identify themselves with the cultural/historical heritage of the stone towns? Are local societies fostering new connections with ruins and monuments that are present in the territories they inhabit? Is tangible cultural heritage used to support new interpretations of the past?

12

Programy ochrony i opieki nad zabytkami – niedoceniony element polskiego systemu ochrony zabytków

59%

Siwek A.

Ochrona Dziedzictwa Kulturowego

|

2016

|

tom Nr 1

107--115

EN

Under the Act of 23 July 2003 on the Protection and Guardianship of Monuments, a coherent model for caring for historic monuments and sites on both central and local levels was introduced. This concept is intertwined with monitoring and flow of information. The system of managing documents is aimed at optimising actions pertaining to the protection of cultural heritage. As there is a clear hierarchy of these documents, which can also correlate with each other, there are sound reasons behind establishing a coherent protection policy – from municipal/communal level to the central one. National, regional, district, and municipal/communal programmes pertaining to care for historic monuments and sites are strategic tools which shape policy, direct actions towards specific aims, and reflect the will. In a number of cases, however, no programmes have ever been developed. Administrative and legal supervision is still the predominant model in the protection of monuments and sites. The period of 2003 - 2016 was the time to „become familiar” with the new tool applied in heritage protection and management. One should learn from these experiences and promote the idea of devising a coherent strategy aimed at protecting historic monuments and sites by implementing programmes on all administrative levels.

13

Zagospodarowanie zabytku nieruchomego na cele użytkowe w świetle art. 25 Ustawy z dnia 23 lipca 2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami

59%

Brudnicki J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2021

|

nr 1

167-216

PL

Przedmiotem artykułu jest analiza prawna problematyki zagospodarowania na cele użytkowe zabytku nieruchomego, która uregulowana jest w art. 25 Ustawy z dnia 23 lipca 2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami. Przepis ten, choć dotyczy ważnego doktrynalnie zagadnienia adaptacji zabytku do nowych funkcji, paradoksalnie jest rzadko stosowany przez organy ochrony zabytków, nie jest też należycie dostrzegany w piśmiennictwie prawniczym i konserwatorskim. W artykule prześledzono rozwój prawnej regulacji kwestii zagospodarowania zabytku nieruchomego na cele użytkowe. W ramach analizy przepisu art. 25 Ustawy z dnia 23 lipca 2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami dokonano wykładni pojęcia „zagospodarowania zabytku nieruchomego na cele użytkowe”, scharakteryzowano ciążące na właścicielu lub posiadaczu zabytku obowiązki związane z planowanym zagospodarowaniem zabytku na cele użytkowe, a także określono formę, w jakiej wojewódzki konserwator zabytków dokonuje uzgodnienia programu prac konserwatorskich i programu zagospodarowania zabytku nieruchomego wraz z otoczeniem. Efektem prowadzonej analizy jest próba ustalenia ratio legis art. 25 Ustawy z dnia 23 lipca 2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami, ocena skuteczności tej regulacji, a także sformułowanie określonych postulatów de lege ferenda służących zapewnieniu wszechstronnej oceny możliwości adaptacji zabytku do nowej funkcji i pełniejszego niż w standardowym przypadku rozpoznania zabytku pod względem historycznym i technicznym.

EN

The subject of the article is the legal analysis of issues of the development of an immovable monument for utility purposes which is regulated in Article 25 of the Act of 23 July 2003 on the Protection and Guardianship of Monuments. This provision, although it concerns the important doctrine of adapting a monument to new functions, is paradoxically rarely used by monument protection authorities, nor is it properly recognised in legal and conservation literature. The article looks at the legal development of regulations on the development of an immovable monument for utility purposes. As part of the analysis of Article 25 of the Act of 23 July 2003 on the Protection and Guardianship of Monuments, the term “development of an immovable monument for utility purposes” was interpreted, the obligations incumbent on the owner or holder of the monument related to the planned development of the monument for utility purposes were described, and the form in which the voivodship monument protection officer agrees the conservation works programme and the programme for the development of the immovable monument along with its surroundings was specified. The result of the analysis is an attempt to determine the ratio legis of Article 25 of the Act of 23 July 2003 on the Protection and Guardianship of Monuments, to assess the effectiveness of this regulation, as well as to formulate specific postulates de lege ferenda aimed at ensuring a comprehensive assessment of the possibility of adapting the monument to a new function and a more complete recognition, than in the standard case, of a monument in historical and technical terms.

14

Administracyjnoprawna ochrona zabytkowych nekropolii jako miejsc dziedzictwa kulturowego

51%

Mazurek A.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2020

|

nr 1

177-193

PL

W artykule skonfrontowano obowiązujące przepisy prawa ze stanem faktycznym opieki nad zabytkowymi cmentarzami. Niniejsze opracowanie przedstawia analizę norm prawnych w zakresie ochrony zabytkowych nekropolii; koncentruje się na charakterystyce zabytkowych obiektów – cmentarzy oraz wskazuje na normy prawne, których zadaniem jest ochrona dziedzictwa kulturowego. Zwrócono uwagę na kwestie postępowania i opis procedur związanych z objęciem ochroną zabytkowych nekropolii, a także wyszczególniono instytucje odpowiedzialne za sprawowanie tej ochrony i zakres ich zadań. Podkreślono znaczenie ochrony zabytkowych obiektów – cmentarzy jako ochrony wartości, jakimi są dziedzictwo narodowe oraz tożsamość narodowa, prawna opieka nad zabytkowymi cmentarzami nie skupia się bowiem wyłącznie na ochronie miejsc pochówku ze względu na poszanowanie zwłok i w hołdzie zmarłym zasłużonym ojczyźnie, ale na równi dba o dziedzictwo kulturowe i otacza ochroną zabytkowe obiekty nekropolii o dużej wartości artystycznej, historycznej i kulturowej. Nie pominięto również problematyki opieki nad zabytkowymi polskimi cmentarzami położonymi poza granicami Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, a także źródeł finansowania renowacji zabytkowych obiektów oraz charakterystyki cmentarzy, które pełnią rolę wyjątkowych muzeów.

EN

The article confronts the current legal regulations with the actual state of guardianship of historic cemeteries. This study presents an analysis of legal norms in the field of protection of historic necropolises; it focuses on the characteristics of historic cemetery objects and indicates the legal norms whose task is to protect cultural heritage. Attention was drawn to the issues of proceeding and description of procedures related to the protection of historic necropolises, as well as the institutions responsible for the protection and the scope of their tasks. The importance of the protection of historic cemetery objects as a protection of values such as national heritage and identity was emphasized, as the legal care of historic cemeteries is not only focused on the pro¬tection of burial sites due to the respect for the bodies and in tribute to the deceased with merits for their homeland, but also takes care of cultural heritage and protects historic necropolis objects of high artistic, historical and cultural value. The issues concerning the protection of historical Polish cemeteries located outside the borders of the Republic of Poland, as well as sources of funding for the renovation of historic buildings and the characteristics of cemeteries, which serve as exceptional museums, were also taken into account.