Nekilnojamųjų kultūros vertybių paėmimas - teisinė sankcija ar valstybės ir visuomenės poreikio tenkinimas?

LTPublikacijoje nagrinėjami nekilnojamųjų kultūros vertybių paėmimo teisinio reguliavimo klausimai, siekiant atskleisti teisinio reguliavimo specifiką ir vertinimą teisės metodologijos požiūriu. Straipsnyje aptariama, kokios teisės normos sudaro šį specifinį teisinį institutą, pateikiama glausta teisinio reguliavimo analizė, vertinamas viešosios ir privatinės teisės normų suderinamumas reguliuojant konkretų teisinį santykį. Keliamas klausimas, ar valstybės nustatytas teisinis reguliavimas atitinka konstitucinę doktriną. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Kultūros vertybės; Kultūros vertybių paėmimas; Cultural heritage; Expropriation of cultural heritage.

ENIn an attempt to reveal the specifics of legal regulation cultural heritage objects are examined in the puband evaluation according to law methodology, issues lication. The constitution obliges state to take care of legal regulation of expropriation of immovable of cultural heritage protection by adopting cultural heritage protection principles from international legal sources to national law. Constitutional Court has stated that protection of cultural heritage is a public interest, a constitutional imperative. Protection of a constitutional imperative of cultural heritage is a legal obligation based on positively obliging legal regulation, when law-contradicting behaviour brings a sanction guaranteed legal responsibility, which serves as a guarantee for protecting a constitutional imperative. Expropriation of property for the benefit of society is an administrative legal interaction, a law institute separate by nature and purpose, therefore is opposite to legal interactions of legal responsibility, which are related to the sanction's legal repressive function, however under a set legal regulation governing expropriation of inappropriately kept legal heritage objects to state ownership, administrative legal interaction regulated according to civil law, whose purpose is compensatory and unrelated to repressive state function. In this way a legal indetermination and doubts arise about the compatibility of such regulation with the constitutional principle of legal state, which is inseparable from the justice principle. Under legal regulation set by the state, expropriation of inappropriately kept cultural heritage objects occurs both as legal sanction for a committed legal offense and as satisfaction of society's needs, but the remuneration principle to the state, which is applied together with the sanction, is against the general legal principle: no one should benefit from legal offense committed.According to author, such governing should be altered by separating objects of public and private legal regulation. [From the publication]