TOURISM ENTERPRISE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROTECTION relationship that ultimately leads to consider the concept of “cultural identity” as one of the many natural fields of expansion of the rights of the person, which, for this very reason, takes on a dynamic meaning, having to take into account the needs, which places the socio-economic development of the country. In this sense, however, it would seem to have expressed (albeit within certain limits) even our legislator who, with the latest draft of the Code of Cultural Heritage, in the part relating to the protection and enhancement of the landscape, has dictated the rule in art. 131, which reads: “1. Landscape means the expressive territory of identity, whose character derives from the action of natural, human factors and their interrelations. 2. This Code protects the landscape with regard to those aspects and characteristics which constitute a material and visible representation of national identity, as an expression of cultural values.” and again:”4. The protection of the landscape, for the purposes of this Code, is aimed at recognising, safeguarding and, where necessary, recovering the cultural values it expresses. The subjects referred to in paragraph 6, if they intervene on the landscape, ensure the preservation of its peculiar aspects and characteristics. 5. The enhancement of the landscape contributes to promoting the development of culture.” and finally: “6. The State, the regions, other local and regional public authorities and all persons acting in a public capacity on the national territory, inform their activities to the principles of conscious use of the territory and safeguarding the landscape characteristics and the creation of new integrated and coherent landscape values, meeting quality and sustainability criteria.”16. Of this same opinion is, then, also the jurisprudence of our Court of Cassation and, even earlier, that of the Constitutional Court17, provided that the United Sections of the Court of Cassation, indicate the essential lines for the identification of a new relationship between private and public goods, when they highlight “the essential data of the centrality of the person (and its interests)” and “the interpretative need to “look” to the theme of public goods beyond a purely patrimonial vision – owner to land to a personal perspective – collectivistic”, with the awareness that 16 On the point, however, E. A. IMPARATO, Cultural identity and territory between Constitution and regional policies,cit. p.77 expresses its perplexities, when it states that:”the cultural identity of the community as an expression also of the landscape and, as such, to be protected seems to take second place. Moreover, it is no coincidence that the novella disposition, introduced in the general part of the Code with the amendments and additions of 2008, imposes a limitation on the determination of precisely the “expressions of collective cultural identity”These are considered to be subject to codecystic protection only “if they are represented by material evidence and the conditions for the applicability of Article 10 are met”(art.7bis), that is, for the adoption of the norm mail to specific individuation of the cultural assets stricto sensu, with good peace of the landscape assets.” 17 Cfr. Corte Cost., 18 luglio 2014, n. 210, in Foro it., 2014, I, c. 2651; Cass. Civ., Sez. Un., 16 febbraio 2011, n. 3811, in Riv. giur. ed., 2011, I, p. 419.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==