INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW “disquisting public (or state-owned) assets in terms of dichotomy alone – private means, in a partial way, limiting oneself to the mere identification of the ownership of the assets, leaving aside the unavoidable fact of their classification by virtue of their function and of the related interests to these linked assets”. From this derives “the idea of a necessary functionality of public goods, with the consequent conviction that the good is public not so much for the circumstance of falling into one of the abstract categories of the code, but rather to be a source of benefit for the community”18. To complete this argued logical/legal path, in fact, our Supreme Court (more closely regarding the subject of the investigation) states that: “the system of protection of the landscape, the environment or the historical and artistic heritage justifies the affirmation of restrictions on the use of the ownership of the assets linked in the light of the constitutional balance between the interests at stake, which sees some of the faculties of recessive dominical law facing the needs of safeguarding cultural and environmental values, in the implementation of the social function of property”19. Delineated, so, the concept of “cultural identity” – albeit limited only to the purposes that are relevant for the present work – it is useful to specify, still, that authoritative doctrine claims that the cultural good must be studied by making use of the classic instruments of the patrimonial right of goods such as: ownership (static moment of legal situations), power of enjoyment, power of disposition and power of control (exercise of legal situations). This, however, without neglecting that the “property” of the cultural good is instrumental to the realization of the human person as an individual and in social formation. The claims that: “the universal good or identity – that is to say, it helps to qualify the stage of civilization of a people or of an existence – is an a-spatial good, which is indeed the object of legal relations, but at the same time represents the contribution of individual persons (Leonardo, Michelangelo, Leopardi, etc.) to the advancement of civilization and the approach to civilization”, which is why cultural goods serve “the material and spiritual progress of the community (...) ie to a complex purpose that takes direction especially from the provisions of Articles. 2 and 3 cost. and in any 18 Cfr. Cass. Civ., Sez. Un., 18 febbraio 2011, n. 3939 19 Cfr. Cass. Civ., sez. I, 27 November 2013, n. 26496, who, in recalling Cass. Civ, sez. I, 19 July 2002, n.10542; Corte Cost., 27 June 1974, n.202 and Corte Cost. 9 May 1968, n.56, points out that the system of withdrawal of dominical law with regard to the need to safeguard cultural and environmental values, in implementation of the social function of property,”also does not conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights, which, while informed of the necessary proportionality between the public interest pursued and the protection of private property, does not exclude the sacrifice of opportunities for economic exploitationproperty for the protection of landscape and environmental interests”.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==