INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW In short: “the right of property drawn by the ECHR and the CDFEU and therefore entered into our legal system, has become a human right to which, however, the social function seems to be inherent. Both cards allow the possibility of enjoying one’s own goods, but to the extent that such individual enjoyment does not conflict with the general interest. This is clearly a fundamental sui generis right, which is inevitably conformed, as is clear from its very definition of a right conditional on the public interest.”31 In the specific theme of “cultural heritage”, it is also useful to recall that, as a result of the recognition of the direct applicability of constitutional values, the same jurisprudence of our Court of Cassation has affirmed that the normative statute of the public property is functional to the promotion of the human personality and to its development in the context of the social State. In particular, clarifying are the judgments, both in United States, of 14 February 2011, n. 3665 and 16 February 2011, n. 381, according to which the provision contained in art. 42, co.1, cost. It attributes an autonomous character to property (whether public or private), justifying the elaboration of a specific substantial regime. The Supreme Court, in fact, ruled that: “by Arts. 2, 9 and 42 cost. in view of their direct applicability, the principle of the protection of human personality and its proper conduct in the context of the welfare state, also in the context of the «landscape»” and, again, that: “Art. 9 cost. in particular, provides that the Republic protects «the landscape and the historical and artistic heritage of the nation», with an affirmation, contained in the framework of the fundamental principles, which in recent years has co-Foundation for rich cultural heritage legislation (the reference goes, in particular, to the d.lg. 29 October 1999, n. 490, then repealed, from 1 May 2004, from d.lg. 22 January 2004, n. 42, that it contains the code of the cultural assets and the landscape, whose art. 10 previews a definition of the cultural assets). In turn art. 42 cost. While it focuses mainly on private property, it begins with the significant assertion that the property «is public or private», which is an implicit recognition of a fundamental difference between the two types of property. More recently, also, the reform implemented with l. cost. October 18, 2001, n. 3, which amended Title V of Part Two of the Constitution, has conferred on the exclusive legislative competence of the State the protection of the environment, the ecosystem and cultural heritage (art. 117, com-ma 2, cost.)while it has established the concurrent competence of the State and the Regions for how much it regards the 31 Cf. G. MAGRI, What future for the social function of property? Abandon weimar to return to locke? in Bocconi Legal Papers http:///bocconilegalpapers.org
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==