TOURISM ENTERPRISE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROTECTION valorization of the cultural and environmental assets (art. 117, codicil 3, cost.); the art. 118, paragraph 3, cost. also provides that State law governs «forms of understanding and coordination in the field of the protection of cultural heritage»”. It follows that: “From this normative-constitutional framework, and without prejudice to the «essential» data of the centrality of the person (and of the related interests), to be made effective, as well as with the recognition of inviolable rights, also through «fulfilment of the mandatory duties of political, economic and social solidarity», emerges the interpretative need to «look» at the theme of public goods beyond a purely patrimonial-proprietary vision to arrive at a personal perspective – collectivism”. The Court therefore concludes that: “where an immovable property, regardless of ownership, is intrinsic to its characteristics, in particular those of an environmental and landscape nature, intended for the realisation of the welfare state as outlined above, said good is to be considered, outside of the now dated perspective of the Romanesque dominium and of the codicystic property, «common» that is, regardless of the title of ownership, instrumentally linked to the realization of the interests of all citizens”32. 3. FUNCTION OF RECOVERY, PROTECTION AND SAFEGUARDING OF THE HISTORICAL, ARTISTIC AND CULTURAL HERITAGE, ACCORDING TO AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CURRENT LAW If we accept, therefore, that cultural heritage can create a solid basis for the growth of tourism and that tourism is able to guarantee the necessary gain to allow its preservation, it is clear that there can be a strong correlation between tourism and cultural heritage. And this, especially in those places with low capacity, in which the “environmental context”, represents a unique irreproducible. In doing so, the environmental, cultural, historical and artistic heritage is able to represent the “best” vector for the transmission of values, of 32 Cf. Court of Cassation, Sec. a. 14 February 2011, No.3665, in Rass. Dir. Civ., 2/2012, p. 524, with comment by G. CARAPEZZA FIGLIA, Property and social function. The problem of common goods in the jurisprudence of the United Sections. In particular, according to the decidedly shared, and shareable, thesis of the author of the comment: “This perspective – ultimately shared by the Sections united in identifying the discipline to be applied to the concrete case – fully responds to the need to enhance the attitude of public property to promote the realization of interests constitutionally relevant. Nevertheless, the need to always anchor the property of the good to the teleological-functional correspondence to the categories of goods positively identified, avoids foreshadowing an uncontrolled enlargement, by way of interpretation, of the goods belonging to the State property, which would ultimately take away from the legislative power, ascribing it to the judicial order, the intensification of forms of state intervention in the economy”.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==