Tourism Enterprise and Cultural Heritage protection, as a legal for valorization of the Territory and of the Person by Francesco Torchia

FRANCESCO TORCHIA 14 lar, 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for rich cultural heritage legislation (the reference goes, in particular, to the d.lg. 29 October 1999, n. 490, then repealed, from 1 May 2004, from d.lg. 22 January 2004, n. 42, that it contains the code of the cultural assets and the landscape, whose art. 10 previews a definition of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 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,

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==