Protective Obligation: The Legal Essence and Issues of Judicial Practice

Abstract

The article discusses different points of view on the legal nature of the protective obligation in relation to objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture). The author believes that protective obligations, both under the previous and current legislation, regardless of the form they were given, could not be considered as contracts or obligations. A protective obligation has always been an act of public authority, formalising the public law obligations of the holder of the right to an object of cultural heritage. In connection with such a definition of the nature of the protective obligation, the protective obligations could not provide grounds for bringing the owners of protected objects to civil liability. For violation of protective obligations, only administrative liability is justified. From the public law nature of protective obligations, it also follows that when certain subjects (for example, tenants) are excluded from the number of persons obliged to fulfill protective obligations, in relation to such persons the effect of protective obligations is terminated since the entry into force of this regulation.