st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i Prispevek predstavlja temeljne razlike v poudarkih varstva kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji, na Hrvaškem 
in v Italiji. Pomembne razlike se kažejo že v ustavah omenjenih držav, pri čemer je v Sloveniji poudarjen 
koncept ohranjanja kulturne dediščine, medtem ko se na Hrvaškem koncept ohranjanja kulturne de-
diščine neposredno povezuje z njeno uporabo, v Italiji pa z njeno obogatitvijo. 
Ključne besede: kulturna dediščina, zakonodaja, dostopnost, raba, premična/nepremična dediščina
There are some basic discrepancies between the heritage legislatures of Slovenia, Croatia and Italy. 
There are important differences in the very constitutional documents; in Slovenia, the concept of pre-
serving cultural heritage is stressed, while Croatia relates the concept of preservation of cultural herit-
age directly to its use, in Italy, this concept is related to the enrichment of cultural heritage. 
Keywords: cultural heritage, legislature, accessibility, fruition, mobile/immobile cultural heritage
The accessibility, use, fruition and enrichment 
of immobile cultural heritage 
A review of legislation in Slovenia, Croatia and Italy
Katharina Zanier, University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities 
and Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia
29
Introduction
There are some basic discrepancies be-tween the heritage legislatures of Slove-nia, Croatia and Italy. There are impor-
tant differences in the constitutional documents; 
in Slovenia, the concept of preserving cultural 
heritage is stressed (Constitution of Republic of 
Slovenia, Article 5: the state is responsible for the 
“conservation of natural resources and cultur-
al heritage”; Article 73: “everyone is obliged by 
the law to preserve natural landmarks and cul-
tural monuments. The state and local communi-
ties take care of natural and cultural heritage.”), 
while Croatia relates the concept of preservation 
of cultural heritage directly to its use (cf. Arti-
cle 2 and 52 of the Constitution of the Repub-
lic of Croatia); in Italy, this concept is related to 
the enrichment of cultural heritage (cf. Article 
117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ita-
ly). There are substantial differences in the rights 
and responsibilities regarding the ensured acces-
sibility, use, fruition and enrichment of cultural 
heritage, exhibited in the legislature documents 
and related financial mechanisms of the states in 
question. In this respect, clear directions are of 
crucial importance particularly in the field of ar-
chaeological heritage, which rarely has features 
facilitating its direct use, understanding and fru-
ition. General guidelines are specified in several 
international contracts and documents, particu-
larly the Council of Europe Framework Conven-
tion on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, 
the Lausanne document (The ICOMOS Charter 
for the Protection and Management of the Archae-
ological Heritage), the ICOMOS Charter on Cul-
tural Routes and the ICOMOS Charter for the 
Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Her-
itage Sites. 
We survey the legislature of the above-men-
tioned countries, particularly the fields, relevant 
to the conditions for the fruition of immobile 
doi: ht t ps://doi .org/10. 26493/2350-54 43.5(1)29-47
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 1
30
cultural heritage. The articles were selected ac­
cording to broader terms, such as the ownership 
of cultural heritage, mandatory maintenance, 
accessibility, terms of use, possibility of fruition, 
enrichment, management, financing and means 
for the implementation of measures for the pro­
tection, maintenance and enrichment of cultural 
heritage. Based on the general guidelines, speci­
fied in the Constitution of the Republic of Slo­
venia (Articles 5 and 73), the principles related 
to the accessibility, use, fruition and enrichment 
of immobile cultural heritage are defined in the 
Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Slov. “Zakon 
o varstvu kulturne dediščine” – ZVKD­1 with 
amendments1). In Croatia, basic regulations re­
garding the accessibility and use of cultural her­
itage is specified in the Act on the protection and 
preservation of cultural goods (Zakon o zaštiti i 
očuvanju kulturnih dobara). In Italy, the area is 
regulated by the “Cultural Heritage and Land­
scape Code” (Codice dei beni culturali e del 
paesaggio2). We aim to point towards certain de­
ficiencies in the legislature, due to which several 
consequences occur – perhaps most notably, that 
the ZVKD­1 does not imply any mechanisms for 
securing public budget funds for the financing 
of investments into the cultural heritage.
Legislature
Slovenia
Based on the guidelines of the Constitution of 
the Republic of Slovenia (Articles 5 and 73), the 
provisions regarding the accessibility, use, frui­
tion and enrichment of immovable cultural her­
itage are defined in the Cultural Heritage Pro­
tection Act (ZVKD­1 and amendments). 
Ownership
In practice it has been shown that ownership 
of immovable cultural heritage is decisive in se­
curing accessibility and possibilities of fruition, 
since in accordance with Article 54 of ZVKD­
1 Cf. Jelka Pirkovič and Borut Šantej, Pravno varstvo nepremične 
kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji (Ljubljana: ZVKDS, 2012).
2 Cf. Maria Alessandra Sandulli, ed., Codice dei beni culturali e del 
paesaggio (Milano: Giuffre Editore, 2012).
1, monuments must be accessible to the public 
in proportion to the capacities of the owner or 
landowner. Otherwise, the possibility of exercis­
ing the pre­emption right and, exceptionally, ex­
propriation is envisaged, in both cases by the au­
thority that proclaimed the monument,
Based on Article 62 of the ZVKD­1, the 
state, the province or the municipality, have and 
can exercise pre­emptive right on monuments.
The state has a pre­emptive right on monu­
ments of national importance and on immova­
ble property in the influential area of a real mon­
ument of national importance, if so determined 
in the proclamation act.
The province or municipality that has de­
clared the monument has a pre­emptive right 
on monuments of local importance; on real es­
tate in influential areas of a monument of local 
importance, if so determined in the decree; in 
case of unused pre­emptive right of the state, as 
well as on a monument of national importance 
and on real estate in the influential area of a real 
monument of national importance (if so deter­
mined in the decree) located within the territory 
of that province or municipality.
A pre­emptive beneficiary may transfer 
pre­emptive rights to a third party if it improves 
conservation and public availability thereby en­
suring such use, which is consistent with the so­
cial significance of the monument.
The pre­emptive right is excluded if the 
owner sells a thing from the first or second par­
agraph of this article to his/her spouse, relative 
or relative in a linear, adoptive or adoptive par­
enthood, adopted or adopted person or a public 
body whose founder is a state, province or mu­
nicipality.
According to Article 63 of the ZVKD­1, 
property rights on real estate can be withdrawn 
against compensation or compensation in kind; 
expropriation is permissible if a monument or 
its protected values are endangered and if their 
preservation cannot be achieved otherwise. In­
terference with the right to property ownership 
must be proportionate to the public benefits 
that result in expropriation. The expropriation 
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
t
h
e 
a
c
c
es
si
bi
li
t
y,
 u
se
, f
ru
it
io
n
 a
n
d
 e
n
r
ic
h
m
en
t 
o
f 
im
m
o
bi
le
 c
u
lt
u
r
a
l 
h
er
it
a
g
e
31
for monuments of national importance is pro­
posed by the Government and for monuments 
of local importance the competent authority of 
the province or municipality that declared the 
monument. The expropriation must be carried 
out in the manner and in accordance with the 
procedure prescribed in the act governing the ex­
propriation and restriction of the property right 
in the spatial planning, that is, in the main, in 
accordance with Articles 92–114 of the Spatial 
Planning Act.
In the event that inspectors carry out in­
spection measures that remain unpaid by tax­
payers, the state, province or municipality that 
proclaimed the monument obtains a legal mort­
gage on the property that was the subject of the 
measure (Article 42 of the ZVKD­1).
Special provisions also apply to small or 
movable archaeological finds which are trans­
ferred after processing to the care of state and 
authorized museums, where their accessibili­
ty guaranteed is in principle. According to Ar­
ticles 6, 26, 53 and 135 of the ZVKD­1, the own­
er of movable archaeological remains, which are 
legally determined to be heritage, is the state. 
Disposal of archaeological finds that have been 
unlawfully excavated or otherwise illegally ob­
tained from archaeological sites in the territory 
of the Republic of Slovenia or have been legally 
excavated and illegally retained is prohibited. A 
monument owned by the state, province or mu­
nicipality that is an archaeological find or ar­
chaeological site or is insured under special reg­
ulations or international treaties to which the 
Republic of Slovenia is party may not be dis­
posed of (Article 6 ZVKD­1).
Maintenance
Accordance to Article 38 of the ZVKD­1, owners 
must protect their monuments in proportion to 
their abilities. The Institute for the Protection of 
Cultural Heritage may, by decision, order own­
ers to implement part or all of the implementa­
tion of certain measures for the implementation 
of the protection in proportion to the abilities 
of the owner, taking into account the benefits 
and benefits of the inheritance. The ability of the 
owner and the benefits and benefits referred to 
in this Article shall be assessed in the context of 
taxable property or taxable income. In the event 
of an unjustified failure to comply with this de­
cision, the Office may itself carry out or organ­
ize measures of protection, requiring the owner 
to reimburse the proportionate part of the costs. 
In order to reimburse costs, the state, province or 
municipality that financed measures of protec­
tion has the right to claim a legal action against 
the owner. In doing so, the owner cannot list the 
burdens due to the increased security costs aris­
ing from the abandonment of security and regu­
lar maintenance.
If, during inspection, the inspector in 
charge of heritage finds that due to improper 
maintenance, handling or use of a monument or 
national treasure, or due to the omission of due 
care, there is risk of damage, they may prohib­
it such conduct or use and order to ensure pro­
tection (Article 117 of the ZVKD­1). If the in­
spector finds that there is an imminent danger 
of damage or damage to the immovable monu­
ment or national wealth has already occurred, 
they shall determine the measures and the time 
limit within which such risk or damage must be 
eliminated. If the inspected party fails to take 
appropriate measures, they will order that works 
be carried out at the expense of the taxpayer (Ar­
ticle 116 of the ZVKD­1).
Inspection measures are carried out at the 
expense of the taxable person in case of unau­
thorized interventions into registered heritage. 
If a taxpayer does not reimburse the funds for 
the implementation of the measure, the state, 
province or municipality that proclaimed the 
monument acquires a legal mortgage on the real 
estate subject to this measure (Article 42 of the 
ZVKD­1).
If a non­maintained monument or object 
threatens the property, health and life of peo­
ple, traffic, adjacent objects or its surroundings, 
building inspection measures may also be in 
place (see Building Construction Act).
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 1
32
Accessibility
For certain monuments, the act in the proclama­
tion determines the obligation of public acces­
sibility of the monument (Article 13 ZVKD­1). 
According to Article 54 of the ZVKD­1, monu­
ments must be accessible to the public in propor­
tion to the capacities of the owner or proprietor. 
If it is not possible in other ways to ensure the ac­
cessibility of the monument in accordance with 
the decree, the immovable property right may be 
withdrawn against compensation or compensa­
tion in kind according to Article 63 (see above).
The owner or proprietor of the monument 
must always allow the authorized person of the 
Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage 
to document and research the monument, af­
ter prior notice to the owner or landowner, also 
on enclosed land and in buildings, except in res­
idential areas. If the owner or other person does 
not allow this, the authorized person has the 
right to carry out these activities with the assis­
tance of the police (Article 55 of the ZVKD­1). 
According to Article 58 of ZVKD­1, “im­
movable monuments are marked in order to 
improve public access. Labelling is carried out 
when this is not contrary to the benefits of pro­
tection and other public benefits”; in the event 
of an armed attack monuments are also marked 
based on ratified treaties (the Hague Conven­
tion). Regulations on the marking of stationary 
cultural monuments stipulate that each monu­
ment be marked with a monument’s name in or­
der to be better recognized. The designation of 
the monument is a signboard on the facade of a 
monument or a similar suitable place (vertical 
“marker element A”), a lower level monument 
(horizontal “marker element B”) is marked with 
a floor board, in an exceptional case the board, 
upgraded with additional information (“mark­
ing element C”), but this type of marking usu­
ally does not replace the first two marking ele­
ments, mainly complementing them when the 
monument is not clearly recognizable (cultural 
landscape, archaeological site). Exceptionally, no 
particular archaeological or other monuments 
are designated, where the act of proclamation 
so provides, and this is necessary because of the 
manner of protecting the monument or its parts. 
All the signs on the board are in Slovene.
In the areas of municipalities where Italian 
and Hungarian are also used as the official lan­
guages, the inscriptions should be in these lan­
guages as well, but they should not be more pro­
nounced than the inscriptions in Slovene. In 
addition, the inscriptions can also be in English. 
They are formally subordinate to official lan­
guages in Slovenia.
An additional mandatory element for cul­
tural monuments is the sign of the Convention 
for the Protection of Cultural Property in the 
Event of Armed Conflict.
The UNESCO­listed monuments and 
monuments of European significance shall be 
marked in accordance with international acts 
determining their status.
The graphic elements of the labelling, the 
implementation and the quality of graphic ele­
ments and the standards for the complete imple­
mentation of the labelling of stationary cultur­
al monuments of national and local importance 
are given in the Handbook for the Marking of 
Stationary Cultural Monuments.3
Management
The owner or proprietor must ensure the man­
agement of the monument in accordance with 
the act of proclamation directly or by entrusting 
it to a manager. The manager must have all the 
monuments and all the monumental areas pro­
tected under the international treaties to which 
the Republic of Slovenia is party. The proclama­
tion act can also be foreseen by the controller for 
other areas. The authority issuing the act on the 
proclamation of the monument area can manage 
the site on its own; for this purpose they must es­
tablish a public institution or entrust the monu­
ment management to a public institution estab­
lished for the purpose of managing monuments 
and sites, or entrust the management to a natu­
ral person or a legal person under the law govern­
3 Ministry of Culture, Priročnik za označevanje nepremičnih kulturnih 
spomenikov (Ljubljana: Ministry of culture RS, 2010).
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
t
h
e 
a
c
c
es
si
bi
li
t
y,
 u
se
, f
ru
it
io
n
 a
n
d
 e
n
r
ic
h
m
en
t 
o
f 
im
m
o
bi
le
 c
u
lt
u
r
a
l 
h
er
it
a
g
e
33
ing public­private partnership. The management 
of the monument and the monument area is car­
ried out on the basis of a management plan (Ar­
ticle 59 of the ZVKD­1).
“If the manager finances the restoration 
and maintenance with their own resources and 
assumes other burdens of risk, the authority 
which issued the act, concludes a concession con­
tract with the manager for a period commensu­
rate with the financial inputs and the manager’s 
risks.” (paragraph 6 of the article 59 ZVKD­1).
Management plan is a document defin­
ing the strategic and implementation guidelines 
for the overall preservation of the monument or 
site and the way in which its protection is imple­
mented. A management plan should be adopt­
ed for all monuments and sites with a manag­
er. According to the law, the management plan 
is prepared by the manager with the expert as­
sistance of the institution and is adopted by the 
body that adopted the act on the proclamation 
of the monument, that is, the government or the 
ministry responsible, as a monument of nation­
al importance and the representative body of the 
province or municipality for a monument of lo­
cal importance.
The management plan must contain the 
following: an overview of cultural values that 
should be specifically preserved and developed, 
a vision of protection and development, strategic 
and implementation objectives of management, 
provisions relating to the management structure 
and measures for protection against natural and 
other disasters, an action plan with a financial 
framework, in particular to ensure accessibili­
ty and management of the visit, indicators and 
the manner of monitoring implementation, and 
a deadline for the validity of the plan, the man­
ner of updating and changing the plan.
In the case of joint management of several 
territorial or content-related monuments, a 
single management plan may be adopted for 
all monuments” (Paragraph 4 of Article 60 
of the ZVKD-1).
If the site is coincides with an area protected 
under the regulations on nature conserva-
tion, the management plan shall be adopted 
in agreement with the ministry responsible 
for the preservation of nature. In its prepa-
ration, the organization responsible for na-
ture conservation participates. (Paragraph 5 
of Article 60 of the ZVKD-1).
The management plan for the area of a sin­
gle monument and nature protection is adopted 
by the government on the proposal of both min­
isters (in the fields of culture and nature). The 
government also appoints an area manager. The 
operator must be professionally qualified in both 
areas. The minister may conclude a contract with 
the manager of the single insurance area to trans­
fer a part of the public tasks referred to in Article 
84 of the ZVKD­1 with the exception of public 
authorizations (Article 61) to the manager.
Among the tasks of the ZVKDS is to co­
operate with the managers of monuments in the 
preparation of proposals for the management 
plan (Article 84 of ZVKD­1).
Finance
In accordance with ZVKD­1, funds are provid­
ed in the budget of the Republic of Slovenia to 
cover the costs of preliminary research under 
Article 34, costs for co­financing the programs 
for reconstruction of monuments on the basis of 
Article 35, compensation costs under Article 39, 
investments of public funds on the basis of Arti­
cle 40 and costs for the exercise of a pre­emptive 
right on the basis of Article 62 of this Act.4 Ac­
cording to Article 63, the government may con­
sider monuments of national importance, but 
the competent authority of the province or mu­
nicipality for monuments of local importance 
suggests expropriation against compensation or 
compensation in kind (see above).
Furthermore, ZVKD­1 provides for special 
mechanisms for financing protection measures 
in the context of compensatory and compensa­
tory measures. According to Article 31, it is en­
visaged that the minister responsible for culture 
4 See also Zala Koželj, Financiranje kulturne dediščine v izbranih evrop-
skih državah (Ljubljana: MA thesis, University of Ljubljana, 2013), 
53–54.
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 1
34
may issue a cultural consent permit allowing 
the survey and removal of a monument or regis­
tered immovable heritage other than an archae­
ological site, even subject to the imposition of a 
compensatory measure, which may include the 
payment of an amount or the financing or the 
implementation of measures for the preservation 
or revitalization of another monument of com­
parable significance. In accordance with Article 
115, the inspector may, in the event of unauthor­
ized interventions in archaeological remains, 
heritage or monuments, determine the imple­
mentation of alternative measures for the public 
benefit carried out within the framework of the 
public service of protection (in the case of unau­
thorized interference in archaeological remains, 
the implementation of the measure of protection 
of the archaeological site of comparable signifi­
cance in the case of unauthorized interference in 
a registered heritage or monument, the interven­
tion is carried out to preserve or revitalize a reg­
istered heritage or monument of comparable sig­
nificance).
In accordance with the Act on the Pro­
vision of Funds for Certain Emergency Pro­
grams of the Republic of Slovenia in Culture,5 
the budget of the Ministry responsible for cul­
ture provides funds for the gradual implemen­
tation of the program for the most endangered 
and of the highest quality cultural heritage fa­
cilities.6 The annual financial plan is prepared by 
the ministry responsible for culture, as a rule on 
the basis of a public tender or a public call. In­
dividual projects are financed entirely from the 
state budget in cases of ownership or the found­
ing of the state. Other projects are co­financed 
from the state budget in the amount of 50% of 
the value, unless otherwise specified in the pro­
gram or project. In the event of a change of pur­
pose or disposal of an object co­financed from 
5 The new Law on the provision of funds for certain urgent programs 
of the Republic of Slovenia in culture is under consideration: ht-
tps://w w w.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/zakonodaja/iz-
branZakonAkt?uid=600C2D140917130AC12582270053150D&-
db=pre_zak&mandat=VII (date of access: 1.5.2018).
6  Koželj, Financiranje kulturne dediščine, 54-56.
the state budget, the state’s input in real value is 
returned to the state budget.
Other pieces of Slovenian legislature may 
come to some extent in order to provide funds 
for the implementation of cultural activities and 
measures of revitalization in areas of cultur­
al heritage, e.g. the Act Regulating the Realisa­
tion of the Public Interest in the Field of Culture 
(ZUJIK). Public interest for culture is realized 
by the state and local communities independent­
ly or they are set up for the implementation of in­
dividual tasks by public funds or a public agen­
cy (Article 22 ZUJIK, cf. the Resolution on 
the National Program for Culture 2014­2017). 
The state and local communities provide public 
means to public funds and public agencies in ac­
cordance with regulations in the field of public 
funds, public agencies and public finance regu­
lations for indirect budget users (Article 23 ZU­
JIK; cf. the Public Fund of the Republic of Slo­
venia for Cultural activities).
When it is necessary in the public interest 
to provide public cultural goods in a permanent 
and undisturbed fashion, it is provided directly 
by the state or the local community, or by estab­
lishing a public institution in the field of culture 
(Article 26 ZUJIK). Public funds for the financ­
ing of public institutions are provided by their 
founders or co­founders. Furthermore, public 
institutions are financed from non­public sourc­
es (Article 31 ZUJIK).
The ministry responsible for culture, financ­
es cultural programs and projects in the public 
interest for culture on the basis of ZUJIK.
Direct calls to public institutions, public 
funds and public agencies in the field of culture 
are used to finance operations that are in accord­
ance with Articles 23 and 31 of ZUJIK. Public 
calls are used in cases where it is possible to clear­
ly define the artistic, cultural and political cri­
teria that must be met by a public cultural pro­
gram or a cultural project for financing from 
public funds.
Public tenders are used in cases where it is 
possible to determine in advance the criteria for 
evaluating and evaluating proposals for cultur­
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
t
h
e 
a
c
c
es
si
bi
li
t
y,
 u
se
, f
ru
it
io
n
 a
n
d
 e
n
r
ic
h
m
en
t 
o
f 
im
m
o
bi
le
 c
u
lt
u
r
a
l 
h
er
it
a
g
e
35
al projects or programs, and those projects eval­
uated higher.
A public cultural program is cultural activ­
ity that, in terms of content and scope, is com­
plete and carried out by a cultural performer 
whose founder is not the state or a local com­
munity; its operation is in the public interest to 
the extent that it is funded by the state or the lo­
cal community in a comparable way as a public 
institution (Article 56 ZUJIK). The state or lo­
cal community shall enter into a contract with 
a public cultural program contractor on the ba­
sis of a public tender or a public call. Normally, 
the contract is concluded for several years (Arti­
cle 57 of ZUJIK).
In addition, financial synergies for the pro­
vision of funds are also theoretically possible for 
cultural heritage through donations in the field 
of tax legislation.
Pursuant to Article 142 of the Personal In­
come Tax Act, residents may require that up to 
0.5% of assessed personal income tax be allocat­
ed for the financing of political parties and rep­
resentative trade unions and for the financing of 
generally useful purposes, among them cultural 
ones.7 According to special regulations, benefi­
ciaries of grants are set up to carry out those ac­
tivities as non­profit activities and to whom, pur­
suant to a special law, they have been granted a 
special status or it was determined that their ac­
tivity is in the public interest for the purpose of 
performing this activity. V skladu z 2. členom 
Uredbe o namenitvi dela dohodnine za donaci­
je za upravičence se ne štejejo rezidenti pravne 
osebe, ki so jih ustanovile ali katerih člani so 
pravne osebe javnega prava. On the proposal of 
the minister responsible for finance, the Govern­
ment determines the list of beneficiaries annu­
ally, which is published in the Official Gazette 
of the Republic of Slovenia. The taxpayer may at 
any time submit a request for the allocation to 
the tax authority.
Pursuant to Article 59 of the Corporate In­
come Tax Act, a taxable person who is a legal en­
tity of domestic and foreign law resident in the 
7  Koželj, Financiranje kulturne dediščine, 60.
Republic of Slovenia or a company or association 
of persons, including a civil­law company un­
der foreign law, without legal personality (Arti­
cle 3) may claim a reduction in the tax base for 
the amount of payments in financial means and 
in kind for various purposes, including cultural 
ones, for payments to residents of Slovenia and 
residents of the EU and EEA Member States, es­
tablished under the special regulations for the 
performance of those activities, as of non­prof­
it activities up to an amount equal to 0.3% of 
the taxable income of the taxable person’s taxa­
ble period, but not exceeding the amount of the 
tax base of the tax period. The taxpayer may ap­
ply an additional reduction in the tax base up to 
an amount corresponding to 0,2% of the taxa­
ble income of the taxable person’s taxable peri­
od, the amount of cash and in­kind payments for 
cultural purposes and for such payments to vol­
untary associations established for the protec­
tion against natural and other disasters, acting 
in public interest for these purposes, but up to 
the amount of the tax base.8
Moderate financial benefits for the imple­
mentation of activities in the field of the protec­
tion and preservation of cultural heritage also 
arise from the Value Added Tax Act, on the ba­
sis of which cultural services are directly linked 
to goods, including those carried out by pub­
lic institutions and others, from states of a rec­
ognized cultural institution exempt from value 
added tax (Article 42, paragraph 13); the cultur­
al services provided for in Article 69 of the Rules 
on the Implementation of the Value Added Tax 
Act also provide for the protection of cultural 
heritage. These services are exempted from VAT 
on the basis of prior notification, even if they are 
provided by subjects with the status of a socie­
ty acting in the public interest in the field of cul­
ture or other persons with acquired status of ac­
tivity in the public interest in the field of culture, 
provided certain conditions are met.
Pursuant the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, 
such a tax is deductible if it is a gift or an in­
heritance that has the status of a cultural mon­
8  Koželj, Financiranje kulturne dediščine, 59-60.
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 1
36
ument, provided that the donated or inherited 
cultural monument is not disposed of before the 
expiration of 10 years, that a cultural monument 
is accessible to the public or that it is intend­
ed for the implementation of cultural activities 
(Article 10). Under the Property Tax Act, the 
transfer of immovable property that has the sta­
tus of a cultural monument is also exempt from 
tax, provided that the cultural monument is ac­
cessible to the public or is intended for the imple­
mentation of cultural activities.9 In both cases, 
however, it is not required that funds that have 
not been paid for the tax are invested in the pres­
ervation and maintenance of the monument, so 
the benefits for the monuments are at least part­
ly questionable.
Croatia
Basic acts on accessibility in fruition of cultur­
al heritage are covered by the Act on the protec­
tion and preservation of cultural goods (Zakon o 
zaštiti i očuvanju kulturnih dobara).
Ownership
In the Republic of Croatia, possible expropria­
tion of cultural heritage is in the interest of the 
state (Article 41 of the Act on the protection and 
preservation of cultural goods), if there is risk of 
damage or destruction of heritage, and the own­
er does not have the opportunity or interest to 
ensure the implementation of all measures of 
protection and conservation, a way to ensure the 
carrying out of archaeological research and exca­
vations or the implementation of technical pro­
tection measures on cultural goods, unless it is 
possible to guarantee the accessibility of cultur­
al heritage to the public. Expropriation may be 
complete or partial. Preparatory works and tem­
porary seizure may be carried out in order to ex­
propriate the cultural heritage, in accordance 
with the regulations on expropriation. The ex­
propriation procedure is initiated on the propos­
al of the competent authority. The expropriation 
of cultural heritage is carried out in the manner 
prescribed by the Law on Expropriation and Set­
9  Koželj, Financiranje kulturne dediščine, 58.
tlement of Compensation (Zakon o izvlaštenju i 
određivanju naknade).
When public funds are invested in the pro­
tection and preservation of the immovable cul­
tural heritage, property right is created on this 
property for the benefit of the investor (Article 
42 of the Act on the protection and preservation 
of cultural goods).
The owner intending to sell the cultural 
heritage must initially offer it to the Republic of 
Croatia, the county, the City of Zagreb, the city 
or municipality of the area in which the cultural 
heritage is located (Article 37 of the Act on the 
protection and preservation of cultural goods).
Much like in Slovenia, archaeological mov­
able finds are property of the state (Article 19 of 
the Act on the protection and preservation of 
cultural goods).
Maintenance
The competent authority prepares documenta­
tion for the protection and preservation of cul­
tural heritage and continuously monitors its 
state; at least once every five years, it produces a 
report on the state of heritage. The Minister of 
Culture prescribes the forms of the report on 
the state of affairs and the procedure for deter­
mining the state of cultural goods (Articles 51­53 
of the Act on the protection and preservation of 
cultural goods).
Pursuant to Article 20 of the Act on the 
protection and preservation of cultural goods, 
the owner of cultural heritage must treat it with 
due respect and, above all, protect and regularly 
maintain it, implement measures of protection, 
immediately report any changes in cultural her­
itage, injuries or destruction, and the disappear­
ance to competent authorities, authorize pro­
fessional and scientific research, technical and 
other recording, as well as the implementation 
of technical protection measures and make the 
public accessible.
By issuing any decision, the competent body 
defines measures for the protection of cultur­
al heritage. If the owner fails to implement the 
measures specified within a certain time limit, 
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
t
h
e 
a
c
c
es
si
bi
li
t
y,
 u
se
, f
ru
it
io
n
 a
n
d
 e
n
r
ic
h
m
en
t 
o
f 
im
m
o
bi
le
 c
u
lt
u
r
a
l 
h
er
it
a
g
e
37
this measure will be carried out by the compe­
tent body at the expense of the owner.
The costs of preserving and maintaining 
cultural heritage and technical protection meas­
ures are borne by the owner. If maintenance of 
cultural heritage or the restoration, conservation 
or implementation of technical protection meas­
ures require extraordinary costs beyond regu­
lar maintenance costs and the revenue or other 
benefits of the owner, they have the right to ap­
ply for compensation for extraordinary expens­
es. Extraordinary costs are decided by the Minis­
try of Culture and the funds are provided in the 
state budget (Article 22 of the Act on the protec­
tion and preservation of cultural goods).
If the owner fails to act in accordance with 
the law thereby endangering cultural heritage, 
the mayor of Zagreb or the mayor of the area in 
which the cultural heritage is located, may, by a 
decision of the competent authority, determine 
the appointment of the temporary custodian of 
that heritage. The temporary guardian is obliged 
to implement the protection measures laid down 
by the competent authority on the account and 
the cost of the owner. The compensation for 
the work of the temporary guardian, as well as 
the cost of the implemented measures, must be 
settled by the owner (Article 32 of the Law on 
Ownership and Other Real Rights and Article 
31 of the Act on the protection and preservation 
of cultural goods).
Accessibility
The owner of certain cultural heritage must al­
low its accessibility to the public (Article 20 of 
the Act on the protection and preservation of 
cultural goods).
In Croatia, a disc­shaped plate is envisaged 
for marking immovable cultural heritage and fa­
cilities in which collections of cultural goods are 
located. The way, the place of marking, as well as 
removing the label, insofar as the heritage loses 
its cultural heritage, is determined by the com­
petent conservatory department of the Ministry 
of Culture (cf. Pravilnik o označavanju nepokret-
nih kulturnih dobara i objekata u kojima su sm-
ještene zbirke kulturnih dobara).
Fruition
The competent authority (i.e the regional con­
servation department of the Ministry of Cul­
ture) decides on the purpose and method of us­
ing the immovable or movable cultural heritage, 
based on the previously obtained opinion of the 
mayor of Zagreb, mayor or municipal mayor. In 
order to change the purpose of cultural heritage, 
the owner is obliged to obtain prior approval 
from the competent authority (Article 34 of the 
Act on the protection and preservation of cul­
tural goods). Legal entities and natural persons 
cannot start performing an economic activity in 
a space that is located within a stationary cultur­
al heritage or a protected cultural and historical 
whole without the prior approval of the compe­
tent authority.
Article 43 of the Act on the protection and 
preservation of cultural goods regulates conces­
sions for the use of immovable cultural herit­
age in public ownership for commercial purpos­
es in accordance with the Law on Concessions. 
The concession is issued on the basis of a pub­
lic bid. For the cultural heritage owned by the 
Republic of Croatia, the procedure is carried out 
by the Ministry of Culture, the heritage owned 
by the county, the City of Zagreb, and the cities 
and municipalities by their competent bodies. 
The concession is issued for a certain period, but 
not longer than for 99 years. The Decree on the 
concession also contains measures for the pro­
tection and preservation of cultural heritage, as 
prescribed by the competent authority, and the 
ways in which they are carried out by the conces­
sionaire. The concession is paid for the benefit of 
the state budget or budget mayor, Zagreb, towns 
or municipalities according to the ownership of 
the cultural heritage.
Furthermore, according to Article 114, for 
all natural and legal persons who carry out an 
economic activity in immovable cultural her­
itage, the payment of a contribution, known as 
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 1
38
the monumental annuity, is envisaged (see be­
low: Financing).
Management
Pursuant to Article 96 of the Act on the protec­
tion and preservation of cultural goods, the Re­
public of Croatia, the City of Zagreb, the towns 
and municipalities may establish institutes for 
the management of cultural heritage and the 
implementation of protection and conservation 
measures or entrust this task to another legal 
person. Funds and foundations can be created to 
preserve the cultural heritage.
Finance
In accordance with the Act on the protection 
and preservation of cultural goods (Articles 22 
and 108), the owner or proprietor of cultural her­
itage, even if they are not the user, provides the 
means for its maintenance and maintenance.
Article 109 of the Act on the protection and 
preservation of cultural goods also provides that 
funds for the protection and preservation of cul­
tural heritage shall be guaranteed: a) from the 
state budget; b) from the county budget or the 
City of Zagreb, towns or municipalities, name­
ly the preventive heritage and cultural heritage 
located in the county, the City of Zagreb, towns 
or municipalities, and in its entirety for the her­
itage of local importance under Article 17 of this 
Act; c) grants, compensation for concessions, re­
cords and funds; d) other sources.
The protection and preservation of the cul­
tural heritage owned by the Republic of Croa­
tia is financed from the state budget funds, as are 
the implementation of the national program for 
the protection and preservation of cultural herit­
age, extraordinary costs of maintaining cultural 
heritage, urgent measures of protection and con­
servation and compensation to owners due to 
the restriction of ownership rights.
National budget provides finance for pro­
jects of protection, conservation, restoration, 
presentation and maintenance of cultural herit­
age, in practice financed through calls from the 
Ministry of Culture. The sources are: a) a fixed 
amount of the state budget, b) 40% of all funds 
collected by the system of monument annuity, 
c) long­term loans for long­term reconstruction 
projects with a special social goal.
Funds from the regional and local self­gov­
ernment budget are used for the protection and 
preservation of the cultural heritage in their pos­
session, for emergency measures, for the heritage 
of local importance, as well as for co­financing 
the national protection program.
For units of local and regional government, 
funding sources are: a) municipal, city and coun­
ty budgets; b) 60% of the total amount of the 
annulment fee collected in the area of the local 
self­government unit. This resource is exploited 
by those cities and municipalities in which there 
are protected entities, and the cumulative re­
sources must be invested in the cultural heritage.
Article 114 specifically regulates budget rev­
enues based on the use of cultural property as a 
direct and indirect monumental rent.10 Supervi­
sion over the payment of monument rent is made 
by the tax administration.
The statutory annuity is obligatory for nat­
ural and legal persons for the purposes of col­
lecting the funds necessary for the protection 
and preservation of cultural heritage or for the 
implementation of the national program for the 
protection of cultural heritage, the amount of 
which is prescribed by decrees of cities and mu­
nicipalities. This is compensation paid by eco­
nomic operators for the pursuit of economic ac­
tivities in, on or from a cultural heritage. There 
is therefore a dual system for determining the 
monument annuity. Monument rent is manda­
tory for natural and legal persons taxable on in­
come or profit, but performing an economic ac­
tivity in immovable cultural heritage, which is 
protected individually or in the area of the cul­
tural and historical whole. Indirect monument 
rent is mandatory for natural and legal persons 
provided they perform the activities prescribed, 
regardless of the area or space in which this ac­
tivity is performed (Article 114.a of the Act 
10 Cf. Jadran Antolović, Spomenička renta: od teorije do hrvatske prakse / 
Monument annuity: from theory to croatian practice (Zagreb: Ministar-
stvo kulture Republike Hrvatske, 2006).
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
t
h
e 
a
c
c
es
si
bi
li
t
y,
 u
se
, f
ru
it
io
n
 a
n
d
 e
n
r
ic
h
m
en
t 
o
f 
im
m
o
bi
le
 c
u
lt
u
r
a
l 
h
er
it
a
g
e
39
on the protection and preservation of cultural 
goods Act on the protection and preservation of 
cultural goods). It is thus collected on two bas­
es: on the basis of the square meter of the space 
used and on the basis of 0.05% of the income of 
individual economic activities. Funds annually 
amount to over 200 million kuna.11
Italy
In Italy protection of cultural heritage is regu­
lated by the “Cultural Heritage and Landscape 
Code” (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio12).
Ownership
Movable and immovable cultural heritage found 
underground or in the sea is owned by the state 
(Article 91).
Pursuant to Articles 53 and 54 of the “ Cul­
tural Heritage and Landscape Code “, certain 
categories of publicly owned heritage comprise a 
cultural state property (demanio culturale) and 
are inalienable, that is, real estate and areas of 
archaeological interest, real estate proclaimed 
monuments of national importance, collections 
of museums and galleries and libraries, as well as 
other cultural heritage of the deceased author, 
older than 50 years, until it was possibly con­
firmed in the process of verifying the cultural in­
terest (for the procedure of checking the cultural 
interest, see Article 12).
The Ministry and regional and local 
self­governments have a pre­emptive right to en­
tire cultural heritage, even if the inheritance has 
been disposed of without payment or for the ex­
change (Article 60).
The Ministry may perform expropriation 
of cultural heritage in the public interest and 
against payment (Article 95), as well as the ex­
propriation of surrounding facilities and areas 
for the needs of the renovation of monuments, 
the provision of views and a decent environ­
ment, and the improvement of the possibilities 
11 Maja Oven, Katharina Zanier, Ivica Pleština, Josip Višnjić and Ve-
sna Bradamante, Poročilo o primerjavi zakonodaje in konservator-
ske prakse varstva kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji in Hrvaški (Lju-
bljana - Zagreb: unpublished report ZVKDS - HRZ, 2015), 42.
12  Maria Alessandra Sandulli, ed., Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio. 
of enjoyment and accessibility (Article 96). The 
Ministry may also perform expropriation of real 
estate for carrying out interventions of archaeo­
logical interest (Article 97).
Maintenance
Public and private owners and holders of cul­
tural heritage are obliged to ensure the preser­
vation of this heritage (Article 31); according to 
the legal definition, conservation consists of re­
search, prevention, maintenance and conserva­
tion­restorative interventions (Article 30). The 
consent of the competent body of the Minis­
try of Culture (or Sopritendenza), which de­
fines the required conditions of intervention for 
the purpose of granting a tax deduction (Article 
31), must be obtained for all conservation opera­
tions. The Ministry may co­finance such opera­
tions in the amount of half the cost incurred – 
or even in full amount, if interventions of special 
importance are implemented on cultural herit­
age in public use (Article 35).
The Ministry (Soprintendenza) may also 
require owners to implement measures for the 
preservation of cultural heritage within a spec­
ified time limit or directly implement them at 
the expense of the owner; if the interventions are 
particularly important or are implemented on 
cultural heritage in public use, the ministry may 
finance them partially or in full (Articles 32­34).
The Ministry takes care of the needs of 
maintaining state­owned cultural heritage, even 
if it is used by other administrations or entities 
(Article 39). Conservation and restoration on 
cultural heritage owned by regional and local 
self­governments are, in principle, regulated on 
the basis of previous programming agreements 
(Article 40).
Accessibility
Publicly­owned cultural heritage is intended for 
public use and enjoyment by the company, in ac­
cordance with the needs of protection and insti­
tutional use (Article 2).
For the immovable cultural heritage in pri­
vate ownership, which was the subject of conser­
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 1
40
vation and restoration interventions, partially or 
completely financed by the Ministry, it is neces­
sary to provide public access in the manner spec­
ified in the agreement concluded between the 
ministry and the owner upon the approval of the 
contribution Articles 34 and 35.
The cultural heritage in private ownership, 
which was declared extremely important by the 
decision of the Ministry, must also be accessible 
to the public: the method is coordinated by the 
owner and the supervisory conservator (soprin-
tendente) (Article 104).
Use
Ministry, regional and local self­governments 
can allocate the cultural heritage with their dis­
posal to the application against payment of a fee 
(Article 106).
Fruition
The “Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code” 
defines “cultural institutions” and “cultural spac­
es” intended for enjoying cultural heritage, such 
as museums, libraries, archives, archaeological 
sites and archaeological parks and monument 
complexes. The Code therefore contains the of­
ficial definition of archaeological park, which is 
“an area marked by important archaeological re­
mains with a coexistence of historical, landscape 
or environmental importance and which is regu­
lated as an open­air museum” (Article 101).
In the framework of the mentioned “insti­
tutions and cultural spaces”, the state, regional 
and local self­governments and all other public 
institutions are obliged to ensure access to and 
enjoyment of cultural heritage (Article 102).
Enrichment
Enrichment of cultural heritage means the im­
plementation of activities aimed at promoting 
knowledge of cultural heritage and ensuring the 
best conditions for public use of heritage and en­
joyment of it in accordance with its protection 
(Article 6). Cultural heritage enrichment activi­
ties form the foundation and stable organization 
of resources, structures and networks, or the dis­
position of professional capabilities, financial 
and technical resources. Within the enrichment 
activities, private entities can participate and can 
be launched on a public or private initiative; en­
riching cultural heritage on a private initiative is 
a socially beneficial activity (Article 111).
The state, regional and local self­govern­
ments ensure the enrichment of cultural herit­
age in the mentioned “institutions and cultural 
spaces”. To this end, the state, through the min­
istry, regional and local self­government, con­
cludes agreements at the regional level for the 
purpose of harmonization and timing of enrich­
ment activities, under which agreements private 
entities may also participate. Agreements may, 
with the consent of the interested parties, also 
concern the cultural heritage of private owner­
ship. However, public entities may make spe­
cial arrangements with cultural societies active 
in the promotion of cultural heritage knowledge 
(Article 112).
The private property and cultural heritage 
enrichment activities and structures can be used 
on a private initiative by public support from the 
state, regional and local self­governments (Arti­
cle 113).
The Ministry, regional and local self­gov­
ernments, together with universities, define uni­
form quality enrichment standards and regular­
ly update them; and the ministry adopts them by 
decree. Entities that manage enrichment activi­
ties are obliged to respect accepted quality stand­
ards (Article 114).
Management
Heritage enrichment activities on a public initi­
ative can be managed directly or indirectly. Di­
rect management can be undertaken by internal 
organizational structures with appropriate pro­
fessional, organizational, financial and adminis­
trative capabilities.
Indirect management: a) institutions, foun­
dations, societies, consortia, companies or oth­
er entities established by public administrations, 
holders of cultural heritage, take over the man­
agement of these activities through direct award; 
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
t
h
e 
a
c
c
es
si
bi
li
t
y,
 u
se
, f
ru
it
io
n
 a
n
d
 e
n
r
ic
h
m
en
t 
o
f 
im
m
o
bi
le
 c
u
lt
u
r
a
l 
h
er
it
a
g
e
41
or b) management is granted to third parties 
through a public tender. It is also possible to in­
clude both management methods. A service con­
tract is concluded that defines quality levels and 
powers of direction and control. The allocation 
of management of enrichment activities may re­
late to the allocation for the use of the cultural 
heritage itself, which is the object of enrichment 
(Article 115).
Additional services for visitors (publishing 
and sale of publications, information and ani­
mation for children, guided tours, catering, ex­
hibitions and events, promotional activities, etc.) 
may be managed in “institutions and cultural 
space ” (Article 117).
Finance
As already mentioned (see: Maintenance), the 
Ministry may co­finance interventions of preser­
vation of cultural heritage in private ownership, 
in part or in full, if interventions are of special 
importance and are implemented on cultural 
heritage in public use (Articles 34 and 35) .
Otherwise, the Ministry may make contri­
butions to cover the costs of loans for conserva­
tion measures that the owners of cultural herit­
age have decided to carry out, which is also the 
case for conservation and restorative interven­
tions on buildings of contemporary architec­
ture, whose artistic value was recognized by the 
competent supervisory conservator (soprinten-
dente) (Article 37).
It should be noted that contributions from 
Articles 35 and 37 have been suspended in 2012­
2015 for the purposes of balancing public financ­
es.
The “ Cultural Heritage and Landscape 
Code” (Article 110) defines income on the basis 
of entrance fees to state­owned “institutions and 
premises of culture” (and on the basis of addi­
tional services for visitors) as budget revenues for 
carrying out interventions for their conservation 
and for implementation expropriation and pur­
chase of cultural heritage, including on the ba­
sis of a pre­emptive right. Receipts from entrance 
fees to institutions and premises owned by oth­
er public entities (and on the basis of additional 
services for visitors) are intended to increase and 
enrich the cultural heritage.
Article 120 of the “Cultural Heritage and 
Landscape Code” envisages the sponsorship of 
cultural heritage, that is, any form of contribu­
tion by a private entity to carry out activities in 
the field of the protection and enrichment of 
cultural heritage in order to promote their own 
name, brand, image, activity or product. Such 
promotion must be in accordance with the artis­
tic and historical characteristics, the appearance 
and dignity of the cultural heritage, which must 
be defined in the sponsorship contract.
Further agreements with banking founda­
tions, which are socially useful goals in the field 
of art and cultural heritage according to the stat­
ute, are foreseen for the purpose of coordinating 
interventions for the enrichment of cultural her­
itage and the allocation of related financial bur­
dens (Article 121).
Discussion and conclusions
Comparing legislatures regarding the accessibil­
ity, use and possible fruition of immobile cultur­
al heritage in Slovenia, Croatia and Italy reveals 
considerable differences, addressed in this chap­
ter in relation to conditions, particular to the ar­
chaeological heritage.
Ownership is of particular importance for 
the public use of the cultural heritage. This is 
particularly true of immobile archaeological her­
itage, whose preservation in situ is characteristi­
cally in conflict with the functional use of land 
by its owners: it can easily happen that an owner 
of a property with an archaeological monument, 
destined to be preserved in situ, is imposed with 
restrictions regarding its use; on the contrary, 
preservation of architectural heritage does not 
hinder the use of land property.
In all three countries, disowning proper­
ty owners (in reasonable cases) or exercising the 
right of pre­emption is a foreseeable measure – 
in Croatia and Italy, disowning applies to the 
procedures of archaeological research as well. In 
Italy, disowning the owners of objects and areas 
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 1
42
located in the near vicinity of cultural heritage 
applies as well, if required for the needs of land­
scaping. This was critically reviewed,13 since the 
purpose of landscaping does not require perma­
nent ownership but only temporary occupation 
(occupazione) against compensation for the time 
of landscaping procedures; however, such in in­
strument is not implied in the “Cultural Herit­
age and Landscape Code” – but it is in the case 
of archaeological research (Article 88).
In all three countries, mobile archaeologi­
cal finds are state property according to the law. 
In Italy, this extends to the immobile archaeo­
logical heritage; according to Italian legislature, 
(archaeological) goods under the ground are ex­
empted from ownership rights. In practice, in It­
aly, too, access to these remains is ensured in the 
disownment and pre­emption act.
In Italy, the procedure of keeping record of 
cultural heritage is also different in regards to its 
ownership. In the case of public ownership, cul­
tural heritage is automatically any cultural good 
of a deceased author, which is older than 50 
years. The ministry can conduct surveys of cul­
tural interest – prompted by the owners them­
selves; if no such interest is established, a cultur­
al good is exempted from the protection regime 
(Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, Arti­
cle 12). Real estate and objects in private own­
ership are required to be proclaimed objects of 
cultural interest, which needs to be established 
according to its special meaning (cf. Articles 10 
and 12). For this particular reason, cultural her­
itage is mainly in public property in Italy.
The responsibility of maintenance of the 
monuments by their owners is reduced accord­
ing to their capabilities in the Slovenian legis­
lature; no such proportional share is expressed 
in either Italian or Croatian legislature, which 
tasks the owners with equal responsibilities in 
the preservation of cultural heritage in their 
ownership. In order to make these responsibil­
ities bearable, considerable subsidies are availa­
13 Gabriele Torelli, “L'acquisizione sanante nel codice dei beni cul-
turali e del paesaggio.” Aedon Rivista di arti e diritto on line 2 (2016), 
http://www.aedon.mulino.it/archivio/2016/2/torelli.htm (date of 
access: 1.5.2018).
ble in both countries. Furthermore, in Italy, cul­
tural heritage whose renovation has been funded 
by the ministry must be at least partially accessi­
ble to public, which reflects the concept of a quid 
pro quo – public use for public funds.
It seems particularly beneficial, that in Cro­
atia the state of cultural heritage is surveyed at 
least once every five years, for which a special 
form is available (Articles 51 through 53 of the 
Cultural Heritage Protection and Preservation 
Law – Zakona o zaštiti i očuvanju kulturnih do-
bara), which would be a good idea in Slovenia 
as well, monitoring is an immensely important 
aspect of preventive action and integral preser­
vation of heritage; regular maintenance would 
greatly reduce the costs of heritage maintenance. 
As in the case of maintenance, public ac­
cessibility also relates to the owner’s capabilities 
in Slovenia – provided it is implied in the prom­
ulgation act. It is only mandatory to allow ac­
cess to authorized personnel of the Institute for 
the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia 
(ZVKDS) for the purposes of documenting and 
research. It is also mandatory to tag the monu­
ment in a prescribed manner, provided it is not 
contrary to the benefits of protection.14
There is no such concept of relative owners’ 
responsibility regarding access in Croatian legis­
lature, according to which all owners of cultural 
heritage must allow its public accessibility. Just 
like in Slovenia, a unified tagging system is de­
vised (Pravilnik o označavanju nepokretnih kul-
turnih dobara i objekata u kojima su smještene 
zbirke kulturnih dobara).
Italian legislature exhibits important differ­
ences regarding access: only publicly owned cul­
tural heritage is intended for public use, while 
the public accessibility of privately owned cul­
tural heritage must be based on either its special 
meaning or the public funds used for its renova­
tion. This difference relates to the instrument of 
disownment of cultural heritage, which is used 
particularly for the purpose of public accessibil­
ity.
14 Ministry of Culture, Priročnik za označevanje nepremičnih kulturnih 
spomenikov (Ljubljana: Ministry of culture RS, 2010).
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
t
h
e 
a
c
c
es
si
bi
li
t
y,
 u
se
, f
ru
it
io
n
 a
n
d
 e
n
r
ic
h
m
en
t 
o
f 
im
m
o
bi
le
 c
u
lt
u
r
a
l 
h
er
it
a
g
e
43
According to the definition in the ZVKD­
1 (Article 3), the use of cultural heritage means 
“perpetual or temporary activity, conducted in 
heritage, by it or in any other relation to it, influ­
encing it in the process or using its cultural val­
ue and social meaning.” Furthermore, Article 
44 prohibits the use of a monument’s image or 
name for commercial purposes without the con­
sent of the owner, who is entitled to proportion­
ate compensation. Provisions in the paragraph 
IV.2 (the Use) apply to mobile heritage, too. It 
follows, that there is no special legal framework 
in Slovenia, which regulates this particular issue, 
apart from specific regulations regarding the use 
of monuments, as stipulated in the protection re­
gimes.
This particular set of issues is very metic­
ulously addressed in Croatia, where the use of 
heritage or the change of its purpose for the pur­
pose of commercial activities within an object 
of immobile cultural heritage requires a special 
approval of the conservation department of the 
Ministry of culture; conducting commercial ac­
tivities in an object of immobile cultural herit­
age is subject to special taxation. Similarly, there 
is a procedure of issuing concessions for the use 
of publicly owned immobile cultural heritage for 
the purposes of commercial exploitation against 
concession fee – yet this is still fairly limited.15 
One such case of a concession was issued to div­
ing centres with the exclusive rights to conduct 
underwater tours of archaeological sites along 
the Adriatic coast (Cavtat, Mljet, Žirje, Pag, 
Rab, Umag), named “Underwater Museums” 
(Podmorski muzeji).16 It appears that in this case 
a fairly demanding activity of promoting knowl­
edge about cultural heritage was provided in a 
most efficient way, because the concession fees 
represent a budget income, while the contractors 
took it upon themselves to conduct the activities 
in an efficient and high­quality manner with re­
gards to the preservation of heritage, as defined 
in the concession contract. 
15 Cf. the list of local concessions for cultural heritage: http://servisi.
fina.hr/regkonc/trazi.do (date of access: 1.5.2018).
16 Rukavina T., Muzej u dubokom plavetnilu, 2009: http://www.
min-kulture.hr/default.aspx?id=4998 (date of access: 1.5.2018).
In Italy, too, concession fees for the use of 
cultural heritage are defined in the legislature; 
the fee is divided between the state and the local 
authorities; this practice is fairly well established 
in the case of temporary use, such as in instances 
of public events etc.
Places of fruition of cultural heritage are 
defined; apart from museums and other insti­
tutions, related to mobile cultural heritage, the 
definition implies archaeological areas, archae­
ological parks and other monument complexes. 
There is also an official definition of an archae­
ological park, which is not available in Slovenia, 
meaning that the term applies to archaeologi­
cal sites without distinction, even if archaeolog­
ical remains are only minimally presented. The 
Italian official definition says an archaeological 
park is an area arranged as an open air museum, 
meaning that it offers visitors certain ways of en­
hancing knowledge about heritage.
Activities of promoting knowledge about 
heritage and providing the best conditions for 
the public use of heritage and its fruition (both 
of which fall within the definition of enriched 
heritage) are especially addressed in the Italian 
legislation, highlighting the importance of es­
tablishing stable networks, structures and re­
sources, to which end agreements are conclud­
ed on the regional level to ensure sustained and 
coordinated action by all interested parties. The 
latter may be public legal entities or private enti­
ties; the enriched cultural heritage may be pub­
licly or even privately owned, funding may also 
be public or private. It seems equally important 
that the Italian legislation provided for the pro­
cess of defining norms and quality standards for 
the performance of activities of heritage enrich­
ment.
It follows that in Italy, only activities of her­
itage enrichment and not entire objects of herit­
age per se become subject to management; her­
itage preservation may be the responsibility of 
its owner, but it can also be simultaneously al­
located to a manager. It is clearly enough, such 
a method of assigning the management of indi­
vidual segments of heritage allows the retention 
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 1
44
of its most sensitive section, i.e. the activities of 
preservation of cultural heritage, in the hands 
of the owner or holder, as well as differentiation 
of professional qualification requirements of a 
manager with regard to the tasks assigned.
Furthermore, the Italian legislature metic­
ulously defines procedures of allocating manage­
ment. The internal structures of a heritage hold­
er can directly manage this heritage in a twofold 
manner: holders of cultural heritage can set up a 
legal entity, which is directly allocated the man­
agement of heritage, or a heritage manager can 
be selected through a public tender. The prac­
tice of legal entities in the form of large consor­
tia or foundations has proven particularly suc­
cessful, where the financial burden of the new 
entity is split into a larger number of founders 
and heritage holders, while the management of 
such a combined group proved to be more coor­
dinated. An example at hand is e.g. the “Aquileia 
Foundation” (Fondazione Aquileia), established 
for the purpose of enrichment activities in the 
area of Aquileia, under the Regional Act (Leg­
ge Regionale 18/2006,17 based on the Article 115 
of the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio) 
by the Ministry of Culture, the region of Friuli 
Venezia Giulia, the municipality of Aquileia, the 
province of Udine and the Gorizia archbishop­
ric, which all co­finance the foundation.
In Croatia and Slovenia, the law provides 
that owners may entrust the management of 
heritage to another legal entity, while the selec­
tion process and the allocation is not defined 
in detail. However, the ZVKD­1 provides that 
“in accordance with the act declaring a site, the 
body which issued the act may directly man­
age the monument site, setting up for that pur­
pose a public institution, or entrusting the man­
agement of a public to an institution established 
for the purpose of managing monuments and 
sites, or entrusting the management to a natu­
ral or legal person under the law governing pub­
lic­private partnership” (paragraph 3 of Article 
59). This is clearly contrary to the provision that 
17 http://w w w.fondazioneaquileia .it/repositor y/download/lr18-
2006.pdf (date of access: 1.5.2018).
the owners chose who may be entrusted with 
the management, since the body that issued the 
act is not necessarily the owner. We clearly need 
guidelines in the managers’ selection process 
as well as in determining how to fund heritage 
management – and in the provision of quality 
standards. Major deficiencies were recorded e.g. 
in the management of the open air archaeologi­
cal sites, which were comprehensively surveyed.18
Quote: “In Slovenia we recorded 44 loca­
tions, where a number of shortcomings in the 
field of management were identified. The most 
evident is lack of basic maintenance and the 
consequential decay of the heritage, and, las 
but not least, the absence of interpretative con­
tents, which would increase their availability in 
the broadest sense of the word.”19 (Breznik 2014, 
106).
This brings us to the basic question, rele­
vant for the ensuring of public access to cultural 
heritage and its fruition: the funding. In this re­
spect, the movable and immovable cultural her­
itage is highly differentiated: in the case of na­
tional and authorized museums, intended for 
the fruition of cultural heritage, the funding is 
clearly regulated (ZUJIK). However, in the case 
of immovable cultural heritage the state budget 
provides for the implementation of specific 
measures for the protection and restoration20 – 
no doubt a prerequisite for any kind of fruition 
of cultural heritage –, but the enrichment activ­
ities are essentially neglected. In general, the ab­
sence of mechanisms which could provide the fi­
nancial resources is a problem, since they could 
create revenues in the state budget,21 from which 
it would be possible to finance the planned pub­
18 Cf. Andreja Breznik, Upravljanje arheološkega parka v RS (Ljubljana: 
Doctoral Dissertation University of Ljubljana, 2012).
19 Andreja Breznik, “Vrednotenje arheoloških najdišč za upravljanje 
v obliki turističnega kompleksa arheološki park,” Studia universita-
tis hereditati 2, no. 1-2 (2014): 106.
20 Koželj, Financiranje kulturne dediščine, 54–56.
21 It was expected to collect certain assets by unprecedented sale of 
state-owned monuments or monuments owned by municipalities 
(Article 6 ZVKD-1), or in the context of countervailing (Article 
31 ZVKD-1) and alternative measures (Article 115 ZVKD-1), or 
through compensation for devaluation (Article 41), all of which ca-
ses involve emergency situations associated with at least partial loss 
of cultural heritage, and cannot, therefore, constitute a basic me-
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
t
h
e 
a
c
c
es
si
bi
li
t
y,
 u
se
, f
ru
it
io
n
 a
n
d
 e
n
r
ic
h
m
en
t 
o
f 
im
m
o
bi
le
 c
u
lt
u
r
a
l 
h
er
it
a
g
e
45
lic investments in cultural heritage. This reflects 
the general belief that the cultural heritage can­
not be autonomously financed, thus automati­
cally constituting little more than a burden.
The Codice dei beni culturali e del paesag­
gio (Article 110) defines the benefits from en­
trance fees (and services for visitors) into the 
state­owned ‘institutions and places of culture’ 
as budgetary revenue for the implementation of 
their conservation and the expropriation or pur­
chasing of cultural heritage, including on the 
basis of pre­emption rights. Earnings from for 
admission fees (and services for visitors) to in­
stitutions and facilities owned by other public 
entities are intended to increase and enrich the 
cultural heritage. Article 120 of the Codice dei 
beni culturali e del paesaggio provides sponsor­
ship of cultural heritage, i.e. any form of contri­
bution by a private entity to carry out activities 
in the field of protection and enrichment of the 
cultural heritage in order to promote their own 
name, trademark, image, activities or products. 
Such promotion must be in accordance with the 
artistic and historic properties, appearance and 
dignity of cultural heritage, which must be de­
fined in the contract of sponsorship In Croatia, 
a most successful system of public funding was 
devised, not so much through concessions for 
the use of publicly owned cultural heritage as via 
monument rent.22 In Italy, budgetary revenue is 
revenue arising from the sale of tickets and addi­
tional services for visitors in museums and oth­
er public spaces of culture, such as archaeological 
parks and monumental complexes. In Slovenia, 
the entrance fees to museums do cover a small 
part of the operating costs of museums, so it 
would be wise to ask ourselves whether it could 
be possible to establish a more efficient system. 
As for the case of archaeological sites with
exhibited archaeological remains (archae­
ological “parks”), entrance is mostly free. Of 
course the concept of making entrance available 
to low income groups is not reproachable, but 
chanism for ensuring the revenue from which it could be possible to 
finance relevant public investments.
22 Jadran Antolović, Spomenička renta.
the question is whether such a system is sustain­
able in the long term, not to mention other paid 
services, which could generate the – as yet – vir­
tually non­existent revenue.
Clearly enough, the tourism sector bene­
fits from the cultural heritage and its protection 
the most; cultural and natural landscapes are by 
definition the core of touristic offer in a certain 
area.23 This is why an implementation of a monu­
ment rent of a sort would be logical – similarly as 
royalties are charged for the play of music in bars 
and restaurants. This would also formally reflect 
the exhibited economic importance of immova­
ble cultural heritage for the development tour­
ism, whereas state budget would benefit greatly 
in the field of cultural sector, which could pro­
vide an adequate financial basis for the investing 
of public funds into cultural heritage.
Povzetek
Prispevek predstavlja temeljne razlike v poudarkih 
varstva kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji, na Hrvaškem in 
v Italiji. Pomembne razlike se kažejo že v ustavah ome-
njenih držav, pri čemer je v Sloveniji poudarjen koncept 
ohranjanja kulturne dediščine, medtem ko se na Hrva-
škem koncept ohranjanja kulturne dediščine neposred-
no povezuje z njeno uporabo, v Italiji pa z njeno oboga-
titvijo. 
Bistvene razlike v določanju pravic in odgovornosti na 
področju zagotavljanja dostopnosti, uporabe, uživa-
nja in obogatitve kulturne dediščine se izražajo tudi v 
področnih zakonodajnih dokumentih in s temi pove-
zanih finančnih mehanizmih teh držav. Jasne usmeritve 
so bistvenega pomena prav na področju arheološke de-
diščine, saj ima ta  redkokdaj takšne lastnosti, ki bi lah-
ko neposredno omogočile njeno uporabo, razumevanje 
in uživanje. Splošno veljavne smernice za to področje so 
podane v različnih mednarodnih pogodbah in listinah. 
Predstavitev je namenjena prikazu določenih pomanj-
kljivosti na naši zakonodajni ravni, zaradi katerih na-
stajajo znatne posledice v praksi. Najbolj očitna je, da v 
samem Zakonu o varstvu kulturne dediščine niso pred-
videni mehanizmi za zagotavljanje državnih proračun-
23 Janez Planina, “Primarna in sekundarna turistična ponudba ter nju-
ne posebnosti,” Turistični vestnik 4 (1966): 161–164.
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 1
46
skih prihodkov za financiranje sicer na več načinov pred-
videnega vlaganja javnih sredstev v kulturno dediščino.
Summary
There are some basic discrepancies between the herit-
age legislatures of Slovenia, Croatia and Italy. There are 
important differences in the very constitutional docu-
ments; in Slovenia, the concept of preserving cultural 
heritage is stressed, while Croatia relates the concept of 
preservation of cultural heritage directly to its use, in It-
aly, this concept is related to the enrichment of cultural 
heritage. There are substantial differences in the rights 
and responsibilities regarding the ensured accessibili-
ty, use, fruition and enrichment of cultural heritage, ex-
hibited in the legislature documents and related finan-
cial mechanisms of the states in question. In this respect, 
clear directions are of crucial importance particularly in 
the field of archaeological heritage, which rarely has ex-
hibits features facilitating its direct use, understanding 
and fruition. General guidelines are specified in several 
international charters and documents. We aim to point 
towards certain deficiencies in the legislature, due to 
which several consequences occur – perhaps most no-
tably, that the ZVKD does not imply any mechanisms 
for securing public budget funds for the financing of in-
vestments into the cultural heritage.
Bibliography
Sources on national legislature
Slovenia
Pravilnik o izvajanju Zakona o davku na 
dodano vrednost (Uradni list RS, št. 
141/06, 52/07, 120/07, 21/08, 123/08, 
105/09, 27/10, 104/10, 110/10, 82/11, 106/11, 
108/11, 102/12, 54/13, 85/14 in 95/14).
Pravilnik o označevanju nepremičnih 
kulturnih spomenikov (Uradni list RS, št. 
57/11).
Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za kulturo 
2014–2017 (Uradni list RS, št. 99/13).
Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za kulturo 
2018­2025 (Predlog: https://e­uprava.
gov.si/drzava­in­druzba/e­demokracija/
predlogi­predpisov/predlog­predpisa.
html?id=9158) 
Pravilnik o vlaganju in reševanju zahtevkov 
za financiranje predhodnih arheoloških 
raziskav iz državnega proračuna (Uradni 
list RS, št. 93/14 in 73/16)
Uredba o namenitvi dela dohodnine za 
donacije (Uradni list RS, št. 30/07, 36/07 
in 37/10).
Zakon o davku na dediščine in darila (Uradni 
list RS, št. 117/06).
Zakon o davku na dodano vrednost (Uradni 
list RS, št. 13/11 ­ uradno prečiščeno 
besedilo, 18/11, 78/11, 38/12, 83/12 in 86/14).
Zakon o davku na promet nepremičnin 
(Uradni list RS, št. 117/06).
Zakon o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb 
(Uradni list RS, št. 117/06, 56/08, 76/08, 
5/09, 96/09, 110/09 ­ ZDavP­2B, 43/10, 
59/11, 24/12, 30/12, 94/12, 81/13 in 50/14).
Zakon o dohodnini (Uradni list RS, št. 13/11 ­ 
uradno prečiščeno besedilo, 9/12 ­ odl. US, 
24/12, 30/12, 40/12 ­ ZUJF, 75/12, 94/12, 
52/13 ­ odl. US, 96/13, 29/14 ­ odl. US in 
50/14).
Zakon o Javnem skladu Republike Slovenije za 
kulturne dejavnosti – (ZJSKD) (Uradni 
list RS, št. 29/10).
Zakon o uresničevanju javnega interesa za 
kulturo (Uradni list RS, št. 96/2002, 
123/2006­ZFO­1, 7/2007 Odl.US: U­I­
35/04­11, 53/2007, 65/2007 Odl.US: 
U­I­276/05­11, 77/2007­UPB1, 56/2008, 
94/2009 Odl.US: U­I­278/07­17, 4/2010, 
20/2011, 100/2011 Odl.US: U­I­210/10­10, 
111/2013) (ZUJIK).
Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine 
(Uradni list RS, št. 16/08, 123/08, 8/11 – 
ORZVKD39, 90/12, 111/13, 32/16 in 21/18 
– ZNOrg) (ZVKD­1).
Zakon o zagotavljanju sredstev za nekatere 
nujne programe republike Slovenije v 
kulturi (Uradni list RS, št. 14/03 ­ uradno 
prečiščeno besedilo in 77/08).
Croatia
Pravilnik o označavanju nepokretnih kulturnih 
dobara i objekata u kojima su smještene 
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
t
h
e 
a
c
c
es
si
bi
li
t
y,
 u
se
, f
ru
it
io
n
 a
n
d
 e
n
r
ic
h
m
en
t 
o
f 
im
m
o
bi
le
 c
u
lt
u
r
a
l 
h
er
it
a
g
e
47
zbirke kulturnih dobara (Narodne novine, 
broj 12/06).
Zakon o izvlaštenju i određivanju naknade 
(Narodne novine, broj 74/14).
Zakon o koncesijama (Narodne novine, broj 
143/12).
Zakon o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima 
(Narodne novine, broj 91/96, 68/98, 
137/99, 22/00, 73/00, 129/00, 114/01, 
79/06, 141/06, 146/08, 38/09, 153/09, 
143/12, 152/14).
Zakon o zaštiti i očuvanju kulturnih dobara 
(Narodne novine, broj 69/99, 151/03, 
ispravak 157/03, 87/09, 88/10, 61/11, 25/12, 
136/12, 157/13, 152/14).
Italy
Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio (d. 
lgs. 22/01/2004 n 42, G.U. 24/02/2004; 
d. lgs. 24 marzo 2006, n. 156; d. lgs. 24 
marzo 2006, n. 157; d. lgs. 26 marzo 2008, 
n. 62; d. lgs. 26 marzo 2008, n. 63; D.L. 31 
maggio 2014, n. 83; D.L. 19 giugno 2015, 
n. 78; L. 6 agosto 2015, n. 125; D.Lgs. 7 
gennaio 2016, n. 2).
International treatises
Council of Europe Framework Convention 
on the Value of Cultural Heritage for 
Society (Faro 2006): https://rm.coe.
int/1680083746 
The ICOMOS Charter for the Protection 
and Management of the Archaeological 
Heritage (Lausanne 1990): http://www.
international.icomos.org/charters/arch_e.
pdf
The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation 
and Presentation of Cultural Heritage 
Sites (Québec 2008): http://www.
international.icomos.org/charters/
interpretation_e.pdf
The ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Routes 
(Québec 2008): http://www.icomos.org/
charters/culturalroutes_e.pdf
References
Antolović, Jadran. Spomenička renta: od teorije 
do hrvatske prakse / Monument annuity: 
from theory to croatian practice. Zagreb: 
Ministarstvo kulture Republike Hrvatske, 
2006.
Breznik, Andreja. Upravljanje arheološkega 
parka v RS. Ljubljana: Doctoral 
Dissertation University of Ljubljana, 2012.
Breznik, Andreja. “Vrednotenje arheoloških 
najdišč za upravljanje v obliki turističnega 
kompleksa arheološki park.” Studia 
universitatis hereditati 2, no. 1­2 (2014): 
105–117.
Koželj, Zala. Financiranje kulturne dediščine 
v izbranih evropskih državah. Ljubljana: 
Magister Dissertation University of 
Ljubljana, 2013.
Ministry of Culture. Priročnik za označevanje 
nepremičnih kulturnih spomenikov. 
Ljubljana: Ministry of culture RS, 2010.
Oven, Maja, Katharina Zanier, Ivica Pleština, 
Josip Višnjić and Vesna Bradamante, 
Poročilo o primerjavi zakonodaje in 
konservatorske prakse varstva kulturne 
dediščine v Sloveniji in Hrvaški. Ljubljana 
­ Zagreb: unpublished report ZVKDS ­ 
HRZ, 2015.
Pirkovič, Jelka, and Borut Šantej. Pravno 
varstvo nepremične kulturne dediščine v 
Sloveniji. Ljubljana: ZVKDS, 2012.
Planina, Janez. “Primarna in sekundarna 
turistična ponudba ter njune posebnosti.” 
Turistični vestnik 4 (1966): 161–164.
Sandulli, Maria Alessandra, ed. Codice dei beni 
culturali e del paesaggio. Milano: Giuffre 
Editore, 2012.
Torelli, Gabreiele. “L’acquisizione sanante nel 
codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio.” 
Aedon Rivista di arti e diritto on line 
2 (2016). http://www.aedon.mulino.it/
archivio/2016/2/torelli.htm.