While the government presents the new initiative for amendments to the law "On Cultural Heritage and Museums" as a step towards modernization and European standards, a closer look at the articles of the draft law reveals worrying mechanisms that violate the rights of owners, favor uncontrolled development on protected areas, and make it difficult to return looted assets.
As VNA has found:
1. Commissions that decide in the absence of the owner: Violation of private property
One of the most alarming aspects of the draft law is addressed in Article 49 (Article 12 of the draft law). If an owner or administrator of an immovable cultural property does not appear in the procedure for taking over the works (even if notified only 7 days in advance), the state commission has the right to continue the process in his absence.
This is a dangerous precedent where the state establishes and passes works on private property without the presence or consent of the owner himself, depriving him of the basic right to protect his property.
2. Time-bound "amnesty" and financial conditions for the return of trafficked objects
In the proposed amendments to Article 131 (Article 43 of the draft law), the initiative sets strict time limits (such as a 3-year period after the state has become aware of it or a general limit of 30 to 75 years) for requests for the return of illegally trafficked cultural objects. Furthermore, the court could oblige the requesting state to pay financial compensation (just compensation) to the current possessor, if the latter proves "due diligence".
This mechanism legitimizes or makes it extremely difficult to return national treasures looted in the past, forcing our institutions to pay millions to recover what is rightfully theirs.
3. Open doors for developers: Functional adaptation and the risk of concreting monuments
The amendments made to Article 77 (Article 26 of the draft law) allow for functional adaptations and architectural interventions for the integration of cultural assets into "development projects".
Although on paper it talks about preserving values, a critical eye would see behind this an open door for pressures from businesses, mass tourism, and builders to turn cultural monuments and their spaces into hotels, restaurants, or shopping complexes, sacrificing their authenticity for narrow economic interests.
4. Bureaucracy and confiscations through executive titles
The amendments to Article 93 (Article 30 of the draft law) provide that the value of expenses for forced interventions in private properties be determined by order of the minister, which constitutes an executive title.
This means that financially insolvent owners may face rapid seizure of properties or accounts through enforcement, without a real support mechanism, which risks forcing them to abandon or alienate their properties.
