Preservation and use of cultural heritage sites. Legislation in the field of conservation, use and state protection of cultural heritage sites
State system of protection of objects cultural heritage(historical and cultural monuments)
Article 8 of Federal Law No. 73-FZ states that religious associations have the right to provide assistance to the federal executive body specially authorized in the region state protection objects of cultural heritage, in the preservation, use, popularization and state protection of objects of cultural heritage in accordance with the law Russian Federation.
The safety of cultural heritage objects is controlled by the Federal Service for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Sphere of Mass Communications and Protection of Cultural Heritage (formed in accordance with Russian Government Decree No. 301 dated June 17, 2004). This federal executive body is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications of Russia.
In accordance with the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation,” a Code of Restoration Rules (SRP-2007) was developed. It includes recommendations for all types of research, survey, design and production work aimed at the study and preservation of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of Russia with associated works of art.
By the early 70s of the 20th century, UNESCO adopted the international Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which was ratified by the USSR in 1988. The Venice Charter, which must be followed when restoring monuments, was based on the following provisions:
— the main goal of the restoration is to carefully strengthen the authentic ancient parts of the monument, preserve and identify aesthetic and historical values monument;
- to achieve this goal, as little work as possible is carried out (all newly added elements must be highlighted, all extensions are carried out in modern style);
— modern restoration techniques allow the use of all the latest achievements of construction technology and various physical and chemical methods to strengthen the monument;
- can be used various materials, but externally they should be close to the materials from which the monument was built, although counterfeiting the original material is not allowed;
— disassembly of genuine parts of the monument is, as a rule, excluded, since modern technology restoration allows you to strengthen damaged masonry without disturbing it;
— restoration work is preceded by a thorough and comprehensive study of the monument: full-scale (architectural and engineering) and historical and archival research.
According to Article 9 of the Venice Charter, restoration “…is based on respect for the authenticity of the material and the authenticity of the documents. Restoration stops where the hypothesis begins. As for the proposed restoration, any work of addition, combined with what is necessary for aesthetic or technical reasons, must depend on the architectural composition and bear the stamp of modernity.”
Restoration (reconstruction) of churches - objects of cultural heritage with financing from the federal budget
A significant part of the churches - objects of cultural heritage, transferred or only transferred to the Church - are today in a dilapidated state or require serious repairs. The state, responsible for their technical condition, is ready to gradually allocate funds from the federal budget for their restoration, including within the framework of the target program “Culture of Russia”. The customer is the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation.
The decision to recreate a lost object of cultural heritage at the expense of the federal budget is made by the Russian government on the proposal of the federal body for the protection of cultural heritage objects, taking into account public opinion, as well as in the case of recreating a monument or ensemble of religious significance, taking into account the opinion of religious organizations. Representation is based on conclusion historical and cultural expertise and agreed with the authority state power subject of the Russian Federation.
A significant portion of the costs associated with the implementation of the program falls on reconstruction, restoration and emergency work at cultural heritage sites of federal significance. Projects carried out at the expense of the federal budget are selected by the state customers of the program (Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation). It states that performers are determined on a competitive basis, and projects are implemented on the basis of government contracts.
A cultural heritage object can be included in the annual program action plan if it meets the following criteria: it is of particular significance, design and estimate documentation is ready, a certain stage of repair and restoration work can be completed during the duration of the program.
In accordance with the joint decision of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia and the Federal Antimonopoly Service, orders for work within the framework of the Federal Target Program “Culture of Russia” are placed through mandatory open auctions in electronic form.
Church system for the protection of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments)
The state system of protection of cultural heritage sites, for all its advantages, does not fully correspond to the specifics of the church. Despite the often selfless work of government officials, the real human and material resources of this system itself are far from corresponding to the scale of what is subject to protection under existing legislation. In this regard, it would be advisable to think about creating a proper church system for preserving the architectural and artistic heritage of the Church.
The abbots of churches and monasteries and their employees, as a rule, do not have an architectural or artistic education. However, almost the entire burden of concern for the preservation and restoration of church values and concern for the creation of new works of church art lies precisely with the clergy, monastics and laity.
Currently, in the vast majority of states on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, a the legislative framework, which determines the procedure for transferring state property for religious purposes (including objects of cultural heritage and cultural values) into the ownership or use of religious organizations. In this regard, the need to create an intra-church register of immovable objects of cultural heritage for religious purposes owned or used by religious organizations of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as movable property for religious purposes related to cultural values, became obvious.
In pursuance of the resolutions of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of February 2-5, 2013 (clause 41) on the proper use, preservation, accounting, repair, restoration and restoration of monuments of church architecture and art, the position of diocesan archivist is being introduced into the staff of a number of dioceses. It is he who must control the preservation of historical and cultural monuments - real estate objects with associated works of iconography, painting, sculpture, decorative and applied art, and other items of church heritage (hereinafter referred to as objects of cultural heritage) owned (used) by the diocese and its canonical divisions. (The document was adopted at the meeting of the Holy Synod on December 25, 2014 (journal No. 132)).
The diocesan ancient guardian (clergy or layman) is appointed to the position by the diocesan bishop in agreement with the Patriarchal Council for Culture, if possible from among specialists competent in matters of preservation of cultural heritage objects and (or) who have completed courses on the preservation of monuments of church architecture and art at the Patriarchal Council for Culture .
He monitors compliance by the canonical divisions of the diocese with the requirements for the preservation of cultural heritage objects owned (used) by these canonical divisions.
The diocesan ancient guardian compiles a register of cultural heritage objects and cultural values owned (used) by the diocese and its canonical divisions, and submits this register to the diocesan bishop for further forwarding to the Patriarchal Council for Culture.
Restoration project
Drawing up a restoration project differs in many ways from designing new structures. First of all, the design object - an architectural monument - cannot be created anew; it already exists. It is the features of the existing structure and its condition that predetermine the main content of the project being developed. Therefore, the basis of restoration design is not a free creative act, but research. Creativity in the work of an architect-restorer plays a very important role specific form, mainly as a synthesis of diverse research work. Design in this area should be considered as a scientific design work, and the architect-restorer acts not so much as a designer, but as a scientific director of restoration.
This leads to important features of the restoration project itself. First of all, it is inseparable from the entire complex of scientific- project documentation. An obligatory part of the project is the justification of scientific and design decisions.
Without this, it is impossible to form any correct idea of the creature, much less the feasibility of the proposed restoration. In terms of volume, research materials and scientific justification often exceed the actual design materials. The composition and form of presentation of these latter also have a certain specificity. A restoration project, like any project in general, contains a specific program of action. But if in an ordinary architectural project this program is presented mainly in the form of the final result, then the restoration project, although it contains the necessary data on the expected appearance of the monument after restoration work, focuses much more on what and how to do.
An important feature of restoration design is its close connection with the work production process. As already mentioned, only during restoration, when the most complete disclosure of the monument becomes possible, does it make sense to explore it as fully as possible. Since the restoration project is based on research, it is obvious that the final development of the project in all details before the start of restoration is fundamentally impossible.
Therefore, a preliminary restoration design is a necessary stage of work, allowing for a broad discussion of the author’s proposals in advance and making not an individual, but a collective decision on the fate of the monument.
An important part of the preliminary restoration design is the fundamental justification for the decision made, based on an assessment of the monument and its existing condition. To do this, first of all, the historical and artistic significance of the monument as a whole must be characterized, the historical and artistic value of the main later layers must be determined, and those of them that do not have such value and whose presence negatively affects the aesthetic perception of the monument must be identified. Based on this, the attitude towards the layers reflected in the project is formulated. In addition, it is necessary to motivate the proposed restoration additions and objectively assess the extent to which documentary validity of their restoration is needed. Here it is decided to what extent new inclusions should be visually highlighted. It should also be considered how the proposed restoration changes may affect the existing ensemble connections of the monument. Finally, it must be shown how the restoration solution is consistent with the further use of the monument and with those works on its adaptation that are already envisaged.
The preliminary design must also include a list of necessary measures for the engineering strengthening of the monument, which in turn also require the development of special projects. It should formulate special requirements for carrying out restoration work, depending on the presence of paintings, stucco, carved parts, unique designs, accident rates of individual parts of the monument or other specific conditions.
The appendices to the preliminary restoration design include the main research materials: historical information, a set of drawings of architectural and archaeological measurements, reports on archaeological research and description of the probes. In addition, the project is accompanied by engineering, structural and technological conclusions characterizing the structural and technical state of the monument, the causes and nature of the destructive processes occurring. This also includes, depending on the characteristics of the monument and the research being carried out, the conclusion of the restoration artist on the presence of remains of ancient paintings and their condition, the conclusion of the laboratory for the study of samples and other additional materials.
Since before the start of restoration work it is impossible to determine in advance with the required accuracy the volume of work to be done, estimate documentation at the preliminary design stage is most often developed in the form of a financial estimate with the subsequent issuance of detailed estimates as the monument is unveiled.
The draft design, due to its specifics, does not have the degree of completeness and completeness that is possible when creating a conventional architectural project. It, however, must pose and resolve all the main methodological issues of the proposed restoration, define the attitude towards later layers, establish the measures and nature of restoration additions, and take into account the connection with adaptation to new use. The design does not end with the release and approval of the preliminary design: it continues throughout the entire restoration work. As the monument is unveiled, the project is supplemented, and in some parts is adjusted based on new information. Thus, design not only precedes restoration, but also accompanies it.
It follows from the above that, as a rule, the restoration of the monument does not fully correspond to the design data, and sometimes significantly diverges from them. For this reason, the architect has an additional burden that is not present in conventional design: drawing up a summary scientific report on the restoration carried out. It summarizes the entire scope of the study and reflects the work actually performed.
Protection of cultural heritage sites in Russia
Experience protection of cultural heritage sites in Russia goes back several centuries. Starting from the first decrees of Peter I, the process of identifying and recording Russian antiquities has been going on. In different historical periods, this process had its own characteristics, but at all times its effectiveness depended on the efforts of the state and society.
First of all, the preservation of heritage depended on the effectiveness of monument protection legislation, on forms of ownership and resolution of the land issue, as well as on flexibility cultural policy state, relying on authoritative scientific forces. Big influence The preservation of cultural heritage sites was also influenced by the political situation in the country and the level of culture of society. Subjective factors are also very important - scientific preferences, professionalism, personality traits of researchers, restorers and museum workers.
IN history of protection of cultural heritage sites Several stages can be distinguished:
. The 18th century, when the monument conservation process in Russia was just beginning;
. XIX - early XX centuries. — the most important stage in the history of cultural heritage protection,
when the foundations of state heritage protection were laid;
. Soviet time;
. post-Soviet period.
| V.N. Tatishchev | M.V. Lomonosov |
XVIII century can be considered as a “prehistory” of the protection of Russian antiquities. At this time, the state played a priority role in identifying and recording ancient rarities, in creating the first Russian museums. The decrees of Peter I became the strongest stimulus for the development of this process. The range of historical sources was significantly expanded, which affected the development of historical science, museums and Russian collecting. Among the most important legislative documents of Peter the Great is the February decree of 1718 “On the bringing of born monsters and also found unusual things...”; decrees of 1720 on sending copies of unique documents from monasteries and churches to governors and 1721 on the prohibition of melting down the found “mound things” and, finally, the April decree of 1722 on the delivery from churches and monasteries of “...many old things fair." The implementation of these decrees led to the formation of a unique museum - Kunstkamera, as well as to the preservation of ancient weapons in workshops, the construction of the first triumphal arches. Historians began to actively use not only written but also material sources as objects of study. It was historians who became the first researchers of Russian antiquity. Among them are M. V. Lomonosov (1711-1765), V. N. Tatishchev (1686-1750), G. F. Miller (1705-1783).
 |
|
| A.A. Vinius | I'M IN. Bruce |
Interest in historical knowledge and material remains - evidence of the past - also affected the enlightened part of Russian society. A clear indicator of this process was the active development of collecting. The objects of private collections included a wide variety of monuments - minerals, coins and medals, weapons, ancient manuscripts, maps. Among the collectors of that time were Field Marshal General, scientist Y. V. Bruce (1670-1735), A. A. Vinius (1641-1717), the Golitsyn brothers, scientist P. G. Demidov (1738-1821 .).
WITH XIX century purposeful monument conservation activities of the state and scientific circles of Russian society begin. Interest in the historical past and its material evidence was part of the process of national self-identification.
The patriotic upsurge of 1812 played an important role in the formation of national identity. After the victorious war, monuments were erected in honor of the victory over the Swedes in Poltava (1817), to Minin and Pozharsky in Moscow (1818), and in 1820 they began collecting funds for the construction of a column on the Kulikovo Field. All this certainly affected the attitude of the state and society towards ancient objects. During the reign of Nicholas I, there was a deepening interest in national relics in state policy.
 |
| Moscow (drawing from the 18th century) |
In the very first year of the reign of Nicholas I, a Circular of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was issued to civil governors “On the delivery of information about the remains of ancient buildings and the prohibition of destroying them” (1826). The significance of this document can hardly be overestimated - it was essentially a government program to identify information about objects of Russian antiquity. In a short time, information was collected that became the basis for preparing the first list of ancient Russian monuments (more than 4 thousand objects).
Uncontrolled archaeological excavations were also subject to legislative regulation by the government, which resulted in the destruction of thousands of unique archaeological sites, unhindered export abroad of the found “mound antiquities”. In 1834, the government issued a decree according to which no one had the right to carry out excavations on public and state lands. This was the first step towards state control of all archaeological work.
In the 19th century In Russia there was no special law on the protection of ancient monuments, but at the same time the state tried to regulate the safety of individual unique objects. There was a whole series of imperial decrees concerning the Kolomna Kremlin and the Kitai-Gorod wall.
The problems of preserving ancient monuments are also reflected in the all-Russian legislative document - the “Construction Charter”. The charter strictly forbade the destruction of the remains of ancient buildings and fortresses; the provincial authorities had to monitor their safety. From the second half of the 19th century, despite the effect of the “Building Charter”, in Russian society The absence of a special law on the protection of ancient monuments was increasingly felt.
 |
| Kitaygorodskaya wall (Moscow city) |
The need to develop a special law on the protection of Russian antiquities was discussed especially widely on the pages of periodicals, in scientific societies and various departments. In 1903, under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, a Commission was created to revise the “Building Charter”, in 1904 and 1908 - commissions to revise the existing regulations on the protection of ancient monuments.
The final document “Regulations on the Protection of Antiquities” (1911) was submitted for discussion to the State Duma. The document presented a fairly coherent state system for the preservation of ancient monuments, reflected the most pressing problems in the field of protection, and specifically stipulated the government's preemptive right to purchase all antiquities that were in the possession of private individuals.
The “Regulation on the Protection of Antiquities” was not adopted by the State Duma. At a time when the unquestioned power of private property existed, this document could not be approved. Another important thing is that at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. The legislative process in the field of protecting Russian antiquities was unusually active, and the widest circles of enlightened Russian society were involved in it.
 |
|
| M.P. Pogodin | S.S. Uvarov |
Protection of Russian antiquities XIX - early XX centuries It is difficult to imagine without the activities of individual researchers - historians, archaeologists, architectural historians and art historians. It was a time when knowledge, initiative, and experience of various specialists led to effective results. Generalized works on the history of Russia are appearing, the range of historical sources is expanding, and the methods of their analysis are improving. In historical science, an independent field of knowledge about Russian antiquities is distinguished - archeology. Along with ancient rarities, which were in the sphere of attention of lovers of antiquity for many decades, in the second quarter of the 19th century. scientists turned in their research to Slavic monuments, seeing their originality and National character. Such scientists as M. P. Pogodin (1800-1875), I. E. Zabelin (1820-1908), I. P. Sakharov (1807-1863), A. S. Uvarov (1825- 1884) did a lot to study and systematize Slavic monuments. In 1851, I.P. Sakharov published “A Note for the Review of Russian Antiquities,” which was essentially a broad program for identifying and describing Slavic ancient monuments. M.P. Pogodin and A.S. Uvarov were not only famous scientists, but also one of the most authoritative collectors of their time. The famous “Pogodinskoe ancient repository” had no equal in the uniqueness of its collection. The collection included manuscript and early printed sections, a munz cabinet, silver and copper crosses, seals, weapons, artistic values. “Poretsky Museum” by A. S. Uvarov became one of the first estate museums in Russia, which housed a unique collection of Slavic rarities (old printed books, icons, crosses), which enriched the museum that existed at the beginning of the 19th century. collection of “antiques” by S. S. Uvarov.
In the history of the protection of cultural heritage sites, the post-reform period is the most fruitful. Introduction to scientific circulation, analysis and systematization various sources led to the formation and development of special historical disciplines - numismatics, sphragistics, historical geography. Archeology of this period can be spoken of as an independent science with its own objectives and research methods. In the field of preserving Russian antiquities, an archaeological and artistic method of studying objects is being formed, when the monument is considered as historical source and as an artistic phenomenon.
Further development of architectural criticism, a deeper study of monuments of medieval architecture allowed architects to formulate the concept "architectural monument", determine the main approaches in its assessment. Among the architects and restorers who devoted a large place in their work to the protection and restoration of architectural monuments, F. F. Richter (1808-1868), N. V. Sultanov (1850-1908), V. V. Suslov (1857) stand out -1920).
The concept of “architectural monument” during this period had quite wide boundaries - it included objects of religious and civil architecture, and fortress ramparts. At the beginning of the 20th century. this concept included estates, the study of which began thanks to the work of art historians N. N. Wrangel (1880-1915) and Yu. I. Shamurin (no later than 1888-1918).
The vast majority of scientists of this time were members of archaeological and architectural and artistic societies. The role of scientific societies in the study and popularization of ancient monuments cannot be overestimated.
The largest archaeological societies were the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities (1839), the Russian Archaeological Society (1846) and the Moscow Archaeological Society (1864). Until 1889, the Russian Archaeological Society carried out an examination of projects for the restoration of architectural objects. Active members of these societies were famous scientists, artists and writers - F. I. Buslaev, I. E. Zabelin, M. P. Pogodin, S. M. Solovyov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, A. S. and P. S Uvarov, A. M. Vasnetsov, K. M. Bykovsky, etc.
The study of architectural monuments has become a priority activity of professional architectural and artistic societies - the Moscow Architectural Society (1876), the St. Petersburg Society of Architects (1872), the Society of Architects and Artists (1903), the Society for the Protection and Preservation of Art Monuments in Russia and antiquity (1909). In the sphere of attention of these societies there were not only objects medieval Rus'(built before 1725), but also monuments of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Members of these societies were famous architects and artists M. D. and K. M. Bykovsky, F. O. Shekhtel, N. V. Nikitin, L. V. Dal, G. D. Filimonov, A. N. Benois, M. V. Dobuzhinsky, N E. Lansere et al.
Experience in the preservation of ancient monuments, which was accumulated by Russian society and departments in the 19th - early 20th centuries. became a significant foundation on which the sphere of protection and museum construction began to develop in Soviet years.
Relying on everything achievements XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, the protection of ancient monuments since 1917 experienced all the hardships of the controversial, ambiguous Soviet era. First of all, this area fell into a strict ideological framework, which led to the constant ranking of all cultural heritage into separate categories depending on ideological priorities. In comparison with the previous period, the Soviet era was a time of a certain confrontation between the state and society in the field of preserving monuments of art and antiquity. The condition of religious objects was especially critical, which was determined by the strained relations between the state and the church.
After the events of 1917, those problems in the field of heritage protection that were lively discussed in Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century sharply worsened. This applies, first of all, to the export of cultural property outside the country. The flow of exported valuables was so huge that this problem caused a sharp resonance in public circles.
In the first months of the new government's existence, this problem was only partially resolved at the legislative level. Separate government orders concerned the safety of only a few large museum collections and ancient monuments ( Tretyakov Gallery and the estate of L.N. Tolstoy “Yasnaya Polyana”). And only on September 19, 1918, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars “On the prohibition of the export and sale abroad of objects of special artistic and historical significance” was approved, which was one of the few legislative documents on ancient monuments during the entire Soviet period that was strictly implemented.
General process nationalization, characteristic of the first post-revolutionary years, also affected cultural heritage. On October 5, 1918, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars “On the registration, registration and protection of monuments of art and antiquity owned by private individuals, societies and institutions” was issued, which determined the basis for state protection of heritage. Firstly, the first one was announced state registration monumental and “material” monuments of art and antiquity, no matter in whose possession they are. Secondly, strict control was established over all cultural heritage sites. All this became the basis for the formation of the state security system.
The most important element This formed state system was the creation of a central institution for the protection of monuments of art and antiquities and provincial protection bodies directly subordinate to the center. On May 28, 1918, the All-Russian Department for Museums and the Protection of Monuments of Art and Antiquities was created (Museum department) in the system of Narkompros, headed by N.I. Trotskaya (1882-1962). The most prominent professionals were involved in the work of the Museum Department: N. G. Mashkovtsev (1887-1962), T. G. Trapeznikov (1882-1926), P. P. Muratov (1881-1950), V. A. Gorodtsov (1860-1945) and others. In June 1918, the Commission for the Discovery of Monuments of Old Russian Painting (headed by I. E. Grabar) was formed under the Museum Department. The entire sphere of protection of monuments of art and antiquities was concentrated in this department. Its employees coordinated work in this area both in the center and in the provinces, solving problems of the National Museum Fund, accounting and restoration of monumental and “movable” objects. The Museum Department was tasked with saving the national heritage - removing cultural property from mansions and estates abandoned by the owners, accounting for them, as well as creating museums of various profiles on their basis. Emissaries of the department were sent to various parts of the country, where they compiled inventories of estate collections. By June 1919, 215 estates had been surveyed, and primarily, estates in the Moscow region and the Center of Russia.
Museums of various profiles were created on the basis of rescued cultural property, and many regional museum collections were replenished with new exhibits. 33 new museums have appeared in Moscow and the Moscow region alone. Most museums were created on the basis of existing architectural ensembles- estates, monasteries, palaces. These were estate museums (19 - only in the Moscow region), museum-monasteries (among them Donskoy, Joseph-Volotsky, Kirillo-Belozersky, etc.), museum-palaces (Winter, Stroganovsky, Gatchina, Pavlovsky, Livadia, Vorontsovsky) .
Nationalized private collections became the basis of a number of unique museums - the First Museum of New Western Painting (collection of S. I. Shchukin), the Second Museum of New Western Painting (collection of I. A. Morozov), the Museum of Furniture (collection of V. O. Girshman), the Museum of Porcelain (collection of A.V. Morozov), etc.
Thus, the activities of the centralized state system for the preservation of monuments of art and antiquities in the first post-revolutionary years gave quite effective results. Two of the most pressing problems of heritage protection were justified by law: illegal export of valuables and the formation of the foundations of state protection.
At the same time, the formation of a purely utilitarian attitude towards cultural heritage began - ancient monuments could be sold, rebuilt, and used for economic purposes. Religious buildings—churches and monasteries—were especially in a critical situation. Starting from January 20, 1918 (the date of publication of the decree on the separation of church and state) and until the spring of 1922 (the Volga famine relief campaign), church property was practically destroyed. The church lost everything - church and monastery buildings, objects cult ritual made from precious metals. Religious buildings that once belonged to the church were leased to communities of believers.
 |
| Vorontsov Palace (Saint Petersburg) |
1920s - early 1930s - a new stage in the history of cultural heritage protection. All economic and political processes taking place in the country most directly influenced the spheres of protection and museum construction. In 1921 the country entered an era new economic policy. Self-financing and self-sufficiency - the main principles of the NEP - provided for the existence of a decentralized financing system. The entire burden of expenses for monuments and museums was to fall on the regional budget, and responsibility for their safety was to be borne by local executive committees. The regional budget was extremely meager and was spent mainly on reconstruction work after the devastating imperialist and civil wars. In this regard, many monuments were doomed to destruction - there were not enough funds for restoration, nor for routine repairs, nor for basic protection. Small museums simply closed.
The country began the process of re-registration of cultural heritage in order to identify the most valuable objects, which in practice meant ranking monuments. This process had not only an economic, but also a political background: the rich historical past began to be replaced by history revolutionary movement, objects associated with “individual and collective actions directed against serfdom, tsarist autocracy and the capitalist system” were protected. Thus, in Russia as a whole, out of 540 estates recognized as valuable in the first post-revolutionary years, as of October 1, 1926, 221 estates were left registered. Legislatively, this process was justified by the Decree of March 8, 1923 “On the accounting and registration of objects of art and antiquities.”
 |
| Sukharev Tower |
By the end of the 1920s. Most of the estate museums, monastery museums, and museums formed on the basis of private collections were closed.
Unique architectural and historical monuments rebuilt, used for economic purposes, and destroyed. Suffice it to recall the destroyed most valuable monuments Moscow - the Cathedral of the Savior on Bor, the Chudov and Ascension Monasteries, the Small Nicholas Palace in the Kremlin, the Resurrection and Iversky Gates in Kitay-Gorod, the Kazan Cathedral, restored by P. D. Baranovsky shortly before its destruction, the Church of St. Nicholas the Great Cross (1680-1688). ), Sukharev Tower, Red Gate, etc. Many of the mentioned objects were restored after the revolution, and in the 1930s. they were no longer there.
In the years Great Patriotic War
1941-1945 The country's cultural foundation suffered huge losses. Unique architectural monuments of the Novgorod land (the Church of the Savior on Nereditsa, the Church of the Savior on Kovalevo, St. Nicholas on Lipna, the Assumption on Volotovo Pole, etc.) were literally turned into ruins. In Smolensk, the most valuable architectural objects were damaged and looted famous museum Russian antiquity M.K. Tenisheva. Particular damage was caused to the suburbs of Leningrad: in Peterhof the Great Peterhof Palace was looted and set on fire, the Great Cascade was blown up, and fountains were destroyed. In Pushkin it was damaged Catherine Palace, his furniture and famous the Amber Room taken to Germany; in Pavlovsk, the wall paintings of P. G. Gonzago were destroyed, the Pink Pavilion and the hunting lodge were burned.
 |
Accounting for destruction and examination of monuments damaged during hostilities (measurements, sketches, photographic recordings) were carried out by specialists even during the war years. In 1942, “Yasnaya Polyana” by L.N. Tolstoy, the house-museums of P.I. Tchaikovsky in Klin, and K.E. Tsiolkovsky in Kaluga were restored and opened to visitors. In October 1943, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR issued a decree on the restoration of palace-museums in the suburbs of Leningrad. Restoration workshops opened in Novgorod and Pskov.
IN post-war years was walking active work on the establishment of monuments at the sites of major battles, obelisks at mass and individual graves dead soldiers. On February 18, 1946, a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR “On the registration of military graves and their improvement” was issued.
The preservation of religious architectural monuments even during the war years was positively influenced by the government’s policy towards the church. On May 22, 1947, a decree of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR “On the protection of architectural monuments” was issued, which emphasized that unique architectural monuments that have preserved fresco painting outstanding masters, should be used only for museum purposes or for their intended purpose.
Of utmost importance in the restoration of cultural heritage in the post-war period was the 1948 decree “On cultural monuments”, which provided a classification of historical and cultural objects subject to state protection (monuments of architecture, history, archeology and monumental art). This document raised the most important problem of using heritage - increasing the responsibility of tenants for the safety of the used object.
In the post-war history of cultural heritage protection, the years stand out "Khrushchev's thaw". The state policy of this period in the protection of cultural heritage was the most characteristic of all Soviet period. Minor achievements paled against the backdrop of numerous destructions of monuments and ignoring the opinions of experts. Many issues related to the fate of cultural heritage sites were resolved by unprofessional and incompetent people. By this time, three quarters of the existing monasteries were closed. By 1967 compared to 1958 from 13,414 Orthodox churches only 7523 remained. All this led to the use of churches and monasteries for economic purposes, and often to their destruction. So, in the early 1960s. The Moscow Church of the Transfiguration in the village of Preobrazhenskoye - a monument to the era of Peter I - was blown up because it interfered with the construction of a metro station.
Despite the publication in 1962 of instructions on the organization of protected zones of architectural monuments, city centers radically changed their appearance. Dominant buildings appeared, distorting the historical buildings. Suffice it to recall the construction in 1963 of Kalininsky Prospekt, laid along the “living tissue” of old Moscow - the Arbat lanes.
Pre-perestroika years- Very important stage in the history of cultural heritage protection. In 1965, preparation began for a multi-volume encyclopedic publication - the Code of Historical and Cultural Monuments. The capital's cities were involved in this work scientific institutes and regional forces.
A huge number have previously been identified and described unknown monuments, many of which were subsequently included in state protection lists.
In the mid-1960s. have to create All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIiK), which was the only public organization for the protection of monuments throughout the Soviet years, and whose main task was to identify, study, protect and restore historical and cultural monuments. Having significant funds, the society provided enormous assistance to the state in preserving unique cultural heritage sites.
Among the founders of VOOPIiK were famous cultural figures - I. L. Andronikov, P. D. Baranovsky, I. E. Glazunov, L. M. Leonov, D. S. Likhachev, B. A. Rybakov. Branches of VOOPiK were opened in all regions, territories and republics of the RSFSR.
 |
| D.S. Likhachev |
The most important event in the protection of cultural heritage of those years was the adoption in 1978 of the law “On the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments.” This law defined the protection of monuments as one of the most important state tasks. This document raised current problems of heritage protection - accounting and use, conditions for the implementation of contractual obligations between tenants and state protection authorities.
Despite all the positive provisions of this law, its implementation was not always successful. The articles of the law on liability for damage to monuments were practically not working, with with great difficulty Articles on the establishment of protective zones were being implemented, and issues of financing were still acute.
In the early 1990s. Russia has entered a new stage of development, characterized by fundamental changes in the economy, political system, ideology. Finally, the ideological pressure of the administrative-party leadership, which had played a decisive role in cultural processes for several decades, was eliminated.
Post-Soviet period. In the 1990s. A series of laws related to the problems of preserving cultural heritage were adopted. On April 15, 1993, the law “On the export and import of cultural property” was published; on March 17, 1994, the regulation “On the Archive Fund of the Russian Federation” was approved; on November 23 of the same year, the Federal Law “On librarianship", on April 24, 1996, the Federal Law “On the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation” came into force, on April 15, 1998, the Federal Law on the Restitution of Cultural Property (“On cultural values displaced to the USSR as a result of the Second World War and located on the territory of the Russian Federation").
Despite these adopted legislative documents, there was an acute lack of a special law on the preservation of cultural heritage, which would reflect modern economic and social realities. The division of state property into federal and municipal, which was directly related to the fate of cultural heritage, required detailed legal development.
On July 25, 2002, the President of the Russian Federation approved the Federal Law “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation,” which was prepared taking into account the latest European experience and the real economic and sociocultural situation in the country.
Based on international law, the law summarized the many years of work of domestic scientists to develop a conceptual and terminological field in the field of protection. The concepts presented in the law are inseparable from the pan-European tradition of a broad interpretation of the concept of “heritage”, which includes not only material objects, but also examples of spiritual culture, traditional technologies and forms of management. Monuments today are perceived in inextricable unity with their spatial environment, and the object of protection can be a territory with a unique layout, landscape and valuable objects of cultural and natural heritage.
Given the various forms of ownership existing today, the law clearly defines the tasks of state bodies for the protection of cultural heritage and highlights the problem of privatization of heritage objects. Archaeological monuments, particularly valuable objects of cultural heritage, monuments and ensembles included in the List are unconditionally state property. World Heritage UNESCO, as well as objects of federal significance. All other objects can become private property if “the owner bears the burden of maintaining the object he owns.” An object of cultural heritage can be purchased by the state or sold during public auction if the owner does not fulfill his obligations.
The law reflected everything modern tendencies in the study of cultural and natural heritage as an integral phenomenon. The interdisciplinary nature of many modern studies has become the basis for a broad systematic approach to defining the concept of “heritage”. Closely related to this concept is the concept of unique historical, cultural and natural territories, according to which the unit of protection is not a monument or even an ensemble, but a territory.
WITH systematic approach The practice of “environmental” protection is associated with cultural heritage, with the help of which the problem of the relationship between old and new objects in urban development is solved. The concept of environment covers not only material objects and their spatial connections, but also a person, his behavioral acts, and ways of life.
The cultural and natural heritage of Russia is actively involved in the world cultural space. Our country is a full member of such authoritative international organizations like UNESCO, ICOM, ICOMOS. Many unique monuments in Russia are under the patronage of these organizations.
Modern domestic researchers are developing new methodological approaches to the protection of cultural and natural heritage that correspond to the international level. In perspective Russian practice security - network creation biosphere reserves, preservation unique territories with comprehensive regeneration of historical and cultural monuments, traditional forms of management and environmental management.
Issuing a permit to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage site regional significance, identified cultural heritage site
Conditions for receiving services at OIV
Who can apply for the service:
Legal entities
Individual entrepreneur
having a license to carry out activities to preserve cultural heritage sites
Cost of the service and payment procedure:
For free
List of required information:
Application for a permit to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage site included in the unified state register of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, or an identified cultural heritage site (research and survey work at a cultural heritage site) (original , 1 PC.)
- Required
- Available without return
Submitted for obtaining permission in case of carrying out research and survey work at OKN.
Application for a permit to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage object included in the unified state register of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, or an identified cultural heritage object (restoration of a cultural heritage object, reconstruction of a lost cultural heritage object, adaptation of the object cultural heritage for modern use) (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
It is submitted to obtain permission in the event of work on the restoration of the OKN, the reconstruction of a lost OKN, or the adaptation of the OKN for modern use.
Application for a permit to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage site included in the unified state register of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, or an identified cultural heritage site (conservation, emergency work at a cultural heritage site) (original, 1 PC.)
- Required
- Available without return
Submitted to obtain permission in the event of conservation work and emergency response work at the OKN.
Application for a permit to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage site included in the unified state register of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, or an identified cultural heritage site (repair of a cultural heritage site) (original, 1 piece)
- Required
- Available without return
Submitted to obtain permission in the event of repair work at the OKN.
Identity document of the person submitting the application (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A document confirming the authority of the applicant’s representative to submit an application and documents necessary for the provision of public services on behalf of the applicant (when submitting an application signed by the applicant) (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A document confirming the authority of the applicant’s representative to sign the application on behalf of the applicant (when submitting an application signed by the applicant’s representative) (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the agreement for the development of project documentation for the preservation of a cultural heritage site (for carrying out research and survey work) by the applicant (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
Graphic plan (schemes) indicating the locations of field research in the form of pits and soundings, signed by the applicant (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
Copies of the title pages of the project documentation with a stamp on its approval or a copy of the letter on the approval of the project documentation by the relevant body for the protection of cultural heritage sites (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the contract agreement for the applicant to carry out the restoration of a cultural heritage object, adapting the cultural heritage object for modern use with all changes and additions, applications existing at the time of filing the application (if any) (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the contract for conducting designer's supervision and (or) a copy of the order appointing the person responsible for carrying out the designer's supervision and a copy of the order appointing the person responsible for carrying out scientific supervision (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the agreement for technical supervision and (or) a copy of the order appointing the person responsible for carrying out technical supervision (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
Project documentation (working) for conservation and emergency work, signed by authorized persons (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the contract agreement for the applicant to carry out conservation and emergency work with all changes and additions, annexes existing at the time of filing the application (if any) (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the order of the contracting organization on the appointment of specialists who are in labor relations with this organization and certified by the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation as responsible for organizing the restoration work corresponding to their specialty, specified in the approved Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 19, 2012 N 349 (copy, 1 PC.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the contract for the applicant to carry out repair work (in order to maintain the cultural heritage site in operational condition without changing its features that constitute the subject of protection) with all changes and additions, annexes existing at the time of filing the application (if any) (certified copy, 1 pc. .)
- Required
- Available without return
Project documentation (working) or working drawings for local repair work with a statement of volumes (list, inventory) of such work, agreed with the customer (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
Terms of service provision
15 working days
Result of service provision
Issued:
- Permission to carry out work on the conservation of regional cultural heritage sites (working document, 1 pc.)
Receipt forms
Through a legal representative
- monuments - individual buildings, buildings and structures with historically established territories (churches, bell towers, chapels and other objects specifically intended for worship); mausoleums, separate burials; works of monumental art; objects, the main or one of the main sources of information about which are archaeological excavations or finds (hereinafter referred to as objects of archaeological heritage);
- ensembles - groups of isolated or united monuments and buildings clearly localized in historically established territories: temple complexes, monasteries, farmsteads, necropolises;
- places of interest - creations created by man, or joint creations of man and nature, including fragments of urban planning and development; places of religious ceremonies.
- objects of cultural heritage of federal significance - objects of historical, architectural, artistic, scientific and memorial value, having special meaning for the history and culture of the Russian Federation, as well as objects of archaeological heritage;
- objects of cultural heritage of regional significance - objects that have historical, architectural, artistic, scientific and memorial value, which are of particular importance for the history and culture of the subject of the Russian Federation;
- objects of cultural heritage of local (municipal) significance - objects that have historical, architectural, artistic, scientific and memorial value, and are of particular importance for the history and culture of the municipality.
- federal budget;
- budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
- off-budget receipts.
You can go to the executive authorities of the city of Moscow as part of a pre-trial appeal.
Pre-trial (out-of-court) procedure for appealing decisions
and (or) actions (inaction) of the Department, its officials
persons, government civil servants
1. The applicant has the right to file a pre-trial (out-of-court) complaint against decisions taken (committed) in the provision of public services and (or) actions (inaction) of the Department, its officials, and state civil servants.
2. The filing and consideration of complaints is carried out in the manner established by Chapter 2.1 of the Federal Law of July 27, 2010 N 210-FZ “On the organization of the provision of state and municipal services”, the Regulations on the specifics of filing and consideration of complaints about violations of the procedure for the provision of public services in the city of Moscow , approved by Decree of the Moscow Government of November 15, 2011 N 546-PP “On the provision of state and municipal services in the city of Moscow”, these Regulations.
3. Applicants may file complaints in the following cases:
3.1. Violation of the deadline for registering a request (application) and other documents necessary for the provision of public services, as well as the procedure for registration and issuance of a receipt
in receiving a request and other documents (information) from the applicant.
3.2. Requirements from the applicant:
3.2.1. Documents or information or the implementation of actions, the presentation or implementation of which is not provided for by regulatory legal acts Russian Federation and the city of Moscow for the provision of public services, including documents obtained using interdepartmental information interaction.
3.2.2. Applications for the provision of services not included in the list of services approved by the Moscow Government that are necessary and mandatory for the provision of public services.
3.2.3. Payment of fees for the provision of public services not provided for by regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
3.2.4. Documents or information, the absence and (or) unreliability of which
were not indicated during the initial refusal to accept documents necessary for the provision of a public service, or to provide a public service,
except for the cases provided for in paragraph 4 of part 1 of article 7 of the Federal Law
dated July 27, 2010 No. 210-FZ “On the organization of the provision of state and municipal services.
3.3. Violations of the deadline for the provision of public services.
3.4. Refusal to the applicant:
3.4.1. In accepting documents, the submission of which is provided for by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow for the provision of public services, on grounds not provided for by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
3.4.2. In the provision of public services on grounds not provided for by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
3.4.3. In the correction of typographical errors and errors in documents issued as a result of the provision of public services, or in case of violation of the established deadline for such corrections.
3.5. Other violations of the procedure for providing public services established by regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
4. Complaints about decisions and (or) actions (inaction) of officials, state civil servants of the Department are considered by its head (authorized deputy head).
Complaints about decisions and (or) actions (inaction) of the head of the Department, including decisions made by him or his deputy on complaints received in a pre-trial (extrajudicial) manner, are considered by a higher executive body of the city of Moscow in accordance with clauses 5.6, 6 of the appendix 6 to the resolution of the Moscow Government of November 15, 2011 N 546-PP “On the provision of state and municipal services in the city of Moscow.”
5. Complaints can be submitted to the executive authorities of the city of Moscow authorized to consider them in accordance with these Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the bodies authorized to consider complaints), in writing on paper, in electronic form in one of the following ways:
5.1. Upon personal application by the applicant (applicant’s representative).
5.2. By post.
5.3. Using the official websites of bodies authorized to consider complaints on the Internet.
6. The complaint must contain:
6.1. The name of the body authorized to consider the complaint or the position and (or) surname, first name and patronymic (if any) of the relevant official to whom the complaint is sent.
6.2. The name of the executive authority of the city of Moscow or the position and (or) surname, first name, patronymic (if any) of the official, state civil servant, whose decisions and (or) actions (inaction) are being appealed.
6.3. Last name, first name, patronymic (if any), information about the place of residence of the applicant - an individual, including registered as individual entrepreneur, or the name, information about the location of the applicant - a legal entity, as well as contact telephone number(s), email address(es) (if available) and postal address to which the response should be sent to the applicant.
6.4. The date of submission and registration number of the request (application) for the provision of a public service (except for cases of appealing the refusal to accept the request and its registration).
6.5. Information about decisions and (or) actions (inactions) that are the subject of appeal.
6.6. Arguments on the basis of which the applicant does not agree with the appealed decisions and (or) actions (inactions). The applicant may submit documents (if any) confirming the applicant’s arguments, or copies thereof.
6.7. Applicant's requirements.
6.8. List of documents attached to the complaint (if any).
6.9. Date of filing the complaint.
7. The complaint must be signed by the applicant (his representative). If a complaint is filed in person, the applicant (applicant's representative) must provide an identification document.
The authority of the representative to sign the complaint must be confirmed by a power of attorney issued in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
The powers of a person acting on behalf of an organization without a power of attorney on the basis of the law, other regulatory legal acts and constituent documents are confirmed by documents certifying his official position, as well as the constituent documents of the organization.
The status and powers of legal representatives of an individual are confirmed by documents provided for by federal laws.
8. A received complaint must be registered no later than the working day following the day of receipt.
9. The maximum period for consideration of a complaint is 15 working days from the date of its registration. The period for consideration of the complaint is 5 working days from the date of its registration in cases of appeal by the applicant:
9.1. Refusal to accept documents.
9.2. Refusal to correct typos and errors made in documents issued as a result of the provision of public services.
9.3. Violations of the deadline for correcting typos and errors.
10. Based on the results of consideration of the complaint, a decision is made to satisfy the complaint (in whole or in part) or to refuse to satisfy the complaint.
11. The decision must contain:
11.1. Name of the body that considered the complaint, position, surname, first name, patronymic (if any) of the official who made the decision on the complaint.
11.2. Details of the decision (number, date, place of adoption).
11.3. Last name, first name, patronymic (if any), information about the place of residence of the applicant - an individual, including one registered as an individual entrepreneur, or the name, information about the location of the applicant - a legal entity.
11.4. Last name, first name, patronymic (if any), information about the place of residence of the applicant’s representative who filed the complaint on behalf of the applicant.
11.5. Method of filing and date of registration of the complaint, its registration number.
11.6. Subject of the complaint (information about the decisions, actions, or inactions being appealed).
11.7. The circumstances established during the consideration of the complaint and the evidence confirming them.
11.8. Legal grounds for making a decision on a complaint with reference to the applicable regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
11.9. The decision taken on the complaint (conclusion on the satisfaction of the complaint or refusal to satisfy it).
11.10. Information on actions taken by the Department in order to immediately eliminate identified violations in the provision of public services,
as well as an apology for the inconvenience caused and information about further actions that the applicant needs to take in order to receive a public service (if the complaint is upheld) or reasoned explanations about the reasons for the decision (in case the complaint is refused).
11.11. Procedure for appealing a decision.
11.12. Signature of the authorized official.
12. The decision is made in writing using official forms.
13. The measures to eliminate identified violations specified in the decision include:
13.1. Cancel earlier decisions made(in whole or in part).
13.2. Ensuring the acceptance and registration of the request, execution and issuance of a receipt to the applicant (in case of evasion or unreasonable refusal to accept documents and their registration).
13.3. Ensuring registration and delivery to the applicant of the result of the provision of a public service (in case of evasion or unreasonable refusal to provide a public service).
13.4. Correction of typos and errors made in documents issued as a result of the provision of public services.
13.5. Return to the applicant Money, the collection of which is not provided for by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
14. The body authorized to consider the complaint refuses to satisfy it in the following cases:
14.1. Recognition of the appealed decisions and (or) actions (inactions) as legal and not violating the rights and freedoms of the applicant.
14.2. Filing a complaint by a person whose powers have not been confirmed in the manner established by regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
14.3. The applicant does not have the right to receive public services.
14.4. Availability:
14.4.1. A court decision on the applicant’s complaint with identical subject matter and grounds that has entered into legal force.
14.4.2. Decisions on a complaint made earlier in a pre-trial (out-of-court) manner in relation to the same applicant and on the same subject of the complaint (except for cases of appealing previously made decisions to a higher authority).
15. The complaint must be left unanswered on its merits in the following cases:
15.1. The presence in the complaint of obscene or offensive language, threats to the life, health and property of officials, as well as members of their families.
15.2. If the text of the complaint (part of it), last name, postal address and email address are not readable.
15.3. If the complaint does not indicate the name of the applicant (the applicant's representative) or the postal address and email address to which the response should be sent.
15.4. If the body authorized to consider the complaint received a request from the applicant (the applicant’s representative) to withdraw the complaint before a decision on the complaint is made.
16. The decision to satisfy the complaint or to refuse to satisfy the complaint is sent to the applicant (the applicant’s representative) no later than the working day following the day of its adoption, to the postal address specified in the complaint. At the request of the applicant, the decision is also sent to the email address specified in the complaint (in the form of an electronic document signed with the electronic signature of an authorized official). In the same manner, the applicant (the applicant’s representative) is sent a decision on the complaint, in which only an email address is indicated for the response, and the postal address is missing or cannot be read.
17. If the complaint is left unanswered on the merits, the applicant (his representative) is sent, no later than the working day following the day of registration of the complaint, a written motivated notification indicating the grounds (except for cases where the postal address and email address are not indicated in the complaint email for a response or they are unreadable). The notice is sent in the manner established for sending a decision on a complaint.
18. A complaint filed in violation of the rules on competence established by paragraph 5.4 of these Regulations is sent no later than the working day following the day of its registration to the body authorized to consider the complaint, with simultaneous written notification to the applicant (his representative) about the redirection complaints (except for cases where the complaint does not indicate a postal address and email address for a response or they are not legible). The notice is sent in the manner established for sending a decision on a complaint.
19. Filing a complaint in a pre-trial (out-of-court) manner does not exclude the right of the applicant (applicant’s representative) to simultaneously or subsequently file a complaint in court.
20. Informing applicants about the judicial and pre-trial (extrajudicial) procedure for appealing decisions and (or) actions (inactions) committed in the provision of public services should be carried out by:
20.1. Placing relevant information on the Portal of state and municipal services (functions) of the city of Moscow and stands in places where public services are provided.
20.2. Consulting applicants, including by telephone, email, and in person.
21. If, during or as a result of consideration of the complaint, signs of an administrative offense or crime are established executive, vested with the authority to consider the complaint, immediately forwards the available materials to the prosecutor's office.
2. Termination or suspension of one or more documents necessary for the provision of public services.
3. The applicant submitted an incomplete set of documents that are subject to mandatory submission by the applicant.
4. The submitted documents contain unreliable and (or) contradictory information.
5. The application was signed and (or) submitted by an unauthorized person.
6. Application for the provision of a public service by a person who is not a recipient of the public service in accordance with the Regulations for the provision of the service.
7. The applicant’s application for a public service, the provision of which is not carried out by the Department or is carried out in accordance with other administrative regulations for the provision of public services.
Grounds for refusal to provide services
1. Grounds for refusal to accept documents necessary for the provision of public services, if they are identified after acceptance of the application and other documents necessary for the provision of public services.
2. The types of work specified in the application for a permit do not correspond to the previously agreed project documentation for the preservation of the cultural heritage site.
3. Suspension of activities (liquidation) of the legal entity - the applicant.
4. The applicant does not have a license to carry out work to preserve cultural heritage sites, or the types of work specified in the application for a Permit are not included in the applicant’s license to carry out such work.
5. Non-compliance of documents with the requirements of Articles 5.1, 36, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47.2, 47.3 of the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation.”
A supplement to the magazine “Parish” has been published on a CD “Arrangement, preservation and construction of the temple. Architectural, construction and engineering solutions."
The CD includes articles and illustrative materials devoted to the arrangement, preservation, restoration and construction of new churches. The materials are intended for rectors and parish members whose responsibilities include these issues.
The author of most of the articles and the compiler of this publication is the architect M.Yu. Kesler, under whose leadership the Architectural and Artistic Design and Restoration Center of the Moscow Patriarchate ACC “Archtemple” developed the Code of Rules “Buildings, structures and complexes of Orthodox churches” (SP 31-103-99).
Many materials were published by the author on the pages of the magazine “Parish” and have now become difficult to access. The disk also includes other articles taken from other open sources and more fully revealing the range of issues discussed, including the spiritual foundations and traditions of Orthodox church building. For those wishing to obtain detailed information on the issues under consideration, a list of recommended literature and Internet resources is provided.
Rich illustrative material will help users of the disk find examples of architectural solutions, elements of arrangement and decoration of churches and chapels. For selection finished project Attached are catalog sheets indicating the authors who can be contacted to use the project.
Full information about the disc is available on the website of the magazine “Parish” www.vestnik.prihod.ru.
Legislation in the field of conservation, use and state protection of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments)
Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” in Art. 3 talks about objects of cultural heritage, which are real estate of a special kind and with a special legal regime.
According to this article, to objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, incl. religious purposes, includes real estate objects with associated works of painting, sculpture, decorative and applied art and other objects material culture resulting from historical events, representing value from the point of view of history, archaeology, architecture, urban planning, art, aesthetics, social culture and are sources of information about the development of culture.
Objects of cultural heritage for religious purposes, in accordance with this law, are divided into the following types:
Objects of cultural heritage are divided into the following categories of historical and cultural significance:
Thus, historical and cultural monuments are understood only as real estate objects.
However, many of the buildings and structures are in ruins and can hardly be called historical and cultural monuments. The question arises whether the destroyed buildings are classified as cultural monuments and what percentage of destruction is necessary in order to state their complete physical destruction. It seems that this issue should be resolved more clearly in legislation.
Objects recognized as historical and cultural monuments are subject to a special legal regime and are under special legal protection. In order for a particular object to receive special legal protection, it is necessary that it be recognized as such in the manner prescribed by law. It should be borne in mind that there are no objective signs for recognizing them as such. Each time this issue is resolved individually based on the opinion of specialists.
Monuments of history and culture may be owned by any subject of civil rights, however most of historical and cultural monuments are in federal state ownership. The inability of the state to provide adequate protection to cultural monuments is evidenced by the fact that over the past ten years, Russia, according to the Ministry of Culture, has lost 346 monuments of federal significance.
In this regard, the question of the need to transfer cultural monuments from federal ownership to the ownership of other subjects of civil law has long been raised.
A special regime was established for cultural heritage sites for religious purposes. So, according to paragraph 2 of Art. 50 of the Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage, objects of cultural heritage for religious purposes can be transferred into the ownership only of religious organizations in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
On December 3, 2010, the Law “On the transfer of state or municipal property for religious purposes to religious organizations” came into force. How religious organizations will ensure proper preservation of church values transferred by the state - an issue that worries not only museum workers, but also church organizations themselves.
Concern for the preservation of cultural heritage must be recognized as a task for the entire Church.
State system for the protection of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments)
The state protection of cultural heritage objects in Federal Law No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” is understood as a system of legal, organizational, financial, material, technical, information and other adopted by government bodies of the Russian Federation and government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, bodies local government within their competence, measures aimed at identifying, recording, studying cultural heritage objects, preventing their destruction or causing harm to them, monitoring the preservation and use of cultural heritage objects in accordance with the Federal Law.
In accordance with Art. 8 of this law, religious associations have the right to assist the federal executive body, specially authorized in the field of state protection of cultural heritage objects, in the preservation, use, popularization and state protection of cultural heritage objects in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
Control over the safety of cultural heritage objects is carried out by the Federal Service for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Sphere of Mass Communications and the Protection of Cultural Heritage, formed in accordance with Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 17, 2004 No. 301, which is a federal executive body. It is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. According to clause 5.1.3 of the said resolution, it exercises state control over the preservation, use, popularization and state protection of objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation (historical and cultural monuments), including jointly with government authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
Sources of financing for conservation, popularization and state protection of cultural heritage sites are:
At the meeting working group at the President of the Russian Federation on the restoration of cultural heritage sites for religious purposes, held on June 17, 2011 in the Kremlin, Patriarch Kirill spoke about the problem of financing the restoration of destroyed shrines in Russia. Within the framework of the federal target program “Russian Culture (2006-2011),” 1.2-1.4 billion rubles are allocated. per year for more than a thousand religious sites alone that need to be restored. In reality, about 100 billion rubles are needed to restore churches and monasteries. Patriarch Kirill emphasized that no one is asking to allocate such money in the near future, “financing needs to be correlated with real needs,” however, if the level of investment remains the same, then while some monuments will be restored, many others will be completely lost. Temples in ruins simply cannot wait their turn - examples can be found in the Yaroslavl and even Moscow regions.
“As for the preservation of our cultural heritage, this, of course, is primarily the concern of the state, although responsibility should not be removed from both the Church and the relevant institutions of civil society,” the Primate emphasized at a meeting in the Kremlin.
To make the “Culture of Russia” program more effective, the Patriarch proposed reducing the list of applications and concentrating on those objects that have already begun to be restored. “It’s better for us to finish what we started than to take on new facilities and thus put the entire program at risk,” he emphasized.
The Patriarch also did not rule out the possibility of highlighting other priorities when choosing churches that require restoration. For example, more attention can be paid to the restoration of churches, the history of which is tied to historical names, dates, and events, the Patriarch suggested. It is also wise to restore monuments that have become centers of pilgrimage and tourism.
The Russian Federation maintains a unified state register of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the register), containing information about cultural heritage objects.
The register is a state information system that includes a data bank, the unity and comparability of which is ensured by general principles formation, methods and forms of maintaining the register.
The information contained in the register is the main source of information about cultural heritage objects and their territories, as well as about protection zones of cultural heritage objects during the formation and maintenance of the state land cadastre, state urban planning cadastre, other information systems or data banks that use (take into account) this information.
In accordance with the law, the register is formed by including in it objects of cultural heritage in respect of which a decision was made to include them in the register, as well as by excluding from the register of objects of cultural heritage in respect of which a decision was made to exclude them from the register, in the manner established by Federal Law.
In accordance with the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation,” a Code of Restoration Rules (PSR, 2007) was developed, including recommendations for all types of research, survey, design and production work aimed at researching and preserving cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, with associated works of painting, sculpture, and decorative and applied art.
The set of restoration rules meets the requirements of the Orders of the Federal Service for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Field of the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Rosokhrankultura).
However, the presence of such a document does not guarantee a professional approach to the restoration of cultural heritage. Protect Russian monuments from... restorers. This call was made at a press conference held in Moscow by leading specialists in the domestic restoration industry. And this is not a paradox. While the state entrusts the restoration of masterpieces of architecture and art to non-professionals, the country’s cultural heritage is under threat. The reason is the imperfection of legislation. According to Federal Law No. 94-FZ “On placing orders for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services for state and municipal needs,” adopted in 2005, a competition must be held among restoration firms. Anyone who has a license can win it, which is not so difficult to obtain. As a result, the same object is completely restored different organizations. There are companies that specialize in winning competitions and then sell subcontracts to performers. If earlier the problem was that there was no money for restoration, and the monuments were destroyed over time, now there is money, but every year it goes to different companies. Masterpieces ancient Russian architecture die from too frequent changes of “guardians” who, for the sake of tasty morsel Reduce work time and lower prices.
