If the cultural heritage authority fails to prepare the required documentation, owners of an architectural monument are hindered from concluding protection agreements, yet they remain obligated to preserve and maintain the cultural heritage site

The failure of the cultural heritage protection authority to prepare the registration documentation constitutes an objective obstacle to the conclusion of protection agreements by the owners of an architectural monument, but does not release them from the obligation to ensure the proper preservation and maintenance of the cultural heritage site – the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court held.

The failure of the authorized cultural heritage protection authority to fulfill its obligation to prepare a passport for a newly identified architectural monument is an objective obstacle to the conclusion of protection agreements by the owners and cannot be regarded as a violation of cultural heritage protection law on the part of the owners. At the same time, the absence of a concluded protection agreement does not relieve the owner of the architectural monument of the duty to properly care for its preservation and to maintain it in a condition that prevents deterioration or destruction of the cultural heritage site.

This conclusion was made by the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court.

The head of the district prosecutor’s office filed a claim in the interests of the state represented by the Department of Culture, Youth and Family of the local council. The plaintiff requested the court to oblige the private individuals who own apartments and premises in a building that is an architectural monument of local significance to conclude a protection agreement with the Department of Culture. In support of the claim, the prosecutor argued that the absence of protection agreements indicates a violation of the interests of the state in the field of cultural heritage protection, since such inaction on the part of the defendants may lead to damage to the appearance, spatial composition, decorative elements, and loss of authenticity of the monument. In response to the prosecutor’s inquiry regarding newly identified cultural heritage sites, the Department of Culture stated in writing that it does not have the registration documentation for the building, and therefore it is not possible to conclude protection agreements with its owners. The lower courts denied the claim. The appellant argued in the cassation appeal that the courts failed to take into account that the legislation imposes a mandatory obligation on owners of newly identified cultural heritage sites to conclude protection agreements, regardless of whether the authorized body has prepared the registration documentation and the monument passport.

The Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.

The Court noted that the passport of a cultural heritage site is a mandatory document prepared and issued by the authorized cultural heritage protection authority within the limits of budgetary funding or other sources not prohibited by law, and in accordance with the approved form. The existence of such a passport is not a mere formality for the conclusion of a protection agreement. This document is an integral component of the agreement: it forms the basis for determining the regime of use of the monument, as well as the scope and nature of protective measures to be ensured by the owner, which are key terms of the protection agreement.

The failure of the authorized cultural heritage protection authority to fulfill its obligation to prepare a passport for a newly identified architectural monument constitutes an objective obstacle to the conclusion of protection agreements and cannot be regarded as a violation of cultural heritage legislation on the part of the owners.

The Court emphasized that, pursuant to Part 4 of Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Cultural Heritage”, owners of architectural monuments are obliged to comply with the statutory requirements regarding the preservation, maintenance, and use of such sites, including keeping them in an appropriate condition. Therefore, even in the absence of a concluded protection agreement, the owners are not released from the duty to properly preserve the monument and maintain it in a condition that prevents deterioration or destruction of the cultural heritage site.

Resolution of the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 9 September 2025 in case No. 440/10514/23 (proceeding No. К/990/47223/24) – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130082868.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.