Abstract
According to the Roman (and later Byzantine) law, things sacred, religious, and holy, were exempted from commerce, and held to be the property of no one. “Temples, churches, altar-pieces, communion-cups, and whatever was consecrated according to the forms prescribed by law, were held sacred, and could not be applied to profane uses”. These sacred things, which considered to be of ‘divine jurisdiction’ (res divini iuris), comprised three subcategories: res sacrae solely devoted to religious purposes such as churches and relics, res religiosae such as burial grounds and cemeteries, and res sanctae such as city walls and gates (Mainusch 1995, pp. 8 f.; Weidner 2001, pp. 15 f.; von Campenhausen and de Wall 2006, pp. 260 f.).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Mackenzie L. (1865) Studies in Roman Law, with Comparative Views of the Laws of France, England, and Scotland, Edinburgh and London: W. Blackwood & Sons, p. 163. See also Mainusch R. (1995) Die öffentlichen Sachen der Religions- und Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften: Begründung und Konsequenzen ihres verfassungsrechtlichen Status [=Jus Εcclesiasticum 54], Tübingen: Mohr, p. 8 f.
- 2.
Allen C. (1940) Things, California Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 421–41 (p. 432).
- 3.
An introductory overview of the relevant ecclesiastical Canons in: Rodopoulos P. (2007) An overview of Orthodox Canon Law [=Orthodox Theological Library 3], Orthodox Research Institute, p. 39 f.
- 4.
Milasch N. (1905) Das Kirchenrecht der Morgenländischen Kirche. Nach den allgemeinen Kirchenrechtsquellen und nach den in den autokephalen Kirchen geltenden Spezial-Gesetzen, Mostar: Pacher & Kisić.
- 5.
Cf. Rodopoulos, op. cit., p. 182.
- 6.
See Beal J., Coriden J. & Green Th. (eds.) (2000) New commentary on the Code of Canon Law, New York: Paulist Press, pp. 1471–2.
- 7.
In 2011 the Measure consolidated, with corrections and minor improvements, the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990, the Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure 1994 and the Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure 2005, and related enactments. Original document available online at: www.legislation.gov.uk. Accessed on March 31, 2014.
- 8.
Ibid., s 2 (1) (b).
- 9.
Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, Art. 13.
- 10.
Jokilehto J. (2005) The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps – An Action Plan for the Future [=Monuments and Sites XII], International Council of Monuments and Sites, p. 33.
- 11.
Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, Canon 28 § 1 “Ritus est patrimonium liturgicum, theologicum, spirituale et disciplinare cultura ac rerum adiunctis historiae populorum distinctum, quod modo fidei vivendae uniuscuiusque Ecclesiae sui iuris proprio exprimitur”; cf. Beal, Coriden & Green, op. cit., p. 32.
- 12.
Cf. Hammer F. (1995) Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des Denkmalrechts in Deutschland [=Jus Ecclesiasticum 51], Tübingen: Mohr, p. 309.
- 13.
Hassan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-XI, § 62.
- 14.
Beyeler v. Italy, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-I, § 113–114.
- 15.
See e.g. Art. 10 § 1 Greek Law 3028/2002 ‘on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in General’ in: Government Gazette issue A 153/28.6.2002.
- 16.
See: Ancient Monuments (Applications for Scheduled Monument Consent) Regulations 1981, in: Statutory Instruments No. 1301/1981; Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (England) Order 2010 in. Statutory Instruments No. 1176/2010 (Amendment in: Statutory Instruments No. 1806/2010).
- 17.
See the full text of the Kyiv Statement in: http://whc.unesco.org/en/religious-sacred-heritage/. Accessed on March 31, 2014.
- 18.
See: Muckel St. (1997) Religiöse Freiheit und staatliche Letztentscheidung, Die verfassungsrechtlichen Garantien religiöser Freiheit unter veränderten gesellschaftlichen Verhältnissen, Berlin: Dunker & Humblot, p. 169 f.; Jeand’ Heur B. & Corioth St. (2000) Grundzuge des Staatskirchenrechts, Stuttgart, München, Hannover, Berlin, Weimar, Dresden: Richard Boorberg Verlag, p. 72 f.; Weber H. (2002) Die individuelle und kollektive Religionsfreiheit im europäischen Recht einschließlich ihres Rechtsschutzes, Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrecht Vol. 47, p. 265 f.
- 19.
See the full text of the ‘Final Statement of Principles and Procedures’ from the Seminar on the Care, Conservation and Maintenance of Historic Jewish Property (Bratislava March 17–19, 2009) at: http://www.jewish-heritage-europe.eu/bratislava-declaration. Accessed on March 31, 2014.
- 20.
Ibid.
- 21.
See: http://whc.unesco.org/en/religious-sacred-heritage/. Accessed on March 31, 2014.
- 22.
Within the context of English Ecclesiastical Law, Hill (2007, p. 220) clarifies that “Consecration is not coterminous with dedication, even though both expressions import the hallowing of land for godly purposes. Dedication is, in law, merely a declaration of intent as to the purpose for which land is to be put. Consecration, however, is the setting aside of land solely for sacred use in perpetuity”.
- 23.
For a discussion on the relationship between public law things (öffentliche Sachen) and res sacrae, according to the relevant German jurisprudence, see Schütz D. (1995) Res sacrae, in: Listl J.& Pirson D. (eds.) Handbuch des Staatskirchenrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band II, Berlin: Mohr.
References
Carmichael, D., Hubert, J., & Reeves, B. (1998). Introduction. In D. Carmichael (Ed.), Sacred sites, sacred places. London: Routledge.
Doe, N. (2011). Law and religion in Europe. A comparative introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heckel, M. (1968). Staat, Kirche, Kunst: Rechtsfragen kirchlicher Kulturdenkmäler. Tübingen: Mohr.
Hill, M. (2007). Ecclesiastical law. Oxford: Oxford University.
Isensee, J. (1999). Res sacrae unter kircheneigenem Denkmalschutz – Substitution staatlicher durch kirchliche Normen aufgrund des Denkmalschutzgesetzes Baden-Württembergs. Kirche und Recht, 5, 117–125.
Kalb, H., Potz, R., & Schinkele, B. (2003). Religionsrecht. Wien: WUV Univesitätsverlag.
Mainusch, R. (1995). Die öffentlichen Sachen der Religions- und Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften: Begründung und Konsequenzen ihres verfassungsrechtlichen Status. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Merryman, J. H. (1989). The public interest in cultural property. California Law Review, 77(2), 339–364.
Messner, F. (2006). Affectation publique et affectation cultuelle en droit comparé. In B. Basdevant-Gaudemet, M. Cornu, & J. Fromageau (Eds.), Le patrimoine culturel religieux, enjeux juridique et pratiques cultuelles [Collection Droit du patrimoine culturel et naturel] (pp. 133–146). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Odendahl, K. (2005). Kulturgüterschutz: Entwicklung, Struktur und Dogmatik eines ebenenübergreifenden Normensystems [=Jus Publicum 140]. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
von Campenhausen, A. F., & de Wall, H. (2006). Staatskirchenrecht. Eine systematische Darstellung des Religionsverfassungsrechts in Deutschland und Europa. München: C. H. Beck.
Weidner, A. (2001). Kulturgüter als res extra commercium im internationalen Sachenrecht. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tsivolas, T. (2014). The Status of Res Mixtae . In: Law and Religious Cultural Heritage in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07932-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07932-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07931-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07932-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)