The role of managers (owners) of cultural heritage objects in the system of cultural heritage protection

This work discusses the role of managers (owners) of cultural heritage objects in the Cultural Heritage Protection System of Lithuania (since 1990). The main duty of managers (owners) is to take care of the preservation of an objects of cultural heritage and to be responsible for their survival. The work is divided into two parts: one of them – the treatment of the Manager (Owner) in law and the other – his presence in the practical level of the cultural heritage protection. There were radical changes of ownership after Lithuania regained its independence. Many of the cultural heritage objects became the private property. According to the partial restitution many objects of the sacral heritage were returned to the lawful owners – religious sodalities. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania assigns that the historical, archaeological and cultural objects of State importance shall belong by the right of exclusive ownership to the Republic of Lithuania. The main legal acts which concern the cultural heritage protection and its keeping rules determine the rights and duties of manager (owner), regulate legal relations between manager (owner) and State and cover the peculiarities of property‘s keeping, usage and disposal. At the critical point the State can use the right to redeem the cultural heritage object from manager (owner) compulsively or take it for public needs in accordance with the procedure laid down by laws. The managers (owners) have right to get compensation of three different kinds. They are subjects of Protection Agreements which establish the servitudes of structures and formalize other heritage protection requirements for objects and sites of cultural heritage. Unfortunately, there are still many problems concerning the effectiveness of compensation organization and realization of the tax reliefs established by laws. It negatively influences manager’s (owner’s) interest and attitude towards stated duties, often they don’t regard established heritage protection requirements or activity restrictions. Also it’s popular among managers (owners) to appreciate cultural values only in terms of money. Thus the destiny of the cultural heritage object depends upon their mentality and cultural maturity. This much is certain, if cultural heritage object doesn’t have master, it begins to go under. Though the operations of keeping up a protected object require to be in funds