Expropriation of immovable cultural heritage objects legal sanction or meeting the needs of state and society?

In an attempt to reveal the specifics of legal regulation and evaluation according to law methodology, issues of legal regulation of expropriation of immovable cultural heritage objects are examined in the publication. The constitution obliges state to take care of cultural heritage protection by adopting cultural heritage protection principles from international legal sources to national law. Constitutional Court has stated that protection of cultural heritage is a public interest, a constitutional imperative. Protection of a constitutional imperative of cultural heritage is a legal obligation based on positively obliging legal regulation, when law-contradicting behaviour brings a sanction guaranteed legal responsibility, which serves as a guarantee for protecting a constitutional imperative. Expropriation of property for the benefit of society is an administrative legal interaction, a law institute separate by nature and purpose, therefore is opposite to legal interactions of legal responsibility, which are related to the sanction’s legal repressive function, however under a set legal regulation governing expropriation of inappropriately kept legal heritage objects to state ownership, administrative legal interaction regulated according to civil law, whose purpose is compensatory and unrelated to repressive state function. In this way a legal indetermination and doubts arise about the compatibility of such regulation with the constitutional principle of legal state, which is inseparable from the justice principle. Under legal regulation set by the state, expropriation of inappropriately kept cultural heritage objects occurs both as legal sanction for a committed legal offense and as satisfaction of society’s needs, but the remuneration principle to the state, which is applied together with the sanction, is against the general legal principle: no one should benefit from legal offense committed