Sommario:
1. Premessa metodologica.
2. Art. 24, d.l. 133/2014 e art. 190, d.lgs. n. 50/2016: due fattispecie di baratto amministrativo a confronto. I tratti distintivi dell’istituto.
3. La categoria dei beni culturali immateriali: problemi definitori.
3.1. (Segue) La base giuridica della categoria dei beni culturali immateriali.
4. I principali limiti del baratto amministrativo applicato ai beni culturali immateriali.
4.1. (Segue) L’individuazione dei soggetti.
4.2. (Segue) L’individuazione dei benefici ammessi e il principio di equilibrio di bilancio.
5. Considerazioni conclusive.
Abstract:
The article aims at examining the correlation between administrative barter
[“baratto amministrativo”] and intangibile cultural heritage. Art. 190 of the new
Italian Public Procurement Code has included, among the urban regeneration activities, also the «valorization through cultural initiatives of various kinds … of green
areas, squares or streets». This passage is, however, ambiguous and implicitly refers to
the concept of “intangible cultural heritage”, enunciated in the Unesco Convention
of 2003. The expression «valorization through cultural initiatives of various kinds
… of green areas, squares or streets» needs to be examined closely: the link that seems
to express between urban regeneration and cultural regeneration leads to regard urban
regeneration as justified by cultural reasons. Methodologically, it is therefore necessary
to compare art. 24, l. 133/2014, and art. 190, d.lgs. 50/2016. This is done to
identify the distinctive features of the evolution of the administrative barter, and to
analyze the reasons that led to the difficult emergence of the category of “immaterial
cultural heritage” in the Italian legal system. The aim is to check whether and how the
immaterial cultural heritage can be the object of a cultural barter (“baratto culturale”)
as an expression of an urban regeneration activity.