Analysis of the Draft Law:
### 1. Essence of the Draft Law
The draft is aimed at the comprehensive modernization of public administration mechanisms in the fields of culture, museum affairs, cultural heritage protection, and publishing activities. It establishes clear procedures for the evacuation of the Museum Fund under martial law, clarifies issues of ownership rights to archaeological findings and anthropological remains, and strengthens the regulation of publishing products. In addition, the document introduces new legal mechanisms for terminating the activities of religious organizations that exhibit signs of affiliation with foreign religious centers of the aggressor state.
### 2. Structure and Main Provisions
The draft is framework-oriented and introduces amendments to a number of special laws:
- Law “On Museums and Museum Affairs”: norms on the mandatory evacuation of the Museum Fund during martial law have been introduced, the legal regime of operational management of museum objects has been clarified, the procedure for forming the state part of the fund has been amended, and new qualification requirements for restorers have been established.
- Law “On Export, Import and Repatriation of Cultural Property”: restrictions on the duration of stay of cultural property under the customs regime of temporary export during martial law have been abolished.
- Law “On Sanctions”: an imperative has been established whereby cultural property seized as a result of the application of sanctions is not subject to sale, but is transferred free of charge to state cultural institutions.
- Laws in the spheres of archaeology and burial: the procedure for handling archaeological findings and anthropological remains has been detailed, in particular their mandatory burial if they do not have the status of museum objects.
- Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations”: the powers of state bodies regarding the termination of the activities of religious organizations affiliated with centers in the aggressor country have been expanded, and the procedure for seizing their property in favor of the state has been defined.
- Laws in the sphere of publishing: the list of grounds for refusing to import publishing products has been expanded (sanctions against authors), and new requirements for online book trading have been established.
### 3. Significance for Subjects of Law
For various categories of persons, this draft entails the following changes:
- For state and municipal museums: stricter control over the accounting and evacuation of fund objects is established, and subordination regarding the approval of reorganization or liquidation is changed.
- For business (publishing and e-commerce): new requirements are introduced for the mandatory display of specific information about publications in online stores. Furthermore, citizens and legal entities of the aggressor state and the Republic of Belarus are now explicitly prohibited from being founders of publishing entities.
- For researchers and archaeologists: the procedure for handling anthropological remains is clearly regulated, which requires the development of additional technical documentation and interaction with local self-government bodies.
- For religious organizations: the draft creates new tools for the rapid termination of activities through the court in the event that signs of affiliation with foreign centers of the aggressor country are established, with the subsequent transfer of assets into state ownership.
- For local self-government bodies: additional duties are imposed regarding the protection of sites of unknown burials and the financing of the burial of anthropological remains in cases provided for by the draft.
Analysis of the Explanatory Note:
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided draft Law. It is a complex regulatory document that attempts to “patch” a number of critical gaps in legislation that became particularly noticeable during the full-scale war.
### 1. Essence of the Draft Law
This bill is a “framework” document that introduces amendments to a wide spectrum of legislation in the sphere of culture, heritage protection, and information security. Its goal is to adapt management procedures to martial law conditions, return transparency to the personnel policy of cultural institutions, provide mechanisms for the evacuation of cultural property, and strengthen state control over publishing products from the aggressor state.
### 2. Reasons and Necessity for Adoption
The author of the explanatory note clearly highlights several key triggers:
- Personnel imbalance: The current practice of appointing heads without competitions during the war has exhausted its resource; the professional community demands the return of competitions to ensure transparency.
- Safety of cultural property: There is an urgent need for legal regulation of the creation of “depositories” for evacuated museum objects and procedures for their temporary export abroad.
- Archaeological chaos: The lack of clear norms for handling anthropological remains and the insufficient integration of archaeological research into urban planning processes create legal conflicts during development.
- Information security: The need for rapid tools to seize anti-Ukrainian literature and eliminate “loopholes” in publishing legislation that could be used by entities from the RF or Belarus.
### 3. Main Consequences of the Project
For stakeholders, this project will have quite noticeable consequences:
- For the state and the public: The return of competitive procedures for appointing heads of cultural institutions will significantly reduce corruption risks. In addition, a clear procedure for the liquidation of religious organizations connected to the aggressor will provide a tool for implementing state national security policy.
- For developers: The introduction of mandatory archaeological surveys when planning construction is a challenge. On the one hand, these are additional procedures and costs; on the other hand, it is “insurance” against stopping construction in the future due to accidental findings.
- For business (publishers and book distributors): The removal of the deferral for child birth assistance is a positive signal for the market. However, the simplification of reporting (use of PPO receipts) will significantly ease the administrative burden for bookstores.
- Legal consequences: Removing the sphere of control over publishing products from the effect of the Law “On Basic Principles of State Supervision (Control)” is a legally bold step. It allows controlling bodies to act instantly, “without observing lengthy procedures,” which is an exceptional measure in the conditions of an information war.
Overall, the project looks like an attempt to balance strict state control in the security sphere with an open democratic procedure in the management of cultural institutions.
Analysis of Other Documents:
### 1. Positions of Authors and Specialized Bodies
- Authors of the draft law (People’s Deputies led by M. Poturaev): They support the initiative, considering it necessary for the modernization of management in the cultural sector, eliminating legislative gaps caused by the war, and ensuring the safety of cultural property under martial law.
- Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy (the lead committee): Supports the project, recommending that it be adopted as a basis, but with the condition of excluding the clause regarding amendments to urban planning legislation and further refinement of the provisions before the second reading.
- Committee on Education, Science and Innovation: Also recommends that the project be adopted as a basis, seeing it as important steps for protecting museum funds and archaeological heritage.
- V.M. Koretsky Institute of State and Law (NAS of Ukraine): Expresses significant remarks, noting that the project is too heterogeneous (mixing culture, religion, and publishing activity) and recommends separating the issues of religion and publishing into separate legislative acts.
- Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy: The project was recognized as complying with anti-corruption legislation, but with the requirement to limit the discretionary powers of the DESS regarding the appointment of liquidators of religious organizations.
### 2. Main Provisions of the Draft Law
