Abstract: The object of this research is the immovable cultural heritage. The subject of this research is the activity of the local self-government for the conservation, use, and popularization of cultural heritage sites owned by the municipalities, located in their territories, as well as state protection of cultural heritage sites of local (municipal) significance. Such authority is set in by the Federal Law “On Cultural Heritage Sites (Historical and Cultural Monuments) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation” and the Federal Law No.131-FZ “On General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation). Leaning on the experience of the colleagues and analysis of the activity of Ufa City Municipal District Administration  of the Republic of Bashkortostan, positive and negative results obtained in the course of exercising the authority granted by the legislation in this sphere, the author acknowledges the need for a more integrated approach towards conservation of immovable cultural heritage of the local (municipal) significance; it includes the stage of its identification, and registration (with the municipal authorities), as well as organization of their rational use, such as leasing, privatization, etc. The article provides a number of recommendations, which are based on the practical experience and comprehension of theoretical material.

Keywords: immovable cultural heritage, the powers, privatization, popularization, cultural heritage sites, historical monuments, local authorities, restoration, municipal property, inscription in the Register

References:
Analiticheskiy doklad «Istoricheskie goroda Rossii: sokhranenie i razvitie» [Elektronnyy resurs] // URL: http://council.gov.ru/media/files/41d44f24459ceffa5ca3.pdf (data dostupa 29.12.2020).
Isachkin, S. I., Bazhanova, N. V. Reforma organov okhrany ob'ektov kul'turnogo naslediya: dva goda spustya (analiz deyatel'nosti na primere Chelyabinskoy i Sverdlovskoy oblastey) // Kul'tura: upravlenie, ekonomika, pravo. – 2010. – ¹ 3. – S. 6-10.
Dudarenko, V. N., Gerasimova, N. M., Genina, L. V., Vydrina, I. V. // Munitsipalitet: ekonomika i upravlenie. – 2018. – ¹ 3/24. – S. 11-19
Chebotarev, G.N., Panfilov, A.N. Predmety sovmestnogo vedeniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii, sub'ektov RF i munitsipal'nykh obrazovaniy / G.N. Chebotarev, A.N. Panfilov // Vestnik Tyumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. – 2011. – ¹ 3. – S. 21-27.
Mateja Šmid Hribar. David Bole. Primož Pipan, Sustainable Heritage Management: Social, Economic and Other Potentials of Culture in Local Development, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188 (

Abstract: The research subject is the legislation of Krasnodar Region and the Russian Federation regulating the concept and the content of the “government protection of cultural heritage sites” legal institution. The research object is social relations, arising between the government protection agencies and other entities in relation to government protection implementation, and the peculiarities of application of particular instruments of government protection. The authors study the legislation and the related social relations of the Soviet and the post-Soviet periods, and compare the legislation of different levels and different historical periods. The research methodology is based on the principles of historicism and objectivity. The authors apply the following research methods: historical-comparative, historical-typological, problem-oriented, socio-psychological, and retrospective. The authors use the principles of analysis and synthesis. The authors come to the following conclusions: the “government protection of cultural heritage sites” concept didn’t exist in the Soviet legislation and in Russian legislation before 1997; since 1997 till the present time, the “government protection of cultural heritage sites” concept has been formalized and reinterpreted as a legal mechanism; the authors ascertain the likeness of the term and the content of “government protection of cultural heritage sites” in federal and regional legislation despite the initially different “starting points” and the still existing certain differences. 

Keywords: federalism, Krasnodar region, popularization, preservation, use, legal institution, cultural heritage site, government control, government protection, legislation

References:
Vakhitov A.K. Administrativno-pravovaya okhrana ob'ektov kul'turnogo naslediya: Dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk: 12.00.14. M., 2007. 170 s. [Elektronnyy resurs] // URL: http:// www.lib.ua-ru.net/ diss/ cont/ 217342.html (data obrashcheniya: 12.07.2010).
Ob okhrane i ispol'zovanii pamyatnikov istorii i kul'tury : Zakon RSFSR ot 15 dekabrya 1978 goda // Svod zakonov RSFSR, t. 3, s. 498.
Ob izmenenii i priznanii utrativshimi silu resheniy Pravitel'stva RSFSR v svyazi s Postanovleniem Soveta Ministrov SSSR ot 16 sentyabrya 1982 g. ¹ 865 : Postanovlenie Sovmina RSFSR ot 20 aprelya 1983 g. ¹ 178 // SP RSFSR. – 1983. – ¹ 10. – St. 54.
Ob utverzhdenii «Instruktsii o poryadke ucheta, obespecheniya sokhrannosti, soderzhaniya, ispol'zovaniya i restavratsii nedvizhimykh pamyatnikov istorii i kul'tury» : Prikaz Ministerstva kul'tury SSSR ot 13 maya 1986 g. ¹ 203 // Dostup iz spravochno-pravovoy sistemy «Konsul'tant Plyus».
Ob okhrane i ispol'zovanii pamyatnikov istorii i kul'tury na territorii Krasnodarskogo kraya : Zakon Krasnodarskogo kraya ot 1 aprel