The article is devoted to examining the legal regulation of the revitalization of cultural heritage sites in Russia and foreign countries (France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom). It analyzes legal mechanisms for attracting private investments, tax and financial incentives, and the approval and control procedures for adapting cultural heritage sites for contemporary use. Within this subject, the analysis focuses on the following interconnected legal layers: conservation legislation and legal protection regimes, tax and financial legal instruments for stimulating revitalization, and urban planning and administrative regulations for approval procedures. It examines the legal status and competencies of governmental bodies and specialized institutions involved in managing revitalization processes (the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, regional heritage protection authorities, and foreign analogs – DRAC in France, Historic England in the United Kingdom), as well as the legal mechanisms for coordination among them. The research employs comparative legal analysis (comparing models based on a unified system of criteria: the degree of state involvement, attracting private investments, approval and control procedures); a systemic method (studying the interaction of legal mechanisms with the tax system); and legal modeling (developing adaptations for Russian conditions taking into account the classification of sites and economic parameters). Scientific novelty: 1. systematization and comparison of four European models of the revitalization of cultural heritage. 2. identification of common patterns in European models (the balance of state control and private investment, differentiation of protection regimes by importance categories, multi-level economic incentives) and justification of their applicability in the context of Russian specifics. Main conclusions and practical recommendations: there is no single universal model of revitalization; the optimal model for Russia should combine elements of concessions, tax incentives, preferential lending, and flexible urban planning regulation; priority areas for legislative changes include simplifying and standardizing concession procedures and approving model contracts; introducing special tax regimes (accelerated depreciation of restoration costs; tax credits for patrons); expanding and diversifying preferential lending programs (considering successful practices from DOM.RF); forming a list of permitted works with a simplified approval process. The reform should take into account the intersectoral nature of the task and ensure coordination among departments; the proposed adaptation of foreign mechanisms should not be mechanical but based on the consideration of Russia's three-tier classification system of sites and the degree of centralized management.
Mayboroda et al. (Sun,) studied this question.