Czech National Law

Legislation to 2010

ACT OF THE CZECH NATIONAL COUNCIL NO. 20 OF MARCH 30, 1987, ON THE STATE CARE OF MONUMENTS

The complete text of the Act No. 20/1987 Coll., on the State Care
of Monuments, as amended by the Acts No. 242/1992 Coll.,
No. 361/1999 Coll., No. 61/2001 Coll., No. 122/2000 Coll.,
No. 132/2000 Coll., No. 146/2001 Coll., No. 320/2002 Coll., No. 18/2004 Coll. and No. 186/2004 Coll., coming into force as of May 1, 2004x) and supplemented
by an extended selection of extracts from judicial decisions
The Czech National Council has passed the following Act:
PART ONE
FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS
Section 1
Purpose of the Act
(1) The State shall protect cultural monuments as an integral part of the cultural heritage of its people, as the evidence of its history, an important factor of human environment and irreplaceable treasure of the State. The purpose of the present Act is to create all necessary conditions for the continuous intensification of the political and organizational as well as cultural and educational functions of the State in its care of cultural monuments, their preservation and appropriate use, thus ensuring that they may promote the development of culture, the arts, science and education, the shaping of tradition and patriotism as well as aesthetic education of the people, and in this way contribute to the further development of society.
(2) The care guaranteed by the State in relation to cultural monuments (hereinafter referred to as "state care of monuments") shall include activities, measures and decisions, whereby the agencies and the specialized organization of the state care of monuments (Sections 25 to 32) ensure the preservation, protection and appropriate use of cultural monuments in accordance with the needs of society. The other administrative bodies of the State as well as other organizations cooperate in their respective fields with the agencies and the specialized organization of the state care of monuments and assist them in the fulfilment of their tasks.

Section 2
Cultural monuments
(1) The Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "Ministry of Culture") designates as cultural monuments under the present Act all movable or immovable objects or sets thereof which
a) being manifestations of man's creative ability and his work in various fields of human activity, are important documents of historical development, of the way of life, and of social environment from the oldest historical periods up to the present, because of their revolutionary, historical, artistic, scientific and technological value;
b) directly relate to important personalities and historical events.
(2) Sets of objects which as a whole fall within the definition of paragraph 1 shall be designated as cultural monuments even if some of the objects within the set are not cultural monuments.

Selected judicial decisions:
ConstCo 35/94 (Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic)
In the law (Act No. 20/1987 Coll.) there are many provisions making up for the restrictions imposed on the owner of a cultural monument and providing him with appropriate compensation. The compensation consists primarily in the fact that during the reconstruction of a cultural monument the State provides free expert assistance as well as documentation and information under Section 14, par. 7 of the aforementioned law. In addition, the competent district authority or the Ministry of Culture may, upon request of the owner, make a financial contribution towards the preservation or maintenance of the cultural monument, if the cost of such maintenance or preservation is raised by the designation of the object as a cultural monument (Section 16).
The wording of the law as well as that of the ministerial order uses the tentative form "may grant... a financial contribution" or "the contribution may be granted". It must be remembered that the contribution is granted upon request and that such request must be supported by reasons and meet certain requirements. It may be supposed that a request which does not provide the relevant institution with sufficient grounds for granting the contribution or which contains exaggerated and unjustified demands may be turned down. The facultative wording of both the law and the ministerial order, nonetheless, cannot be seen as casting doubt on the general willingness of the State to offer compensation for the compulsory restriction of the right of ownership.
From the facts stated above it is evident that the law does not see in the designation of an object as a cultural monument a unilateral restriction of the right of ownership without compensation.
Taking into account the nature of a cultural monument, however, the owner is simultaneously bound by Article 11, par. 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The said Article stipulates that ownership is binding for the owner and that it must not be abused to the detriment of the rights of others or in contravention of the general interests protected by law. Undoubtedly, the protection of cultural monuments ranks among such general interests.
10 C 22/88 (Verdict of the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate)
The concept of a cultural monument as an object defined and protected by law also covers documents of “non-civilisation”, as e.g. a concentration camp built by the Nazis in 1933 on the premises of a nineteenth-century paper mill.
In early March 1933, the mill began serving as a concentration camp where approximately 200 people were interned in “protective custody”. It was only a provisional arrangement; in late 1934 the camp was abolished. It was consequently not one of the later liquidation camps, built by the SS.
3ObOWi 107/86 (Resolution of the Supreme State Court of Bavaria)
The fact that an object belongs to a past epoch does not sufficiently justify its classifying as a cultural monument; in case of a true cultural monument there must always be a genuine need for its preservation. In this respect, Bavarian jurisprudence relies primarily on the state of knowledge in professional circles. German courts add that the defining word “important” should exclude from protection only things of marginal importance, e.g. the products of mass culture. The imperative task of the state care of monuments is clearly broader than the protection of really unique monuments, monuments of the first order, so to speak. It should also protect those objects that cannot be seen as truly exceptional evidence of the development of a country or its people. It is enough if such things have a not insignificant documentary value in relation to (at least) one characteristic stipulated by law.

Section 3
Designation of objects as cultural monuments
(1) Prior to designating an object as a cultural monument, the Ministry of Culture shall request the opinion of the competent regional authority and the local authority of a municipality with extended competence, if such opinion has not as yet been provided. The Ministry of Culture shall designate archaeological finds (Section 23) as cultural monuments on the proposal of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
(2) The Ministry of Culture shall notify the owner of the object in writing that a proposal has been made to designate the object as a cultural monument or that it intends to designate the object as a cultural monument of its own initiative. The Ministry of Culture shall enable the owner to express his opinion of such a proposal or initiative.
(3) From the moment when the owner received the notification under paragraph 2 until the issue of a decision by the Ministry of Culture, the owner of the object shall be obliged to protect the object against damage, destruction or theft and report to the Ministry of Culture any intended or realized changes in the ownership, management or use of the object.
(4) The Ministry of Culture shall send the owner of the object, the competent regional authority, the local authority of a municipality with extended competence and the specialized organization of the state care of monuments (Section 32) a written notification informing them that the object has been designated as a cultural monument. In the case of archaeological finds the Ministry shall notify also the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. All the aforementioned institutions shall be likewise notified in the case that the Ministry found no reasons for designating the object as a cultural monument.
(5) Owners of objects which, because of their exceptional artistic or historical value, could be, with regard to public interest, designated as cultural monuments, shall provide the Ministry of Culture, the competent regional authority or the local authority of a municipality with extended competence upon a request made in writing with all requested information concerning the aforementioned objects and intended changes thereof, enable the authorities listed above or the specialized organization of the state care of monuments authorized thereby to examine the objects and, if necessary, prepare scientific documentation thereof.
(6) Detailed provisions governing the designation of objects as cultural monuments and the manner in which the information duty under paragraph 5 is to be carried out shall be stipulated by a generally binding legal regulation.

Selected judicial decisions:
7 A 54/97 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The designation of an object as a cultural monument under Section 3 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments undoubtedly entails a restriction on the exercise of the right of ownership. It logically follows (and is all the more necessary) that the owner of the object that is to be so designated should be informed in the relevant decision of the reasons which led to the designation.
The provision of Section 3 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments clearly shows that the legal framework of the designation, in particular as regards procedural matters, is quite inadequate and that its quality does not correspond to the importance of such a decision. Since this is so, it is necessary to turn to analogy and use certain legal institutes and general principles of administrative law (procedure), particularly since the steps taken by the administrative authority in designating the object as a cultural monument bear certain similarities to administrative procedure and since such steps lead to the issue of an authoritative decision limiting the exercise of the citizen's right of ownership. Even if the formal requirements specifying the character of the decision are minimal, it should be maintained that the decision must be recognizably divided into a verdict, reasons leading thereto and information about remedies (the possibility of appeal etc.). The verdict should always include the decision of the relevant case together with the reference to the legal regulation in which the decision is grounded. The verdict should sufficiently indicate the object to which the decision relates. If the decision relates to a set of objects which cannot be included in the verdict and which are designated and described in a special annex, it is not sufficient to refer to the annex, but the verdict must state that the annex forms an integral part of the decision. A proper explication of the reasons which led to the decision is, moreover, an essential precondition for the review of the decision both by the owner of the monument and by a court, or also, in this case, the public. If the decision lacks any of the aforementioned essential components, such deficiency should not be seen as a mere formal defect – it is these obligatory components of the decision that create conditions for an effective protection of the right affected by it, that inform the owner why the relevant authority decided in that particular way and that enable the owner to question the reasons, challenge them in court by way of administrative action and refute them. If the reasons are not properly explained, individuals are deprived of their right to challenge them, because it cannot be justly demanded of them to divine themselves the reasons for the decision which limits their rights.
6 A 81/2000 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
Administrative action is a procedural institute aimed at remedying concrete wrong. An opinion not expressly stated, completely indeterminate, cannot be regarded by the court as sufficient justification for such an action: almost any authoritative decision of the administrative authorities affects the addressee's sphere of rights, whether by abolishing, limiting or not granting a particular right, or by imposing a new duty that the addressee was not obliged to observe before.
7 A 133/99 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The administrative authority is obliged to use the discretionary powers granted to it, i.e. it must take into account the factors which the law lists as necessary premises for such a discretion, obtain necessary evidence, draw factual and legal conclusions from the examination of the evidence and then arrive through observance of the rules of logical deduction at a decision, using discretionary powers, but respecting the meaning and purpose of the law and the limits set by it.
7 A 133/99 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The objection of the petitioner concerning the specification of the immovable property in the decision is also justified. The specification must correspond to the actual state of affairs at the time when the decision is issued and the individual items of immovable property must be identified in the same way in which they are registered in the cadastre. If such identification differs from the historical one, this fact may be mentioned in the part stating reasons for the decision. Only in this way the authority may exclude all doubts about the identity of the object to which the decision relates.

Section 4
National cultural monuments
(1) Cultural monuments that constitute the most important part of the nation's cultural riches shall be designated as national cultural monuments in a decree issued by the Government of the Czech Republic. The decree shall also determine the conditions of their protection.
(2) The Government of the Czech Republic shall set by a decree the general conditions under which state care of national cultural monuments is to be ensured.

Section 5
Monument reservations
(1) An area, whose character and environment are shaped by a set of immovable cultural monuments and/or archaeological finds, may be designated by the Government of the Czech Republic in a decree as a monument reservation and conditions may be set to ensure its protection. Such conditions may also apply, to the extent necessary, to such immovables located in the monument reservation that are not cultural monuments.
(2) The Government of the Czech Republic shall set by a decree the general conditions for ensuring the state care of monuments in monument reservations.

Section 6
Monument zones
(1) The territory of a settlement, or part thereof, with fewer cultural monuments, historical environment or a part of a landscape complex, which bear evidence of important cultural values, may be, after consultation with the competent regional authority, designated by the Ministry of Culture as a monument zone and conditions may be set for the protection thereof.
(2) Detailed provisions governing the procedure of designating monument zones shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.




Section 7
Registration of cultural monuments
(1) Cultural monuments shall be registered in the Central Registry of Cultural Monuments in the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "Central Registry"). The Central Registry shall be administered by the specialized organization of the state care of monuments.
(2) Regional authorities and local authorities of municipalities with extended competence shall keep registries of cultural monuments located in their territorial districts. Entries in the aforementioned registries shall be made in accordance with extracts from the Central Registry.
(3) The specialized organization of the state care of monuments shall notify the owner of a cultural monument, the regional authority and the local authority of a municipality with extended competence of the registration of the cultural monument in the Central Registry, as well as of the fact that a particular object is no longer to be considered a cultural monument (Section 8). In the case of an immovable cultural monument, the specialized organization shall notify also the relevant construction administration authority.1) In the case of an archaeological find designated as a cultural monument, it shall notify also the Archaeological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
(4) The specialized organization of the state care of monuments shall notify the relevant cadastre office of every designation of an immovable object as a cultural monument as well as of every revocation of the aforementioned decision, if the object in question is subject to registration in the cadastre.2)
(5) The owner of a cultural monument shall report to the specialized organization of the state care of monuments any change of ownership (management, use) of the cultural monument or a change in its placement. The relevant fact must be reported within thirty days of the day on which the change took place.
(6) Detailed provisions governing the keeping of records of cultural monuments shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.

Section 8
Revocation of the designation of an object as a cultural monument
(1) With the exception of national cultural monuments, the Ministry of Culture may for reasons of exceptional significance revoke the designation of an object as a cultural monument on request of the owner or on request of an organization which proves its interest in the revocation of the designation of the object as a cultural monument (hereinafter referred to only as "revocation of the designation"), or of its own initiative.
(2) Prior to the revocation of the designation, the Ministry of Culture shall request the opinion of the regional authority and the local authority of a municipality with extended competence or, in the case of an archaeological find designated as a cultural monument, also the opinion of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, unless the proposal for the revocation of the designation was submitted by the Academy of Sciences itself. If the request for the revocation of the designation was not submitted by the owner of the cultural monument, the owner should be permitted to participate in the examination of the object and express his opinion of the requested revocation of the designation.
(3) The Ministry of Culture may condition the revocation of the designation by the fulfilment of specified requirements. The cost of the fulfilment shall be borne by the person or institution making the request and in cases where the proceedings concerning the revocation of the designation had been initiated by the Ministry of Culture itself, the cost shall be borne by the person or institution in whose interest the designation was revoked.
(4) The provisions of Section 3, par. 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the revocation of the designation.
(5) Detailed provisions governing the revocation of the designation of an object as a cultural monument shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.
Selected judicial decisions

BGE 121 Ib 263 (1986) (Verdict of the Swiss Federal Court)
The plaintiff has always known about the historical and artistic value of the “Reburg” Summer House. It is therefore unreasonable to suppose that the order to carry out protective measures, the issuing of which he must have expected, deprived him of a substantial part of his ownership rights. At the time of the original purchase in 1953 as well as at the time of the second purchase in 1965 the plaintiff must have been well aware that a demolition of the manor, an example of architectural classicism, would not be allowed because of its cultural and historical value. If, therefore, the possibility to build any new constructions on the plot was out of the question, any claims that the plaintiff has suffered a particularly heavy injury are irrelevant. An injury for which a compensation would be due could be acknowledged only if the plaintiff were asked to submit to public interest claims which would burden him, a single property owner, with a too severe economic loss. In this case the Federal Court based its reasoning on the assumption of the Cantonal Administrative Court that there were approximately 250 property owners in St. Gallen who must have reckoned with the same protective measure and therefore found themselves in the same situation.

PART TWO
CARE OF CULTURAL MONUMENTS
Section 9
Protection and use of cultural monuments
(1) The owner of a cultural monument shall attend at his own cost to its preservation, maintain it in good condition and protect it against danger, damage, loss of value or theft. He shall use the cultural monument only in a manner corresponding to its cultural and political importance, heritage value and technical condition. If the cultural monument is in public ownership, the organization which manages, uses or owns it as well as the agency superior thereto shall create all necessary conditions for the fulfilment of the aforementioned obligations.
(2) The obligation to attend to the preservation of a cultural monument, to maintain the cultural monument in good condition and to protect it against danger, damage, loss of value or theft shall apply also to any person or institution that has the cultural monument in possession or use. However, the obligation to bear the cost of such care shall apply thereto only if the said obligation ensues from the legal relationship between the aforementioned person or institution and the owner.
(3) Organizations and individuals, irrespective of whether they are owners of cultural monuments or not, shall act in such a way as not to cause negative changes in the condition of cultural monuments and the environment thereof and not endanger the preservation and appropriate social use of cultural monuments.
(4) The owner of a cultural monument who is transferring the monument to another person or institution, leaving it for temporary use thereto or handing it over for restoration in the wider sense or for other purposes (Section 14) shall inform the person or institution to whom the object is transferred, handed over or left that the object is designated as a cultural monument.

Selected judicial decisions

59 Ca 59/2002 (Verdict of the Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem)
In the course of the proceedings it was established that the Church of St. Wenceslas as a cultural monument had been substantially damaged by the construction added to the vestry. The plaintiff as the owner of the cultural monument had failed to carry out her legal duty to protect the monument against the damage inflicted by F. K. who carried out the construction work. The administrative authorities did not break the law by imposing the fine for the breach of duty under Section 9, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments on the plaintiff since it was she as the owner of the cultural monument who should have protected it against damage and loss of value. The declaration of F. K. that he financed and carried out the construction work as a private person cannot relieve the plaintiff as the owner of her liability for the breach of duty under Section 9, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments.
59 Ca 59/2002 (Verdict of the Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem)
Apart from the legal reasoning given in response to the objections of the plaintiff (objections concerning the priority of the salvation of the deteriorating Church of St. Wenceslas for the needs of parishioners and future generations and the usefulness of the added construction), the court emphasises the following facts. As established in the proceedings, the Church of St. Wenceslas located in R. and registered as a cultural monument is owned by the plaintiff. She as the owner has not only rights, but also duties ensuing from ownership, since ownership entails obligations, as stipulated by Article 11, par. 3, first sentence of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The duties of the owner of a cultural monument are stipulated inter alia by the Act on the State Care of Monuments. The owner is obliged to attend at his or her own cost to the preservation of the monument, maintain it in good condition and protect it against, danger, damage, loss of value or theft (Section 9, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments). He or she is also obliged to notify the district authority without unnecessary delay of any danger threatening the cultural monument or any damage thereof (Section 12, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments). The breach of the aforementioned duties is penalised. Therefore, if the plaintiff objected that the Church of St. Wenceslas had been deteriorating, it was her duty stipulated by law to prevent this deterioration or deal with the situation at her own cost, or with the aid of the financial contribution towards the preservation and reconstruction of a cultural monument (Section 16 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments), or possibly with contributions from private sources. In any case, however, the plaintiff should have carried out her duties as the owner in accordance with all relevant laws and regulations, not only with the Act on the State Care of Monuments.

Section 10
(1) If the owner of a cultural monument does not fulfil the obligations registered in Section 9, the local authority of a municipality with extended competence, after it has received the opinion of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments, shall issue a decision specifying the measures which the owner of the cultural monument is obliged to carry out, and also determine the period within which he must do so. In the case of a national cultural monument, such decision shall be issued, after the specialized organization of the state care of monuments has expressed its opinion, by the regional authority within the scope of its delegated competence and in accordance with the conditions set by the Government of the Czech Republic to ensure the protection of national cultural monuments.
(2) The decision on the measures that the owner of a cultural monument is obliged to take shall be issued by the respective local authority of a municipality with extended competence or, in the case of a national cultural monument, by the competent regional authority, also on request of the owner.
(3) Detailed provisions governing the duties of the owners of cultural monuments concerning the protection and use thereof shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.

Selected judicial decisions:
7 A 165/94 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The imposition of the measures under Section 10, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments depends on whether the administrative authority finds that such measures are needed with regard to the protection of the cultural monument. The decision in this case involves the use of discretionary powers. The discretionary powers, however, are not unlimited and it would be wrong to exclude the decision from the possibility of judicial review and suppose that the administrative authority may act quite as it pleases, since it would be in contradiction with the character of state administration as an activity performed secundum et intra legem. The administrative authority of first instance has arrived at the conclusion that the present roof covering on the house in R. must be replaced by grey or black eternit covering and that the new covering must be laid parallel to the ridge of the building, not trasversally as is the case at present. However, the decision does not contain reasons explaining on what facts or evidence the authority based its conclusion that only such covering and such manner of arranging it on the roof are, from the objective point of view, the only appropriate and possible choice. The administrative file containing records on the case, which has been submitted to the court, does not contain any document that could support the aforementioned assertion of the administrative authority about the original manner of arranging the roof covering and the colour of such covering (e.g. preserved archive materials such as photographs, references found in local chronicles, contemporary paintings etc.). A present-day photo, documenting the current state, not the historical one, cannot be regarded as such a document.
7 A 117/93 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The petitioner was e.g. obliged to bring the castle park into an appropriate condition which would correspond to its status as a cultural monument. Such measure implies that the castle park was not in an appropriate condition, but the files of the case do not contain any evidence of its actual condition (not counting the opinion of the representatives of the district authority in B. that the park is in a "cheerless" state which, moreover, cannot be used as evidence), let alone the fact that it is not at all certain what should be considered an "appropriate" condition.
7 A 144/94 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
If the measures under Section 10, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments are not carried out, what follows is a special kind of administrative execution (Section 71 and foll. of the Act on Administrative Procedure) aimed at direct enforcement of the required performance to the extent which is considered necessary. This rules out the possibility of using the general provisions, particularly the progressive imposition of fines (Section 79, par. 3 of the Act on Administrative Procedure). Even less probably can the performance of the imposed duty be enforced by the imposition of a fine under Section 35, par. 1, letter c) of the Act on the State Care of Monuments, i.e. by an instrument sanctioning a different breach of law.
One cannot rule out the possibility that in a concrete case both sets of conditions will be fulfilled – conditions for the imposition of a measure under Section 10, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments (and for its potential enforcement under Section 15 of the said Act) as well as the conditions authorizing the administrative authority to impose an administrative sanction under Section 35. These conditions may be fulfilled simultaneously or in a varying chronological order. None of this, however, can cast any doubt on the fact that these are two different types of proceedings in which different factual findings are needed in the examination of the evidence and that the legal bases for the issuing of each of the two decisions differ.
38 Ca 599/2002 (Verdict of the Prague Municipal Court)
The definition of ruins can be found only in expert non-legal materials. According to such materials, a ruin is a deserted unused structure (castle, fortress, monastery or convent, church), preserved in incomplete form, which had been caused by deliberate partial destruction, gradual deterioration or forces of nature.
The owner of the real property is also the owner of the castle ruins in question and as such he must accept the decision on necessary measures to be taken under Section 10 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments. He is therefore obliged to carry out the relevant measures on the immovable cultural monument, the castle ruins J., as stated in the decision issued by the district authority in K. and confirmed by the decision of the competent regional authority.

Section 11
Obligations of the administrative authorities and of natural or legal persons
(1) Administrative authorities of the State which are competent to make decisions on the manner of use of the buildings designated as cultural monuments or on the allocation of flats, other residential rooms and non-residential space in such buildings shall issue their decisions after prior agreement with the competent agency of the state care of monuments. When deciding on the manner of use of cultural monuments or on the changes in the use thereof, the administrative authorities of the State shall ensure appropriate utilization of the monuments, corresponding to their value and technical condition.
(2) If the activity of an organization or an individual causes or could cause negative changes in the condition of a cultural monument or its environment, or endanger the preservation or public utilization thereof, the local authority of a municipality with extended competence and, where a national cultural monument is concerned, the regional authority shall set conditions for further continuation of such activity, or prohibit the activity.
(3) Where the decisions issued in accordance with special regulations may affect the interests of the state care of monuments concerning the protection or preservation of cultural monuments or their appropriate utilization, the administrative authorities and the regional or municipal authorities shall issue such decisions only in agreement with the local authority of a municipality with extended competence and, in the case of a national cultural monument, in agreement with the competent regional authority.
Section 12
Notification duty of the owners of cultural monuments
(1) The owner of a cultural monument shall notify the local authority of a municipality with extended competence without unnecessary delay of any danger threatening the cultural monument or any damage thereof and shall request its decision on how to remove the defect and remedy the situation. In the case of an immovable cultural monument which is a building the owner shall also notify the competent construction administration authority.3)
(2) The owner of a cultural monument shall notify the local authority of a municipality with extended competence in advance of any intended change in the use of the monument and in the case of an immovable cultural monument also of his intention to vacate it.

Selected judicial decisions:
6 A 28/94 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The proceedings under Section 12, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments concerning the request for a decision stipulating the manner in which a defect should be removed are an example of administrative proceedings under the Act on Administrative Procedure (Section 44 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments) which may be initiated only by a person or institution that is a party to the proceedings (Section 18, par. 1 of the Act on Administrative Procedure), in contrast to the cases where the agency of the state care of monuments initiates proceedings ex officio and issues a decision by which the owner of a cultural monument who neglects his duties is required to carry out certain measures (e.g. Section 10, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments). It cannot be inferred from the Monuments Act that the fulfilment of the notification duty is to be considered without further steps also as a motion to initiate the relevant administrative proceedings (a request for a decision determining the manner in which a defect should be removed), especially if the person fulfilling the notification duty expressly requests something else.
Even the administrative authority of first instance does not deny that the notification was actually a proposal for the demolition of the building ("The proposal of the petitioner to carry out demolition of the building... is not consistent with the interests of the state care of monuments"). Such proposal, however, should have been considered and decided upon by the construction administration authority with the appropriate territorial competence, to which the proposal should have been referred. The said construction administration authority would then be obliged to observe in the proceedings also the provision of Section 92, par. 1 of the Construction Act. An absolute lack of competence of the decision-making administrative authority is one of the most serious defects of administrative acts and causes the non-existence (nullity) of the act.

Section 13
Option of the State to purchase cultural monuments
(1) If the owner of a movable cultural monument or a national cultural monument intends to sell the monument (onerous transfer of the ownership title), he shall, prior to looking for another purchaser, offer it for purchase to the Ministry of Culture (onerous acquisition into State ownership), unless the transfer of ownership takes place between close persons or between joint owners.
(2) On the basis of the offer made by the owner of a cultural monument, the Ministry of Culture may, for cultural and social reasons of exceptional significance, exercise the pre-emption right of the State and purchase the monument (onerous acquisition into State ownership) either directly, or through organizations established by the Ministry of Culture. The price shall be determined in accordance with special legal regulations,4) and if this method cannot be used, the purchase price shall be the usual price paid for such an object under similar circumstances. The Ministry of Culture shall request of the owner a document or declaration on the ownership of the respective movable cultural monument.
(3) After having received the offer of purchase, the Ministry of Culture shall notify the owner of the cultural monument within three months in the case of movable cultural monuments and within six months in the case of immovable cultural monuments, counted as of the day of delivery of the offer, that it accepts the offer of purchase (onerous acquisition into State ownership), otherwise the pre-emption right of the State to purchase the cultural monument from its owner shall be extinct.
(4) If the owner of a cultural monument fails to observe his duty under paragraph 1, the legal act whereby he transferred the ownership title to the cultural monument to another person shall be null and void, provided that the Ministry of Culture claims such nullity. The Ministry of Culture may assert this right within three years of the day on which the aforementioned legal act was performed.
(5) The provision of paragraph 1 shall not prejudice the regulations governing non-onerous transfer of property into State ownership.6)
Section 14
Restoration in the wider sense of cultural monuments
(1) If the owner of a cultural monument intends to carry out maintenance, repair, reconstruction, restoration or other modification of the monument or its environment (hereinafter referred to as "restoration in the wider sense"), he shall request in advance a binding opinion of the local authority of a municipality with extended competence, or in the case of national cultural monuments, the binding opinion of the competent regional authority.
(2) The owner (keeper, user) of an immovable object which is not designated as a cultural monument, but is located in a monument reservation or a monument zone, or in the protective zone of an immovable cultural monument, an immovable national cultural monument, a monument reservation or a monument zone (Section 17) shall obtain from the relevant local authority of a municipality with extended competence in advance the binding opinion on any intended construction work, structural change or maintenance work on such property.
(3) The binding opinion under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall state whether the work specified therein is admissible from the viewpoint of the state care of monuments and shall define basic conditions under which such work may be prepared and carried out. The aforementioned basic conditions shall be defined with respect to the current state of knowledge of the cultural and historical values which must be preserved while the intended objective is being realized.
(4) In zoning and planning proceedings and in the proceedings concerning the licensing of construction, structural changes and maintenance work, which take place in connection with the redesigning of the territory in which the state care of monuments asserts its interest 9) or in connection with the restoration in the wider sense of an immovable cultural monument or in connection with construction work, structural changes or maintenance work on an immovable property under paragraph 2, the zoning authority or the construction administration authority shall decide in accordance with the binding opinion of the local authority of a municipality with extended competence or, where an immovable national cultural monument is concerned, with the binding opinion of the competent regional authority.
(5) If the intended restoration in the wider sense of an immovable cultural monument under paragraph 1 or, as the case may be, minor construction, structural modification or maintenance work on an immovable property under paragraph 2 may be carried out on the basis of notification, the construction administration authority may license such work only in accordance with the binding opinion of the local authority of a municipality with extended competence, or, where an immovable national cultural monument is concerned, with the binding opinion of the competent regional authority.
(6) After it has received in writing the opinion of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments, the competent agency of the state care of monuments under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall issue a binding opinion and, upon request of the aforementioned specialized organization, shall consult the draft of the opinion therewith before the termination of the proceedings.
(7) The owner of the cultural monument or the project designer11) and the specialized organization of the state care of monuments shall jointly review, in the course of its drafting, the preparatory and project-design documentation relating to the restoration in the wider sense of an immovable cultural monument or to construction, structural change or maintenance work on the immovable property under paragraph 2, as to the fulfilment of the conditions which may have been set in the binding opinion mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2. In the course of such reviewing, the specialized organization of the state care of monuments shall provide the necessary documents, information and professional assistance. At every completed stage of the documentation work, the specialized organization of the state care of monuments shall draw up a written opinion as a background for the binding opinion of the local authority of a municipality with extended competence and, where a national cultural monument is concerned, for the binding opinion of the competent regional authority.
(8) The restoration of cultural monuments, or parts thereof, which are works of art or artistic handicraft (hereinafter referred to as "restoration"), may be carried out by natural persons licensed under Section 14a, the term "restoration" meaning a group of specific artistic, handicraft and technical treatment techniques respecting the technical and artistic structure of the original.
(9) The owner of a cultural monument shall supply the specialized organization of the state care of monuments on request with one copy of the documentation.
(10) Detailed provisions concerning the conditions for the restoration in the wider sense of cultural monuments and for the drawing up of the documentation thereof shall be stipulated by a generally binding legal regulation.

Selected judicial decisions:
6 A 102/95 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
Under Section 19b, par. 1 of the Civil Code every legal person has a name which shall be determined at the time of its foundation. With commercial entities and cooperatives, the name under which they are registered in the Commercial Registry is a commercial name (in the new wording "commercial firm" – Sections 8 to 12 of the Code of Commerce, as amended by the Act No. 370/2000 Coll.). The commercial name of legal persons includes, as an addition, also the information about their legal form and status. (Section 9, par. 2 of the Code of Commerce). By the aforementioned decision a duty (to do something) was imposed on someone (something) who (what) probably did not even exist as a person (legal subject) at the time when the decision was issued. Such administrative act is considered by jurisprudence to be null and void.
7 A 28/94 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The fact that administrative proceedings and the decisions issued therein are addressed to a "non-subject" (a firm, a commercial name) as a party to the proceedings and not to the legal or natural person that should be
of the Act on Administrative Procedure by a mere change in the identification of the party at the head of the decision. The enclosed excerpt from the Commercial Registry clearly shows that the person registered is the businessman Vladimír T. and the commercial name was entered as "Vladimír T-T." The firm, identified as "T. Autoservis", is not and was not at the time when the contested decisions were issued neither a natural, nor a legal person and for this reason it also did not have any legal competence. The defendant, although he had the excerpt enclosed in his file as of October 20, 1993, (the excerpt was presented by the public prosecutor), did not solve the problem of the status of the parties and their proper identification.
18 Co 666/2000 (Decision of the Prague Municipal Court)
The controversy in question is a dispute among co-owners arising from a difference of opinions as to how the co-owned object should be managed in the sense of Section 139, par. 2 of the Civil Code. The provision states that in deciding on the management of the co-owned object, the decisive factor is the relative share of each of the owners – what is called a majority principle – while the question of whether the decision concerns routine or exceptional matters is not decisive. In reality this means that if a decision concerning the co-owned object is to be taken, it must be adopted by a majority (over 50%) of votes awarded according to the size of the individual shares. Only in those cases where there is a tie or where there is no majority and an agreement is not reached, any of the co-owners may bring an action to a court; in other cases the co-owners are obliged to respect the principle of majority rule. The only exception to this procedure concerns an important change of the co-owned object, but the dispute involves no such change. In such a case only the co-owners whose votes have been overridden may petition the court to decide on such a change and thus ensure their protection. The aforementioned facts clearly demonstrate that in arranging the relations among the co-owners by the application of the majority principle the petitioners do not need the consent of the defendant for additional authorization of structural changes since the defendant is obliged to respect the decision of the majority, calculated on the basis of the respective shares.
7 A 17/99 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
Section 14, par. 2 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments implies that the duty (and consequently also the right) to request the issuing of a binding opinion applies only to the owner, keeper or user of the relevant immovable property and that it is he who is a party to the proceedings concerning the request (comp. Section 14, par. 2 of the Act on Administrative Procedure). The documentation relating to the case and submitted to the court by the defendant indicates that the request for the opinion, dated November 13, 1996, and submitted by the company L., s r.o. concerned "the placement of the posts of municipal mobile stock of the JC. company in the territory of the town P." The request does not state that the company submits it as a representative of the petitioner or of another subject. The request does not indicate in what way it concerns the petitioner. It was submitted in the case concerning "JC company" (the files of the case do not contain sufficient proof of whether the subject identified in this way does indeed exist, or whether it is in fact non-existent – it cannot be inferred from the contents of the request that such identification relates to the petitioner or the JC. I. mentioned in the petition or another subject – see commercial names of the partners listed in the excerpt from the Commercial Registry). L., s r.o. submitted the request for an opinion, dated November 13, 1996, of its own initiative, not representing another subject, i.e. the owner, manager or user of the immovable property under the provision of Section 14, par. 2 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments.
The temporary leaving of an immovable property to another or the owner's authorization on the basis of which the petitioner submits requests for decisions by the competent administrative authority do not, however, in themselves confer on the petitioner the rights of the owner, manager or user within the meaning of Section 14, par. 2 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments. Therefore such acts cannot confer on him the status of a party to the proceedings that concern the petition of another subject.
6 A 197/94 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
If the decision of the administrative authority was delivered only to the party and not to its legal representative, although the letter of attorney giving the representative full authority to act on behalf of the party was properly enclosed in the files of the case, the decision could not take effect, because of the aforementioned deficiency in the fulfilment of the notification duty (Section 25, par. 3, Section 51, par. 1 of the Act on Administrative Procedure).
7 A 133/99 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The objection of the petitioner concerning the specification of the immovable property in the decision is also justified. The specification must correspond to the actual state of affairs at the time when the decision is issued and the individual items of immovable property must be identified in the same way in which they are registered in the cadastre. If such identification differs from the historical one, this fact may be mentioned in the part stating reasons for the decision. Only in this way the authority may exclude all doubts about the identity of the object to which the decision relates.
10 Ca 24/94 (Decision of the Prague Regional Court)
The decision of the land authority, which is to be reviewed, is incorrect in the part challenged by the legal remedy also because of its incomprehensibility and lack of justification due to which the decision is unreviewable. The verdict of a decision issued in administrative proceedings has to be quite definite and precise. This means that if the proceedings concern immovable property, all the immovable objects must be identified in the decision by their cadastral area, plot number and identification or registration number entered in the cadastre, as stipulated by Section 5, par. 1 of the Act No. 344/1992 Coll. (as in all documents which serve as a basis for entries in the cadastre).
7 A 121/95 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The aforementioned legislative provision (Section 14, par. 3 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments) gives the administrative authority the option to decide either a) positively, i.e. declare the admissibility of the planned work and set basic conditions under which such work may be prepared and carried out, or b) negatively, i.e. declare that such work is inadmissible, but without further statement of conditions. The administrative authority of first instance did not respect this provision since it is not clear from the verdict of the binding opinion formulated by it what was meant by its declaring the project documentation inadmissible and at the same time setting conditions. The setting of conditions would only be possible if the decision on the request were positive. It is therefore not clear whether in that particular case the administrative authority of first instance imposed a duty on the petitioner or whether it only recommended the petitioner how to proceed so that his potential new request might be admitted. If the administrative authority only intended to make a recommendation, such recommendation should not have been included in the verdict of the decision, but rather in the part stating reasons which support the binding opinion.
6 A 139/94 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The binding opinion itself does not expressly formulate any concrete obligations that the petitioner would have to fulfill. Rather, it refers to the expert opinion of the Heritage Institute, dated April 26, 1993, and also, rather vaguely, to the necessity to "accept the results of the structural and historical investigation and the restorer's examination". It presupposes the imposition of duties by other future acts originating without the involvement of the administrative authority.
Duties may be imposed only on the basis of statutory law and within the limits stipulated thereby (Article 4, par. 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms). The law (Section 14 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments) presupposes that the relevant duty will be imposed by an agency of the state care of monuments. It is this agency that is authorized to decide in administrative proceedings and grant rights or impose responsibilities by individual administrative acts.
6 A 139/94 (Verdict of the Prague High Court)
The court agrees that the defendant did not provide all the evidence on the basis of which the facts of the case could be accurately and completely established (Section 32, par. 1 of the Act on Administrative Procedure). The aforementioned clear inconsistency concerning a question that is crucial for the outcome of the decision cannot be overlooked. In similar cases, the administrative authority is obliged (under Section 3, par. 3 and 4, Section 32, par. 1 and Section 46 of the Act on Administrative Procedure) to provide further evidence, if possible, which would remove the inconsistency. In the aforementioned matter, such evidence could be furnished by means of an expert opinion (Section 36 of the Act on Administrative Procedure), supplied by an impartial specialist.
Only after the possibility to remove the existing inconsistencies by the submission of further evidence has been exhausted may the administrative authority begin to evaluate the evidence (Section 34, par. 5 of the Act on Administrative Procedure). However, if the whole substantiation process cannot remove inconsistencies in the available evidence, the administrative authority must state in the justification of its decision what was the nature of the inconsistency, what was done to remove it, why the effort was not successful, which parts of the evidence it took as the basis for its decision and which evidence it rejected (in other words, why it based its decision on particular facts of the case and not on the facts contrary to the aforementioned ones).
If the administrative authority did not proceed as indicated above, it decided, with no justification whatsoever, to accept only that part of the evidence supporting the hypothesis that the plaintiff had committed an offence under administrative law (Section 35, par. 1, letter (c) of the Act on the State Care of Monuments – “damage”, “loss of value”, “destruction”). The administrative authority thus did not take into account the evidence supporting claims to the contrary. Its decision consequently cannot be reviewed because of a lack of evidence; the court decided to declare the decision void.
2 B 94.2926 (Verdict of the Bavarian Administrative Court)
The planned use of white double-sashed plastic windows on the street front of the protected building should not be allowed because of vital interests of monument conservation involved in the case (Article 6, par. 2, first sentence of the Bavarian Act on Monument Conservation of 5 June, 1973). This fact cannot be successfully contested even by the claim that five wooden windows in the street front have already been replaced by plastic ones and that the façade no longer has its value as a monument. The vital interests of monument conservation “in the preservation of the existing condition without any changes” (Article 6, par. 2, first sentence of the aforementioned Bavarian Act on Monument Conservation) do not imply that the existing condition must have been satisfactory. The quoted wording only means that there are vital reasons connected with monument conservation, which prevent the planned alteration of the architectural monument. If the envisaged alteration of an already damaged cultural monument could not be recognised as legally significant because of the aforementioned earlier damage, the appearance and perhaps even the very substance of the architectural monument would be liable to complete “step-by-step” destruction. Such interpretation would run contrary to the purpose of the protection and would also be inconsistent with Article 141, par. 2 of the Constitution of Bavaria. The “vital reasons of monument conservation”, stipulated by law, are in the overwhelming majority of cases found to exist regardless of deplorable alterations to which the relevant architectural monuments had been subject in the past. Thus even in those cases where the existing condition does not correspond to the original condition, where the alteration of the condition was in accordance with relevant laws and regulations and where there are earlier damages, the planned alteration may be prevented by vital interests of monument conservation. In this case, the decisive issue was not whether the alteration of the front of the building was carried out before or after the granting of formal protection. The vital reasons of monument conservation preventing the envisaged alteration would no longer exist only if it were established that the architectural monument would become unusable in the near future.
The approach, based on established case law, is different to cases of disfiguring alterations dealt with in construction law, which uses as the main criterion aesthetic perception of an average educated person. The decision on whether the preservation of an architectural monument is in the public interest should rely much more on the state of scientific and expert knowledge since it is only experts who possess the knowledge and information needed to describe in an objective manner the interest in the preservation of a work of architecture that transcends interests of the individual.
The planned replacement of wooden windows by white double-sashed plastic windows could permanently damage the outward appearance of the architectural monument. In this respect, one must consider above all the principle of material veracity, veracity of work and of form. Any treatment of the architectural monument must be done using materials that correspond to the original materials used or are at least comparable to the existing substance. Adequate materials are usually only the traditional ones. Thus, the material to be used in the treatment of the monument in question is wood, which determines the appearance of the surface of the building and its profile. Plastic windows would not meet the aforementioned criteria. Although at present there are plastic windows from richly profiled material available on the market, their surface appearance is not consistent with the characteristics of the architectural monument in question. It cannot be denied that the first visual impression they produce is that of undifferentiated smoothness. The ageing of the material, too, does not conform to the required harmony of all materials used on the façade and their surface structure. The interests of monument conservation require that the selected new windows keep the building as close as possible to its original appearance. There is therefore nothing wrong with the defendant’s choice of wooden windows. Although the court agrees with the plaintiff that the use of wooden windows side by side with the earlier plastic replacements on the defendant’s building and the neighbouring buildings will lead to a state of things that can hardly be termed satisfactory, such temporary problem can be borne and from the point of view of monument conservation it is the lesser evil, compared to the possibility of further replacements by plastic windows. It was also pointed out that the plastic windows on neighbouring buildings were put in place in the 1970s, so it is possible to estimate when they will have to be replaced. The advantages of plastic windows as opposed to wooden ones, which the plaintiff emphasises, are not so significant as to prevail over the interests of monument conservation. If the plaintiff points out to the increased cost connected with the preservation of wooden windows, compared to the cost of plastic ones, it cannot be assumed that the cost is disproportionate to the utility value of a residential house and would thus exceed reasonable expectations. Moreover, the plaintiff may make use of tax allowances. If the plaintiff argues that, even before the coming into force of the Monument Conservation Act, the single-casement windows were covered by the requirement to protect the existing condition, the argument cannot be accepted since the ongoing proceedings do not concern the requirement of the relevant authority that the property be restored to its original condition (Article 15, par. 3 of the aforementioned law), but the required material and appearance of the windows that the plaintiff wants to use on the façade of his protected property. The protection of the status quo, which could result in the removal of the already mounted plastic windows, therefore plays no role here.

Section 14a
Licence for the restoration of a cultural monument
(1) The restoration of cultural monuments, or parts thereof, classified as works of visual arts or artistic handicraft may be carried out by a natural person with a clear criminal record and full competence to perform legal acts, on the basis of a licence (hereinafter referred to as "restoration licence").
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person without a clear criminal record shall mean anyone convicted of a criminal offence connected with restoration after the entry into force of the decision, unless the person is to be regarded as having never beeing convicted.
(3) The restoration licence shall be issued by the Ministry of Culture to a natural person upon the proof of his or her expert skills.
(4) Expert skills may be proved
a) by the fulfilment of formal qualification requirements and the passing of expert training for the restoration of cultural monuments, or parts thereof, classified as works of visual arts; these requirements include higher education obtained by graduating from an accredited masters programme11a) in the field of art with special focus on restoration, or higher education obtained by graduating from a masters programme in the relevant field and supplemented by a restoration studies certificate obtained in a lifelong learning programme,11a) or a higher education obtained by graduating from an accredited bachelors programme11a) in the field of art with a speciál focus on restoration, with two additional years of expert practice; as regards cultural monuments, or parts thereof, classified as works of artistic handicraft, the qualification requirements include further vocational education or completed secondary education in the field of restoration, or further vocational education or completed secondary vocational education in the respective field plus additional five years of expert practice; for those fields of restoration specialisation for for which no secondary schooling had been established, the qualification requirements include completed training in the respective field11b) plus additional eight years of practice in the restoration of objects not designated as cultural monuments; and
b) by the demonstration of professional capabilities, i.e. the knowledge and skills which guarantee the preservation of the material substance of the cultural monuments, or parts thereof, classified as works of visual arts or of artistic handicraft while respecting the authenticity of such works and products; the professional capabilities must be proved by the submission of the documents confirming that the natural person applying for the restoration licence has already independently and successfully restored objects not designated as cultural monuments.
(5) The restoration licence shall be issued on the basis of a written application which must include the description of the required restoration specialization, according to Annex 1 to the present Act. The application must be supplemented by
a) a filled-in questionnaire whose model copy can be found in Annex 2 to the present Act;
b) verified copies of documents proving the completion of the necessary vocational education, unless the applicant is the national of a European Union Member State other than czech Republic.
c) documentation on at least three objects not designated as cultural monuments, which have been restored by the applicant; the documentation on at least one case must not be older than two years; the work must correspond to the restoration spcialisation stated in the licence application.
(6) The documentation required under paragraph 4, letter b) must contain a comprehensive assessment of the results of relspective surveys and research, photographic material documenting the condition of the work before the start of the restoration, in the course of the individual restoration phases and after the completion of the restoration, the same as description of technical and technological procedures used and materials employed, the analysis and evaluation of any potentially
new information about the work, as well as instructions concerning the protected status of the work in the future.
(7) In the decision whereby the restoration licence is granted, the Ministry of Culture shall determine the restoration specialization in accordance with Annex 1 to the present Act as well as lay down further conditions relating to the practice of the profession, including the time period for which
the licence will be valid.
(8) The Ministry of Culture shall keep a list of restoration licence holders (hereinafter referrred to only as "holder list") wherein it shall enter:
a) name and surname of the natural person, his or her personal identification number, permanent and temporary residence;
b) his or her restoration specialization and the time period for which the restoration licence was granted;
c) changes of the above information;
d) withdrawal of the restoration licence or the suspension of the rights ensuing from the restoration licence.
The holder list shall be accessible to anyone who can prove a genuine legal interest in the case in question. The protection of personal data contained in the holder list shall be governed by a special legal regulation.11c)
(9) The holder of a restoration licence shall notify the Ministry of Culture without delay of any changes of the data listed in par. 8, letter a) and at he same time he or she shall within 30 days of the change submit to the Ministry documentary evidence thereof.
(10) The Ministry of Culture shall withdraw the restoration licence if the restoration licence holder:
a) was declared incompetent to perform legal acts or his competence thereto was limited by a court decision;
b) no longer meets the condition of having a clear criminal record;
c) in the course of the restoration clearly caused grave damane or clearly repeatedly cause a less serious damage to a cultural monument, or a part thereof, classified as a work of visual arts or artistic handicraft;
d) stated false data in his application under par. 5;
e) applied for the withdrawal of the restoration licence.
(11) The Ministry of Culture may decide to suspend restoration work carried out on the basis of a restoration licence if
a) criminal proceedings have been initiated against the holder of the licence and he or she may therefore in the future fail to meet the condition of a clear criminal record;
b) proceedings have been initiated to declare the restoration licence holder incompetent to perform legal acts or to limit his or her competence in this respect.
The suspension shall last until the entry into force of the decision whereby the proceedings are ended.
(12) The provisions of par. 1 shall not apply to natural persons who carry out restoration work as part of their regular studies in the field of restoration at a higher education establishment or at a vocational school included in the network of schools, institutions of pre-school care and other schooling institutions,11b) if the restoration work is conducted under the supervision of a teacher who is a restoration licence holder.
(13) A natural person who is the national of a European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic, shall obtain restoration licence from the Ministry of Culture after a formal recognition of his or her expert skills and personal integrity.
(14) The proceedings concerning the issuing of licence to a national of a European Union Member State other than Czech Republic shall be joined with the proceedings concerningthe recognition of expert skills and personal integrity of the aforementioned applicant.11d)

Selected judicial decisions:
19 C 45/2002 (Resolution of the District Court of Prague 6)
Under Section 14a, par. 3 and 5 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments, the Ministry of Culture shall issue the restoration licence to an individual upon the proof of his or her expert skills. The restoration licence is issued on the basis of a written application, which must contain a definition of the requested restoration specialisation according to Annex 1 to the said Act. The application must be supplemented by a filled-in registration questionnaire, verified copies of documents proving that the applicant possesses the required expert skills, and documentation on at least three objects that are not cultural monuments and have been restored by the applicant; the documentation on at least one case must not be older than two years.
According to the files of the case, the Ministry of Culture did not decide on the plaintiff’s application for the issuing of an additional licence for the stated restoration specialisation on 9 April, 2001, since the plaintiff had not supplied the necessary documents required under Section 14a, par. 5 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments.
19 Co 387/2003 (Resolution of the Prague Municipal Court)
Every state authority is authorised to deal only with issues within the scope of its competence. In the case in question, the defendant is the Czech Republic represented by the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic which, as the central authority of state administration, should decide on the issuing of restoration licences. The relation between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the plaintiff’s restoration licence cannot be considered a civil-law relation. The relevant proceedings cannot therefore be conducted under the Act on Civil Procedure because of the non-fulfilment of one of the essential procedural conditions – lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court.
5 A 63/2001 (Verdict of the Supreme Administrative Court)
The cited provision indicates that in the administrative proceedings concerning the withdrawal of a restoration licence under Section 14a, par. 10, letter (c) of the Act on the State Care of Monuments, the examination of evidence must be aimed to prove that the restoration licence holder has caused evident and grave damage of the cultural monument in question. If this is proved (following the due procedure), the restoration licence will be withdrawn.
In the first-instance decision as well as in the decision on remonstrance against the first-instance decision, the evaluation of certain parts of the evidence is missing. This concerns in particular expert opinions – both decisions only summarise their content, without treating them as evidence that should be evaluated in the context of other evidence. The contested decision cannot be reviewed, since the reasoning supporting the decision of the Minister is inadequate. It does not clearly indicate what led to the withdrawal of the restoration licence from the holder. It should be clear whether it was only the damage of the cultural monument, or the facts that are stated in the first-instance decision and in the decision on remonstrance, but in the decision that is subject to court review they are not related to the aforementioned damage.
If the decisions issued by the defendant or the Minister do not contain the identification number of the plaintiff, this cannot be seen as an error on the part of the defendant. As the defendant correctly stated, the plaintiff should be treated as a natural person, whose identification does not require special identification tools used in commercial relations.
Section 14b
Recognition of expert skills for the restoration of cultural monuments in cases concerning nationals of other European Union Member States than the Czech Republic

(1) The recognition of expert skills and personal integrity of a national of any European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as “applicant”) by the Ministry of Culture stall be governed by a special legal regulation.11e)
(2) The person authorised under a special legal regulation to carry out restoration work in the Czech Republic without applying for the recognition of his or her expert skills (hereinafter
referred to as “person authorised to carry out restoration work”)11f) shall notify the Ministry of
Culture in writing 30 days before the start of the restoration of his or her intention to carry out such work. The person authorised to carry out restoration work shall not be subject to the provision of Section 14a, par. 1.
(3) The notification under paragraph 2 shall include:
(a) name ad surname of the person authorised to carry out restoration work;
(b) mail address in the Czech Republic;
(c) planned time period during which restoration work will be carried out in the Czech Republic;
(d) field of restoration specialisation in which the person authorised to carry out restoration work intends to work in the Czech Republic;
(e) authorisation for the restoration of objects which have the characteristics of a cultural monument under Section 2 and which are works of visual arts or artistic handicraft, obtained in a European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic, or a certificate issued by the competent authority of a European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic and proving that the person is authorised to carry out restoration work in the state of origin or of his or her last residence in accordance with laws and regulations of the aforementioned state;
(f) certificate of formal qualifications issued in a European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic, or a document certifying that the person pursues the aforementioned activity under a special legal regulation;11e)
(g) documentation on the intended work mentioned in par. 2, with all details that are required in the case of a restoration application.11g)
(4) If the consideration of the notification under paragraph 2 reveals facts justifying concern that the person authorised to carry out restoration work could endanger or damage a cultural monument in the course of the restoration, or if the person authorised to carry out restoration work does not fulfill his or her notification duty, the Ministry of Culture shall prohibit the person from carrying out restoration until his or her expert skills are recognised under a special legal regulation.11e) In such a case, the Ministry of Culture shall be authorised to re-examine the expert skills of the person authorised to carry out restoration work in the manner stipulated in paragraph 1.
(5) The Ministry of Culture may prohibit the person authorised to carry out restoration work from carrying out restoration under paragraph 4 within 15 days from the delivery of the notification on the intention to carry out restoration, or within 30 days of the day on which it learned that the person authorised to carry out restoration work carries out restoration which endangers or damages a cultural monument.
(6) A remonstrance against the decision whereby the Ministry of Culture prohibits restoration under paragraph 4 shall not have suspensory effect.
(7) The Ministry of Culture shall keep a registry of persons authorised to carry out restoration work, in which it shall enter the following data:
(a) name ad surname of the person authorised to carry out restoration work;
(b) mail address in the Czech Republic; field of restoration specialisation;
(b) planned time period in which restoration work will be carried out in the Czech Republic;
(c) decision prohibiting restoration under paragraph 4.
The protection of personal data entered in the registry shall be governed by a special legal regulation. 11c)

Section 14c

(1) If the Ministry of Culture orders a compensation measure under a special legal regulation11h) and requires the applicant to pass a differential examination, the Ministry for Education, Youth and Sport shall designate, upon the request of the Ministry of Culture and within two months from the delivery of the request, the school where the applicant will pass the required differential examination according to the field of specialisation in which he or she wants to work in the Czech Republic.
(2) In its request under paragraph 1, the Ministry of Culture shall define the extent of the differential examination, which may include examination of both theoretical knowledge and practical skills of the applicant. The details of the content and form of the differential examination shall be determined by the designated school.
(3) If the Ministry of Culture orders a compensation measure under a special legal regulation11h) and requires the applicant to pass an adaptation period, the Ministry of Culture shall also determine:
(a) duration and professional focus of the adaptation period;
(b) knowledge required for carrying out restoration in the field of restoration specialisation in which the applicant wants to work in the Czech Republic;
(c) contents of the documentation on restoration work carried out during the adaptation period (the maximum of three restored works) and the manner of its evaluation;
(d) manner in which the outcome of the adaptation period will be evaluated.

(4) The applicant shall pass the adaptation period by undergoing expert training in restoration:
(a) in a museum or a gallery established by the Ministry of Culture or by a region, in the specialised organisation of the state care of monuments or in the National Library of the Czech Republic, if the aforementioned institutions have a restoration section with at least one employee who is the holder of a restoration licence for that field of restoration specialisation in which the applicant intends to work in the Czech Republic, or
(b) under the supervision of a natural person who is the holder of a restoration licence for that field of restoration specialisation in which the applicant intends to work in the Czech Republic and who is also a teacher of restoration in the same field of specialisation at a higher education establishment or an establishment of further vocational education, included in the network of schools and educational establishments. 11b)
(5) The theoretical knowledge and practical skills that constitute the content of higher education and training required for carrying out restoration work in the Czech Republic are defined in Annex 3 to the present Act.

Section 15
Measures to ensure care of cultural monuments
(1) If the owner of a cultural monument fails to carry out the measures specified in Section 10, par. 1 within the set time limit, the local authority of a municipality with extended competence and, in the case of a national cultural monument, the Ministry of Culture may decide that the measures necessary to ensure the protection of the cultural monument shall be carried out at the expense of the owner. If the relevant measures are not carried out by the keeper or user of the cultural monument which is in state ownership, the superior authority of the organization managing the monument or the superior authority of the organization to which the cultural monument was given for permanent use
shall take the necessary steps to remedy the situation, if requested to do so by the local authority of a municipality with extended competence or, in the case of a national cultural monument, by the Ministry of Culture.
(2) If important public interest so requires, a regional autority may of its own initiative or upon the proposal of the competent local authority of a municipality with extended competence or upon the proposal of the Ministry of Culture, where a movable cultural monument or a movable national cultural monument is concerned, impose on the owner of the cultural monument the duty to manage it in a specific manner or the duty to deposit it without payment with a specialized organization designated by the respective national committee.x)
(3) If the owner of a national cultural monument which is not in state ownership permanently neglects his duties and thus jeopardizes the preservation of the monument or if he uses the monument in a manner inconsistent with its cultural and political significance, heritage value or technical condition, the cultural monument may be in exceptional cases expropriated in the public interest, unless an agreement is reached with the owner about the sale of the monument to the State. The expropriation shall be decided on by the construction administration authority acting on the proposal of the respective local authority of a municipality with extended competence. In the case of an immovable national cultural monument the expropriation proceedings shall be initiated by the construction administration authority acting on the proposal of the competent regional authority. In other aspects, expropriation shall be governed by general legal regulations.12)
(4) If a cultural monument is in immediate danger, the municipality with the prior consent of the respective local authority of a municipality with extended competence shall carry out measures necessary for its protection. Where an immovable cultural monument which is a building is concerned, the municipality shall instruct the construction administration authority to order maintenance work, necessary modifications or essential work required to secure the structure, as defined by special regulations, and shall notify the relevant local authority of a municipality with extended competence and in the case of a national cultural monument also the competent regional authority of the measures taken. If a cultural monument is in public ownership, the municipality shall instruct also the authority superior to the organization that manages or owns the cultural monument.

Selected judicial decisions:

7 A 144/94 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
Section 15 enumerates what should follow if the owner of a cultural monument fails to carry out measures under Section 10, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments. In such a case the administrative authority shall issue a decision stating that the measures necessary to ensure the protection and preservation of the cultural monument (evidently not any measures under Section 10, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments, but only those necessary) shall be carried out at the expense of the owner.

Section 16
Financial contribution toward the preservation and reconstruction of cultural monuments
(1) The respective municipality or region may grant to the owner of a cultural monument at his request and in especially warranted cases a financial contribution from their budgetary resources, aimed at covering the increased cost of the preservation or restoration in the wider sense of the cultural monument for the purpose of its future more effective public utilization. The contribution may be granted also in those cases where owners of cultural monuments are unable to cover by their own means the cost of preservation or restoration in the wider sense of the cultural monument.
(2) Where there is an exceptional public interest in the preservation of a cultural monument, the restoration in the wider sense of the said monument may be partially covered by a contribution from the state budget, made by the Ministry of Culture either directly, or through the competent regional authority or local authority of a municipality with extended competence.
(3) Detailed provisions governing the contributions toward the preservation and restoration in the wider sense of a cultural monument shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.

Section 17
Protective zones
(1) If the protection of an immovable cultural monument or its environment so requires, the relevant local authority of a municipality with extended competence shall demarcate, after it has received the opinion of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments, a protective zone.14) The local authority of a municipality with extended competence may prohibit or restrict certain activities or adopt other suitable measures within the protective zone.
(2) If it is essential to acquire a specific piece of land or structures or to demolish structures in order to create a protective zone and no agreement thereon is reached with the owner thereof, the land and structures may be expropriated.15) Necessary modifications of a structure, another facility or land may also be ordered.
(3) Where an immovable national cultural monument, monument reservation, monument zone or their environment are to be protected, the relevant local authority of a municipality with extended competence shall demarcate the protective zone in like manner, acting on the proposal of the competent regional authority, after it has received the opinion of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments.
(4) If the owner or user of land which is not state property suffers material detriment in consequence of the measures taken in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, he shall be entitled to appropriate compensation which shall be provided by the municipality with extended competence.
(5) Detailed provisions governing the demarcation of a protective zone shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.

Section 18
Change of location of a cultural monument
(1) A national cultural monument and an immovable cultural monument or parts thereof (appurtenances) may be moved to a different location only with the prior consent of the Ministry of Culture.
(2) A movable cultural monument may be permanently relocated from a publicly accessible place only with the prior consent of the competent regional authority after it has received the opinion of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments.
(3) The authority that authorized the relocation of a cultural monument under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall notify the specialized organization of the state care of monuments of the relocation.

Section 19
Use of cultural monuments for scientific research or for exhibition purposes
(1) The owner of a cultural monument shall enable the persons authorized for that purpose by the agencies of the state care of monuments to carry out scientific research of the cultural monument or draw up its documentation. Where there is an important public interest, the owner of a movable cultural monument stall first hand the monument over to the specialized organization for temporary
use for the purpose of scientific research or for exhibition purposes at the expense of the said organization.

(2) The conditions under which a cultural monument or a national cultural monument is handed over for temporary use shall be determined by the competent regional authority after it has received the opinion of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments.

Section 20
Cultural monuments in relationship to other countries
(1) A cultural monument may be exhibited in another country, lent or taken thereto for other purposes only with the prior consent of the Ministry of Culture, and in the case of a national cultural monument with the prior consent of the Government of the Czech Republic.
(2) An object which exhibits the features of a cultural monument as defined in Section 2, par. 1 may be permanently taken from another country to the Czech Republic only with the prior consent of the competent agency of the state from which it is to be exported, provided that reciprocity in this respect is guaranteed.16)
(3) The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not affect the regulations governing economic relations with other countries.17)
(4) Detailed provisions governing the authorization of export of cultural monuments to other countries shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.

PART THREE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND FINDS
Section 21
Authority to conduct archaeological research
(1) Archaeological research may be carried out by the Archaeological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "Archaeological Institute").
(2) In warranted cases and upon request, the Ministry of Culture may, in agreement with the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, grant permission to carry out archaeological research to institutions of higher learning, if they do so for the realization of their scientific and educational tasks, as well as to museums or other organizations, or to a natural person, provided that they have the necessary prerequisites for professional conduct of archaeological research (hereinafter referred to as "authorized organization"). The authorized organization shall conclude with the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic an agreement on the scope and conditions of archaeological research in question.
(3) The necessary prerequisites under paragraph 2 include expert skills of the natural person applying for permission or expert skills of the natural person working for or engaged in a similar relationship with the person applying for permission, who will guarantee the required expertise in carrying out archaeological research. The prerequisites also include the necessary laboratory equipment and facilities needed for scientific study and documentation of archaeological finds and temporary storage of movable archaeological finds. The aforementioned expert skills shall be attested by a proof of formal qualifications, i.e. higher education obtained by graduating from an accredited masters programme11a) in social sciences with focus on archaeology, with additional 2 years of expert training.
(4) The authorized organization shall notify the Archaeological Institute that it has commenced archaeological research and shall submit thereto a report on the results of such research. If the archaeological research is to be carried out in an area designated as a cultural monument, a national cultural monument, a monument reservation, or a monument zone, the Archaeological Institute and the authorized organizations shall report the commencement of the archaeological research to the specialized organization of the state care of monuments, whereto they shall also submit a report on the results of such research.
(5) Acting in agreement with the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, the Ministry of Culture may withdraw the permit to carry out archaeological research, if the authorized organization fails to respect the conditions under which the permit had been issued.
(6) A natural person who is the national of a European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic shall obtain from the Ministry of Culture a permission to carry out archaeological research under conditions stipulated in paragraph 2, after the formal recognition of his or her expert skills.
(7) The proceedings in which a permit to carry out archaeological research is to be issued to a national of a European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic shall be joined with the proceedings concerning the recognition of expert skills of the aforementioned person.11d)

Section 21a
Recognition of expert skills for the conduct of archaeological research in cases concerning national of other European Union Member States than the Czech republic
(1) The recognition of expert skills of a national of a European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as “candidate”) by the Ministry of Culture shall be governed by a special legal regulation.11e)
(2) The person authorised under a special legal regulation to carry out archaeological research in the Czech Republic without applying for the recognition of his or her expert skills (hereinafter referred to as “person authorised to carry out research”)11f) shall notify the Ministry of Culture in writing at least 60 days before the commencement of the research of his or her intention to carry out such research. The person authorised to carry out research shall not be subject to the provision of Section 21, par. 2.
(3) The notification under paragraph 2 shall include:
(a) name ad surname of the person authorised to carry out research;
(b) mail address in the Czech Republic;
(c) planned time period during which archaeological research will be carried out in the Czech Republic;
(d) place where the research is to be carried out;
(e) justification of the research;
(f) description of expert methods and techniques to be used in carrying out archaeological research;
(g) authorisation to carry out archaeological research, obtained in a European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic, or a certificate issued by the competent authority of a European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic and proving that the person is authorised to carry out archaeological research in the state of origin or of his or her last residence in accordance with laws and regulations of the said state;
(h) certificate of formal qualifications issued in a European Union Member State other than the Czech Republic, or a document certifying that the relevant person pursues the aforementioned activity under a special legal regulation;11e)
(i) agreement with a museum on the deposit of movable archaeological finds uncovered during archaeological research.
(4) If the consideration of the notification under paragraph 2 reveals facts justifying concern that the person authorised to carry out research could endanger or damage archaeological finds in the course of the research, or if the person authorised to carry out research does not fulfil his or her notification duty, the Ministry of Culture shall prohibit the person from carrying out archaeological research until his or her expert skills are recognised under a special legal regulation.11e) In such a case, the Ministry of Culture shall be authorised to re-examine the expert skills of the person authorised to carry out research in the manner stipulated in paragraph 1.
(5) The Ministry of Culture may prohibit the person authorised to carry out research from carrying out archaeological research under paragraph 4 within 30 days from the delivery of the notification on the intention to carry out restoration, or within 60 days of the day on which it learned that the person authorised to carry out research carries out archaeological research which endangers or damages archaeological finds.
(6) A remonstrance against the decision issued by the Ministry of Culture whereby archaeological research is prohibited under paragraph 4, does not have suspensory effect.
(7) The Ministry of Culture shall keep a registry of candidates who were granted the permit to carry out archaeological research and of persons authorised to carry out research, in which it shall enter the following data:
(a) name and surname of the candidate who was granted the permit to carry out archaeological research;
(b) name ad surname of the person authorised to carry out research;
(c) mail address in the Czech Republic;
(d) planned time period during which the person authorised to carry out research will carry out archaeological research in the Czech Republic;
(e) decision prohibiting archaeological research under paragraph 4.
The protection of personal data entered in the registry shall be governed by a special legal regulation. 11c)

Section 21b
(1) If the Ministry of Culture orders a compensation measure under a special legal regulation11h) and requires the applicant to pass a differential examination, the Ministry for Education, Youth and Sport shall designate, upon the request of the Ministry of Culture and within 2 months from the delivery of the request, the higher education establishment where the applicant will pass the required differential examination.
(2) In its request under paragraph 1, the Ministry of Culture shall define the extent of the differential examination, which may include examination of both theoretical knowledge and practical skills of the candidate. The details of the content and form of the differential examination shall be determined by the designated school.
(3) The theoretical knowledge and practical skills that constitute the content of higher education and training required for carrying out archaeological research in the Czech Republic are defined in Annex 4 to the present Act.

Section 21c
Duties imposed on authorised organisations in Section 21, par. 4, Section 22, Section 23, par. 3, and Section 24 shall apply also to the person authorised to carry out archaeological research.

Section 22
Conduct of archaeological research
(1) Prior to the commencement of archaeological research, the Archaeological Institute and authorized organizations shall conclude with the owner (keeper, user) of the real property where the archaeological research is to be carried out an agreement on the conditions under which the research is to be conducted. If such an agreement is not reached, the competent regional authority shall decide on the obligations of the owner (keeper, user) of the real property in question as to permitting the conduct of archaeological research and as to the conditions under which the research may be carried out.
(2) If construction work is to be carried out in an area containing archaeological finds, the builders shall report their intention to carry out such work already at the preparatory stage of construction to the Archaeological Institute and permit the Institute or an authorized organization to conduct protective archaeological research in the area concerned. If the builder is a legal person or a natural person whose business activities gave rise to the necessity of the protective archaeological research, the cost of such research shall be borne by the builder; in other cases the cost shall be borne by the organization conducting the research. The same procedure shall be applied to the cases where the area containing archaeological finds is to be affected by another activity which could endanger the conduct of archaeological research.

Selected judicial decisions:
5 A 8/2000 (Resolution of the Prague High Court)
In the case in question the decision of the defendant as well as the decision of the administrative authority of first instance, with regard to the formulation of the verdict in both cases, imposes duty only on S., the duty being to permit the conduct of archaeological research under the conditions defined in the verdict of the decision. This duty of the builder to permit the conduct of protective archaeological research, against which the builder did not object, however, implies only that the petitioner was entitled, not obliged to carry out such research. This right, which the petitioner could but need not have used, was conferred on the petitioner only by the said decision, because no provision of the Act on the State Care of Monuments implies that the petitioner would have a monopoly right to conduct archaeological research. The aforementioned law in its Section 21, par. 1 stipulates in a general manner that archaeological research shall be conducted by the Archaeological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Paragraph 2 of the same Section states that the Ministry of Culture may in warranted cases after agreement with the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic authorize also other subjects listed in that provision to conduct archaeological research.
From the aforementioned facts it is evident that archaeological research may be conducted, apart from the petitioner, also by other authorized organizations. Since neither the Act on the State Care of Monuments, nor another legal regulation stipulate any subjective right of the petitioner to carry out (under specified conditions) archaeological research in that particular case and the authorization, but not the duty, to conduct protective archaeological research at the K. castle ensued only from the challenged decision, the court has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner could not have been deprived by the aforementioned decision of rights which he does not possess, or which he did not possess before the coming into force of the decision.
If the petitioner did not wish to exercise his right to conduct protective archaeological research, because he does not have enough resources to do so, he need not have exercised the aforementioned right and would not thus have incurred any expenses connected with its conduct.
59 Ca 59/2002 (Verdict of the Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem)
The statement of the District Museum in Č. of 13 August 2001 indicates that the construction added to the vestry of the Church of St. Wenceslas is located in the area containing archaeological finds, e.g. a gothic church, a fortified Slavonic settlement, a fortified settlement from the Early Iron Age etc. It is undeniable that the Archaeological Institute was not notified of the planned construction work. As the court has already stated above, the breach of the notification duty under Section 22, par. 2 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments entails liability regardless of the degree of blame. The duty must be fulfilled regardless of whether the relevant person knew that the area contained archaeological finds and regardless of the extent to which the construction work affected the archaeological site. The relevant person cannot be relieved of the liability for the breach of the aforementioned duty even if the archaeological finds in question had been subject to earlier interference. The court emphasises that the plaintiff is not authorised to pass judgements on whether the locality contains anything interesting from the archaeological point of view, because earlier excavation work had reached great depth and the excavated material had been transported away to a waste disposal site. As stipulated in Section 23, par. 1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments, archaeological find is an object (a set of objects) which is a document or remnant of man’s life and activity from the beginning of his development to the present age and has been preserved usually underground. The word “usually” means that the concept of an archaeological find may also cover objects (sets of objects) not located underground. Even if the claim of the plaintiff that the archaeological site has not been damaged is true, it does not relieve the plaintiff from her liability for the breach of the duty to notify the Archaeological Institute. If the plaintiff objected that it was unclear to what other authorised organisation she should report, the court points out that Section 22, par. 2 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments makes quite clear that the notification should always be made to the Archaeological Institute. Another authorised organisation may only be authorised to carry out archaeological research under Section 22, par. 1 of the aforementioned Act. The imposition of a fine for the breach of the notification duty under Section 22, par. 2 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments was thus found to be in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.

Section 23
Archaeological finds
(1) An archaeological find is an object (set of objects) which is a document or remnant of man's life and activity from the beginning of his development up to the present age and has been preserved usually underground.
(2) An archaeological find not made during archaeological research shall be reported to the Archaeological Institute or to the nearest museum, either directly, or through the municipality in whose territorial district it was found. The archaeological find shall be reported by the finder or by the person responsible for the conduct of the work during which the find was made no later than on the second day after the find or after the aforementioned person learned of the find.
(3) An archaeological find and the place of the find shall be left intact until they have been examined by the Archaeological Institute or by a museum, but always for the minimum period of five work days following the report of the find. The Archaeological Institute and an authorized organization shall take all steps necessary for the immediate protection of the archaeological find in the place of the finding, especially the protection against damage, destruction or theft.
(4) Where an archaeological find specified in paragraph 2 is involved, the finder shall be entitled to a reward which shall be given to him by the competent regional authority and which shall equal the sum corresponding to the value of the material of the find, if the archaeological find is made of precious metals or other valuable materials, and in other cases it shall be a sum up to ten per cent of the cultural and historical value of the find, determined on the basis of an expert opinion. The finder shall also be entitled to the compensation of the necessary expenses incurred by him in connection with the archaeological find. The decision regarding the compensation shall be adopted and the compensation shall be paid by the competent regional authority. Detailed provisions governing the provision of reward and compensation to the finder shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.
(5) In the case of immovable archaeological finds which have been designated as cultural monuments, the competent regional authority shall designate an organization established by the regional administration, which will be responsible for the care of these monuments. If the aforementioned archaeological finds are located on land which is in state ownership, the responsible organization shall be designated by the competent regional authority in agreement with the body superior to the organization which manages or uses the immovable property. If an immovable archaeological find designated as a cultural monument is located in an area which falls under the jurisdiction of several regions, the organization which is to take care of the cultural monument shall be designated, after prior consultation with the Ministry of Culture, by the relevant regional authorities in mutual agreement, and if an agreement is not reached, the aforementioned organization shall be designated by the Ministry of Culture.
(6) All movable archaeological finds are the state property and as a rule shall be deposited in museums.
(7) Archaeological finds made in connection with the preparation or realization of a construction project shall be governed by special regulations.18)

Selected juducial decisions

1 T 66/2002 (Verdict of the District Court in Příbram)
The dispute concerned the amount of damages caused. According to the findings of the Regional Court, the method used by the Archaeological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic cannot be accepted. Using this method, the expert estimated the number of artefacts, determined their value in relation to prices on the market (where they can be legally sold) and multiplied the sum thus calculated by a coefficient reflecting the information value of the artefacts connected with their placement in the relevant historical stratum, or more precisely, reflecting the loss of such value.
The court believes that another method, based on determining the cost of preventive archaeological research, should be accepted in order to arrive at an objective calculation of the claim amount. An expert has estimated the cost of archaeological works at CZK xxx per square metre. This estimate of the cost is based on his experience and professional knowledge. In his testimony, the expert provided a convincing explanation of the method whereby he arrived at the final sum and the court accepted his conclusions. As the expert stated, the cost of the preventive archaeological research is included in the price of the land. The loss is thus expressed in a manner corresponding to Section 89, par. 12 of the Criminal Code, since, if the owner decided to sell the land, the buyer would pay the cost determined in the aforementioned way as part of the purchase price.

Section 24
Compensation for property loss
(1) When conducting archaeological research, the Archaeological Institute and authorized organizations shall respect interests protected under special regulations, collaborate with the agencies entrusted with the protection of these interests, and protect to the utmost the rights and warranted interests of the owners (keepers, users) of immovable or other property.
(2) If the owner (keeper, user) of an immovable or other property is substantively limited by the archaeological research or by measures taken to protect an archaeological find in the normal use of such property, he shall be entitled to receive from the Archaeological Institute or the authorized organization an appropriate lump-sum compensation. After the completion of the work, the Archaeological Institute or the authorized organization shall restore the immovable or other property concerned to its previous condition. If this is not possible or economically effective, the owner (keeper, user) of the immovable or other property shall be entitled to financial compensation.
(3) The claim to compensation for property loss under paragraph 2 shall be asserted with the Archaeological Institute or the authorized organization within six months of the day on which the archaeological research or the measures to protect an archaeological find have been completed, or else the claim shall become null and void. If no agreement is reached on the compensation and its amount, the sum shall be determined by the competent regional authority.


PART FOUR
AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STATE CARE OF MONUMENTS

Section 25
Organizational system of the state care of monuments
(1) State care of monuments shall be exercised by agencies of the state care of monuments which term includes the Ministry of Culture, regional authorities and local authorities of municipalities with extended competence.
(2) The specialized organization of the state care of monuments shall be subordinated to the Ministry of Culture.
(3) Agencies of the state care of monuments in cooperation with other administrative authorities and with the expert assistance of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments, scientific, artistic and other specialized organizations and institutes, shall ensure that the state care of monuments is exercised in a planned manner, comprehensively and with due differentiation, and in keeping with the long-term concept of its development.

Section 26
Ministry of Culture
(1) The Ministry of Culture is the central administrative authority responsible for cultural monuments in the Czech Republic.
(2) The Ministry of Culture shall
a) draw up prognoses, strategies and proposals of long-term prospects of development of the state care of monuments;
b) draw up, publicize and carry out programmes of comprehensive care of cultural monuments, create best possible conditions for such care, consider proposals for a long-term, medium-term and implementation plans relating to the restoration in the wider sense of monuments;
c) provide guidance for the cultural and educational utilization of national cultural monuments and the cultural and educational utilization of other cultural monuments in accordance with the interests of the State's cultural policy;
d) coordinate scientific research in the field of the state care of monuments;
e) decide on the establishment, division, integration and fusion of institutions as well as on other changes of organization in the field of the state care of monuments;
f) establish as its expert consultative body a scientific council for the state care of monuments;
g) cooperate with the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic in the training of personnel in the field of the state care of monuments, attend to the continued education thereof and, to reward the personnel for exceptional work achievements, award a prize in the field of heritage care;
h) ensure international cooperation in the field of the state care of monuments;
i) issue the statutes of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments which shall be a state contributory organization with nationwide competence;
j) fulfill other tasks assigned to it under the present Act.

Section 27
Monument inspection agency
(1) The Ministry of Culture shall establish a monument inspection agency as its specialized inspection body in the field of the state care of monuments. The main purpose of the monument inspection agency shall be the exercise of central inspection over the observance of the provisions of the present Act and of regulations issued for the implementation thereof.
(2) The monument inspection agency shall carry out in particular the following tasks:
a) oversee the realization of the comprehensive care of cultural monuments;
b) oversee the observance of decisions made by the agencies and bodies of the state care of monuments in order to ensure care of cultural monuments and the performance of the obligations borne by the owners (managers, users) of cultural monuments;
c) on the basis of inspection findings analyze the situation of the state care of monuments and propose measures for the improvement thereof.
(3) In the performance of its duties, the monument inspection agency shall cooperate with agencies of the state care of monuments as well as with other administrative authorities, supervisory agencies, regions, municipalities and the specialized organization of the state care of monuments, and it shall rely on the assistance thereof.
(4) If the monument inspection agency uncovers any shortcomings in the care of cultural monuments, it shall propose to the competent agency of the state care of monuments measures aimed at eliminating the ascertained shortcomings and, if necessary, also the imposition of a fine, and shall attend to proper implementation of the ordered measures.
(5) Detailed provisions governing the duties and the authority of the monument inspection agency shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.

Section 27a
(1) Customs offices
a) control the observance of the prior consent of the Ministry of Culture or the prior consent of the Government of the Czech Republic (Section 20, par.1) and watch if a cultural monument or a national cultural monument exhibited in another country, lent or taken thereto for another purposes was returned in good condition,
b) concerning the objects which exhibit the features of a cultural monument as defined in Section 2, par. 1 and are supposed to be permanently taken from another country to the Czech Republic, control if their transport is realised with the prior consent of the competent agency of the state from which they are to be exported, provided that reciprocity in this respect is guaranteed,16)
c) participate in documentation, research and surveys, i.e. movable cultural monuments.
(2) In the performance of their duties, the customs offices cooperate with the agencies of the state care of monuments. Once uncovering any shortcomings in the care of cultural monuments, the customs offices suggest the competent agencies of the state care of monuments the necessary steps to remedy the situation or submit the proposals of commencement of the proceedings in accordance with sections 35 and 39 to the above mentionned agencies.

Section 28
Regional authorities
(1) Regional authorities methodically organize the state care of monuments in their respective territories.
(2) Regional authorities shall
a) carry out the tasks of the agency of the state care of monuments for national cultural monuments, unless such tasks fall within the competence of the Ministry of Culture;
b) oversee within the scope of their competence the observance of the provisions of the present Act as well as of the regulations issued for the implementation thereof;
c) exercise state construction inspection during the restoration in the wider sense of national cultural
monuments, taking the perspective of the state care of monuments;
d) fulfill other tasks assigned to them by the present Act.

Section 28a
Region
(1) The region in the field of its independent competence
a) approves the regional concept of development of the state care of monuments in accordance with the development strategy of the state care of monuments in the Czech Republic and after consultation with the Ministry of Culture;
b) approves drafts of long-term, medium-term and implementation plans for the restoration of cultural monuments;
c) provides guidance as regards cultural and educational utilization of cultural monuments in the region.

Section 29
Local authorities of municipalities with extended competence
(1) Local authorities of municipalities with extended competence exert and organize the state care of monuments in their respective administrative districts in accordance with the development strategy of the state care of monuments in the Czech Republic.
(2) Local authorities of municipalities with extended competence shall
a) participate in the drafting of the regional strategy of support for the state care of monuments and in the drafting of medium-term and implementation plans and programmes for the restoration in the wider sense of cultural monuments;
b) ensure the necessary prerequisites for comprehensive care of cultural monuments;
c) direct care of cultural monuments realized by the municipalities;
d) exercise state administration in the sphere of the state care of monuments, unless such administration is assigned to another agency of the state care of monuments under the present Act;
e) coordinate the uniform designation of immovable cultural monuments by a plate with the inscription "Cultural monument" and with the great state sign or, possibly, also by the symbols adopted in international treaties;
f) exercise state construction inspection during the restoration in the wider sense of cultural monuments, taking the perspective of the state care of monuments;20)
g) attend within the scope of their competence to the observance of the provisions of the present Act and of the regulations issued for the implementation thereof;
h) fulfill other tasks assigned to them under the present Act.
(3) In the fulfilment of their tasks, local authorities of municipalities with extended competence shall rely on the professional assistance of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments.
(4) Detailed provisions governing the manner in which local authorities of municipalities with extended competence should ensure the conditions and prerequisites for comprehensive care of cultural monuments shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.

Section 30
Municipality
(1) Municipalities shall take care of cultural monuments in their respective territories and oversee how the owners carry out duties imposed on them by the present Act. In doing so, the municipalities shall base their decisions on the expert opinion of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments.
(2) Depending on local conditions and after consultation with the respective local authority of a municipality with extended competence, municipalities may set up a legal person or an organizational branch for the restoration in the wider sense of cultural monuments.
Section 31
Commissions of the state care of monuments, conservator of the state care of monuments and reporters of the state care of monuments
(1) For an all-round consideration and coordination of the tasks of the state care of monuments, regional councils and councils of municipalities with extended competence shall set up, according to need, commissions of the state care of monuments as working commissions.21)
(2) Local authorities of municipalities with extended competence shall appoint, after having received the opinion of the specialized organization of the state care of monuments, a conservator of the state care of monuments (hereinafter referred to as "conservator") as a voluntary worker. The conservator shall be a member of the commission of the state care of monuments established by the council of a municipality with extended competence.
(3) The conservator shall systematically observe the condition of cultural monuments, report to the local authority of the respective municipality with extended competence about their condition, about the care devoted to them and about their utilization. He/she shall propose to the said authority necessary measures and help raise public awareness of the cultural monuments and of the state care of monuments.
(4) Acting on the proposal of the conservator, the local authority of a municipality with extended competence may entrust voluntary workers in a specifically designated area with the function of a reporter of the state care of monuments (hereinafter referred to as "reporter") who cooperates with the conservator in the performance of his or her duties.
(5) The work of the conservator and of the reporter shall be controlled and organized by local authorities of municipalities with extended competence. They shall receive in this respect professional assistance from the specialized organization of the state care of monuments.
(6) Detailed provisions on the tasks of conservators and reporters shall be set by a generally binding legal regulation.

Section 32
Specialized organization of the state care of monuments
(1) Specialized organization of the state care of monuments is an organization entrusted with the exercise and coordination of all professional activities in the sphere of the state care of monuments, ensuring the unity of cultural and political intentions and ideological, methodological, economic and technological viewpoints, as well as the prospective development of the state care of monuments.
(2) The specialized organization of the state care of monuments shall
a) elaborate analyses of the condition and development of the state care of monuments, prepare background material for prognoses, strategies and long-term development prospects of the state care of monuments;
b) organize, coordinate and carry out research tasks of the state care of monuments and elaborate the theory and methodology of the state care of monuments and the methodology of public utilization of cultural monuments;
c) carry out the tasks of an expert body for methodology, documentation and information in the field
of the state care of monuments and ensure surveys, research and documentation of cultural monuments, monument reservations and monument zones;
d) keep a central registry of cultural monuments;
e) draw up expert opinions and background material for the Ministry of Culture, especially as regards the designation of objects as cultural monuments;
f) process the necessary expert opinions and background material for other agencies of the state care of monuments, provide methodological guidance to conservators and reporters in their work and free professional assistance to the owners of cultural monuments in ensuring the appropriate care of the cultural monuments;
g) ensure professional supervision of the comprehensive care of cultural monuments and of their systematic utilization;
h) monitor cultural and educational utilization of cultural monuments and the promotion of public awareness thereof and ensure the cultural and educational utilization and accessibility of the cultural monuments under its own management;
i) provide for continued education of the personnel in the field of the state care of monuments;
j) fulfill other tasks in the field of the state care of monuments, entrusted to it by the Ministry of Culture.
(3) With the consent of the Ministry of Culture and after consultation with the respective regions, the specialized organization of the state care of monuments shall set up regional and possibly other local professional branches (centres) for the performance of the activities concerning the state care of monuments in the areas in question.

Section 33
Abolished.
Section 34
Authority of the agencies and the specialized organization of the care of monuments
(1) The competent agency or specialized organization of the state care of monuments shall issue to persons entrusted with the implementation of the tasks of the state care of monuments a certificate on the basis of which they are authorized to:
a) enter enterprises, factories, facilities, objects and other kinds of immovable property;
b) perform therein the necessary expert work for the protection of cultural monuments or for scientific purposes, in particular documentation and conservation purposes, as well as expert supervision;
c) demand for this purpose the provision of necessary information and explanation;
d) examine relevant documents.
(2) In the performance of the activities under paragraph 1, persons authorized to exercise the duties of the state care of monuments may be acquainted with economic and official secrets of the state only if they have been appointed for the task under special regulations.22) When acquainted therewith, they shall respect the interests of national defense as well as state, economic and official secrets. They shall perform their tasks in such a way as not to limit organizations in their activities or individuals in the exercise of their rights more than is necessary.
(3) Entry into the premises and facilities of the armed forces and armed corps shall be governed by special regulations.23)

PART FIVE
MEASURES AGAINST BREACHES OF OBLIGATIONS
Fines imposed on legal persons and natural persons acting in the conduct of their business activities
Section 35
(1) The competent local authority of a municipality with extended competence shall impose a fine up to CZK 100.000,-- on a legal person or a natural person licensed to conduct business if such persons in the conduct of their business activities
a) have failed to protect an object against damage, destruction or theft from the day on which they were notified that a proposal had been submitted to designate the object as a cultural monument or that the Ministry of Culture intends to designate the object as such of its own initiative, till the day on which the Ministry of Culture made the decision;
b) have failed to perform their notification duty under Section 3, par. 5, Section 12 and Section 14b, par.2 of the present Act;
c) have failed to attend to the preservation of a cultural monument, do not maintain it in good condition, use it in a manner inconsistent with its cultural and political importance, heritage value or technical condition, do not protect it against danger, damage or loss of value or have devaluated or destroyed it;
d) have failed to respect the conditions set in the decision demarcating the protective zone of an immovable cultural monument, an immovable national cultural monument, a monument reservation or a monument zone;
e) restore a cultural monument without having obtained the binding opinion of the relevant local authority of a municipality with extended competence or have failed to respect the conditions specified in such binding opinion;
f) have moved an immovable cultural monument without the prior consent of the Ministry of Culture;
g) carries out restoration of cultural monuments under Section 14, par. 8, using services of natural persons who are not licensed by the Ministry of Culture;
h) have been carrying out construction work, making structural changes or doing maintenance work on an immmovable property which is not a cultural monument, but is located in a monument reservation, a monument zone, or a protective zone of an immovable cultural monument, immovable national cultural monument, monument reservation or monument zone without having obtained the binding opinion of the relevant local authority of a municipality with extended competence under Section 14, par. 2, or have failed to respect the conditions specified in such binding opinion.
i) have been carrying out restoration of a cultural monument regardless of the prohibition imposed under Section 14b, par.4.
(2) The competent regional authority shall impose a fine up to CZK 500.000,-- on a legal person or a natural person licensed to conduct business if such persons in the conduct of their business activities
a) have failed to attend to the preservation of a national cultural monument, do not maintain it in good condition, use it in a manner inconsistent with its cultural and political importance, heritage value or technical condition, do not protect it against danger, damage or loss of value or have devaluated or destroyed it;
b) restore a national cultural monument without having obtained the binding opinion of the relevant regional authority acting within the sphere of delegated competence, or have failed to respect the conditions specified in the such binding opinion;
c) carries out a restoration of a national cultural monument under Section 14, par. 8 using services of natural persons who are not licensed by the Ministry of Culture;
d) have moved a national cultural monument without the prior consent of the Ministry of Culture or have permanently moved a movable cultural monument from a publicly accessible place without the prior consent of the competent regional authority;
e) have lent abroad or attempted to take or have taken abroad a cultural monument without the prior consent of the Ministry of Culture, have lent abroad or attempted to take or have taken abroad a national cultural monument without the prior consent of the Government of the Czech Republic;
f) have failed to fulfil the notification duty under Section 21, par. 3, Section 21a, par.2 or Section 22, par. 2 of the present Act;
g) have been conducting archaeological research in breach of Section 21, par. 2;
h) carries out archaeological research regardless of the prohibition imposed under Section 21a, par.4.


Selected judicial decisions:
7 A 155/94 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
Entities with no legal subjectivity, such as an enterprise owned by a natural person, or a commercial name as a mere identification of the businessman as a natural person for the performance of legal acts in the conduct of his business, have no personality in the legal sense, they are mere objects of rights and responsibilities. A commercial name is not identical with nor representative of the actual natural person, it cannot acquire rights nor take on responsibilities, it cannot sue or be sued, there can be no execution proceedings directed against it etc.: similarly, it does not have the attributes which the law gives to legal persons.
In this case it was only the natural person, František H., not the name, "firma František H., řezník-uzenář" that had the capacity to be the subject of rights and responsibilities and the capacity to perform legal acts, i.e. also the capacity to participate in administrative proceedings and be the addressee of a decision.
By the decision challenged in this court, the administrative authorities of both instances imposed a duty on a non-subject, a non-person, i.e. on something that, under the present legal system, is not capable of having it. Such defect logically prevents enforcement of the decision, since an execution, regardless of whether judicial or administrative, may be directed only against a person, i.e. someone capable of having rights and responsibilities, not something that cannot, in the legal sense, be a subject of any right or responsibility.
5 A 63/97 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
When the law speaks about persons that "restore a cultural monument without having obtained the binding opinion of the relevant district national committee" or an agency of the state care of monuments within the meaning of Section 35, par. 1, letter e) of the Act on the State Care of Monuments, who is meant is the owner of a cultural monument or, possibly, its user, not a legal person (in this case the petitioner) which only on the basis of a private law relationship performs for the owner or user of the cultural monument the actual restoration work (similarly see the term "builder" in the construction authorization proceedings and the responsibility of the builder, as opposed to the person supplying construction work ("contractor"). It is impossible to impose the fine for the aforementioned breach of law on this legal person ("contractor").
A different case would have been if the owner of a cultural monument had fulfilled his legal obligations, if he had requested in advance the necessary binding opinion, had informed the contractor that the object is designated as a cultural monument (Section 9, par. 4 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments) and acquainted him with the binding opinion, but the contractor would not observe the conditions stated in the opinion in his work. In this case the sanction imposed on those who cause the destruction or a loss of value of a cultural monument may be applied directly to the contractor, since it is a sanction for a breach of obligation stipulated in Section 9, par. 3 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments, i.e. an obligation relating not only to the owners or users of cultural monuments (actually, not even the petitioner denies that Section 35, par. 1, letter c) of the Act on the State Care of Monuments should be applied).
7 A 124/97 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The binding opinion under Section 14, par. 3 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments is issued by the agency of the state care of monuments in administrative proceedings upon the request of the owner of the immovable property (Section 44 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments) and it has the form of an administrative decision. The notice of the construction administration authority whereby the authority responded to the report of the intended realization of an advertising slogan under Section 57, par. 2 of the Construction Act cannot be classified as such a binding opinion, regardless of whether the authority considered as a preliminary question the admissibility of the work from the viewpoint of the state care of monuments.
If the petitioner did not request the binding opinion in advance and realized the inscription of the advertising slogan only on the basis of the notice of the construction administration authority, informing him that the authority had no objections to the work, he has committed a breach of obligation stipulated in Section 14, par. 2 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments and at the same time his action corresponds to the definition in Section 35, par. 1, letter i) – or h) – of this Act. The objection that the defendant did not take into account the binding character of the communication of the construction administration authority is, with regard to the aforementioned facts, legally irrelevant.
7 A 117/93 (Decision of the Prague High Court)
The administrative sanction was imposed on the petitioner under Section 35, par. 1, letter c) of the Act on the State Care of Monuments.
The files of the case and especially the reasoning supporting the challenged decision clearly show that the sanction was imposed, because the petitioner had failed to carry out a measure imposed on him by a legitimate decision, issued under Section 10 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments. The sanction was then imposed for a reason other than that for which the law allows its imposition. That is not a mere formal error. To be authorized to impose a sanction, the authority must prove that the person who supposedly committed the breach did not take care of the monument, did not maintain it, used it in an inappropriate manner, failed to protect it etc. No such proof was made in a relevant manner during the proceedings. The assertion that the petitioner did not carry out the measures imposed on him (or that he carried them out inadequately) cannot, of course, be taken for such a proof.



Section 36

In determining the amount of the fine, consideration shall be taken in particular of the seriousness and duration of the unlawful action, the cultural and political importance of the cultural monument in question and the extent of the potential or actual damage.

Selected judicial decisions

59 Ca 59/2002 (Verdict of the Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem)
The Act on the State Care of Monuments provides a demonstrative list of the criteria that the administrative authority is obliged to take into account when determining the amount of the fine imposed for an offence under Section 35, par.1 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments.
The decision of the district authority imposing the fine of CZK 45.000,-- for offences under Section 35, par.1, letters (b), (c) and (e) of the Act on the State Care of Monuments indicates that the district authority determined the amount of the fine on the basis of the criteria contained in Section 36 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments. It took into account that the aforementioned law was broken three times during the period from August to October 2001, the cultural monument in question has been devaluated, the responsible legal person avoided official communication and ignorance of the duties ensuing from the Act on the State Care of Monuments on the part of the responsible person may be ruled out. For the aforementioned reasons, the amount of the fine was set just below the medium sum of the range provided by law. The justification of the decision of the administrative authority thus clearly indicates which facts it considered in determining the amount of the fine. The facts are not inconsistent with the criteria for the determination of the said amount, stipulated in Section 36 of the Act on the State Care of Monuments. The court has not found the final decision on the amount of the fine as being logically inconsistent with the aforementioned facts established during the proceedings and the amount of the fine has not exceeded the limits stipulated by law.

Section 37
(1) The fine shall be paid within thirty days of the day on which the decision imposing it took effect.
(2) A fine may be imposed only within one year of the day on which the agency of the state care of monuments competent to impose it learned of the breach of obligation, but not later than within three years of the day on which such breach occurred.
(3) The fine shall be collected and its payment enforced by the agency of the state care of monuments that imposed it.
(4) The fine imposed and collected by the local authority of a municipality with extended competence shall constitute the receipt of the municipality. The fine imposed and collected by the competent regional authority shall constitute the receipt of the region.

Section 38
The imposition of a fine on a legal person shall not prejudice the responsibility of the legal person or the employees thereof under special regulations.

Section 39
Petty offences
(1) The local authority of a municipality with extended competence may impose a fine up to CZK 10.000,-- on a natural person who commits a petty offence by
a) failing to protect an object against damage, destruction or theft from the day on which such person was notified that a proposal had been submitted to designate the object as a cultural monument or that the Ministry of Culture intends to designate the object as such of its own initiative, till the day on which the Ministry of Culture has made the decision;
b) failing to fulfill the notification duty under Section 3, par. 5, Section 12, Section 22, par. 2 and Section 23, par. 2 of the present Act;
c) failing to attend to the preservation of a cultural monument, to maintain it in good condition and to protect it against danger, damage, loss of value or theft, or failing to use it in a manner consistent with its cultural and political importance, heritage value or technical condition;
d) failing to respect the conditions set in the decision demarcating the protective zone of an immovable cultural monument, an immovable national cultural monument, a monument reservation or a monument zone;
e) restoring a cultural monument without the binding opinion of the respective local authority of a municipality with extended competence or failing to respect the conditions specified in such binding opinion;
f) carrying out unauthorized excavations in an area containing archaeological finds;
g) carrying out construction work, making structural changes or doing maintenance work on immovable property which is not a cultural monument, but is located in a monument reservation, monument zone, or a protective zone of an immovable cultural monument, immovable national cultural monument, monument reservation or monument zone without having obtained the binding opinion of the relevant local authority of a municipality with extended competence under Section 14, par. 2, or failing to respect the conditions specified in the such binding opinion;
h) carrying out restoration of a cultural monument under Section 14, par. 8 without a licence issued by the Ministry of Culture;
i) failing, as a holder of the restoration licence, to inform the Ministry of Culture of a change of data as stipulated in Section 14a, par. 9;
j) a breach of other obligations under the present Act.
(2) A regional authority may impose a fine up to CZK 50.000,-- on a natural person who commits a petty offence by
a) failing to attend to the preservation of a national cultural monument, to maintain it in good condition or to protect it against danger, damage, loss of value or theft, or failing to use it in a manner consistent with its cultural and political importance, heritage value or technical condition;
b) restoring a national cultural monument without having obtained the binding opinion of the relevant regional authority acting within the sphere of delegated competence, or failing to respect the conditions specified in the such binding opinion;
c) moving an immovable cultural monument without the prior consent of the Ministry of Culture or having permanently moved a movable cultural monument from a publicly accessible place without the prior consent of the competent regional authority;
d) moving a national cultural monument without the prior consent of the Ministry of Culture;
e) lending abroad or attempting to take or having taken abroad a cultural monument without the prior consent of the Ministry of Culture, lending abroad or attempting to take or having taken abroad a national cultural monument without the prior consent of the Government of the Czech Republic;
f) carrying out restoration of national cultural monuments listed under Section 14, par. 8 without the authorization of the Ministry of Culture;
g) failing to fulfil the notification duty under Section 21a, pr.2, Section 22, par. 2, Section 23, par. 2 of the present Act.

Section 40
Unless otherwise provided, petty offences and their consideration by the competent authorities shall be governed by general regulations.24)

Section 41
(1) The fine shall be collected and its payment enforced by the agency of the state care of monuments that imposed it.
(2) A fine imposed and collected by the local authority of a municipality with extended competence shall constitute the receipt of the municipality with extended competence. A fine imposed and collected by the regional authority shall constitute the receipt of the region.

PART SIX
JOINT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Joint provisions
Section 42
(1) Cultural monuments registered in state registries of cultural monuments under earlier legal regulations shall be considered cultural monuments under the present Act.
(2) National cultural monuments designated as such under earlier legal regulations shall be considered national cultural monuments under the present Act. Monument reservations designated as such under earlier legal regulations shall be considered national cultural monuments under the present Act. Protective zones designated as such under earlier legal regulations shall be considered protective zones under the present Act.
(3) Permits to carry out archaeological research, issued under earlier legal regulations, shall be considered permits issued under the present Act.
(4) Movable cultural monuments and national cultural monuments designated as such under the Act of the Slovak National Council on the State Care of Monuments shall be considered cultural monuments and national cultural monuments under the present Act if they are located in the territory of the Czech Republic.
(5) Archive materials designated as cultural monuments or declared to be national cultural monuments under special regulations25) shall not be considered cultural monuments and national cultural monuments under the present Act.
(6) Abolished.
Section 42a
Competences assigned to regional authorities or local authorities of municipalities with extended competence shall be considered the exercise of delegated competence.
Section 43
(1) Rights and responsibilities stipulated by the present Act and relating to the owner of a cultural monument shall be rights and responsibilities of
a) the state organization which manages26) the cultural monument or an organization other than state organization to which the cultural monument has been given for permanent use;27)
b) the organization having the right of use under special regulations,28) such as the right of cooperative or substitute use of the cultural monument on the basis of the right to ensure production;
c) the individual who was given the right of personal use of land which is a cultural monument under special regulations;29)
d) persons who dispose of a cultural monument as of their own and in view of all the circumstances believe bona fide that the cultural monument belongs to them.30)
(2) The rights and responsibilities of the owner of an object which could be designated as a cultural monument under Section 3 apply also to the manager and user of such property as well as to the persons who dispose of the object as their own and in view of all the circumstances believe bona fide that the object belongs to them.30)

Section 44
The general regulations governing administrative proceedings31) shall not apply to the proceedings under Sections 3, 6, 8 and Section 21, par. 2 and 4.

Section 45
(1) The Ministry of Culture shall issue generally binding legal regulations for the implementation of Section 3, par. 6, Section 7, par. 6, Section 8, par. 5, Section 10, par. 3, Section 20, par. 4, Section 29, par. 4, and Section 31, par. 6.
(2) The Ministry of Culture shall issue generally binding legal regulations
a) in agreement with the Ministry for Regional Development for the implementation of Section 6, par. 2, Section 14, par. 10 and Section 17, par. 5;
b) in agreement with the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic for the implementation of Section 16, par. 3 and Section 23, par. 4;
c) in agreement with the Ministry of Finance for the implementation of Section 27, par. 5.

Section 46
Final provisions
The present Act shall abolish
1. Act No. 22/1958 Coll. on Cultural Monuments, as amended by the Act No. 146/1971 Coll. of the Czech National Council.
2. Order No. 98/1959 OJ on District Conservators and Reporters of the State Care of Monuments.
3. Order No. 99/1959 OJ Defining in More Detail the Activities and Organizational System of Regional, District and Local Commissions of the State Care of Monuments.
4. Order No. 116/1959 OJ on the Keeping of Records of Cultural Monuments.
5. Order No. 118/1959 OJ on Protective Monument Zones.
6. Order No. 56/1960 OJ on the Defrayment of Costs of Maintenance and Restoration of Cultural Monuments.
7. Section 11, letter b) of the Act No. 60/1961 Coll. on the Duties of National Committees in Ensuring Socialist Order, as far as it relates to cultural monuments.

Section 47
The present Act shall take effect on January 1st, 1988.


Kempný
Adamec






Annex 1

CLASSIFICATION TABLE OF THE SPECIALIZED
BRANCHES OF RESTORATION WORK
The classification has a basic structure which allows for a precise description of any restoration specialization, either by tying together individual qualifications from different columns, by the insertion of new elements corresponding to the widening range of actual skills, or, on the other hand, by selecting only one narrow specialization from the choice presented in the column.

1 – art works of painting
2 – art works of sculpture
3 – works of artistic handicraft

Code Classification Table Item
1 Art works of painting on canvas, wood and metal, on paper and parchment, on glass and other non-constructional materials, murals, figural sgrafitti and polychromy on sculptures
2 a Polychromed sculpted art works of stone, wood, metal, ceramics, terracotta, stucco, plaster, artificial stone and other art materiále
2 b Non-polychromed sculpted art works of stone, wood, metal, ceramics, terracotta, stucco, plaster, artificial stone and other art materiále
3 a Polychromed non-figural works of artistic handicraft made of stone, stucco, artificial stone and plaster
3 b Non-polychromed non-figural works of artistic handicraft made of stone, wood, stucco, artificial stone and plaster
3 c Works of artistic handicraft made of artificial marble
3 d Non-figural painted works of artistic handicraft
3 e Surface design of artistic handicraft on non-figural works
3 f Armour, arms and weapons, mechanical instruments, machinery and other similar objects
3 g Works of artistic handicraft made of glass, ceramics and porcelain, precious metals, ordinary metals, textile, paper and parchment, natural materials
3 h Musical instruments
3 i Other works of artistic handicraft


Annex 2

REGISTRATION QUESTIONNAIRE
OF THE APPLICANT FOR A RESTORATION LICENCE
Surname, name, title:
Date and place of birth:
Personal identification number: photo
Permanent residence:
Telephone:
Temporary residence:
Telephone:
Studio address:
Telephone:


Education and qualifications for the profession of a restorer
Name and address of the school Specialization Year of grad. Type of exam
vocational
completed vocational
further vocational
Higher (college and univ.) education
Postgraduate
Courses, study stays

Duration of vocational practice comparable to restoration work:


Professional cooperation with institutions or individual experts in the field of restoration:


Theoretical activities (lectures, publications, restoration exhibitions) concerning restoration issues:


Additional information that you consider important for the granting of the licence may be written on a separate sheet of paper.

I hereby declare that the information stated in this questionnaire and in the enclosed Chronological record of restoration work carried out is true and that the documentation submitted together with the licence application was prepared by me independently, on the basis of my own restoration work.




Date Signature

Chronological record of restoration work carried out
Name of the work Origin and placement of the work Characterization of the restoration carried out Year of beginning and termination of the restoration work Information about possible cooperation with other restorers, including their identification by name




















Annex 3

Theoretical knowledge and practical skills that constitute the content of higher education and training required by the laws of the Czech Republic for restoration work

a) history and philosophy of art and artistic handicraft, including iconography, with focus on Czech lands and Europe;
b) history of architecture with focus on Czech lands and Europe;
c) heraldry with focus on Czech lands and Europe;
d) conservation theories and techniques in relation to restoration, monument care according to the existing legislation;
e) aesthetics and ethics of restoration;
f) techniques used in the presentation of works of visual arts or artistic handicraft;
g) museum work, restoration and conservation of collected objects and objects of cultural value;
h) physical and chemical procedures used by the restorer in the survey of a work, interpretation of outcomes and comprehensive evaluation of the survey to determine the appropriate technological procedure for restoration;
i) chemical, biological and physical processes causing the deterioration of works of visual arts or artistic handicraft, corresponding restoration and conservation techniques;
j) historical techniques and technologies of restoration;
k) contemporary techniques and technologies of restoration;
l) materials used in restoration and conservation;
m) chemistry with focus on restoration problems;
n) mineralogy (petrography) with focus on restoration;
o) art training (figural and non-figural drawing and painting, modelling);
p) copying of works of visual arts and artistic handicraft;
q) methods of restoration documentation, expert photography;
r) the use of computer and other topical technology in the restoration field;
s) expert training in the relevant field of restoration specialisation under the supervision of a specialist;
t) comprehensive restoration of works of visual arts or artistic handicraft in the relevant specialisation, performed independently and defended before a panel of experts;
u) final scientific or other expert essay on a topic related to restoration;
v) Czech language and possibly one of the major foreign languages.













Annex 4

Theoretical knowledge and practical skills that constitute the content of higher education and training required by the laws of the Czech Republic for the conduct of archaeological research

a) general history, history of philosophy and history of past civilisations, starting from prehistoric times through Antiquity and Middle Ages to modern civilisations;
b) history of art and artistic handicraft;
c) history of settlements with focus on Czech lands and Europe;
d) Egyptian, Aegean, Greek, Etruscan and Roman archaeology, archaeology of Cyprus and the Middle East;
e) antiques in relation to archaeology;
f) biological anthropology;
g) mythology and religion in the history of material culture, including iconography;
h) topography;
i) epigraphy and numismatics;
j) monument conservation theories and techniques in relation to the conduct of archaeological research, monument care according to the existing legislation;
k) ethics of archaeological research;
l) techniques used in the presentation of archaeological finds;
m) preventive protection of archaeological finds and museum work;
n) techniques of scientific archaeology of the prehistoric times, Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Modern Age;
o) theory of archaeological research and expert excavation training;
p) study of materials and technologies for archaeological purposes;
q) documentation methods used in archaeological research, expert photography;
r) the use of computer and other topical technology in the field of archaeology;
s) independently conducted comprehensive archaeological research, defended before a panel of experts;
t) final scientific essay on a topic related to archaeology;
u) Czech language, one of the major foreign languages and basic knowledge of Latin and Greek.















Footnote list


1) Section 117, 120 and 121 of the Act No. 50/1976 Coll., on Zoning and Construction Regulations (Construction Act).
2) Act No. 344/1992 Coll., on the Cadastre of Immovable Property of the Czech Republic (Cadastre Act), as amended.
3) Section 100, letter b) of the Construction Act.
4) Act. No. 526/1990 Coll., on Prices, as amended.
5) abolished/left without replacement
6) Section 4 and 5 of the Order No. 90/1984 Coll., on the Management of State Property. (Act No. 219/2000 Coll. on the Property of the Czech Republic and on the Status of the Czech Republic in Legal Relations, as amended).
7) abolished/left without replacement
8) abolished/left without replacement
9) Monument reservation, monument zone, protective zone of an immovable cultural monument, immovable national cultural monument, monument reservation and monument zone.
10) abolished/left without replacement
11) Section 20, par. 1, letter c), Section 24, par. 4, Sections 36 to 39 and Section 43 of the Decree No. 5/1987 Coll., on the Documentation of Structures. (Order No. 132/1998 Coll., Implementing Certain Provisions of the Construction Act).
11a) Section 44 to 46 and Section 60 of Act No. 111/1998 Coll., on Higher Education Establishments and on the Amendment of Certain Acts (Act on Higher Education Establishments), as amended by Act No. 210/2000 Coll., and Act No. 147/2001 Coll.
11b) Act No. 29/1984 Coll., on the System of Primary, Secondary and Higher Vocational Schools (the Schools Act), as amended by later legislation.
11c) Act No. 256/1992 Coll., on the Protection of Personal Data in Information Systems.
11d) Section 25 of Act No. 18/2004 Coll., on the Recognition of Expert Skills and Other Qualifications of National s of European Union Memeber States and on the Amendement of Certain Acts (Act on the Recognition of Expert Skills).
11e) Act No. 18/2004 Coll.
11f) Section 5, par.1 of Act No.18/2004 Coll.
11g) Section 10, par. 2 of the Decree No. 66/1988 Coll., Implementing Act No. 20/1987 Coll., on the State Care of Monuments, as amended by Decree No. 538/2002 Coll.
11h) Section 12, par. 4 of Act No. 18/2004 Coll.
12) Section 109 and foll. of the Construction Act.
13) abolished/left without replacement
14) Section 32, letter c) and Section 33, par. 2 of the Construction Act. Section 11 of the Decree No. 85/1976 Coll., on the Details of the Zoning Proceedings and Construction Regulations. (The cited Decree No. 132/1998 Coll.).
15) Section 108, par. 2, letter e) of the Construction Act.
16) 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Minister of Foreign Affaires Decree No. 15/1980 Coll.).
17) Act No. 142/1970 Coll., on Economic Management of Foreign Currency. (Act No. 219/1995 Coll., Foreign Currency Act).Customs Duty Act No. 44/1974 Coll. (Act No. 13/1993 Coll., Customs Duty Act). Act No. 42/1980 Coll., on the Economic Relations with Other Countries.
18) Section 127 of the Construction Act.
19) abolished/left without replacement
20) Section 99, letter b) and Section 102, par. 5 of the Construction Act.
21) Section 65 of the Act on National Committees. [Act No. 128/2000 Coll., on Municipalities (Municipal System)].
22) Section 9, Sections 17 to 19 of the Act No. 102/1971 Coll., on the Protection of State Secrets. (Act No. 148/1998 Coll,. on the Protection of Classified Information and on the Amendment of Certain Other Acts). Section 3 of the Decree No. 148/1971 Coll., of the Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on the Protection of Economic and Official Secrets. (Decree No. 246/1998 Coll.,of the Government of the Czech Republic Containing Registries of Classified Information).
23) E.g. Section 5 of the Act No. 169/1949 Coll., on Military Areas. (Act No. 222/1999 Coll., on the Organization of the Defense of the Czech Republic). Section 22 of the Act No. 40/1961 Coll., on the Protection of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. (Cit. Act No. 222/1999 Coll.)
Act No. 40/1974 Coll., on the Corps of National Security. (Act No. 26/1993 Coll., on the Amendment of Certain Acts in the Field of Internal Order and Security and on Measures Related Thereto). Act No. 59/1965 Coll., on the Serving of a Prison Sentence, as amended. (Act No. 169/1999 Coll., on the Serving of a Prison Sentence and on the Amendment of Certain Other Acts).
24) Act No. 60/1961 Coll., on the Duties of National Committees in Ensuring Socialist Order, as amended. (Act No. 200/1990 Coll., on Petty Offences). Act No. 71/1967 Coll., on Administrative Procedure.
25) Act No. 97/1974 Coll., of the Czech National Council on Archives. Decree No. 101/1974 Coll., on the Designation of Archive Materials as Cultural Monuments and on the Increased Protection of Archive Materials as Cultural Monuments and National Cultural Monuments.
26) Section 64 of the Economic Code. (Act No. 513/1991 Coll., Code of Commerce).
27) Section 70 of the Economic Code. (Act No. 513/1991 Coll.).
28) Section 37 and foll. of the Act No. 122/1975 Coll., on Agricultural Cooperatives. Section 1 and foll. of the Act No. 123/1975 Coll., on the Use of Land and Other Agricultural Property to Ensure Production. (Act No. 229/1991 Coll. on the Regulation of Land Ownership and Ownership of Other Agricultural Property). Section 9 of the Government Decree No. 47/1955 Coll., on Measures in the Field of Economic and Technical Adjustments of Land. (Act No. 139/2002 Coll., on Land Adjustments and Land Authorities and on the Amendment of the Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the Regulation of Land Ownership and Ownership of Other Agricultural Property, as amended).
Section 12 of the Act No. 61/1977 Coll., on Forests. [Act No. 289/1995 Coll., on Forests and on the Amendment of Certain Other Acts (Forest Act)].
29) Section 198 and foll. of the Civil Code.
30) Section 132a of the Civil Code (abolished byt Act. No 509/1991 Coll ).
31) Act on Administrative Procedure.
x) The expression "national committee" has not been abolished, nor replaced by another expression by the later amendments to the Act. With regard to Article CXIX of the Act No. 320/2002 Coll., on the Amendment and Abolition of Certain Laws in Connection with the Termination of the Operation of District Authorities, however, it can be inferred that in the case of the imposition of a duty on the owner of a cultural monument, the competent authority will be the local authority of a municipality with extended competence, and where the owner of a national cultural monument is concerned, the competent authority will be the Ministry of Culture.


Note of the publisher:

By later amendments to th e law, the notes no. 5, 7–8, 10, 13 and 19 have been abolished or
left out without replacement – consequently, they are no longer part of the present text. If a footnote refers to a law or regulation which no longer exists, it also contains a parenthetical reference in italics stating the name of the law or regulation applicable and effective as of May 1st, 2003.