HN: The court ordered the execution of Prague Castle and St. Vitus Cathedral

Prague - The court has ordered the enforcement of the Prague Castle and St. Vitus Cathedral because the Administration of Prague Castle owes money to a private company. This is reported by today's Hospodářské noviny (HN).
The newspaper informs that, according to the court's decision, the Administration of Prague Castle cannot manage the cathedral, the castle itself, and some other objects in Hradčany due to an approximately one-million-crown debt to the private company.
HN reports that a forced sale of the cathedral or the castle does not currently threaten - the Administration of Prague Castle has asked the court to halt the ordered enforcement. The court has not yet ruled on the request, the newspaper states.
According to HN, the threat of enforcement only concerns the properties themselves, not, for example, the equipment of the cathedral. "The internal equipment belongs to the Metropolitan Chapter," said Aleš Pištora, spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Prague.
HN states that the executor Josef Potoček, who was assigned the case, has imposed enforcement only on real estate. "We do not have any blocked bank accounts," said Ivo Velíšek, director of the Administration of Prague Castle to HN. HN could not reach Potoček for a comment.
HN writes that the origins of the case date back to 2001, when an exhibition about the activities of Italian Renaissance and Baroque artists in Prague was held at the castle. The exhibition was organized by GEMA Art. The Administration of Prague Castle refused to pay part of the promised fee, amounting to hundreds of thousands of crowns, until the District Court for Prague 1 ordered enforcement last June.
"This is definitely not the most elegant way to recover the owed amount. It would be really difficult to liquidate properties like St. Vitus Cathedral," stated Luboš Dörfl, vice-president of the Regional Court in Prague.
According to HN, it is unclear why the Administration of Prague Castle allowed the situation to escalate to this point. "We are obliged to utilize all legal means to protect state property," Velíšek told HN.
HN writes that the versions of both sides of the dispute are diametrically opposed and that the situation is further complicated by the fact that instead of the original company GEMA Art, s.r.o., the successor entity GEMA ART GROUP, a.s. is involved in the dispute. At this moment, the entire dispute is at a standstill, and both sides are waiting for the court to decide whether to halt the ordered enforcement, HN writes. They add that it is still unclear when the decision will be made.
The legal representative of the private company, Antonín Janák, told HN about the case: "Approximately one-third of the fee amounting to just under three million crowns went to obligations that the company GEMA Art had toward the Administration of Prague Castle; another part was paid by the administration after repeated reminders. Regarding the nearly one million that was not paid, the administration began to assert that my client offered the work of that value as a sponsorship donation."
Later, the administration reportedly began to state that GEMA Art owed them approximately the same amount that the administration is to pay to GEMA Art, and thus they would not transfer the money, HN writes.
Otherwise, however, Velíšek described the situation in an email sent to HN: "The essence of the matter is that an exhibition titled Opus Italicum took place at the castle. The agency GEMA Art, s.r.o., claims that the Administration of Prague Castle promised them money back then, but no written contract was signed."
At the same time, he stated that other disputes are being conducted, in which the Administration of Prague Castle is claiming unpaid rent and also unpaid remuneration from a commission contract from GEMA Art, HN concludes.