Position of the ČKA on the Draft Law on the Protection of the Heritage Fund

The Ministry of Culture presented a new version of the proposed heritage law titled "Law on the Protection of the Heritage Fund" for discussion at the beginning of July 2019. The proposal is not fundamentally different from its form rejected by the Chamber of Deputies in July 2017, and therefore the position of the Czech Chamber of Architects (ČKA) remains unchanged. To begin with, we state that we do not consider it appropriate to discuss this law now, just a few months before the discussion of the wording of the prepared Building Act and related legislation begins. Both adjustments are interconnected and should therefore be prepared and discussed coordinately.

In March 2018, the ČKA presented five theses that the legal regulation of heritage care should be based on. Firstly, there is a requirement that every protected object or area be described in terms of its culturally protected value so that it can be worked with and developed further without jeopardizing that value. The ČKA further demands that the law clearly describes the individual levels of heritage protection in terms of the requirements placed on the management of the object of protection. This is crucial for legal certainty, which is currently unacceptably low for owners of immovable cultural monuments during their restoration. Furthermore, we believe that in order to better protect the actual values of immovable cultural monuments, the lower limit for less valuable monuments should be loosened. In its theses, the ČKA also demands the assurance of a balance of rights and obligations for the owner. Heritage protection significantly interferes with property rights. If the state decides to protect certain values, it should, together with the owner, bear the costs and responsibility for this decision. For owners of heritage-listed buildings, it is also essential to ensure predictability of decisions by heritage protection authorities. Although it is not possible to set all the rules for builders in advance, it is necessary for the state to strive for this and especially to unify its approach to similar cases in interpretative practice. The current situation is accompanied by a low level of trust from builders in the expertise of heritage care authorities, leading to an unsystematic approach of "trial and error." This is also related to the demand for the level and speed of decision-making.

After reviewing the new draft law, we unfortunately find that, from the perspective of the goals outlined above, the presented draft law is not satisfactory.

The proposal focuses on the maintenance and conservation of heritage-protected objects and neglects the fact that immovable cultural monuments are used, and from this perspective, demands are placed on their functionality that correspond to contemporary requirements. Heritage-protected buildings cannot merely be conserved and protected; rather, it has historically been common for layers to be added without harming the final result (see, for example, St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague). The heritage law should better reflect this fact.

Unfortunately, a fundamental disproportionality between the rights and obligations of the owner remains; the owner does not have the right to a financial contribution (its provision is optional). The owner has the right to professional assistance, but it follows from the additional text that essential activities related to the monument will always be required to be covered at their own expense, or in cooperation with professionally responsible persons.

The provisions on conducting historical building research and their general content have been completely omitted—presumably in response to criticisms received by the authors of the previous draft from the researchers of these surveys. Instead of correcting this appropriately, the provisions concerning a key component of heritage care have simply been omitted. There is no mention or reference to the connections with urban planning and the design and execution of buildings, even though this is a completely fundamental aspect of heritage care.

For all of the above reasons, the ČKA leans towards a fundamental revision of the presented draft law.