In disputes over furniture, the restituents first achieved the publication of part of the paintings. But then the judiciary rejected the right to extradite the remaining furniture. It is a collection with thousands of items, which include, for example, a festive carriage, other paintings, lights, weapons, hunting trophies or dining services.
The complaints of Jerome Colloredo-Mannsfeld and Kristina Colloredo-Mansfeld were also initially rejected by constitutional judges. Following the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights, the judges had to deal with the complaint again.
–
According to the Strasbourg court, the restituents did not have the opportunity to comment on one of the key pieces of evidence, namely the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture in 1947. “It will be necessary to take evidence with this document,” said constitutional judge rapporteur David Uhlíř. At the same time, however, he pointed out that the file does not contain the original document, but only a later copy.
The file will now return to the Pardubice branch of the Regional Court of Appeal in Hradec Králové. The whole proof should be directed to when the property passed to the state, whether before February 1948 or after it. The question of which parts of the collections belonged to individual members of the family is also important. By its finding, the Constitutional Court does not anticipate the overall outcome of the dispute.
Kristina Colloredo-Mansfeld welcomed the finding. “I didn’t expect that,” she told reporters. Kastelán Opočna Tomáš Kořínek did not comment on the decision, he referred to the General Directorate of the National Monuments Institute.
–
The real estate and the castle had different owners
The descendants of the original owners pointed out in their complaints that the movables could not share the fate of the nationalized chateau – they had different owners. The castle was owned by Josef Colloredo-Mansfeld Jr., born in 1910, the collections belonged to Josef Colloredo-Mannsfeld Sr., born in 1866.
The courts will have to deal with the question of when the property of Josef Colloredo-Mannsfeld Sr. passed to the state and when the state prevented him from disposing of the collections. According to the ruling of the Constitutional Court, the general courts will also consider whether it is possible to determine which of the collections belongs to Josef Colloredo-Mannsfeld the Elder.
–
In another case, the CC recently rejected Kristina Colloredo-Mansfeld’s complaint in a dispute over the extradition of the castle itself. The chateau thus remains the property of the state, nothing has changed even after the current finding, the legal situation with the chateau and furniture is different.
In the last complaint, which concerned the entire chateau as real estate, Kristina Colloredo-Mansfeld pointed out the alleged racial motive of the persecution of the family, which, according to the court, was not proven with sufficient certainty. However, the three-member Senate of the Constitutional Court was not united in its decision-making, one of its members had a different opinion.
The 15-member plenary session of the Central Committee did not agree on the current finding either. Five judges took a different view, most of them outvoted. Uhlíř acknowledged that the length of the Czech judiciary’s decision on Opočno did not work well. However, he did not dare to anticipate when it would definitely be clear. Now it will be most up to the regional court.
– .
