The long-standing legal battle over the interior furnishings of Hrubý Rohozec castle has entered a novel phase of conflict. Despite an initial indication that they would not contest a court ruling, the National Heritage Institute (NPÚ) has filed an appeal regarding the return of the castle’s mobiliář to Johanna Kammerlanderová, the heir of the Walderode family.
Dispute Over the Inventory List
The District Court in Semily ruled in February that the castle’s furnishings should be returned to Kammerlanderová. However, the NPÚ has now challenged this decision based on the specific items listed for return.
Lucie Bidlasová, a spokesperson for the NPÚ, clarified that even as the institute does not dispute the claims of Dr. Kammerlanderová, they are responsible for managing state property. Bidlasová stated, „we must not release something about which there are real doubts that it did not belong to the Des Fours Walderode family.“
The core of the appeal rests on the fact that the court’s ruling relied on lists provided by the opposing party without accounting for problematic items. The total list comprises 5,600 items, including both current and past equipment of the castle.
Among the items are furniture, paintings, weapons, candlesticks, series of photographs, and rare clocks—many of which are regularly seen by visitors during castle tours. The NPÚ claims that hundreds of these items have a disputed origin.
A Complex Legal Path
The path to this decision was cleared two years ago when the Constitutional Court (US) issued a finding. The court stated that judicial proceedings must be based on official decisions regarding the restoration of Czechoslovak citizenship from 1947, which served as a fundamental condition for the return of the property.
Roman Heyduk, the legal representative for Kammerlanderová, had previously welcomed the February court decision as a sign that at least one part of the 34-year dispute was ending. However, the current appeal suggests a further prolonging of the conflict.
Beyond the furniture, the Walderode heir continues to litigate against several other institutions regarding forests and land located in the Semilsko, Jablonecko, and Liberecko regions.
Historical Resistance to Restitution
According to Tomáš Nahodil, a lawyer specializing in constitutional and administrative law, this case is one of the longest restitution proceedings in the country, alongside a similar dispute over the interior of Opočno castle. Nahodil suggests that due to the extreme length of the proceedings, Johanna Kammerlanderová could potentially seek compensation from the state for the delays once the restitution is completed.
Nahodil noted that the state actively resisted many high-profile restitutions of noble property around the turn of the millennium, specifically during the tenures of Interior Minister Stanislav Gross and Culture Minister Pavel Dostál.
During that period, a specialized police team known as “Majetek” was established. This team, likely collaborating with intelligence services, searched domestic and foreign archives for evidence against the ancestors of noble families seeking the return of their estates after November 1989.
The state even considered criminal prosecution for attempted fraud against those seeking restitution. The state conducted wiretaps of restituent lawyers, recordings which the Constitutional Court eventually ordered to be destroyed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the NPÚ decide to appeal the court’s decision?
The NPÚ appealed because the court’s ruling included lists of items provided by the opposing party that contained hundreds of “problematic items” with disputed origins. The NPÚ maintains that as managers of state property, they cannot release items that may not have originally belonged to the Des Fours Walderode family.
What was the role of the Constitutional Court in this case?
Two years ago, the Constitutional Court ruled that the justice system must base its decisions on the official restoration of Czechoslovak citizenship from 1947, which was a primary condition for the return of the property.
How long has this legal dispute lasted?
The legal battle has lasted for 34 years, placing it among the longest restitution cases in the Czech Republic.
Do you believe the state should be held financially liable for delays in long-term restitution cases?
