Na okraj vládního nařízení č. 55 ze dne 19. října 1954 o chráněné oblasti Pražského hradu

In the end of 1992 an action was commenced in ownership of three churches, one chapel, two towers, ten houses, fourteen lands on which these buildings stand and two gardens (mostly items situated in the area of the Prague Castle) before the District Court of Prague 1. The trial received some public attention. This was raised for understandable reasons. The disputed churches involve inter alia the Catholic Metropolitan Cathedral of St. Vitus – the foremost religious building in the Czech Republic. The procedure has not yet been concluded and thus it cannot undergo overall and detailed analysis and observations. It is, however, necessary to comment upon some important partial issues as they have emerged in the proceedings so far. The purpose of this is to extend our know ledge of the events constituting the merits of the case, as well as our understanding of the legal regulations that had to be coped with by the courts, the legal counsels of the conflicting parties, the parties involved in the case themselves, as well as all other people who have been or still will be concerned. As the course of action has hitherto confirmed, exceptional significance for the eventual decision is attributed to the governmental regulation No. 55 of 19th October 1954, issued on 16th December of the same year and effective on the very day. Objective consideration of all its formal and factual aspects is a matter of primary importance. Therefore, the present study focuses on two things: the historical circumstances of the preparation, announcement and consequent adoption (on 23th March 1955) of this regulation by the National Assembly and the very issue called into question by the lawsuit – that is whether Section 1 of this governmental regulation, unclear in its wording, had intended to, was able to and finally caused the disputed land ownership to transfer onto the Czechoslovak state. In spite of all the weak points of this norm, the author concludes with the suggestion that this was the purpose as well as the achieved effect of the aforesaid governmental regulation. Yet the availability of another legal qualification may not be ruled out. On the contrary, its existence has to be admitted and understood, at least because of the fact that in addition to the present action in the past, too, there were at least three cases of the denial of the transfer of ownership. In was the administration of these lands whose transition on to the state was stipulated shortly after the application of this regulation to lands in the ownership of natural persons. The purpose of the legislative initiative put forward by the President of the Republic and Cardinal Miroslav Vlk, Archbishop of Prague, at the turn of 1996/1997 was to reconsiliate these conflicting standpoints. They suggested that an Act of Law be adopted that would determine unequivocally the owner (i.e. the State) of the St. Vitus Cathedral. This initiative, however, has not been completed, has not so far been resumed neither by the Government nor by any other entitled proposer. After abandoning the aspirations to solve at least the most acute part of this problem in a legislative process, space has been so far left open for the specific resolution by judicial power.