The Supreme Court confirmed the apology for the authors of the reconstruction in the dispute over the lamps in Olomouc

Olomouc – The High Court in Olomouc today confirmed in the dispute between the city hall and Jan Šépka that this architect is entitled to an apology for how the city replaced the lamps in the Upper Square in the historic center of Olomouc in 2014. Šépka and another author of the square's reconstruction disagreed at the time and still disagree today. According to the High Court, the city interfered with their author rights and devalued their project by replacing the light fixtures. However, the High Court also annulled other statements from the regional court from 2016, when the regional court granted the architects compensation of 100,000 crowns, but did not comply with their request to restore the lighting in the square to its original state. The lingering dispute should thus be revisited by the regional court.

The lighting of the center of Olomouc has been debated for many years. After the completion of the reconstruction of the Upper Square in 2001, it was found that the then-installed Thorn lamps provided insufficient light, yet the city hall left them in place. By 2014, the light fixtures were significantly worn out, and the city proposed to place brighter UrbanStar lamps, which are installed in the neighboring Lower Square, in the center. The planned lamp replacement was disliked by preservationists as well as the authors of the Upper Square reconstruction, who advocated for the original lamps proposed in the center's renovation project. Instead, in 2001, the city acquired Thorn columns, which the project authors later approved. A court issued a preliminary injunction in the dispute over the lighting in 2014, banning the replacement of the lamps until the dispute was resolved. However, architect Šépka did not file the lawsuit in time, allowing the city to quickly replace the Thorn lamps with UrbanStar types in September 2014.

According to the High Court, the city hall violated author rights, but Šépka did not sufficiently substantiate his request for compensation of 100,000 crowns. His other request for the removal of UrbanStar lamps was also vague. He did not specify what type of lamps should be installed in the square to eliminate the current problematic state. "The court must know what it is to deliberate about. The proposal must be precise and understandable so that the decision is enforceable," states the resolution.

According to the city hall's legal representative, Petr Konečný, the city had to intervene because some Thorn lamps were already damaged and there was a risk of them falling. "The city made a responsible decision in a situation where there was a technical problem," said Konečný, who noted that the original Thorn lamps were no longer manufactured, and the city had to choose a different type. Konečný pointed out that there is still no consensus among the co-authors of the Upper Square reconstruction on what type of lamps should be installed in the center of Olomouc. The city hall, which today requested the annulment of Šépka's lawsuit in the High Court in Olomouc, is, according to Konečný, prepared to continue discussions with the authors of the reconstruction.

Šépka's legal representative, František Vyskočil, pointed out that the city has so far been unable to explain and substantiate why the Thorn lamps were removed from the square and hastily replaced with UrbanStar lamps, which degraded the architects' project and constitute an intervention in the author's work. "The city removed the lamps and replaced them with completely disjointed lamps that are only suitable for housing estates," he said. According to Šépka, the dispute remains important even after so many years. "We may have forgotten to assess architecture as an artistic work that has some value. That's a shame," said Šépka. He added that valuing certain significance is important not only for him as an author but also for the architectural community and for citizens.