Praha must prove that it has endured the Slav Epic, the court stated

Prague - Prague must demonstrate in the dispute over the ownership of the Slav Epic by Alphonse Mucha that it so-called acquired it through usucaption, meaning that it owned the work in good faith, believing that it belonged to her, the District Court for Prague 1 stated today. The proceedings were then adjourned until April. The painter's relative John Mucha claims in the lawsuit against the capital city that Prague never became the owner of the paintings because it did not meet the author's condition of building separate exhibition spaces for the canvases.

John Mucha is seeking a court ruling to determine the ownership of the paintings as of the date of his wife Marie Mucha's death, or possibly the painter's death. Because Prague must supplement the evidence showing that it acquired the work through usucaption, it is possible that the court may decide that the work did not actually belong to the city at the time of the artist's wife's death.

According to Judge Marie Tvrdková, Prague must provide evidence of when it believes the usucaption period began, when it occurred, and that the city owned the paintings in good faith, believing that its possession was honest and legitimate. The city has 30 days to supplement the evidence. Mucha's wife died in 1959, and according to the Civil Code from 1950, the usucaption period for movable property was three years.

The judge also supplemented the evidence with inheritances related to Mucha and his wife Marie. It was revealed that only his wife inherited from Mucha, but his children did not. "If a heir was already determined at that time, any property that arose in the interim would not be further debated but would be handed over to the designated heir," the judge outlined her preliminary legal opinion.

"It is quite surprising to me that the court imposed on the defendant the burden of proving the so-called usucaption, which is, in my opinion, a very tough nut for the city of Prague to crack, because usucaption requires possession to be honest and legitimate. Prague cannot prove the honesty of that possession for one simple reason: it did not fulfill the condition of Alphonse Mucha's gift," replied Mucha's legal representative František Vyskočil.

Vyskočil pointed out that if the court were to grant the lawsuit, the Slav Epic would not automatically belong to John Mucha. "In that case, it would be necessary to reopen the inheritance proceedings, and then the legal heirs would step in," he explained. According to him, these are John Mucha and his half-sister, Jarmila Mucha Plocková.

Plocková sent a letter to the district court, which the judge read today. She stated that she disagrees with the lawsuit. "The entire lawsuit, in my opinion, contradicts the will of the author himself," she wrote. Mucha reiterated today that he filed the lawsuit to prevent the loan of the work abroad, fearing that the paintings would be damaged.

Prague's representative Roman Felix stated after the hearing that the capital city argued its usucaption claim as early as 2016 when Mucha filed the lawsuit. "Nothing has changed in our position; only, for the time being, this legal issue has not been accepted by the court, so no further evidence was presented," he told reporters. According to him, building exhibition spaces is not important for the usucaption issue. "That is a completely different problem; the question of usucaption is purely legal and has no connection to this factual condition," he added.

According to Mucha's lawsuit, the condition of building exhibition spaces, to which the city committed, is still valid. However, the representative of Prague claims that it is not a legal obligation that would condition the donation of the paintings.

The paintings are currently in the custody of the Gallery of the Capital City of Prague (GHMP). Last October, Prague approved that the cycle would be loaned for five years to the castle in Moravský Krumlov, where the paintings were exhibited until 2011. During the loan period, the issue with the missing space in Prague should be resolved. According to GHMP, a condition for lending the work is the completion of renovations of the castle. Prague still does not have a clear plan for where to build its own hall for the paintings and is considering various options.

The district court began dealing with Mucha's lawsuit in January 2017. At that time, it dismissed it, and the decision was confirmed by the appellate panel. However, the Supreme Court annulled the rulings in May two years ago. For the second time, the court began addressing the lawsuit six months later.