To the court dispute HXH architects vs. National Library

Recently, it has become an unfortunate practice for high-ranking politicians or representatives of state-controlled organizations to challenge the binding decisions of courts (I intentionally do not include the popular cliché of "independent courts," as it is a nonsensical connection). A current case is the recent press release from the National Library, which was issued on the occasion of filing an appeal against a binding loss in a dispute with the architectural studio HXH architekti, s.r.o. (formerly HŠH architekti, s.r.o.). Those more informed may remember that the architects decided to fight against a "rigged" competition for the design of the new National Library building, won by the now-deceased architect Kaplický, and his studio Future Systems. However, the court, based on the filed lawsuit, confirmed that the design of the presumed winner should have been disqualified from the competition because it did not meet the requirements of the brief at all.

I have been following this case from the very beginning and I admit that I have always stood on the side of the creators from HXH architekti, s.r.o., and I am pleased that the court ruled rightly as it did. What, however, slightly annoys me is the manipulative statement from the appointed director of the National Library, who probably did not read the judgment at all; otherwise, he could not have released such a statement into the world.

One of the director's statements, responding to the court's obligation to pay HXH architekti, s.r.o. the difference in financial reward, reads:
"It is absurd. This architectural competition was governed by the rules of the International Union of Architects - UIA, which confirmed the results of the competition on June 11, 2007..." If this sentence were not so sad, as it starkly confirms the completely illusory conception of the director regarding the legal system in the Czech Republic, it could also be amusing. Courts of both the first and second instances have swept this argument off the table, and for readers not versed in the matter, I add that if we were to agree with the logic that a competition announced by a state-funded organization in the territory of the Czech Republic can be governed only and exclusively by the rules of the International Union of Architects - UIA, then we could boldly abolish the law on public procurement and subject all competitions to the rules of various interest associations. In this absurd conception, for example, billion-dollar tenders for the construction of highways, subways, or rail transportation would be assessed by the state not according to the laws of this country but according to the rules of various associations that may not even be based in the Czech Republic...

Just one sentence later, the director considers it disgraceful, "...that all participants in the competition signed its rules, which state that any disputes will not be resolved before domestic courts," and the creators from HXH architekti therefore had the "audacity" to challenge the unfair competition in court. However, if an impartial reader delves more closely into the competition rules (which the director evidently did not do), they will find that the obligation to resolve disputes outside the Czech judicial structure (i.e., in arbitration proceedings according to the UIA rules) only applies if the dispute does not relate to the process of evaluating or awarding prizes. In the described case, however, it is demonstrably a dispute about whether the competition was properly evaluated and whether the prizes were awarded correctly as a result. And to understand this relatively simple rule, one does not need to be an expert or a lawyer; it is enough to be able to read and make objective conclusions. However, it is easier to accept the well-known rule among politicians that a lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth. Fortunately, courts do not listen to such rhetoric.

Last but not least, the director lamented that "The suing architects received third prize, and the Czech court has no right to change the order established by an independent expert committee". Here again, I must correct the opinion. The court did not change any order; it merely granted the suing architects monetary compensation equivalent to the difference between the second and third prizes. The court correctly evaluated as a preliminary question that the competition proposal by Future Systems should have been disqualified from the competition right from the beginning and should not have had a chance to compete for any prize at all. As I wrote once in another magazine, it unfortunately was not a competition for the best design of the National Library building, but given the manipulation of the competition conditions during the proceedings, more of a competition for the Library of Jan Kaplický. It is more than sad that through the diletantism and illegal actions of the National Library, a surely commendable intention to place a quality building that would serve the general public in the public space was dashed. Not to mention the squandered public funds, which are so scarce for culture. It is a regrettable repetition that in the 25 years since the fall of communism, we have only one quality building serving the public in Prague, namely the National Technical Library in Dejvice.

The press release from the National Library is a prime example of how a state-established institution seeks, instead of expressing regret over its own failure, to find the culprits of its failure in the architects by using fabrications and half-truths, who have done nothing more than decide to defend their rights. And the court ruled in their favor – thank goodness.

František Vyskočil
partner at the law firm Vyskočil, Krošlák and Co.

May 20, 2016