The status of a cultural asset and the regime of its protection do not depend on its ownership, and the law recognizes the possibility of it being in state, municipal or private ownership, with the owner being obliged to act in accordance with the prescribed protection measures.
This was told to "Vijesti" yesterday by the Ministry of Culture and Media, without directly answering the question of whether the department believes that the transfer of the Kruševac Castle in Podgorica (together with the associated land) to the private property of the prince Nikola Petrovic Njegosa - contrary to the Law on the Protection of Cultural Property and the constitutional obligation of the state to protect cultural heritage, as claimed by the President of Montenegro Jakov Milatovic.
However, although the Ministry's claim is correct - that the Law on the Protection of Cultural Property establishes that cultural property can also be privately owned - nowhere in that regulation does it say that an immovable cultural property in state ownership, which the castle is, can be gifted to someone.
At the beginning of the week, Milatović returned to parliament for reconsideration the amended Law on the Descendants of the Petrović Njegoš Dynasty, which provided that Kruševac Castle would belong to the descendants of the last Montenegrin dynasty.
"The provision of Article 78, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Montenegro establishes that the state protects natural and cultural heritage, while the provision of Article 42, paragraph 1 of the Law on the Protection of Cultural Property stipulates that immovable cultural property in state ownership cannot be alienated," the explanation reads.
Yesterday, the Office of the President of the Republic submitted to the media an excerpt from the decision and a photograph (from the Directorate for the Protection of Cultural Heritage) confirming that the castle in Kruševac is protected as an immovable cultural asset.
DON'T MISS IT
Vukčević: The law should be equal for everyone
Attorney Miloš Vukčević told "Vijesti" that the issue of the castle should not be viewed through a political, but exclusively through a legal prism. He stated that the Petrović Njegoš dynasty undoubtedly has a special place in the history of Montenegro and that the state's effort to adequately regulate their status is understandable. However, when it comes to cultural property, Vukčević emphasizes that the law must be equal for everyone.
"If Kruševac Castle is protected as an immovable cultural asset in state ownership, then the question rightly arises as to whether it is possible to transfer ownership rights to a private person, taking into account the provisions of the Law on the Protection of Cultural Assets and the constitutional obligation of the state to preserve cultural heritage. For this reason, I believe that the arguments presented by the president of the state deserve serious legal consideration," he said.
On the other hand, Vukčević notes that we should not forget that the goal of the law was not the commercialization of cultural property, nor its alienation for the purpose of gaining profit, but rather the regulation of the state's relationship with the descendants of a dynasty that marked a significant part of Montenegrin history.
"That's why this issue is neither simple nor black and white," said the interviewee.
He stated that the most important thing is to ensure full legal certainty in a specific case, and that if there is a dilemma as to whether a certain legal solution is in accordance with the Constitution and systemic laws, then it is better to resolve it before it produces legal consequences.
"Cultural assets are not ordinary real estate - they belong to the collective heritage of all citizens of Montenegro, and therefore every decision regarding their status must be made with full respect for the Constitution and the law," said Vukčević.
The only thing that is indisputable is that the castle is a cultural asset
The Ministry of Culture and Media stated that, given that the law is currently in the process of being reconsidered by the Parliament, they cannot prejudge the legal consequences of the law, nor take a position on its constitutionality, legality or possible application before the completion of the legislative procedure.
"From the perspective of the Ministry's jurisdiction, the only thing that is indisputable is that the Kruševac Castle has the status of a protected immovable cultural asset and that it is subject to protection in accordance with the provisions of the Law on the Protection of Cultural Assets. Also, the status of a cultural asset and the regime of its protection do not depend on the ownership status, but protection measures are applied regardless of who owns the cultural asset. The Law on the Protection of Cultural Assets recognizes the possibility of a cultural asset being in state, municipal or private ownership, whereby the owner is obliged to act in accordance with the prescribed protection measures," the response to the editorial board reads.
They said that, given the fact that the public sphere also raises questions about the possible relationship between the proposed legal solution and constitutional principles relating to the protection of cultural heritage, the protection of state property, legal certainty and equality before the law, the final position on the above issues can only be given by the competent state authorities within the framework of their constitutional and legal powers. However, they did not specify which authorities these are.
They emphasized that it should be borne in mind that the protection of cultural heritage and the affirmation of historical heritage are not opposing goals.
"On the contrary, modern European democracies show that it is possible to simultaneously protect state interests, cultural assets and the historical dignity of families that have marked the development of the state. In this sense, every legal solution should be viewed primarily through the prism of preserving the cultural identity and historical continuity of Montenegro," the Ministry headed by him assessed. Tamara Vujović (Democrats).
Rent problem in the field of culture
Museum teacher Isidora Damjanović In this case, she also sees a problem in the field of culture. She told "Vijesti" that the Museum of Contemporary Art, most of which is located in the castle and the Perjanički Dom (next to the castle), which should belong to the prince, could face problems if the proposed legal solution passes parliament again.
"I believe that, if it were treated as the property of Prince Nikola and if the Museum of Contemporary Art had to pay rent, as stipulated by law, that would be the amount by which the museum would have to earn more money in rent - since it involves several buildings and a large area of land - than it would spend on the programs themselves, for which there is usually a lack of money," said Damjanović.
The law stipulates that institutions located in the castle have the right to continue operating until the construction of a new building for the Museum of Contemporary Art, subject to payment of a rent determined by the competent state administration body for culture.
Damjanović explained that the museum has a significant number of exhibits in its collection, is a very important factor in the culture of Montenegro, and employs a significant number of experts. She added that Prince Nikola already uses the first floor of the castle building, and that anything more than that would jeopardize the museum's activities.
"We should keep in mind that the Museum of Contemporary Art is expecting a new building to begin construction, which will take several years. Perhaps when the museum moves out of the castle, this issue should be raised, and possibly Prince Nikola should be its user, but if the castle is a cultural asset, then ownership cannot be given to it," the interviewee claims.
She said that for cultural properties there are rules regarding what can and cannot be done on the property, and that this limits any work that could turn the castle into a place for private life.
"I think the main problem with this issue is the functionality of the entire complex - what it could be used for in the near future, when the museum gets a new building," Damjanović assessed.
Violent annexation remains legal
At its session on June 1, the Parliament of Montenegro adopted amendments to the Law on the Status of Descendants of the Petrović Njegoš Dynasty.
The word "forcible" in the wording about the annexation of the state from 1918 was not deleted from the text of the regulation, which was adopted with 40 votes in favor, three against, and two abstentions.
The ruling Europe Now Movement (PES) dropped the proposal it had initially advocated because it caused a public outcry, as well as on both sides of the political spectrum. PES then focused on resolving the property issues of the dynasty's descendants.
Last year, when the law was first put into procedure, the opposition accused PES of historical revisionism, while part of the government demanded that the term annexation be completely deleted from the text of the law, demanding that the wording on the unification of Montenegro and Serbia be included instead.
MPs from Andrija Mandić's New Serbian Democracy also voted in favor of adopting the "new" bill, which retained the term "forcible annexation", which was met with a harsh reaction from official Belgrade, as well as local media outlets close to the government of Aleksandar Vučić.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
