[ad_1]
As stated in the non-appealable order of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania this week, the applicant appealed to the court requesting the annulment of the Council for the Valuation of Real Estate Heritage and an order for the Department of Cultural Heritage to cancel the registration of the building in the Register. of Cultural Heritage.
In 2012, the owner of the building received permission to rebuild it into a shop and said that he did not know that the building would receive legal protection. He argued that the appraisal process for the building had not been carried out in detail and that the above findings did not provide a basis for establishing the existence of valuable properties.
“The building differs little from buildings constructed at different times adjacent to the same settlement, most of which are rectangular in shape, with red brick chimneys and horizontal wood cladding,” the court order cites the plaintiff’s arguments.
He also questioned whether the fact that the Jews were kept in this synagogue building for several days before being removed in 1941 was in itself a reason to recognize it as a value, regardless of its commemorative significance.
The Department of Cultural Heritage stated that at the time the building was entered in the registry, a historical investigation had been conducted which included an analysis of the literature and other possible sources, while the plaintiff had not provided the court with data that could refute the Commission’s findings.
By rejecting the appeal, the Court of First Instance noted that it was rightly recognized as a value.
The arguments presented by the Council members during the discussions showed that the Council members emphasized the fact that the Building resembles a normal building and may give the impression that it has no significant features. The council members pointed out that the synagogues were ugly, in many places it is very difficult to distinguish that there is not a warehouse but a synagogue ”, the arguments of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court are mentioned in the ruling.
This position was also confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, which heard the appeal. It pointed out, among other things, that failure to inform the owner of the consideration for his property in order to grant him value status is not a reason to annul such decision.
“Such a conclusion is determined by the need to operationally protect valuable real estate and the fact that the protection of Lithuanian cultural values is a constitutional obligation of the state,” the court stated.
[ad_2]
