Research summary "Legal base of 'Building an Unowned Property'"

The – end the end successful – attempt of “Building an unowned Property” to turn an ordinary real estate into “recent cultural object” and “immovable monument” is based on the two following laws:

Granada Convention for the Protection of Architectural Heritage of Europe, from 1985, which was ratified by Greek Law 2039/1992 (http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/media/pdf/greece/gre_law2039_1992_granadaconv_greorof) and the Greek Law 3028/2002 entitled On the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in General (https://norwinst.w.uib.no/files/2017/03/Antiquities-Law-of-Greece_3028en.pdf)

It is the later one that plays an important role, as the Granada Convention mainly lays out the general framework and idea of protecting architectural heritage (its importance in city planing, education, quality of life etc. etc.) , but also states that ideas and intentions are subject to means specific to each state or reagion.

(project proposal  and Letter to the Cultural Ministry refer to documents in the dropbox)

At the center of the argument is the artistic idea of an ownerless property. For Eichhorn the notion of ownerless is essential not only as a continuing conceptual methodology in her artistic practice, but in this case specific to the “Greek Situation”. As it is stated in the project proposition (titled as such by me) “The economic crisis that has taken its toll on the entire continent of Europe and unleashed social, economic, and political chaos in Greece is clearly reflected in the urban space of the city of Athens. Owners have abandoned their buildings because they can no longer pay the increased property taxes or because tenants can no longer pay their rent. The buildings are left to themselves and the inevitable process of deterioration. The City of Athens has registered more than 1500 vacant buildings in the city center alone. Real estate speculators (from all over the world) have long since taken advantage of the siutation and purchased countless buildings and properties in Athens and elsewhere in Greece in hopes of profiting from the crisis.”

The goal is to preserve an empty building as an “imprint in the collective consciousness and memory of the image of the abandoned property in the center of Athens” (p. 7, 8, Letter to the Cultural Ministry ? Unfortunately page 1 including the header is missing in our documentation) as it “will allow citizens and future generations to become partakers of the artwork, which as a mental tool and through its preservation in the cultural environment in perpetuity will disseminate concerns and sensitize, becoming a means of communication between people (ibid, p.9).

For all of this to be possible the Ministry of Culture first has to declare the property as a monument under Article 6 par. 1C of Law 3028/2002: “1. Immovable monuments include (…) c) recent cultural objects less than one hundred years old, which are classified as monuments due to their special architectural, urban, social, ethnological, folk, technical, industrial or in general historical, artistic or scientific significance.”

“Immovable monuments” are declared in Article 2 of the same law as “Immovable monuments shall mean monuments which have been attached to and remain on the ground […] immovable monuments shall also include installations, structures and other elements which form an integral part of the monuments, as well as and their surroundings […];”

What gives this unowned property artistic and historical significance according to Eichhorn's team? “[...] due to its particular artistic importance as an artwork of historical significance for being included in documenta 14” (ibid. p. 7) and further “a modern artwork of intrinsic special value, which is presented in one of the most important art exhibitions worldwide and which, in order to defeat the wear of time and gain in value by serving its educational role, has self-evident need to be integrated in the protective legal regime of the country's cultural heritage [...]” (ibid. p. 9)

For the property (and the building on it) resemble the abandoned houses in Athens it also has to be banned for any use. This has been achieved by referring to Article 10 of the same law entitled “Activities on immovable monuments and their surroundings” which states under par. 1: “Any activity on an immovable monument that may result directly or indirectly in its destruction, damage, pollution or disfigurement shall be prohibited.” and further under par. 4: “For any work, intervention or change of use of immovable monuments, even if the same does not result in any of consequences referred to in paragraph 1, authorization shall be required pursuant to a decision of the Ministry of Culture following an opinion of the Council.” (highlighted by me)

What are actually the consequences of “unowning” a building? The above mentioned law holds a whole article (Article 11) on the “Duties of the owners, possessors or holders of immovable monuments”. According to the project proposition “documenta and Museum Fridericianu, gGmbh (or another institution) is to be entered in the register of deeds as the custodian – and not as the owner – or its status as custodian is to be legally documented and notarized. The custodian shall pay the property taxes and assume responsibility for maintain the building (in much the same way as it would for a sculpture in public space). […] It is to be maintained in accordance with minimum standards.” (highlighted by me).

A few remarks I have (that partly came up also in our conversation about it) are:

1. What if people don't want to remember?
2. And there is also other ways of remembering than “looking” at something. To me it seems the work operates very much with “contemplation” as separate from experience or engage, live etc. etc.
3. To me it becomes more and more unclear why the property has to be “unowned”. Because “abandoned” and “unowned” are not the same and “abandoned” and “owned” don't exclude each other as monuments can also be owned. And I understand the conceptual part/critique of the Deconstructive gesture of “unowning” a property and I understand it in the context of Eichhorn's artistic practice (i.e. “Aktiengesellschaft”). But since she relates the work so much to the “Greek Situation” where owning a property, due to the rise of property taxes, is more a burden than a benefit to people, a debt instead of investment and profit, I loose the thread here, because I have not read (and also in the articles Eichhorn refers to in her project proposition ) about people renouncing their ownership over property.
4. If “unowning” a property is as easy as it is laid out in the project proposition in which she refers to the law in Germany (and one just has to state that the Renunciation of the ownership to the register of deeds), why do Greek people don't do it?
5. A crucial point to me is, if the above mentioned action of declaring documenta as a custodian of the property really happened, as – if I understood correctly – this clarifies who has to carry the expenses, duties and labor of maintaining the work in perpetuity.It would be great to check with the register of deeds.

Research in Athens:

• check Register of Deeds on this property (translator necessary, maybe DAI alumna)
• as the building has been declared as a monument, some inquiry on the state of the building needed to happen. Maybe it is interesting to have a look at that document. But where to find it?