www.lobkovi.cz is under construction
Les interrogations qui suivent seront formulées de maničre plus étendue (et traduites) une fois que la majeure partie du site sera charge, espérons d'ici Octobre 2009. Beaucoup ont trait aux cas de l'Accord de 1927 (Fideicommis Dohoda) et des restitutions des biens Allodiaux.

- why the last will of our grand-grandfather Ferdinand Zdenko remains hidden from our view? It's relevance is crucial, as this document is the testament of the last reigning Duke of Roudnice, who lived through the 1918 regime change, and was a requisite for the restitution of allodial properties. See the restitution laws link for the conditions to claim back properties.

- with respect to the allodial estates of Ferdinand Zdenko Lobkowicz, was the 1945 Benes Decree confiscation upon them valid? Was the confiscation held against a private person or heriditas jacens? Could a property which was not confiscated by the 1948 revision of land reform be restituted? The courts came with diametrically opposite interpretation on these issues in Martin Lobkowicz's claims (in particular in the recent restitution of the Svaty Jan domain) and in mine, which had identical merit with respect to the conditions required for restitution? How come Maximilian Erwin Lobkowicz was seen as the "universal heir" of the allods by the courts, whilst he would have been allowed at the most his "obligatory part" had he applied for inheritance anytime between his father's death and 1948?
This last and discriminatory beyond belief case motivated me to finally complement this website with the ongoing court cases.

- during the communist regime, all the archives concerning the Lobkowicz family were concentrated in the central family archive in Litomerice (then moved to the Zitenice convent), regardless of the public or private nature of the documents, since the distinction had disappeared with the nationalisations. Thus notarial (e.g. wills) and public documents which could be found in the every district where the family had possessions, including contracts which were the basis of property transfers recorded in the land books, were bundled together with private documents, such as correspondence between close members of the family. Why weren't the "public" documents separated again and not made publicly available as they were prior to the confiscations? How come they they handed back in private hands, making it near to impossible to provide evidence required in claims for restitution and inheritance as required by law?

- the Lobkowicz-Roudnice collection was confiscated to Maximilian Erwin Lobkowicz whilst he was the "guardian" of the collection. The communists were probably not aware of the fact the 1924 law of the Abrogation of the Fideicommis (
see), regarded only real estate, and as a consequence, Maximilian Lobkowicz remained the guardian of the Family Collection, which must have remained possession of Ferdinand Zdenko Lobkowicz until an Amendment or a New law of the Fideicommis, aimed at National Treasures (such as Collections). Ferdinand Zdenko's testament would prove this deduction. Furthermore the terms of the so called "Exchange Contract" of 1941/1942 (see), not legally validated, concluded between Maximilian and his father on the basis of a verbal exchange which supposedly took place shortly before Ferdinand Zdenko's death in 1938 equally infers the same conclusion.

- why did the restitution laws not include clauses that if  properties were to be returned, they should be returned with all the obligations and liens attached to them. The foreseeable problems of "undue enrichment" of the restituee at the expense of the past beneficiary of the obligations could have been easily averted? Why did the courts favour some restituees to such an extent as recognizing the communist laws that extinguished the liens attached to restituted property?

The purpose of the reservation in the restitution laws seen as "effort to mitigate the consequences of some injuries to property and other cases of injustice" is that the State was aware that practically, they could only commit to a certain point, but not to justify the denial of one person's claim for the benefit of another.