-
- Alfred Gérente (1821-1868)
Under the direction of Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1869)
Stained glass window from the Saint Francis Xavier chapel, 1865, second chapel of the right aisle (after restoration)
Paris, cathédrale Notre-Dame
Photo: Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
It is a defeat, but only a partial and temporary one: the administrative court of Paris has rejected the claim of the association Sites & Monuments and of a private donor, Jean-David Jumeau-Lafond, seeking to annul or terminate the public contract for the creation of contemporary stained glass at Notre-Dame. The arguments were nonetheless clear and established, the main one (see this article) being that the public institution, by law, was created to conserve and restore Notre-Dame, and that this operation, which also contravenes the Venice Charter, has the opposite effect: it is neither a restoration (the original stained glass, classified as historic monuments, were not damaged by the fire and have even since been cleaned) nor a conservation (in fact, the opposite).
The court’s conclusions are remarkable enough to be cited here and commented on.
It first explains that the terms “conservation” and “restoration” are not “defined” in the text of the law of 29 July 2019 nor in the decree of 28 November 2019, nor in the French Heritage Code. An absurd claim that would imply one must define words as widely known and accepted as “restoration” and “conservation” of a historic monument. The court therefore suggests that replacing historic stained glass with other windows could constitute an act of “restoration” or “conservation”. Each reader will judge this originality accordingly. The administrative court goes further, stating explicitly that the law makes no “explicit reference to the Venice Charter”.
This is false. During parliamentary debates on the Notre-Dame law, the Venice Charter, ratified by France, was cited very clearly by legislators and contains definitions of what conservation and restoration are [1]. Anne Brugnera, rapporteur of the bill during the National Assembly session of 16 July 2019, specified that it was not necessary to “invoke compliance with the Venice Charter and the application of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention is not necessary. Our country, having signed these texts, will apply them”. This position was also endorsed by the Minister of Culture at the time, Franck Riester: “Mme la rapporteure and I share the same interpretation”. As Me Monamy, lawyer for Sites & Monuments, writes in his conclusions: “Thus, if the law finally adopted does not refer to the Venice Charter, it is simply because the Government and, subsequently, the majority that voted for the text in the final reading of the National Assembly considered that the notions of ’conservation’ and ’restoration’ should be interpreted in light of the requirements of the Venice Charter.”
Respect for the Venice Charter, which de facto prohibits the replacement of windows not affected by the fire, is thus part of the law, which did not need to define these widely known notions, as they were to be interpreted in accordance with the charter. Yet the administrative court ignored all this. Worse, it even writes in its reasoning (we emphasise in bold): “This charter has no direct effect in domestic law, and if it can shed light on the definition of the terms ‘conservation’ and ‘restoration’, these definitions, which do not bind the legislator, cannot be invoked to clarify their meaning and scope, as the legislator did not appropriate the terms, as clearly emerges from parliamentary debates.”
In reality, the opposite emerges from the parliamentary debates.
The administrative court also disregarded the statements of the Minister of Culture, Roselyne Bachelot, who in November 2020 stated just as clearly that “the stained glass forms an integral part of the monument” and “the grisaille windows are listed as historic monuments, and it therefore seems out of the question to replace them”, especially as “France signed the Venice Charter of 1964, which makes the removal of these windows and their replacement with modern works absolutely impossible. This is unacceptable to me and contrary to the conventions we have signed.” For the administrative court, therefore, all this is null and void. The replacement of the stained glass is considered an operation of “restoration” or “conservation”, and the Venice Charter, which the government and legislators considered applicable, does not apply, not to mention the CNPA’s opinion, which was unanimously opposed to the project.
There is clearly cause for indignation, and the president of Sites & Monuments, Julien Lacaze, has confirmed that the case will be taken to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Paris.
The association will soon open another front against the decision to replace the windows themselves. According to our information, Viollet-le-Duc’s windows are expected to be removed from March 2026, implying that the work authorisation will soon be granted. This, in turn, will be challenged before the administrative court.
The case is therefore far from over, at a time when it is revealed that an additional six million euros will be required to complete the restoration of Notre-Dame (see for example this article), six million, while at least four will be used to denature the cathedral! It is, of course, still possible to sign the petition that we launched, which now approaches 300 000 signatories. There is no doubt that reaching this milestone will bring it back into the spotlight.