-
- Emmanuel Macron
Photo : Wikimedia (CC BY SA-2.0) - See the image in its page
The French President of the Republic was not happy when he learned of the CNPA’s decision to vote against the project to replace Viollet-le-Duc’s stained glass windows with contemporary ones. He was angry and surprised because at first he thought, as did the ministry, that the civil servants representing the ministry on the commission had voted against, the minutes referring to a unanimous vote. However, they had been instructed to vote in favour of the presidential project, which, incidentally, raises questions about a committee whose purpose is to advise the Minister of Culture, while the same Minister tells some of its members what they should vote for.
It was unanimous, as we have written, even if the Ministry of Culture now claims otherwise. Although abstentions count as votes cast, in this case there were no abstentions because these officials did not take part in the vote. The fact that the civil servants who were instructed to vote in favour did not take part in the vote so as not to have to vote against (and therefore refused even to abstain) says enough, however, about what they think.
Rumours circulating within the Ministry have reached us, indicating that Emmanuel Macron would have liked an internal investigation and sanctions - against the Director General of Heritage or against the members of the CNPA, the versions differ - but our investigation has convinced us that this was not the case, even if the idea may have crossed his mind. In any case, it would have been too visible. So there will be no investigation and no sanctions. On the other hand, the Ministry’s statement that the competition was continuing and that the winning project would be resubmitted to the CNPA in November (see article) was directly dictated by the Élysée. Be that as it may, the project is clearly off to a bad start, and not just because the President of the Republic is now very weakened.
On the one hand, the Sites & Monuments association has confirmed to us that it will be challenging the works permit that must be filed for any work on a historic monument. And we will be joining in this initiative by offering the signatories of the petition - which is still online - to help the association financially with the legal costs [1].
Secondly, there appear to be a number of irregularities in the procedure. We have already identified three of them, not counting those that the lawyer hired by the association may also find:
– The public establishment created specifically for the restoration of Notre-Dame, whose name is "public administrative establishment responsible for the conservation and restoration of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral", has as its mission exactly what is contained in its name, which was defined by the law of 29 July 2019: "to ensure the conduct, coordination and implementation of studies and operations contributing to the conservation and restoration of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral". However, it is this public establishment that is in charge of the project to replace the stained glass windows and is organising the consultation, as can be read, for example, on the Ministry of Culture website. In fact, it was Philippe Jost, its chairman, who came to defend the project himself before the CNPA. This has nothing to do with the conservation or restoration of Notre-Dame: the whole procedure is therefore null and void.
– Although the operation will not be financed by the national fund-raising campaign [2], the fact remains that the stained glass windows that are to be removed have already been restored thanks to money from this national fund-raising campaign. How can we justify spending donors’ money on restoring stained glass windows that will then be removed and stored in crates? This seems rather difficult to defend, and once again seems to run counter to the law that introduced the national fund-raising campaign.
– Enfin, le vote à l’unanimité est un point important que regarde toujours le Conseil d’État lorsqu’il a à juger des recours. Nous avions écrit que l’unanimité était une chose quasiment unique ; cela s’applique aux projets défendus par le ministère de la Culture, mais l’unanimité peut exister par exemple lorsqu’il s’agit d’imposer un classement d’office. Et dans ce cas, le Conseil d’État prend en compte qu’une commission d’experts se prononce d’une seule voix. L’avis consultatif habituel de la CNPA peut ainsi devenir en pratique, devant la justice administrative, l’équivalent d’un avis conforme.
L’opération semble donc mal partie pour le président de la République et l’archevêque de Paris, ardent supporter également de ce projet. On peut tout de même s’interroger sur l’obstination d’Emmanuel Macron, lui qui devrait manifestement avoir d’autres sujets de préoccupation…