TY - JOUR

T1 - Judgement Day in Heritage Hell

T2 - Heritage Practice, Policy, and the Law in Austria (and Beyond)

AU - Karl, Raimund

N1 - 2018 Taylor & Francis. This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Taylor & Francis via the DOI in this record

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - Two recent higher court findings from Austria show how the Austrian National Heritage Agency [BDA] has misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of § 11 (1) Austrian Monument Protection Law. While the BDA has maintained for decades that consent is required under § 11 (1) for any fieldwork, even surface surveys, regardless of whether archaeology is known, legal challenge has established that neither is the case. Rather, it appears that consent under § 11 (1) is only required where there is evidence that significant archaeology will be found during the fieldwork. Furthermore, § 11 (1) only applies to sub-surface fieldwork or under-water evidence. As a consequence, as many as c.10,000 permits may have been granted illegally, with potentially costly conditions attached. This paper examines the court findings, their consequences for Austrian archaeological heritage management, the reasons why the BDA misinterpreted the law and reflects on the wider implications.

AB - Two recent higher court findings from Austria show how the Austrian National Heritage Agency [BDA] has misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of § 11 (1) Austrian Monument Protection Law. While the BDA has maintained for decades that consent is required under § 11 (1) for any fieldwork, even surface surveys, regardless of whether archaeology is known, legal challenge has established that neither is the case. Rather, it appears that consent under § 11 (1) is only required where there is evidence that significant archaeology will be found during the fieldwork. Furthermore, § 11 (1) only applies to sub-surface fieldwork or under-water evidence. As a consequence, as many as c.10,000 permits may have been granted illegally, with potentially costly conditions attached. This paper examines the court findings, their consequences for Austrian archaeological heritage management, the reasons why the BDA misinterpreted the law and reflects on the wider implications.

KW - ARCHAEOLOGY

KW - Heritage

KW - Heritage law

KW - Heritage management

KW - LAW

KW - Court judgements

KW - Austria

U2 - 10.1080/17567505.2018.1463084

DO - 10.1080/17567505.2018.1463084

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 128

EP - 149

JO - Historic Environment – Policy and Practice

JF - Historic Environment – Policy and Practice

SN - 1756-7505

IS - 2

ER -