The castle accepts the results of the inspection of the Supreme Audit Office

The castle accepts the results of the inspection of the Supreme Audit Office

The castle accepts the inspection results of the Nejvy inspection department

Illustration photo – Castle Chancellor Vratislav Mynář (left) and President Miloš Zeman in a picture taken on July 10, 2018.

Prague – The Office of the President of the Republic (KPR) accepts the results of the inspection of the Supreme Audit Office (NAO) at Prague Castle, Prague Castle spokesman Vít Novák said in a press release. At the same time, on the Castle's website, he published parts of three resolutions of the SAO collegium, in which the control authority accepted the CPR's appeal on some points. The final result of the inspection at the Castle is currently not publicly known. Although the board of the SAO has already approved the inspection conclusion, because the police is also dealing with the matter, it cannot be published yet, SAO spokeswoman Hana Kadečková told ČTK. Documents published by the castle document which objections of the Prague Castle the SAO accepted. What the inspectors discovered, however, does not follow from them.

Advertisement'; }

“The Office of the President of the Republic accepts the results of the SAO inspection carried out both at the Office of the President of the Republic and at the Administration of Prague Castle and the Lány Forestry Administration,” said Novák. According to him, the objectivity of the control is evidenced by the fact that the collegium partially accepted the Castle's appeal. According to Novák, the finding that questioned the continuity between the legal services of the law firm Pejchal, Nespala et spol. and legal services of Advokátní kancelář Nespala s.r.o. At the Prague Castle Administration, the SAO also acknowledged the objection regarding the lease relationship of the Friends of Miloš Zeman association.

According to Novák, the SAO continues to blame KPR for the payment of expenses for the legal representation of Miloš Zeman as a private person. “This matter was settled financially with AK Nespala s.r.o., so ultimately the Office of the President of the Republic did not pay anything for this legal service, that is, public funds are not cut,” said Novák. “Furthermore, there was a finding objecting to the fact that the insignia of state awards granted in the form of orders are not kept in the accounting,” he added. According to him, the Castle has corrected this and the insignia will be entered in the accounting.

The findings of the Prague Castle Administration and the Forestry Administration of Lány relate mainly to violations of regulations on the awarding of public contracts. “In addition, organizational measures will be taken to remedy this so that these deficiencies do not recur, and personnel measures will also be taken to ensure the effectiveness of these measures,” Novák wrote.

For example, according to documents published by the Castle, the inspectors blame the Lánské forest administration for accepting 560,000 crowns in cash for the possibility of hunting in the Lánské forest in November 2021. According to the law, however, the payment of over 270,000 crowns must be made without cash.

Another objection concerns, for example, the too low rent for the office buildings and apartments of the forest administration last year. According to the SAO, the employees of this contribution organization paid from 12.46 crowns to 38.95 crowns per square meter per month. The inspectors stated that this does not correspond to the amount of rent in the usual place and time.

Prague Castle informed on Monday that, based on the inspection by the SAO, it had another audit prepared. Due to the detected misconduct of a property and economic nature, KPR filed a criminal complaint through Nespala. The suspicions relate to the violation of regulations on the rules of economic competition, misrepresentation of data on the state of the economy, breach of duty in the management of someone else's property, theft, embezzlement or fraud. This is, for example, the theft of alcohol or toilet fees.