Abstract

The article analyses the issue of choosing the procedure for awarding a public contract to perform author's supervision in the course of construction works carried out according to an architectural design which is a work within the meaning of copyright law.

An answer to the question whether competitive procedures are acceptable or whether we are dealing with a copyright monopoly is preceded by the presentation of the evolution of case law, at the same time indicating of its inconsistencies.

The problem is resolved by explaining the essence of author's supervision within the meaning of construction law and the author's personal right to supervise how an architectural work is exploited. An analysis of practical situations occurring on a day-to-day basis, preceded by indicating the doubts of the doctrine, allows placing both institutions in the realm of public law and private law, respectively. As result, it is concluded that it is inadmissible to identify author's supervision within the meaning of construction law with copyright supervision of how an architectural work is exploited.

The results of the study lead to a conclusion that author's supervision over the implementation of an architectural design should be contracted in a competitive procedure.