ÿWPC  1£´Zx€æ!YÞÔ8ª±Cˆh/ Ôxiä:qkCyfQÏĨá$hÁ‹"¬1l¦ñÜ Ÿ€i%8hñ±é-5¨adë}ÐvWcƒ 3H®Eóþ@~Î{‘>ã$KºàjßËgqõæìÊ•XŽáΦ‚Ñwf¢†™¹i>WXT[Ê6¶RÛ¾.IMÄgÝÄ-áO¿ºøžŠ×)8m4èÝ^ã¥:b(å= ˜ÞÖ¢»xY»Ä2W±«Y@ZÓ†ŽLØõɯÚô‘zí&bC0tYÔë|3’m/†¦ºК/´ãßp¤¾œÔŽá7_¶ãß틚ù8…‹J8¤fÒR#>ÛeíŸí‡›È,-Ë”t8â‰Z„ f! µïÊyMÉM’.y0¶ô+–}0¼ÆçÖ¤Ñ?¬Àž-5‰¶ÿº›ƒCT¬ûÊÙ'†ÿÞ«X÷?-AæüEs¹Þ·¿ÆU>BÌ€ 0nL 0iº 0Y# 0_| 0&ÛU6 %7 = 0ÆM #Á UNÔ Ô M" (& NN ^ P w\ 4` t mv ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - 4nt - Jurisprudence - "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   <ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔ< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô<qyÿÿ:HTML TypewriÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔS€ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÔ  Ô<þ6X9`(‹Courier New X#|x(žÅÅ$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ XvàXX XÔÔ€XvàXX XvàÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PS,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularË“ô* Äpì*/00112 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ ÅÅ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ XvXX XÔÔ€XvXX XvÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔSimunekÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Czech€RepublicóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No€516/1992Ð H˜ ÐÌ19€July€1995Ð  d ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/54/D/516/1992Ð à 0 ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Mrs.€Ô_ÔAlinaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSimunekÔ_Ô,€Mrs.€Ô_ÔDagmarÔ_Ô€Hastings,€Ô_ÔTuzilovaÔ_Ô€and€Mr.€JosefÐ D”  ÐÔ_ÔProchazkaÔ_ԀР*z  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimsóó:€The€authors€and€Ô_ÔJaroslavÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSimunekÔ_Ô€(Mrs.€Ô_ÔAlinaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSimunekÔ_Ô's€husband)€Ð öF ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€The€Czech€Republic€Ð  ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€17€September€1991€(initial€submissions)óó€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ @ Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð &v ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€19€July€1995,€Ð òB ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€516/1992€submitted€to€the€HumanÐ ¾ ÐRights€Committee€by€Mrs.€Ô_ÔAlinaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSimunekÔ_Ô,€Mrs.€Ô_ÔDagmarÔ_Ô€Hastings€Ô_ÔTuzilovaÔ_Ô€and€Mr.€JosefÐ ¤ô ÐÔ_ÔProchazkaÔ_Ô€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€PoliticalÐ Š Ú ÐRights,€Ð p!À  ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€authors€of€theÐ <#Œ" Ðcommunication€and€the€State€party,€Ð "$r# ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€its€Ð î%>!% ÐÓÆÓÌÓ  ÓÌò òòòViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóóó ó€Ð  (ð#( ÐÓ˜ÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€authors€of€the€communications€are€Alina€Simunek,€who€acts€on€her€behalf€and€onÐ R+¢&+ Ðbehalf€of€her€husband,€Jaroslav€Simunek,€Dagmar€Tuzilova€Hastings€and€Josef€Ô_ÔProchazkaÔ_Ô,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðresidents€of€Canada€and€Switzerland,€respectively.€They€claim€to€be€victims€of€violations€ofÐ -n(- Ðtheir€human€rights€by€the€Czech€Republic.€The€Covenant€was€ratified€by€Czechoslovakia€onÐ ° Ð23€December€1975.€The€Optional€Protocol€entered€into€force€for€the€Czech€Republic€on€12Ð –æ ÐJune€1991.òò€1óó€Ð |Ì ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authorsóó:€Ð H˜ ÐÌ2.1€Alina€Simunek,€a€Polish€citizen€born€in€1960,€and€Jaroslav€Simunek,€a€Czech€citizen,Ð  d Ðcurrently€reside€in€Ontario,€Canada.€They€state€that€they€were€forced€to€leaveÐ ú J ÐCzechoslovakia€in€1987,€under€pressure€of€the€security€forces€of€the€communist€regime.Ð à 0 ÐUnder€the€legislation€then€applicable,€their€property€was€confiscated.€After€the€fall€of€theÐ Æ   ÐCommunist€government€on€17€November€1989,€the€Czech€authorities€published€statementsÐ ¬ ü  Ðwhich€indicated€that€expatriate€Czech€citizens€would€be€rehabilitated€in€as€far€as€anyÐ ’â  Ðcriminal€conviction€was€concerned,€and€their€property€restituted.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ2.2€In€July€1990,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Simunek€returned€to€Czechoslovakia€in€order€to€submit€aÐ D”  Ðrequest€for€the€return€of€their€property,€which€had€been€confiscated€by€the€District€NationalÐ *z  ÐCommittee,€a€State€organ,€in€Jablonece.€It€transpired,€however,€that€between€September€1989Ð ` Ðand€February€1990,€all€their€property€and€personal€effects€had€been€evaluated€and€auctionedÐ öF Ðoff€by€the€District€National€Committee.€Unsaleable€items€had€been€destroyed.€On€13Ð Ü, ÐFebruary€1990,€the€authors'€real€estate€was€transferred€to€the€Jablonece€Sklarny€factory,€forÐ Â Ðwhich€Jaroslav€Simunek€had€been€working€for€twenty€years.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ2.3€Upon€lodging€a€complaint€with€the€District€National€Committee,€an€arbitration€hearingÐ tÄ Ðwas€convened€between€the€authors,€their€witnesses€and€representatives€of€the€factory€on€18Ð Zª ÐJuly€1990.€The€latter's€representatives€denied€that€the€transfer€of€the€authors'€property€hadÐ @ Ðbeen€illegal.€The€authors€thereupon€petitioned€the€office€of€the€district€public€prosecutor,Ð &v Ðrequesting€an€investigation€of€the€matter€on€the€ground€that€the€transfer€of€their€property€hadÐ  \ Ðbeen€illegal,€since€it€had€been€transferred€in€the€absence€of€a€court€order€or€court€proceedingsÐ òB Ðto€which€the€authors€had€been€parties.€On€17€September€1990,€the€Criminal€InvestigationsÐ Ø( ÐDepartment€of€the€National€Police€in€Jablonece€launched€an€investigation;€its€report€of€29Ð ¾ ÐNovember€1990€concluded€that€no€violation€of€(then)€applicable€regulations€could€beÐ ¤ô Ðascertained,€and€that€the€authors'€claim€should€be€dismissed,€as€the€Government€had€not€yetÐ Š Ú Ðamended€the€former€legislation.€Ð p!À  ÐÌ2.4€On€2€February€1991,€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Government€adopted€Act€87/1991,Ð <#Œ" Ðwhich€entered€into€force€on€1€April€1991.€It€endorses€the€rehabilitation€of€Czech€citizensÐ "$r# Ðwho€had€left€the€country€under€communist€pressure€and€lays€down€the€conditions€forÐ %X $ Ðrestitution€or€compensation€for€loss€of€property.€Under€Section€3,€subsection€1,€of€the€Act,Ð î%>!% Ðthose€who€had€their€property€turned€into€State€ownership€in€the€cases€specified€in€SectionÐ Ô&$"& Ð6€of€the€Act€are€entitled€to€restitution,€but€only€if€they€are€citizens€of€the€Czech€and€SlovakÐ º' #' ÐFederal€Republic€òòandóó€are€permanent€residents€in€its€territory.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ2.5€Under€Section€5,€subsection€1,€of€the€Act,€anyone€currently€in€(illegal)€possession€of€theÐ l*¼%* Ðproperty€shall€restitute€it€to€the€rightful€owner,€upon€a€written€request€from€the€latter,€whoÐ R+¢&+ Ðmust€also€prove€his€or€her€claim€to€the€property€and€demonstrate€how€the€property€wasÐ 8,ˆ', Ðturned€over€to€the€State.€Under€subsection€2,€the€request€for€restitution€must€be€submittedÐ -n(- Ðto€the€individual€in€possession€of€the€property,€within€six€months€of€the€entry€into€force€ofÐ ° Ðthe€Act.€If€the€person€in€possession€of€the€property€does€not€comply€with€the€request,€theÐ –æ Ðrightful€owner€may€submit€his€or€her€claim€to€the€competent€tribunal,€within€one€year€of€theÐ |Ì Ðdate€of€entry€into€force€of€the€Act€(subsection€4).€Ð b² ÐÌ2.6€With€regard€to€the€issue€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€it€appears€that€the€authorsÐ . ~ Ðhave€not€submitted€their€claims€for€restitution€to€the€local€courts,€as€required€under€SectionÐ  d Ð5,€subsection€4,€of€the€Act.€It€transpires€from€their€submissions€that€they€consider€thisÐ ú J Ðremedy€ineffective,€as€they€do€not€fulfil€the€requirements€under€Section€3,€subsection€1.Ð à 0 ÐAlina€Simunek€adds€that€they€have€lodged€complaints€with€the€competent€municipal,Ð Æ   Ðprovincial€and€federal€authorities,€to€no€avail.€She€also€notes€that€the€latest€correspondenceÐ ¬ ü  Ðis€a€letter€from€the€Czech€President's€Office,€dated€16€June€1992,€in€which€the€author€isÐ ’â  Ðinformed€that€the€President's€Office€cannot€intervene€in€the€matter,€and€that€only€theÐ xÈ  Ðtribunals€are€competent€to€pronounce€on€the€matter.€The€author's€subsequent€letters€remainedÐ ^®  Ðwithout€reply.€Ð D”  ÐÌ2.7€Dagmar€Hastings€Tuzilova,€an€American€citizen€by€marriage€and€currently€residing€inÐ ` ÐSwitzerland,€emigrated€from€Czechoslovakia€in€1968.€On€21€May€1974,€she€was€sentencedÐ öF Ðòòin€absentiaóó€to€a€prison€term€as€well€as€forfeiture€of€her€property,€on€the€ground€that€she€hadÐ Ü, Ð'illegally€emigrated'€from€Czechoslovakia.€Her€property,€5/18€shares€of€her€family's€estateÐ Â Ðin€Pilsen,€is€currently€held€by€the€Administration€of€Houses€in€this€city.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ2.8€By€decision€of€4€October€1990€of€the€District€Court€of€Pilsen,€Dagmar€Hastings€TuzilovaÐ tÄ Ðwas€rehabilitated;€the€District€Court's€earlier€decision,€as€well€as€all€other€decisions€in€theÐ Zª Ðcase,€were€declared€null€and€void.€All€her€subsequent€applications€to€the€competentÐ @ Ðauthorities€and€a€request€to€the€Administration€of€Houses€in€Pilsen€to€negotiate€the€restitutionÐ &v Ðof€her€property€have,€however,€not€produced€any€tangible€result.€Ð  \ ÐÌ2.9€Apparently,€the€Administration€of€Housing€agreed,€in€the€spring€of€1992,€to€transfer€theÐ Ø( Ð5/18€of€the€house€back€to€her,€on€the€condition€that€the€State€notary€in€Pilsen€agreed€toÐ ¾ Ðregister€this€transaction.€The€State€notary,€however,€has€so€far€refused€to€register€the€transfer.Ð ¤ô ÐAt€the€beginning€of€1993,€the€District€Court€of€Pilsen€confirmed€the€notary's€action€(CaseÐ Š Ú ÐNo.€11€Co.€409/92).€The€author€states€that€she€was€informed€that€she€could€appeal€thisÐ p!À  Ðdecision,€via€the€District€Court€in€Pilsen,€to€the€Supreme€Court.€She€apparently€filed€anÐ V"¦! Ðappeal€with€the€Supreme€Court€on€7€May€1993,€but€no€decision€had€been€taken€as€of€20Ð <#Œ" ÐJanuary€1994.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ2.10€On€16€March€1992,€Dagmar€Hastings€Tuzilova€filed€a€civil€action€against€theÐ î%>!% ÐAdministration€of€Houses,€pursuant€to€Section€5,€subsection€4,€of€the€Act.€On€25€May€1992,Ð Ô&$"& Ðthe€District€Court€of€Pilsen€dismissed€the€claim,€on€the€ground€that,€as€an€American€citizenÐ º' #' Ðresiding€in€Switzerland,€she€was€not€entitled€to€restitution€within€the€meaning€of€Section€3,Ð  (ð#( Ðsubsection€1,€of€Act€87/1991.€The€author€contends€that€any€appeal€against€this€decisionÐ †)Ö$) Ðwould€be€ineffective.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ2.11€Josef€Prochazka€is€a€Czech€citizen€born€in€1920,€who€currently€resides€in€Switzerland.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐHe€fled€from€Czechoslovakia€in€August€1968,€together€with€his€wife€and€two€sons.€In€theÐ -n(- Ðformer€Czechoslovakia,€he€owned€a€house€with€two€three„bedroom€apartments€and€a€garden,Ð ° Ðas€well€as€another€plot€of€land.€Towards€the€beginning€of€1969,€he€donated€his€property,€inÐ –æ Ðthe€appropriate€form€and€with€the€consent€of€the€authorities,€to€his€father.€By€judgments€ofÐ |Ì Ða€district€court€of€July€and€September€1971,€he,€his€wife€and€sons€were€sentenced€to€prisonÐ b² Ðterms€on€the€grounds€of€"illegal€emigration"€from€Czechoslovakia.€In€1973,€JosefÐ H˜ ÐProchazka's€father€died;€in€his€will,€which€was€recognized€as€valid€by€the€authorities,€theÐ . ~ Ðauthor's€sons€inherited€the€house€and€other€real€estate.€Ð  d ÐÌ2.12€In€1974,€the€court€decreed€the€confiscation€of€the€author's€property,€because€of€his€andÐ à 0 Ðhis€family's€"illegal€emigration",€in€spite€of€the€fact€that€the€authorities€had,€several€yearsÐ Æ   Ðearlier,€recognized€as€lawful€the€transfer€of€the€property€to€the€author's€father.€In€DecemberÐ ¬ ü  Ð1974,€the€house€and€garden€were€sold,€according€to€the€author€at€a€ridiculously€low€price,Ð ’â  Ðto€a€high€party€official.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ2.13€By€decisions€of€26€September€1990€and€of€31€January€1991,€respectively,€the€DistrictÐ D”  ÐCourt€of€Ust€rehabilitated€the€author€and€his€sons€as€far€as€their€criminal€conviction€wasÐ *z  Ðconcerned,€with€retroactive€effect.€This€means€that€the€court€decisions€of€1971€and€1974€(seeÐ ` Ðparagraphs€2.11€and€2.12€above)€were€invalidated.€Ð öF ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó:€Ð  ÐÌ3.1€Alina€and€Jaroslav€Simunek€contend€that€the€requirements€of€Act€87/1991€constituteÐ ŽÞ Ðunlawful€discrimination,€as€it€only€applies€to€"pure€Czechs€living€in€the€Czech€and€SlovakÐ tÄ ÐFederal€Republic".€Those€who€fled€the€country€or€were€forced€into€exile€by€the€ex„Ð Zª Ðcommunist€regime€must€take€a€permanent€residence€in€Czechoslovakia€to€be€eligible€forÐ @ Ðrestitution€or€compensation.€Alina€Simunek,€who€lived€and€worked€in€Czechoslovakia€forÐ &v Ðeight€years,€would€not€be€eligible€at€all€for€restitution,€on€account€of€her€Polish€citizenship.Ð  \ ÐThe€authors€claim€that€the€Act€in€reality€legalizes€former€Communist€practices,€as€more€thanÐ òB Ð80%€of€the€confiscated€property€belongs€to€persons€who€do€not€meet€these€strictÐ Ø( Ðrequirements.€Ð ¾ ÐÌ3.2€Alina€Simunek€alleges€that€the€conditions€for€restitution€imposed€by€the€Act€constituteÐ Š Ú Ðdiscrimination€on€the€basis€of€political€opinion€and€religion,€without€however€substantiatingÐ p!À  Ðher€claim.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ3.3€Dagmar€Hastings€Tuzilova€claims€that€the€requirements€of€Act€87/1991€constituteÐ "$r# Ðunlawful€discrimination,€contrary€to€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð %X $ ÐÌ3.4€Josef€Prochazka€also€claims€that€he€is€a€victim€of€the€discriminatory€provisions€of€ActÐ Ô&$"& Ð87/1991;€he€adds€that€as€the€court€decided,€with€retroactive€effect,€that€the€confiscation€ofÐ º' #' Ðhis€property€was€null€and€void,€the€law€should€not€be€applied€to€him€at€all,€as€he€never€lostÐ  (ð#( Ðhis€legal€title€to€his€property,€and€because€there€can€be€no€question€of€'restitution'€of€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðproperty.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌòòThe€Committee's€admissibility€decisionóó:€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð4.1€On€26€October€1993,€the€communications€were€transmitted€to€the€State€party€under€ruleÐ ° Ð91€of€the€rules€of€procedure€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee.€No€submission€under€rule€91Ð –æ Ðwas€received€from€the€State€party,€despite€a€reminder€addressed€to€it.€The€authors€wereÐ |Ì Ðequally€requested€to€provide€a€number€of€clarifications;€they€complied€with€this€request€byÐ b² Ðletters€of€25€November€1993€(Alina€and€Jaroslav€Simunek),€3€December€1993€and€11/12Ð H˜ ÐApril€1994€(Josef€Prochazka)€and€19€January€1994€(Dagmar€Hastings€Tuzilova).€Ð . ~ ÐÌ4.2€At€its€51st€session€the€Committee€considered€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€ItÐ ú J Ðnoted€with€regret€the€State€party's€failure€to€provide€information€and€observations€on€theÐ à 0 Ðquestion€of€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€Notwithstanding€this€absence€ofÐ Æ   Ðcooperation€on€the€part€of€the€State€party,€the€Committee€proceeded€to€ascertain€whether€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðconditions€of€admissibility€under€the€Optional€Protocol€had€been€met.€Ð ’â  ÐÌ4.3€The€Committee€noted€that€the€confiscation€and€sale€of€the€property€in€question€by€theÐ ^®  Ðauthorities€of€Czechoslovakia€occurred€in€the€1970's€and€1980's.€Irrespective€of€the€fact€thatÐ D”  Ðall€these€events€took€place€prior€to€the€date€of€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€forÐ *z  Ðthe€Czech€Republic,€the€Committee€recalled€that€the€right€to€property,€as€such,€is€notÐ ` Ðprotected€by€the€Covenant.€Ð öF ÐÌ4.4€The€Committee€observed,€however,€that€the€authors€complained€about€the€discriminatoryÐ Â Ðeffect€of€the€provisions€of€Act€87/1991,€in€the€sense€that€they€apply€only€to€personsÐ ¨ø Ðunlawfully€stripped€of€their€property€under€the€former€regime€who€now€have€a€permanentÐ ŽÞ Ðresidence€in€the€Czech€Republic€and€are€Czech€citizens.€Thus€the€question€before€theÐ tÄ ÐCommittee€was€whether€the€law€could€be€deemed€discriminatory€within€the€meaning€ofÐ Zª Ðarticle€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð @ ÐÌ4.5€The€Committee€observed€that€the€State€party's€obligations€under€the€Covenant€appliedÐ  \ Ðas€of€the€date€of€its€entry€into€force.€A€different€issue€arose€as€to€when€the€Committee'sÐ òB Ðcompetence€to€consider€complaints€about€alleged€violations€of€the€Covenant€under€theÐ Ø( ÐOptional€Protocol€was€engaged.€In€its€jurisprudence€under€the€Optional€Protocol,€theÐ ¾ ÐCommittee€has€consistently€held€that€it€cannot€consider€alleged€violations€of€the€CovenantÐ ¤ô Ðwhich€occurred€before€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€the€State€party,€unlessÐ Š Ú Ðthe€violations€complained€of€continue€after€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€AÐ p!À  Ðcontinuing€violation€is€to€be€interpreted€as€an€affirmation,€after€the€entry€into€force€of€theÐ V"¦! ÐOptional€Protocol,€by€act€or€by€clear€implication,€of€the€previous€violations€of€the€StateÐ <#Œ" Ðparty.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ4.6€While€the€authors€in€the€present€case€have€had€their€criminal€convictions€quashed€byÐ î%>!% ÐCzech€tribunals,€they€still€contend€that€Act€No.€87/1991€discriminates€against€them,€in€thatÐ Ô&$"& Ðin€the€case€of€two€of€the€applicants€(Mr.€and€Mrs.€Simunek;€Mrs.€Hastings€Tuzilova),€theyÐ º' #' Ðcannot€benefit€from€the€law€because€they€are€not€Czech€citizens€or€have€no€residence€in€theÐ  (ð#( ÐCzech€Republic,€and€that€in€the€case€of€the€third€applicant€(Mr.€Prochazka),€the€law€shouldÐ †)Ö$) Ðnot€have€been€deemed€applicable€to€his€situation€at€all.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ5.€On€22€July€1994€the€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€òòdecidedóó€that€the€communicationÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwas€admissible€in€as€much€as€it€may€raise€issues€under€articles€14,€paragraph€6,€and€26€ofÐ -n(- Ðthe€Covenant.€Ð ° ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€explanationsóó€Ð |Ì ÐÌ6.1€In€its€submission,€dated€12€December€1994,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€legislation€inÐ H˜ Ðquestion€is€not€discriminatory.€It€draws€the€Committee's€attention€to€the€fact€that€accordingÐ . ~ Ðto€article€11,€Section€2,€of€the€Charter€of€Fundamental€Rights€and€Freedoms,€which€is€partÐ  d Ðof€the€Constitution€of€the€Czech€Republic,€"...€the€law€may€specify€that€some€things€may€beÐ ú J Ðowned€exclusively€by€citizens€or€by€legal€persons€having€their€seat€in€the€Czech€Republic."€Ð à 0 ÐÌ6.2€The€State€party€affirms€its€commitment€to€the€settlement€of€property€claims€by€restitutionÐ ¬ ü  Ðof€properties€to€persons€injured€during€the€period€of€25€February€1948€to€1€January€1990.Ð ’â  ÐAlthough€certain€criteria€had€to€be€stipulated€for€the€restitution€of€confiscated€properties,€theÐ xÈ  Ðpurpose€of€such€requirements€is€not€to€violate€human€rights.€The€Czech€Republic€cannot€andÐ ^®  Ðwill€not€dictate€to€anybody€where€to€live.€Restitution€of€confiscated€property€is€a€veryÐ D”  Ðcomplicated€and€de€facto€unprecedented€measure€and€therefore€it€cannot€be€expected€toÐ *z  Ðrectify€all€damages€and€to€satisfy€all€the€people€injured€by€the€Communist€regime.€Ð ` ÐÌ7.1€With€respect€to€the€communication€submitted€by€Mrs.€Alina€Simunek€the€State€partyÐ Ü, Ðargues€that€the€documents€submitted€by€the€author€do€not€define€the€claims€clearly€enough.Ð Â ÐIt€appears€from€her€submission€that€Mr.€Jaroslav€Simunek€was€probably€kept€in€prison€byÐ ¨ø Ðthe€State€Security€Police.€Nevertheless,€it€is€not€clear€whether€he€was€kept€in€custody€orÐ ŽÞ Ðactually€sentenced€to€imprisonment.€As€concerns€the€confiscation€of€the€property€of€Mr.€andÐ tÄ ÐMrs.€Simunek,€the€communication€does€not€define€the€measure€on€the€basis€of€which€theyÐ Zª Ðwere€deprived€of€their€ownership€rights.€In€case€Mr.€Simunek€was€sentenced€for€a€criminalÐ @ Ðoffence€mentioned€in€Section€2€or€Section€4€of€Law€No.€119/1990€on€judicial€rehabilitationÐ &v Ðas€amended€by€subsequent€provisions,€he€could€claim€rehabilitation€under€the€law€or€inÐ  \ Ðreview€proceedings€and,€within€three€years€of€the€entry€into€force€of€the€court€decision€onÐ òB Ðhis€rehabilitation,€apply€to€the€Compensations€Department€of€the€Ministry€of€Justice€of€theÐ Ø( ÐCzech€Republic€for€compensation€pursuant€to€Section€23€of€the€above„mentioned€Law.€InÐ ¾ Ðcase€Mr.€Simunek€was€unlawfully€deprived€of€his€personal€liberty€and€his€property€wasÐ ¤ô Ðconfiscated€between€25€February€1948€and€1€January€1990€in€connection€with€a€criminalÐ Š Ú Ðoffence€mentioned€in€Section€2€and€Section€4€of€the€Law€but€the€criminal€proceedingsÐ p!À  Ðagainst€him€were€not€initiated,€he€could€apply€for€compensation€on€the€basis€of€a€courtÐ V"¦! Ðdecision€issued€at€the€request€of€the€injured€party€and€substantiate€his€application€with€theÐ <#Œ" Ðdocuments€which€he€had€at€his€disposal€or€which€his€legal€adviser€obtained€from€the€archivesÐ "$r# Ðof€the€Ministry€of€the€Interior€of€the€Czech€Republic.€Ð %X $ ÐÌ7.2€As€concerns€the€restitution€of€the€forfeited€or€confiscated€property,€the€State€partyÐ Ô&$"& Ðconcludes€from€the€submission€that€Alina€and€Jaroslav€Simunek€do€not€comply€with€theÐ º' #' Ðrequirements€of€Section€3€(1)€of€Law€No.€87/1991€on€extrajudicial€rehabilitations,€namelyÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€requirements€of€citizenship€of€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€and€permanentÐ †)Ö$) Ðresidence€on€its€territory.€Consequently,€they€cannot€be€recognized€as€persons€entitled€toÐ l*¼%* Ðrestitution.€Remedy€would€be€possible€only€in€case€at€least€one€of€them€complied€with€bothÐ R+¢&+ Ðrequirements€and€applied€for€restitution€within€6€months€from€the€entry€into€force€of€the€lawÐ 8,ˆ', Ðon€extrajudicial€rehabilitations€(i.e.€by€the€end€of€September€1991).€Ð -n(- Ї8.1€With€respect€to€the€communication€of€Mrs.€Dagmar€Hastings„Tuzilova€the€State€partyÐ ° Ðclarifies€that€Mrs.€Dagmar€Hastings„Tuzilova€claims€the€restitution€of€the€5/18€shares€ofÐ –æ Ðhouse€No.€2214€at€Cechova€61,€Pilsen,€forfeited€on€the€basis€of€the€ruling€of€the€PilsenÐ |Ì ÐDistrict€Court€of€21€May€1974,€by€which€she€was€sentenced€for€the€criminal€offence€ofÐ b² Ðillegal€emigration€according€to€Section€109€(2)€of€the€Criminal€Law.€She€was€rehabilitatedÐ H˜ Ðpursuant€to€Law€No.€119/1990€on€judicial€rehabilitations€by€the€ruling€of€the€Pilsen€DistrictÐ . ~ ÐCourt€of€4€October€1990.€She€applied€for€restitution€of€her€share€of€the€estate€in€PilsenÐ  d Ðpursuant€to€Law€No.€87/1991€on€extrajudicial€rehabilitations.€Mrs.€Hastings„TuzilovaÐ ú J Ðconcluded€an€agreement€on€the€restitution€with€the€Administration€of€Houses€in€Pilsen,Ð à 0 Ðwhich€the€State€Notary€in€Pilsen€refused€to€register€due€to€the€fact€that€she€did€not€complyÐ Æ   Ðwith€the€conditions€stipulated€by€Section€3€(1)€of€the€law€on€extrajudicial€rehabilitations.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ8.2€Mrs.€Hastings„Tuzilova,€although€rehabilitated€pursuant€to€the€law€on€judicialÐ xÈ  Ðrehabilitations,€cannot€be€considered€entitled€person€as€defined€by€Section€19€of€the€law€onÐ ^®  Ðextrajudicial€rehabilitations,€because€on€the€date€of€application€she€did€not€comply€with€theÐ D”  Ðrequirements€of€Section€3€(1)€of€the€above„mentioned€law,€i.e.€requirements€of€citizenshipÐ *z  Ðof€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€and€permanent€residence€on€its€territory.Ð ` ÐMoreover,€she€failed€to€fulfil€the€requirements€within€the€preclusive€period€stipulated€byÐ öF ÐSection€5€(2)€of€the€law€on€extrajudicial€rehabilitations.€Mrs.€Hastings„Tuzilova€acquiredÐ Ü, ÐCzech€citizenship€and€registered€her€permanent€residence€on€30€September€1992.€Ð  ÐÌ8.3€Section€20€(3)€of€the€law€on€extrajudicial€rehabilitations€says€that€the€statutory€period€forÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€submission€of€applications€for€restitution€based€on€the€sentence€of€forfeiture€which€wasÐ tÄ Ðdeclared€null€and€void€after€the€entry€into€force€of€the€law€on€extrajudicial€rehabilitationsÐ Zª Ðstarts€on€the€day€of€the€entry€into€force€of€the€annulment.€Nevertheless,€this€provision€cannotÐ @ Ðbe€applied€in€the€case€of€Mrs.€Hastings„Tuzilova€due€to€the€fact€that€her€judicialÐ &v Ðrehabilitation€entered€into€force€on€9€October€1990,€i.e.€before€the€entry€into€force€of€LawÐ  \ ÐNo.€87/1991€on€extrajudicial€rehabilitations€(1€April€1991).€Ð òB ÐÌ9.1€With€respect€to€the€communication€of€Mr.€Josef€Prochazka€the€State€party€argues€thatÐ ¾ ÐSection€3€of€Law€No.€87/1991€on€extrajudicial€rehabilitations€defines€the€entitled€person,€i.e.Ð ¤ô Ðthe€person€who€could€within€the€statutory€period€claim€the€restitution€of€property€orÐ Š Ú Ðcompensation.€Applicants€who€did€not€acquire€citizenship€of€the€Czech€and€Slovak€FederalÐ p!À  ÐRepublic€and€register€their€permanent€residence€on€its€territory€before€the€end€of€theÐ V"¦! Ðstatutory€period€determined€for€the€submission€of€applications€(i.e.€before€1€October€1991Ð <#Œ" Ðfor€applicants€for€restitution€and€before€1€April€1992€for€applicants€for€compensation)€areÐ "$r# Ðnot€considered€entitled€persons.€Ð %X $ ÐÌ9.2€From€Mr.€Prochazka's€submission€the€State€party€concludes€that€the€property€devolvedÐ Ô&$"& Ðto€the€State€on€the€basis€of€the€ruling€of€the€Usti€nad€Labem€District€Court€of€1974€whichÐ º' #' Ðdeclared€the€1969€deed€of€gift€null€and€void€for€the€reason€that€the€donor€left€the€territory€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€former€Czechoslovak€Socialist€Republic.€Such€cases€are€provided€for€in€Section€6€(1)€(f)Ð †)Ö$) Ðof€the€law€on€extrajudicial€rehabilitations€which€defined€the€entitled€person€as€the€transfereeÐ l*¼%* Ðaccording€to€the€invalidated€deed,€i.e.€in€this€case€the€entitled€person€is€the€unnamed€fatherÐ R+¢&+ Ðof€Mr.€Prochazka.€Consequently,€the€persons€to€whom€the€sentence€of€forfeiture€invalidatedÐ 8,ˆ', Ðunder€Law€No.€119/1990€on€judicial€rehabilitations€applies,€cannot€be€regarded€as€entitledÐ -n(- Ðpersons,€as€Mr.€Prochazka€incorrectly€assumes.€Ð ° ÐÌ9.3€With€regard€to€the€fact€that€the€above„mentioned€father€of€Mr.€Prochazka€died€before€theÐ |Ì Ðentry€into€force€of€the€law€on€extrajudicial€rehabilitations,€the€entitled€persons€are€theÐ b² Ðtestamentary€heirs€„€Mr.€Prochazka's€sons€Josef€Prochazka€and€Jiri€Prochazka,€provided€thatÐ H˜ Ðthey€were€citizens€of€the€former€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€and€had€permanentÐ . ~ Ðresidence€on€its€territory.€The€fact€that€they€were€rehabilitated€pursuant€to€the€law€on€judicialÐ  d Ðrehabilitations€has€no€significance€in€this€case.€From€Mr.€Prochazka's€submission€the€StateÐ ú J Ðparty€concludes€that€Josef€Prochazka€and€Jiri€Prochazka€are€Czech€citizens€but€live€inÐ à 0 ÐSwitzerland€and€did€not€apply€for€permanent€residence€in€the€Czech€Republic.€Ð Æ   ÐÌòòAuthors'€comments€on€the€State€party's€submissionsóó€Ð ’â  ÐÌ10.1€By€letter€of€21€February€1995,€Alina€and€Jaroslav€Simunek€contend€that€the€State€partyÐ ^®  Ðhas€not€addressed€the€issues€raised€by€their€communication,€namely€the€compatibility€of€ActÐ D”  ÐNo.€87/1991€with€the€non„discrimination€requirement€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€TheyÐ *z  Ðclaim€that€Czech€hard„liners€are€still€in€office€and€that€they€have€no€interest€in€the€restitutionÐ ` Ðof€confiscated€properties,€because€they€themselves€benefited€from€the€confiscations.€AÐ öF Ðproper€restitution€law€should€be€based€on€democratic€principles€and€not€allow€restrictionsÐ Ü, Ðthat€would€exclude€former€Czech€citizens€and€Czech€citizens€living€abroad.€Ð  ÐÌ10.2€By€letter€of€12€June€1995€Mr.€Prochazka€informed€the€Committee€that€by€order€of€theÐ ŽÞ ÐDistrict€Court€of€12€April€1995€the€plot€of€land€he€inherited€from€his€father€will€be€returnedÐ tÄ Ðto€him€(paragraph€2.11).€Ð Zª ÐÌ10.3€Mrs.€Hastings€Tuzilova€had€not€submitted€comments€by€the€time€of€the€considerationÐ &v Ðof€the€merits€of€this€communication€by€the€Committee.€Ð  \ ÐÌòòExamination€of€the€meritsóó€Ð Ø( ÐÌ11.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€lightÐ ¤ô Ðof€all€the€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,€paragraphÐ Š Ú Ð1,€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð p!À  ÐÌ11.2€This€communication€was€declared€admissible€only€insofar€as€it€may€raise€issues€underÐ <#Œ" Ðarticle€14,€paragraph€6,€and€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€With€regard€to€article€14,€paragraphÐ "$r# Ð6,€the€Committee€finds€that€the€authors€have€not€sufficiently€substantiated€their€allegationsÐ %X $ Ðand€that€the€information€before€it€does€not€sustain€a€finding€of€a€violation.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ11.3€As€the€Committee€has€already€explained€in€its€decision€on€admissibility€(para.€4.3Ð º' #' Ðabove),€the€right€to€property,€as€such,€is€not€protected€under€the€Covenant.€However,€aÐ  (ð#( Ðconfiscation€of€private€property€or€the€failure€by€a€State€party€to€pay€compensation€for€suchÐ †)Ö$) Ðconfiscation€could€still€entail€a€breach€of€the€Covenant€if€the€relevant€act€or€omission€wasÐ l*¼%* Ðbased€on€discriminatory€grounds€in€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ11.4€The€issue€before€the€Committee€is€whether€the€application€of€Act€87/1991€to€the€authorsÐ -n(- Ðentailed€a€violation€of€their€rights€to€equality€before€the€law€and€to€the€equal€protection€ofÐ ° Ðthe€law.€The€authors€claim€that€this€Act,€in€effect,€reaffirms€the€earlier€discriminatoryÐ –æ Ðconfiscations.€The€Committee€observes€that€the€confiscations€themselves€are€not€here€atÐ |Ì Ðissue,€but€rather€the€denial€of€a€remedy€to€the€authors,€whereas€other€claimants€haveÐ b² Ðrecovered€their€properties€or€received€compensation€therefor.€Ð H˜ ÐÌ11.5€In€the€instant€cases,€the€authors€have€been€affected€by€the€exclusionary€effect€of€theÐ  d Ðrequirement€in€Act€87/1991€that€claimants€be€Czech€citizens€and€residents€of€the€CzechÐ ú J ÐRepublic.€The€question€before€the€Committee,€therefore,€is€whether€these€preconditions€toÐ à 0 Ðrestitution€or€compensation€are€compatible€with€the€non„discrimination€requirement€ofÐ Æ   Ðarticle€26€of€the€Covenant.€In€this€context€the€Committee€reiterates€its€jurisprudence€that€notÐ ¬ ü  Ðall€differentiation€in€treatment€can€be€deemed€to€be€discriminatory€under€article€26€of€theÐ ’â  ÐCovenantòò€2óóòòóó.€A€differentiation€which€is€compatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€andÐ xÈ  Ðis€based€on€reasonable€grounds€does€not€amount€to€prohibited€discrimination€within€theÐ ^®  Ðmeaning€of€article€26.€Ð D”  ÐÌ11.6€In€examining€whether€the€conditions€for€restitution€or€compensation€are€compatibleÐ ` Ðwith€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€must€consider€all€relevant€factors,€including€the€authors'Ð öF Ðoriginal€entitlement€to€the€property€in€question€and€the€nature€of€the€confiscations.€The€StateÐ Ü, Ðparty€itself€acknowledges€that€the€confiscations€were€discriminatory,€and€this€is€the€reasonÐ Â Ðwhy€specific€legislation€was€enacted€to€provide€for€a€form€of€restitution.€The€CommitteeÐ ¨ø Ðobserves€that€such€legislation€must€not€discriminate€among€the€victims€of€the€priorÐ ŽÞ Ðconfiscations,€since€all€victims€are€entitled€to€redress€without€arbitrary€distinctions.€BearingÐ tÄ Ðin€mind€that€the€authors'€original€entitlement€to€their€respective€properties€was€not€predicatedÐ Zª Ðeither€on€citizenship€or€residence,€the€Committee€finds€that€the€conditions€of€citizenship€andÐ @ Ðresidence€in€Act€87/1991€are€unreasonable.€In€this€connection€the€Committee€notes€that€theÐ &v ÐState€party€has€not€advanced€any€grounds€which€would€justify€these€restrictions.€Moreover,Ð  \ Ðit€has€been€submitted€that€the€authors€and€many€others€in€their€situation€left€CzechoslovakiaÐ òB Ðbecause€of€their€political€opinions€and€that€their€property€was€confiscated€either€because€ofÐ Ø( Ðtheir€political€opinions€or€because€of€their€emigration€from€the€country.€These€victims€ofÐ ¾ Ðpolitical€persecution€sought€residence€and€citizenship€in€other€countries.€Taking€into€accountÐ ¤ô Ðthat€the€State€party€itself€is€responsible€for€the€departure€of€the€authors,€it€would€beÐ Š Ú Ðincompatible€with€the€Covenant€to€require€them€permanently€to€return€to€the€country€as€aÐ p!À  Ðprerequisite€for€the€restitution€of€their€property€or€for€the€payment€of€appropriateÐ V"¦! Ðcompensation.€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ11.7€The€State€party€contends€that€there€is€no€violation€of€the€Covenant€because€the€CzechÐ %X $ Ðand€Slovak€legislators€had€no€discriminatory€intent€at€the€time€of€the€adoption€of€ActÐ î%>!% Ð87/1991.€The€Committee€is€of€the€view,€however,€that€the€intent€of€the€legislature€is€notÐ Ô&$"& Ðalone€dispositive€in€determining€a€breach€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€A€politicallyÐ º' #' Ðmotivated€differentiation€is€unlikely€to€be€compatible€with€article€26.€But€an€act€which€is€notÐ  (ð#( Ðpolitically€motivated€may€still€contravene€article€26€if€its€effects€are€discriminatory.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ11.8€In€the€light€of€the€above€considerations,€the€Committee€concludes€that€Act€87/1991€hasÐ R+¢&+ Ðhad€effects€upon€the€authors€that€violate€their€rights€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð12.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€OptionalÐ ° ÐProtocol,€is€of€the€view€that€the€denial€of€restitution€or€compensation€to€the€authorsÐ –æ Ðconstitutes€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€PoliticalÐ |Ì ÐRights.€Ð b² ÐÌ12.2€In€accordance€with€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a),€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€is€underÐ . ~ Ðan€obligation€to€provide€the€authors€with€an€effective€remedy,€which€may€be€compensationÐ  d Ðif€the€properties€in€question€cannot€be€returned.€To€the€extent€that€partial€restitution€of€Mr.Ð ú J ÐÔ_ÔProchazkaÔ_Ô's€property€appears€to€have€been€or€may€soon€be€effected€(para.€10.2),€theÐ à 0 ÐCommittee€welcomes€this€measure,€which€it€deems€to€constitute€partial€compliance€withÐ Æ   Ðthese€Views.€The€Committee€further€encourages€the€State€party€to€review€its€relevantÐ ¬ ü  Ðlegislation€to€ensure€that€neither€the€law€itself€nor€its€application€is€discriminatory.€Ð ’â  ÐÌ12.3€Bearing€in€mind€that,€by€becoming€a€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€hasÐ ^®  Ðrecognized€the€competence€of€the€Committee€to€determine€whether€there€has€been€aÐ D”  Ðviolation€of€the€Covenant€or€not€and€that,€pursuant€to€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€StateÐ *z  Ðparty€has€undertaken€to€ensure€to€all€individuals€within€its€territory€and€subject€to€itsÐ ` Ðjurisdiction€the€rights€recognized€in€the€Covenant€and€to€provide€an€effective€andÐ öF Ðenforceable€remedy€in€case€a€violation€has€been€established,€the€Committee€wishes€toÐ Ü, Ðreceive€from€the€State€party,€within€ninety€days,€information€about€the€measures€taken€toÐ Â Ðgive€effect€to€the€Committee's€Views.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌòòNotesóó:Ð Zª ÐÌ1/€€The€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€ratified€the€Optional€Protocol€in€March€1991€but,Ð &v Ðon€31€December€1992,€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€ceased€to€exist.€On€22Ð  \ ÐFebruary€1993,€the€Czech€Republic€notified€its€succession€to€the€Covenant€and€the€OptionalÐ òB ÐProtocol.Ð Ø( ÐÌ2/€€òòÔ_ÔZwaanÔ_Ô€de€Vries€v.€The€Netherlandsóó,€Communication€No.€182/1984,€Views€adopted€onÐ ¤ô Ð9€April€1987,€para.€13.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.Ð V"¦! ÐSubsequently€to€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee'sÐ <#Œ" Ðannual€report€to€the€General€Assembly.]€Ð "$r# ÐÓ Ó