ÿWPC  ¦¹8˜Ì‚þxŽ›‹?õŒkS¶|ŠgÌeßüèV ]&¯rYa-ú{BUÎ/™ÿU iOkõ7øöÛøxؽùœ¡^+Î’yÚ­±s4]`aêZeØN ïÝ€xæºÝ»»Å‹§Œ×qÕ mϪ<‚cè}nÎÏOæ¬ÂÅ¥è¨f£7'HßäÔêÔ¶{ú¨ÐÂ1L“ÿ¢Ö@´Æ^å7ÆWH…ƒÝÏCÊae¾É¢$ô6ì;ˆi¬BÌ€ 0nL 0iº 0Y# 0_| 0&ÛU6 %7 = 0ÆM #Á UNÔ Ô M" (& NN ^ P w\ 4` t mv ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - 4nt - Jurisprudence - "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   <ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔ< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô<qyÿÿ:HTML TypewriÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔS€ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÔ  Ô<þ6X9`(‹Courier New X#|x(žEG$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ Xn8XX XÔÔ€Xn8XX Xn8ÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regularü“ô* Äpì* ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ EG!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ XyxXX XÔÔ€XyxXX XyxÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌÔ_ÔòòÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔAdamÔ_Ô€v.€Czech€RepublicóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€586/1994*Ð H˜ ÐÌ23€July€1996Ð  d ÐÌCCPR/C/57/D/586/1994Ð à 0 ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Joseph€Frank€Adam€[represented€by€counsel]€Ð D”  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€author€Ð ` ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€The€Czech€Republic€Ð Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€14€March€1994€(initial€submission)€óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð @ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€23€July€1996,€Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€589/1994,€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐHuman€Rights€Committee€by€Mr.€Joseph€Frank€Adam€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€theÐ ¾ ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð ¤ô ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication,€his€counsel€and€the€State€party,€Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€its€Ð "$r# ÐÓOÓÌÌÓ  Óò òòòViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóóó óÐ Ô&$"& ÐÓGÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Joseph€Frank€Adam,€an€Australian€citizen,€born€inÐ †)Ö$) ÐAustralia€of€Czech€parents,€residing€in€Melbourne,€Australia.€He€submits€the€communicationÐ l*¼%* Ðon€his€own€behalf€and€on€that€of€his€two€brothers,€John€and€Louis.€He€claims€that€they€areÐ R+¢&+ Ðvictims€of€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€RightsÐ 8,ˆ', Ðby€the€Czech€Republic.€The€Optional€Protocol€entered€into€force€for€the€Czech€Republic€onÐ -n(- Ð12€June€1991.òòaóó€Ð ° ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authorsóó€Ð |Ì ÐÌ2.1€The€author's€father,€Ô_ÔVlatislavÔ_Ô€Adam,€was€a€Czech€citizen,€whose€property€and€businessÐ H˜ Ðwere€confiscated€by€the€Czechoslovak€Government€in€1949.€Mr.€Adam€fled€the€country€andÐ . ~ Ðeventually€moved€to€Australia,€where€his€three€sons,€including€the€author€of€theÐ  d Ðcommunication,€were€born.€In€1985,€Ô_ÔVlatislavÔ_Ô€Adam€died€and,€in€his€last€will€and€testament,Ð ú J Ðleft€his€Czech€property€to€his€sons.€Since€then,€the€sons€have€been€trying€in€vain€to€have€theirÐ à 0 Ðproperty€returned€to€them.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ2.2€In€1991,€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Republic€enacted€a€law€rehabilitating€Czech€citizens€whoÐ ’â  Ðhad€left€the€country€under€Communist€pressure€and€providing€for€restitution€of€their€propertyÐ xÈ  Ðor€compensation€for€the€loss€thereof.€On€6€December€1991,€the€author€and€his€brothers,Ð ^®  Ðthrough€Czech€solicitors,€submitted€a€claim€for€restitution€of€their€property.€Their€claim€wasÐ D”  Ðrejected€on€the€grounds€that€they€did€not€fulfil€the€then€applicable€dual€requirement€of€ActÐ *z  Ð87/91€that€applicants€have€Czech€citizenship€and€be€permanent€residents€in€the€CzechÐ ` ÐRepublic.€Ð öF ÐÌ2.3€Since€the€rejection€of€their€claim,€the€author€has€on€several€occasions€petitioned€theÐ Â ÐCzech€authorities,€explaining€his€situation€and€seeking€a€solution,€all€to€no€avail.€TheÐ ¨ø Ðauthorities€in€their€replies€refer€to€the€legislation€in€force€and€argue€that€the€provisions€of€theÐ ŽÞ Ðlaw,€limiting€restitution€and€compensation€to€Czech€citizens€are€necessary€and€applyÐ tÄ Ðuniformly€to€all€potential€claimants.€Ð Zª ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó€Ð &v ÐÌ3.€The€author€claims€that€the€application€of€the€provision€of€the€law,€that€property€beÐ òB Ðreturned€or€its€loss€be€compensated€only€when€claimants€are€Czech€citizens,€makes€him€andÐ Ø( Ðhis€brothers€victims€of€discrimination€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ¾ ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€observations€and€the€author's€commentsóó€Ð Š Ú ÐÌ4.1€On€23€August€1994,€the€communication€was€transmitted€to€the€State€party€under€rule€91Ð V"¦! Ðof€the€Committee's€rules€of€procedure.€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ4.2€In€its€submission€dated€17€October€1994,€the€State€party€states€that€the€remedies€in€civilÐ %X $ Ðproceedings€such€as€that€applicable€in€the€case€of€Mr.€Adam€are€regulated€by€Act€No.Ð î%>!% Ð99/1963,€by€the€Code€of€Civil€Procedure€as€amended,€in€particular€by€Act€No.€519/1991€andÐ Ô&$"& ÐAct€No.€263/1992.€Ð º' #' ÐÌ4.3€The€State€party€quotes€the€texts€of€several€sections€of€the€law,€without,€however,Ð †)Ö$) Ðexplaining€how€the€author€should€have€availed€himself€of€those€provisions.€It€concludes€thatÐ l*¼%* Ðsince€1€July€1993,€Act€No.€182/1993,€on€the€Constitutional€Court,€stipulates€the€citizens'Ð R+¢&+ Ðright€to€appeal€also€to€the€Constitutional€Court€of€the€Czech€Republic.€Finally,€Mr.€AdamÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdid€not€make€use€of€the€possibility€of€filing€a€claim€before€the€Constitutional€Court.€Ð -n(- Ї5.1€By€letter€of€7€November€1994,€the€author€informs€the€Committee€that€the€State€party€isÐ ° Ðtrying€to€circumvent€his€rights€by€placing€his€property€and€business€on€sale.€Ð –æ ÐÌ5.2€By€letter€of€5€February€1995,€the€author€contests€the€relevance€of€the€State€party's€generalÐ b² Ðinformation€and€reiterates€that€his€lawyers€in€Czechoslovakia€have€been€trying€to€obtain€hisÐ H˜ Ðproperty€since€his€father€died€in€1985.€He€submits€that€as€long€as€Czech€law€requiresÐ . ~ Ðclaimants€to€be€Czech€citizens,€there€is€no€way€that€he€can€successfully€claim€his€father'sÐ  d Ðproperty€in€the€Czech€courts.€Ð ú J ÐÌòòThe€Committee's€decision€on€admissibilityóó€Ð Æ   ÐÌ6.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ ’â  ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€notÐ xÈ  Ðit€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð ^®  ÐÌ6.2€The€Committee€observed€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó€that€although€the€author's€claims€relate€toÐ *z  Ðproperty€rights,€which€are€not€themselves€protected€in€the€Covenant,€he€also€alleges€that€theÐ ` Ðconfiscations€under€prior€Czechoslovak€governments€were€discriminatory€and€that€the€newÐ öF Ðlegislation€of€the€Czech€Republic€discriminates€against€persons€who€are€not€Czech€citizens.Ð Ü, ÐTherefore,€the€facts€of€the€communication€appear€to€raise€an€issue€under€article€26€of€theÐ Â ÐCovenant.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ6.3€The€Committee€has€also€considered€whether€the€violations€alleged€can€be€examinedÐ tÄ ÐòòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtemporisÔ_Ôóó.€It€notes€that€although€the€confiscations€took€place€before€the€entry€intoÐ Zª Ðforce€of€the€Covenant€and€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€the€Czech€Republic,€the€newÐ @ Ðlegislation€that€excludes€claimants€who€are€not€Czech€citizens€has€continuing€consequencesÐ &v Ðsubsequent€to€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€the€Czech€Republic,€whichÐ  \ Ðcould€entail€discrimination€in€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð òB ÐÌ6.4€Article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€precludes€the€Committee€fromÐ ¾ Ðconsidering€a€communication€if€the€same€matter€is€being€examined€under€another€procedureÐ ¤ô Ðof€international€investigation€or€settlement.€In€this€connection,€the€Committee€hasÐ Š Ú Ðascertained€that€the€same€matter€is€not€being€examined€under€another€procedure€ofÐ p!À  Ðinternational€investigation€or€settlement.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ6.5€With€respect€to€the€requirement€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€CommitteeÐ "$r# Ðrecalls€that€only€such€remedies€have€to€be€exhausted€which€are€both€available€and€effective.Ð %X $ ÐThe€applicable€law€on€confiscated€property€does€not€allow€for€restoration€or€compensationÐ î%>!% Ðto€the€author.€Moreover,€the€Committee€notes€that€the€author€has€been€trying€to€recover€hisÐ Ô&$"& Ðproperty€since€his€father€died€in€1985€and€that€the€application€of€domestic€remedies€can€beÐ º' #' Ðdeemed,€in€the€circumstances,€unreasonably€prolonged.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ7.€Based€on€those€considerations,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€decided€on€16€March€1995Ð l*¼%* Ðthat€the€communication€was€admissible€inasmuch€as€it€may€raise€issues€under€article€26€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€Covenant.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- ÐÔ_ÔòòObservations€of€the€State€partyóó€Ð ° ÐÌ8.1€By€note€Ô_ÔverbaleÔ_Ô€of€10€November€1995,€the€State€party€reiterates€its€objections€to€theÐ |Ì Ðadmissibility€of€the€communication,€in€particular€that€the€author€has€not€availed€himself€ofÐ b² Ðall€national€legal€remedies.€Ð H˜ ÐÌ8.2€It€argues€that€the€author€is€an€Australian€citizen€permanently€resident€in€Australia.€As€toÐ  d Ðthe€alleged€confiscation€of€his€father's€property€in€1949,€the€State€party€explains€that€theÐ ú J ÐDecree€of€the€President€of€the€Republic€No.€5/1945€did€not€represent€the€conveyance€of€theÐ à 0 Ðownership€title€to€the€State€but€only€restricted€the€owner€in€exercising€his€ownership€right.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ8.3€The€author's€father,€Ô_ÔVlatislavÔ_Ô€Adam,€was€a€citizen€of€Czechoslovakia€and€left€the€countryÐ ’â  Ðfor€Australia,€where€the€author€was€born.€If€indeed€Ô_ÔVlatislavÔ_Ô€Adam€willed€his€CzechÐ xÈ  Ðproperty€to€his€sons€by€virtue€of€his€testament,€it€is€not€clear€whether€he€owned€any€CzechÐ ^®  Ðproperty€in€1985,€and€the€author€has€not€explained€what€steps,€if€any,€he€has€taken€to€acquireÐ D”  Ðthe€inheritance.€Ð *z  ÐÌ8.4€In€1991€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€adopted€a€law€(Act€No.€87/1991)€onÐ öF Ðextrajudicial€rehabilitations€which€rehabilitates€Czech€citizens€who€left€the€country€underÐ Ü, ÐCommunist€oppression,€and€stipulates€the€restitution€of€their€property€and€compensation€forÐ Â Ðtheir€loss.€On€6€December€1991,€the€author€and€his€brothers€claimed€the€restitution€of€theirÐ ¨ø Ðproperty.€Their€claim€was€rejected€because€they€were€not€persons€entitled€to€the€recovery€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðproperty€pursuant€to€the€Extrajudicial€Rehabilitation€Act,€since€they€did€not€satisfy€theÐ tÄ Ðconditions€of€citizenship€of€the€Czech€Republic€and€of€permanent€residence€there.€TheÐ Zª Ðauthor€failed€to€invoke€remedies€available€against€the€decision€denying€him€restitution.Ð @ ÐMoreover,€the€author€failed€to€observe€the€legal€six„month€term€to€claim€his€property,€theÐ &v Ðstatute€of€limitations€having€ended€on€1€October€1991.€Nevertheless,€pursuant€to€article€5,Ð  \ Ðparagraph€4,€of€the€Extrajudicial€Rehabilitation€Act,€the€author€could€have€filed€his€claimsÐ òB Ðin€court€until€1€April€1992,€but€he€did€not€do€so.€Ð Ø( ÐÌ8.5€The€author€explains€that€his€attorney€felt€that€there€were€no€effective€remedies€and€thatÐ ¤ô Ðwas€why€they€did€not€pursue€their€appeals.€That€subjective€assessment€is€irrelevant€to€theÐ Š Ú Ðobjective€existence€of€remedies.€In€particular,€he€could€have€lodged€a€complaint€with€theÐ p!À  ÐConstitutional€Court.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ8.6€Czech€constitutional€law,€including€the€Charter€of€Fundamental€Rights€and€Freedoms,Ð "$r# Ðprotects€the€right€to€own€property€and€guarantees€inheritance.€Expropriation€is€possible€onlyÐ %X $ Ðin€the€public€interest€and€on€the€basis€of€law,€and€is€subject€to€compensation.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ8.7€The€Extrajudicial€Rehabilitation€Act€was€amended€in€order€to€eliminate€the€requirementÐ º' #' Ðof€permanent€residence;€that€occurred€pursuant€to€a€finding€of€the€Constitutional€Court€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€Czech€Republic€of€12€July€1994.€Moreover,€in€cases€in€which€the€real€estate€cannot€beÐ †)Ö$) Ðsurrendered,€financial€compensation€is€available.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ8.8€Articles€1€and€3€of€the€Charter€of€Fundamental€Rights€and€Freedoms€stipulate€equalityÐ 8,ˆ', Ðin€the€enjoyment€of€rights€and€prohibits€discrimination.€The€right€to€judicial€protection€isÐ -n(- Ðregulated€in€article€36€of€the€Charter.€The€Constitutional€Court€decides€about€the€abrogationÐ ° Ðof€laws€or€of€their€individual€provisions€if€they€are€in€contradiction€with€a€constitutional€lawÐ –æ Ðor€international€treaty.€A€natural€person€or€legal€entity€is€entitled€to€file€a€constitutionalÐ |Ì Ðcomplaint.€Ð b² ÐÌ8.9€The€author€not€only€failed€to€invoke€the€relevant€provisions€of€the€ExtrajudicialÐ . ~ ÐRehabilitation€Act€in€a€timely€fashion.€He€could€also€have€lodged€a€claim€to€domesticÐ  d Ðjudicial€authorities€based€on€the€direct€applicability€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilÐ ú J Ðand€Political€Rights,€with€reference€to€article€10€of€the€Constitution,€article€36€of€the€CharterÐ à 0 Ðof€Fundamental€Rights€and€Freedoms,€articles€72€and€74€of€the€Constitutional€Court€Act,€andÐ Æ   Ðarticle€3€of€the€Civil€Procedure€Code.€If€the€author€had€availed€himself€of€those€proceduresÐ ¬ ü  Ðand€if€he€had€not€been€satisfied€with€the€result,€he€could€still€have€sought€review€of€legalÐ ’â  Ðregulations€pursuant€to€the€Constitutional€Court€Act.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ9.1€The€State€party€also€Ô_ÔendeavoursÔ_Ô€to€explain€the€broader€political€and€legal€circumstancesÐ D”  Ðof€the€case€and€contends€that€the€author's€presentation€of€the€facts€is€misleading.€After€theÐ *z  Ðdemocratization€process€begun€in€November€1989,€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Republic,€andÐ ` Ðsubsequently€the€Czech€Republic,€made€a€considerable€effort€to€remove€some€of€the€propertyÐ öF Ðinjustices€caused€by€the€communist€regime.€The€Ô_ÔendeavourÔ_Ô€to€return€property,€as€stipulatedÐ Ü, Ðin€the€Rehabilitation€Act,€was€in€part€a€voluntary€and€moral€act€of€the€Government€and€notÐ Â Ða€duty€or€legal€obligation.€"It€is€also€necessary€to€point€out€the€fact€that€it€was€not€possibleÐ ¨ø Ðand,€with€regard€to€the€protection€of€the€justified€interests€of€the€citizens€of€the€present€CzechÐ ŽÞ ÐRepublic,€even€undesirable,€to€remove€all€injuries€caused€by€the€past€regime€over€a€periodÐ tÄ Ðof€forty€years."€Ð Zª ÐÌ9.2€The€precondition€of€citizenship€for€restitution€or€compensation€should€not€be€interpretedÐ &v Ðas€a€violation€of€the€prohibition€of€discrimination€pursuant€to€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð  \ Ð"The€possibility€of€explicit€restriction€to€acquiring€the€ownership€of€certain€property€by€onlyÐ òB Ðsome€persons€is€contained€in€article€11,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Charter€of€Fundamental€RightsÐ Ø( Ðand€Freedoms.€This€article€states€that€the€law€may€determine€that€certain€property€may€onlyÐ ¾ Ðbe€owned€by€citizens€or€legal€entities€having€their€seat€in€the€Czech€and€Slovak€FederalÐ ¤ô ÐRepublic.€In€this€respect,€the€Charter€speaks€of€citizens€of€the€Czech€and€Slovak€FederalÐ Š Ú ÐRepublic,€and€after€January€1,€1993,€of€citizens€of€the€Czech€Republic."€Ð p!À  ÐÌ9.3€The€Czech€Republic€considers€the€restriction€to€exercising€rights€of€ownership€byÐ <#Œ" Ðimposing€the€condition€of€citizenship€to€be€legitimate.€In€this€connection,€it€refers€not€onlyÐ "$r# Ðto€article€3,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Charter€of€Fundamental€Rights€and€Freedoms,€containing€theÐ %X $ Ðnon„discrimination€clause,€but€above€all€to€the€relevant€clauses€of€international€human€rightsÐ î%>!% Ðtreaties.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌòòThe€author's€commentsóó€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ10.1€As€to€the€facts€of€the€claim,€the€author€explains€that€in€January€1949€his€father€wasÐ l*¼%* Ðordered€out€of€his€business,€which€was€confiscated.€He€had€to€hand€over€the€books€and€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðbank€accounts€and€was€not€even€able€to€take€his€own€personal€belongings.€As€to€hisÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdeparture€from€Czechoslovakia,€he€was€not€able€to€emigrate€legally€but€had€to€cross€theÐ -n(- Ðborder€illegally€into€West€Germany,€where€he€remained€in€a€refugee€camp€for€a€year€beforeÐ ° Ðbeing€able€to€emigrate€to€Australia.€Ð –æ ÐÌ10.2€He€disputes€the€State€party's€contention€that€he€did€not€avail€himself€of€domesticÐ b² Ðremedies.€He€reiterates€that€he€himself€and€his€attorneys€in€Prague€have€tried€to€assert€theÐ H˜ Ðclaim€to€inheritance€since€his€father€died,€in€1985,€without€success.€In€December€1991,€heÐ . ~ Ðand€his€brothers€submitted€their€claim,€which€was€rejected€for€lack€of€citizenship€andÐ  d Ðpermanent€residence.€Moreover,€their€claim€was€by€virtue€of€inheritance.€He€furtherÐ ú J Ðcomplains€about€unreasonably€prolonged€proceedings€in€the€Czech€Republic,€in€particularÐ à 0 Ðthat€whereas€their€letters€to€the€Czech€Government€reached€the€Czech€authorities€within€aÐ Æ   Ðweek,€the€replies€took€3€to€4€months.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ10.3€As€to€their€Czech€citizenship,€they€claim€that€the€consulate€in€Australia€informed€themÐ xÈ  Ðthat€if€both€mother€and€father€were€Czech€citizens,€the€children€were€automatically€CzechÐ ^®  Ðcitizens.€However,€the€Czech€Government€subsequently€denied€that€interpretation€of€the€law.€Ð D”  ÐÌòòReview€of€admissibilityóó€Ð ` ÐÌ11.1€The€State€party€has€requested€that€the€Committee€revise€its€decision€on€admissibilityÐ Ü, Ðon€the€grounds€that€the€author€has€not€exhausted€domestic€remedies.€The€Committee€hasÐ Â Ðtaken€into€consideration€all€arguments€presented€by€the€State€party€and€the€explanationsÐ ¨ø Ðgiven€by€the€author.€In€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€considering€that€the€author€is€abroadÐ ŽÞ Ðand€that€his€lawyers€are€in€the€Czech€Republic,€it€would€seem€that€the€imposition€of€a€strictÐ tÄ Ðstatute€of€limitations€for€lodgings€claims€by€persons€abroad€is€unreasonable.€In€the€author'sÐ Zª Ðcase,€the€Committee€has€taken€into€account€the€circumstance€that€he€has€been€trying€to€assertÐ @ Ðhis€inheritance€claim€since€1985€and€that€his€Prague€attorneys€have€been€unsuccessful,Ð &v Ðultimately€not€because€of€the€statute€of€limitations€but€because€the€Rehabilitation€Act,€asÐ  \ Ðamended,€stipulates€that€only€citizens€can€claim€restitution€or€compensation.€Since€theÐ òB Ðauthor,€according€to€his€last€submission,€which€has€not€been€disputed€by€the€State€partyÐ Ø( Ð(para.€10.3)€is€not€a€Czech€citizen,€he€cannot€invoke€the€Rehabilitation€Act€in€order€to€obtainÐ ¾ Ðthe€return€of€his€father's€property.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ11.2€In€the€absence€of€legislation€enabling€the€author€to€claim€restitution,€recourse€to€theÐ p!À  ÐConstitutional€Court€cannot€be€considered€an€available€and€effective€remedy€for€purposesÐ V"¦! Ðof€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€In€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€suchÐ <#Œ" Ða€remedy€must€be€considered€as€an€extraordinary€remedy,€since€the€right€being€challengedÐ "$r# Ðis€not€a€constitutional€right€to€restitution€as€such,€bearing€in€mind€that€the€Czech€and€SlovakÐ %X $ Ðlegislature€considered€the€1991€Rehabilitation€Act€to€be€a€measure€of€moral€rehabilitationÐ î%>!% Ðrather€than€a€legal€obligation€(para.€9.1).€Moreover,€the€State€has€argued€that€it€is€compatibleÐ Ô&$"& Ðwith€the€Czech€Constitution€and€in€keeping€with€Czech€public€policy€to€restrict€theÐ º' #' Ðownership€of€property€to€citizens.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ11.3€Under€these€circumstances,€the€Committee€finds€no€reason€to€set€aside€its€decision€onÐ l*¼%* Ðadmissibility€of€16€March€1995.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌòòExamination€of€the€meritsóó€Ð -n(- Ї12.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€lightÐ ° Ðof€all€the€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,€paragraphÐ –æ Ð1,€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð |Ì ÐÌ12.2€The€communication€was€declared€admissible€only€insofar€as€it€may€raise€issues€underÐ H˜ Ðarticle€26€of€the€Covenant.€As€the€Committee€has€already€explained€in€its€decision€onÐ . ~ Ðadmissibility€(para.€6.2€above),€the€right€to€property,€as€such,€is€not€protected€under€theÐ  d ÐCovenant.€However,€a€confiscation€of€private€property€or€the€failure€of€a€State€party€to€payÐ ú J Ðcompensation€for€such€confiscation€could€still€entail€a€breach€of€the€Covenant€if€the€relevantÐ à 0 Ðact€or€omission€was€based€on€discriminatory€grounds,€in€violation€of€article€26€of€theÐ Æ   ÐCovenant.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ12.3€The€issue€before€the€Committee€is€whether€the€application€of€Act€87/1991€to€the€authorÐ xÈ  Ðand€his€brothers€entailed€a€violation€of€their€right€to€equality€before€the€law€and€to€the€equalÐ ^®  Ðprotection€of€the€law.€The€Committee€observes€that€the€confiscations€themselves€are€not€hereÐ D”  Ðat€issue€but€rather€the€denial€of€restitution€to€the€author€and€his€brothers,€whereas€otherÐ *z  Ðclaimants€under€the€Act€have€recovered€their€properties€or€received€compensation€therefor.€Ð ` ÐÌ12.4€In€the€instant€case,€the€author€has€been€affected€by€the€exclusionary€effect€of€theÐ Ü, Ðrequirement€in€Act€87/1991€that€claimants€be€Czech€citizens.€The€question€before€theÐ Â ÐCommittee,€therefore,€is€whether€the€precondition€to€restitution€or€compensation€isÐ ¨ø Ðcompatible€with€the€non„discrimination€requirement€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€In€thisÐ ŽÞ Ðcontext,€the€Committee€reiterates€its€jurisprudence€that€not€all€differentiation€in€treatmentÐ tÄ Ðcan€be€deemed€to€be€discriminatory€under€article€26€of€the€Ô_ÔCovenant.òòbÔ_Ôóó€A€differentiationÐ Zª Ðwhich€is€compatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€and€is€based€on€reasonable€groundsÐ @ Ðdoes€not€amount€to€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€26.€Ð &v ÐÌ12.5€In€examining€whether€the€conditions€for€restitution€or€compensation€are€compatibleÐ òB Ðwith€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€must€consider€all€relevant€factors,€including€the€originalÐ Ø( Ðentitlement€of€the€author's€father€to€the€property€in€question€and€the€nature€of€theÐ ¾ Ðconfiscation.€The€State€party€itself€has€acknowledged€that€the€confiscations€under€theÐ ¤ô ÐCommunist€governments€were€injurious€and€that€is€why€specific€legislation€was€enacted€toÐ Š Ú Ðprovide€for€a€form€of€restitution.€The€Committee€observes€that€such€legislation€must€notÐ p!À  Ðdiscriminate€among€the€victims€of€the€prior€confiscations,€since€all€victims€are€entitled€toÐ V"¦! Ðredress€without€arbitrary€distinctions.€Bearing€in€mind€that€the€author's€original€entitlementÐ <#Œ" Ðto€his€property€by€virtue€of€inheritance€was€not€predicated€on€citizenship,€the€CommitteeÐ "$r# Ðfinds€that€the€condition€of€citizenship€in€Act€87/1991€is€unreasonable.€Ð %X $ ÐÌ12.6€In€this€context,€the€Committee€recalls€its€rationale€in€its€views€on€communication€No.Ð Ô&$"& Ð516/1992€(òòÔ_ÔSimunekÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€the€Czech€Republicóó),€adopted€on€19€July€Ô_Ô1995,òòcÔ_Ôóó€in€which€itÐ º' #' Ðconsidered€that€the€authors€in€that€case€and€many€others€in€analogous€situations€had€leftÐ  (ð#( ÐCzechoslovakia€because€of€their€political€opinions€and€had€sought€refuge€from€politicalÐ †)Ö$) Ðpersecution€in€other€countries,€where€they€eventually€established€permanent€residence€andÐ l*¼%* Ðobtained€a€new€citizenship.€Taking€into€account€that€the€State€party€itself€is€responsible€forÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€departure€of€the€author's€parents€in€1949,€it€would€be€incompatible€with€the€Covenant€toÐ 8,ˆ', Ðrequire€the€author€and€his€brothers€to€obtain€Czech€citizenship€as€a€prerequisite€for€theÐ -n(- Ðrestitution€of€their€property€or,€alternatively,€for€the€payment€of€appropriate€compensation.€Ð ° ÐÌ12.7€The€State€party€contends€that€there€is€no€violation€of€the€Covenant€because€the€CzechÐ |Ì Ðand€Slovak€legislators€had€no€discriminatory€intent€at€the€time€of€the€adoption€of€ActÐ b² Ð87/1991.€The€Committee€is€of€the€view,€however,€that€the€intent€of€the€legislature€is€notÐ H˜ ÐÔ_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€in€determining€a€breach€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant,€but€rather€theÐ . ~ Ðconsequences€of€the€enacted€legislation.€Whatever€the€motivation€or€intent€of€the€legislature,Ð  d Ða€law€may€still€contravene€article€26€of€the€Covenant€if€its€effects€are€discriminatory.€Ð ú J ÐÌ12.8€In€the€light€of€the€above€considerations,€the€Committee€concludes€that€Act€87/1991€andÐ Æ   Ðthe€continued€practice€of€non„restitution€to€non„citizens€of€the€Czech€Republic€have€hadÐ ¬ ü  Ðeffects€upon€the€author€and€his€brothers€that€violate€their€rights€under€article€26€of€theÐ ’â  ÐCovenant.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ13.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€OptionalÐ D”  ÐProtocol,€is€of€the€view€that€the€denial€of€restitution€or€compensation€to€the€author€and€hisÐ *z  Ðbrothers€constitutes€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€andÐ ` ÐPolitical€Rights.€Ð öF ÐÌ13.2€In€accordance€with€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a),€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€is€underÐ Â Ðan€obligation€to€provide€the€author€and€his€brothers€with€an€effective€remedy,€which€may€beÐ ¨ø Ðcompensation€if€the€property€in€question€cannot€be€returned.€The€Committee€furtherÐ ŽÞ Ðencourages€the€State€party€to€review€its€relevant€legislation€to€ensure€that€neither€the€lawÐ tÄ Ðitself€nor€its€application€is€discriminatory.€Ð Zª ÐÌ13.3€Bearing€in€mind€that,€by€becoming€a€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€hasÐ &v Ðrecognized€the€competence€of€the€Committee€to€determine€whether€there€has€been€aÐ  \ Ðviolation€of€the€Covenant€or€not€and€that,€pursuant€to€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€StateÐ òB Ðparty€has€undertaken€to€ensure€to€all€individuals€within€its€territory€and€subject€to€itsÐ Ø( Ðjurisdiction€the€rights€recognized€in€the€Covenant€and€to€provide€an€effective€andÐ ¾ Ðenforceable€remedy€in€case€a€violation€has€been€established,€the€Committee€wishes€toÐ ¤ô Ðreceive€from€the€State€party,€within€90€days,€information€about€the€measures€taken€to€giveÐ Š Ú Ðeffect€to€the€Committee's€views.€Ð p!À  ÐÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.]€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ___________Ð %X $ ÐÌ*€€The€text€of€an€individual€opinion€of€one€Committee€member€is€appended.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌa/€€The€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€ratified€the€Optional€Protocol€in€March€1991,Ð  (ð#( Ðbut€on€31€December€1992€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€ceased€to€exist.€On€22Ð †)Ö$) ÐFebruary€1993,€the€Czech€Republic€notified€its€succession€to€the€Covenant€and€the€OptionalÐ l*¼%* ÐProtocol.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌb/€€€See€òòOfficial€Records€of€the€General€Assembly,€Forty„second€Session,€Supplement€No.Ð -n(- Ð40óó€(A/42/40),€annex€Ô_ÔVIII.DÔ_Ô,€communication€No.€182/1994,€òò(Ô_ÔZwaanÔ_Ô„de€Vries€v.€theÐ ° ÐNetherlandsóó),€views€adopted€on€9€April€1987,€para.€13.€Ð –æ ÐÌc/€€Ibid.,€òòFiftieth€Session,€Supplement€No.€40óó€(A/50/40),€vol.€II,€annex€Ô_ÔX.K.Ô_ԀРb² ÐÌÌÓÂÓò òòòÓ  ÓAppendixó óóóÐ  d ÐÓ vÓÓÓÌÌòòIndividual€opinion€of€Committee€member€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAndoÔ_ÔóóÐ Æ   ÐÌ[Original:€English]Ð ’â  ÐÌConsidering€the€Human€Rights€Committee's€views€on€communication€No.€516/1992,€I€doÐ ^®  Ðnot€oppose€the€adoption€by€the€Committee€of€the€views€in€the€instant€case.€However,€I€wouldÐ D”  Ðlike€to€point€to€the€following:€Ð *z  ÐÌFirst,€under€current€rules€of€general€international€law,€States€are€free€to€choose€theirÐ öF Ðeconomic€system.€As€a€matter€of€fact,€when€the€United€Nations€adopted€the€InternationalÐ Ü, ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€in€1966,€the€then€Socialist€States€were€managingÐ Â Ðplanned€economies€under€which€private€ownership€was€largely€restricted€or€prohibited€inÐ ¨ø Ðprinciple.€Even€nowadays€not€a€few€States€parties€to€the€Covenant,€including€those€adoptingÐ ŽÞ Ðmarked„oriented€economies,€restrict€or€prohibit€foreigners€from€private€ownership€ofÐ tÄ Ðimmovable€properties€in€their€territories.€Ð Zª ÐÌSecond,€consequently,€it€is€not€impossible€for€a€State€party€to€limit€the€ownership€ofÐ &v Ðimmovable€properties€in€its€territory€to€its€nationals€or€citizens,€thereby€precluding€theirÐ  \ Ðwives€or€children€of€different€nationality€or€citizenship€from€inheriting€or€succeeding€toÐ òB Ðthose€properties.€Such€inheritance€or€succession€is€regulated€by€rules€of€private€internationalÐ Ø( Ðlaw€of€the€States€concerned,€and€I€am€not€aware€of€any€universally€recognized€"absoluteÐ ¾ Ðright€of€inheritance€or€of€succession€to€private€property".€Ð ¤ô ÐÌThird,€while€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€enshrines€the€principleÐ p!À  Ðof€non„discrimination€and€equality€before€the€law,€it€does€not€prohibit€"legitimateÐ V"¦! Ðdistinctions"€based€on€objective€and€reasonable€criteria.€Nor€does€the€Covenant€define€orÐ <#Œ" Ðprotect€economic€rights€as€such.€This€means€that€the€Human€Rights€Committee€shouldÐ "$r# Ðexercise€utmost€caution€in€dealing€with€questions€of€discrimination€in€the€economic€field.Ð %X $ ÐFor€example,€restrictions€or€prohibitions€of€certain€economic€rights,€including€the€right€ofÐ î%>!% Ðinheritance€or€succession,€which€are€based€on€nationality€or€citizenship,€may€well€beÐ Ô&$"& Ðjustified€as€legitimate€distinctions.Ð º' #' ÐÌ(òòSignedóó)€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAndoÔ_ÔÐ †)Ö$) ÐÓHvÓ