ÿWPC þÆ\Ý âèm“Æ ×GV-Ü}Fãh†g´EyŠPj[¿¹f,p¥´xëKÎÁ/çÍN1៽©ÎÄ”&h¶þ^*v9…ÐÂW‹G:MxȲª~G=‹™Í#·þôÆÑß=V±ÕÁ¾ú­Ú™£üZ,•xÞq†Ë‡‡äN¢š\µpªbÙsO6}Д)5_²{Têd´4  ð™¶=ãê<­ ¶Ê²÷“–a¿0ÂØè;á¦b¬@ÄË(g>"ÜRz.©‚SŽÙ}¢Éˆ(R Ÿo©ß@Ah°Û?ý}€%l ·› Õ„.x äùqNÞÔ÷`amtŽk(*%áß1 }¬]2Wk={ ˆíîéN@Ki×A¡ýROì°[dg.œ‰·–%u/\?º“°_®;¢º{ù½­·`-H5×H‚Çpzq»á§i˜EÀ¥H‚*xtäi<èe a$m{—EYÜ©o‘¨_(n°¥Óöøzúê?2¼›bV/9®µ܀Ƕ—žÑôæ ¸À<ÎEš4ÞþOžÖ›Fç½/ÚTHè÷Zd“DÖépÙJÊ8Pä0‰’b©þÞFÙ\º%U>ÌD 0µ 0<Å 0Y 0_Z 0i¹Æ" 0Ñè 0(¹ D+á AM Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y o 0N 0¶Í #Áƒ UND %’M˜(œNÄ^ ÆwÒ4Öê mìô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Ivan Somers v. Hungary, Communication No. 566/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/53/D/566/1993 (1996).453/D/566/1993 (1996)."Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(©24Y$££Ý ƒ—×!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XúUXXXÔÔ€XúUXXXúUÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ Ñ ° Ñ#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(Ž—×$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XûåXXXÔÔ€XûåXXXûåÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularXƒ’ø* Äpì*c(„³Corel ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ—×!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XúUXXXÔÔ€XúUXXXúUÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÑ€ OaÑHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔSomersÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€HungaryóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€566/1993**Ð H˜ ÐÌ23€July€1996Ð  d ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/53/D/566/1993*Ð à 0 ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Ivan€Ô_ÔSomersÔ_ÔÐ D”  ÐÌòòVictimsóó:€The€author€and€his€motherÐ ` ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€HungaryÐ Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€20€August€1993€(initial€submission)€Ð ¨ø ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibilityóó:€15€March€1995óóÐ tÄ ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ &v Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð  \ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€23€July€1996,Ð Ø( ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€566/1993€submitted€to€the€HumanÐ ¤ô ÐRights€Committee€by€Mr.€Ivan€Ô_ÔSomersÔ_Ô,€on€his€and€his€mother's€behalf,€under€the€OptionalÐ Š Ú ÐProtocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð p!À  ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ <#Œ" Ðcommunication€and€the€State€party,Ð "$r# ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:Ð î%>!% ÐÓ•ÓÌÌÓ  Óò òòòViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóóó ó€Ð  (ð#( ÐÓÀÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Ivan€Ô_ÔSomersÔ_Ô,€an€Australian€citizen€of€HungarianÐ R+¢&+ Ðorigin€currently€residing€in€Ô_ÔEdgecliffÔ_Ô,€New€South€Wales,€Australia.€He€submits€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcomplaint€on€his€and€his€mother's€behalf,€and€alleges€violations€by€Hungary€of€articles€14,Ð -n(- Ð18,€19,€21,€22,€24,€and€26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€TheÐ ° ÐOptional€Protocol€entered€into€force€for€Hungary€on€7€December€1988.Ð –æ ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróóÐ b² ÐÌ2.1€In€March€1951,€the€author's€parents€and€his€maternal€grandmother€were€arrested€by€theÐ . ~ ÐHungarian€communist€state€security€police€(Ô_ÔAVHÔ_Ô).€They€were€taken€to€the€Ô_ÔAVHÔ_ÔÐ  d Ðheadquarters€in€Budapest,€interrogated€over€a€period€of€four€weeks€and€forced€to€sign€falseÐ ú J Ðconfessions€which,€according€to€the€author,€had€been€prepared€well€in€advance.€The€author'sÐ à 0 Ðparents€were€then€interned,€without€trial,€at€the€prison€of€Ô_ÔKistarcsaÔ_Ô,€on€the€pretext€that€theyÐ Æ   Ðhad€failed€to€inform€on€the€author's€grandmother,€who€had€allegedly€given€a€parcel€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðclothing€to€a€Russian€officer,€to€take€to€her€son€then€living€in€Vienna.Ð ’â  ÐÌ2.2€According€to€the€author,€the€true€reason€for€the€arrest€only€became€known€in€1992,€whenÐ ^®  Ðhe€was€able€to€obtain€a€copy€of€a€report€drawn€up€in€1952€by€the€local€branch€of€the€AVHÐ D”  Ðin€the€town€where€his€parents€had€lived€(Reference€No.€23„5354/52).€This€report€had€beenÐ *z  Ðaddressed€to€the€AVH€headquarters€in€Budapest.Ð ` ÐÌ2.3€The€report€charged€the€author's€parents€with€being€opponents€to€the€Communist€party.Ð Ü, ÐIt€identified€the€author's€father€as€an€influential€member€of€the€Social€Democratic€Party,Ð Â Ðwhich€was€then€being€"liquidated".€The€report€further€singled€out€his€parents€as€members€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€local€Jewish€community€with€alleged€"Zionist€connections".€The€author€submits€that€inÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€early€1950s,€any€such€accusation€was€sufficient€to€cause€someone's€imprisonmentÐ tÄ Ðwithout€trial.Ð Zª ÐÌ2.4€The€author€refers€in€particular€to€paragraph€3€of€the€report,€which€confirms€thatÐ &v Ðfollowing€his€parents'€arrest,€all€the€family's€property€and€assets€were€confiscated€by€the€localÐ  \ Ðgovernmental€authorities.€These€expropriations€pre„date€the€nationalization€of€privateÐ òB Ðproperty€in€Hungary.€The€difference€is€said€to€be€demonstrated€by€the€fact€that€in€spite€of€theÐ Ø( Ðnationalization€of€land€and€property€under€the€Communist€regime,€many€Hungarians€wereÐ ¾ Ðallowed€to€keep€their€home.€In€the€case€of€the€author's€parents,€however,€their€home€in€a€two„Ð ¤ô Ðstory€apartment€building€in€the€town€of€Szekesfehervar,€which€belonged€to€the€father€of€Mr.Ð Š Ú ÐSomers,€was€confiscated€and€immediately€occupied€by€the€secretary€of€the€local€branch€ofÐ p!À  Ðthe€Communist€party.Ð V"¦! ÐÌ2.5€The€author's€mother€and€grandmother€were€released€in€August€1953,€following€anÐ "$r# Ðamnesty€decreed€after€the€death€of€Stalin.€His€father€died€in€prison€under€circumstances€that,Ð %X $ Ðto€date,€remain€largely€unexplained.Ð î%>!% ÐÌ2.6€Since€1953,€the€author's€mother€has€made€numerous€attempts€to€recuperate€her€formerÐ º' #' Ðhome.€These€attempts€have€continued€after€she€emigrated€to€Australia.€Local€governmentÐ  (ð#( Ðauthorities€in€Hungary€have€rejected€her€claim,€despite€a€gradual€move,€in€Hungary,€toÐ †)Ö$) Ðrestitute€property€seized€under€the€Communist€regime€to€their€former€owners.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó:Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð3.1€In€1991,€the€Hungarian€Parliament€was€called€upon€to€consider€the€status€of€propertiesÐ ° Ðexpropriated€during€the€Communist€period.€In€adopting€new€legislation,€the€State€party€hasÐ –æ Ðfailed,€in€the€author's€opinion,€to€distinguish€between€such€cases€where€the€expropriation€wasÐ |Ì Ðthe€consequence€of€breaches€of€the€Covenant€and€the€majority€of€cases€where€theÐ b² Ðexpropriation€had€been€the€result€of€the€nationalization€of€private€property.Ð H˜ ÐÌ3.2€It€is€submitted€that€by€rejecting€restitution€of€property€in€favour€of€what€amounts€to€noÐ  d Ðmore€than€nominal€monetary€compensation€„€worth€approximately€2€per€cent€of€the€currentÐ ú J Ðmarket€value€of€the€property€seized€by€the€State€„€the€new€legislation€gives€continuing€effectÐ à 0 Ðto€these€expropriations,€regardless€of€whether€they€were€linked,€in€the€past,€to€violations€ofÐ Æ   Ðthe€Covenant.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ3.3€The€author€submits€that€his€family's€assets€were€seized€by€the€State€party€in€violation€ofÐ xÈ  Ðarticles€14,€18,€19,€21,€22,€24,€and€26€of€the€Covenant€(i.e.€before€the€widespreadÐ ^®  Ðnationalization€programme€in€Hungary).€He€contends€that€the€only€proper€course€forÐ D”  ÐHungary€would€be€to€restitute€those€assets€which€were€obtained€by€the€State€through€extra„Ð *z  Ðlegal€or€illegal€means.€The€current€Government's€failure€to€restitute€property€obtained€byÐ ` Ðsuch€means€is€said€to€amount€to€its€endorsing€Covenant€breaches€committed€during€theÐ öF Ðcommunist€period.Ð Ü, ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€observations€and€the€author's€commentsóó:Ð ¨ø ÐÌ4.1€In€its€submission€under€rule€91€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€dated€31€March€1994,€the€StateÐ tÄ Ðparty€contends€that€as€the€events€complained€of€occurred€prior€to€the€date€of€entry€into€forceÐ Zª Ðof€the€Optional€Protocol€for€Hungary,€the€communication€should€be€deemed€inadmissibleÐ @ Ðòòratione€temporisóó.€In€this€context,€the€State€party€refers€to€the€1969€Vienna€Convention€on€theÐ &v ÐLaw€of€Treaties,€and€in€particular€to€its€article€28€laying€down€the€principle€of€non„Ð  \ Ðretroactivity€of€treaties.Ð òB ÐÌ4.2€The€State€party€emphasizes€that€it€has€always€expressed€"its€deepest€sympathy€withÐ ¾ Ðvictims€of€violations€of€human€rights€committed€under€the€previous€regime....€It€has€been€andÐ ¤ô Ðremains€committed€to€provide€these€victims€with€moral€support€and,€in€accordance€with€theÐ Š Ú Ðrelevant€legislative€acts,€financial€compensation€to€the€victims".Ð p!À  ÐÌ5.1€In€his€comments,€Mr.€Somers€reiterates€that€his€parents€were€expropriated€and€persecutedÐ <#Œ" Ðon€the€basis€of€their€social€background€and€their€political€beliefs.€He€provides€a€certificateÐ "$r# Ðdated€6€July€1993€from€the€Hungarian€Indemnification€and€Compensation€Authority,€inÐ %X $ Ðwhich€the€State€party€acknowledges€that€his€mother€was€wrongfully€imprisoned;€a€letterÐ î%>!% Ðdated€7€July€1993€from€the€same€Authority€acknowledges€that€the€death€of€his€father€hadÐ Ô&$"& Ðresulted€from€the€unlawful€action€of€government€agents.Ð º' #' ÐÌ5.2€To€the€author,€the€political€nature€of€the€expropriation€of€his€family's€home€and€assetsÐ †)Ö$) Ðis€demonstrated€by€the€fact€that€it€occurred€prior€to€the€adoption€of€Law„Decree€No.€4€ofÐ l*¼%* Ð1952€on€the€nationalization€of€private€property.€He€adds€that€by€Act€1027€of€1963,€the€thenÐ R+¢&+ ÐGovernment€of€Hungary€allowed€a€number€of€former€owners€of€real€estate€to€request€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðannulment€of€an€expropriation€order,€with€the€possibility€of€restitution.€To€the€applicationÐ -n(- Ðof€the€author's€mother,€the€authorities€replied,€however,€that€she€did€not€come€within€theÐ ° Ðscope€of€application€of€Act€1027€and€that,€as€a€former€internee,€her€former€house€inÐ –æ ÐSzekesfehervar€could€not€be€restituted€to€her.Ð |Ì ÐÌ5.3€In€1991,€the€Constitutional€Court€of€Hungary€(òòAlkotmnybirosgóó)€quashed€Law„DecreeÐ H˜ Ð4€of€1952€as€unconstitutional.€The€author€notes,€however,€that€the€decision€apparently€didÐ . ~ Ðòònotóó€affect€expropriations€carried€out€pursuant€to€the€Decree.Ð  d ÐÌ5.4€Regarding€the€State€party's€òòratione€temporisóó€argument,€the€author€reiterates€that€his€caseÐ à 0 Ðrefers€to€action€taken€by€the€State€party€since€the€ratification€of€the€Covenant€and€theÐ Æ   ÐOptional€Protocol.€He€notes€that€in€contrast€to€legislation€adopted€in€the€formerÐ ¬ ü  ÐCzechoslovakia€and€in€Germany,€where€the€rightful€owners€of€property€formerly€seized€byÐ ’â  Ðthe€State€may€claim€restitution,€Hungarian€legislation€passed€in€1991€(Law€No.€XXV€ofÐ xÈ  Ð1991)€and€in€1992€(Law€No.€XXVI)€merely€recognizes€the€right€of€owners€to€nominalÐ ^®  Ðcompensation€and€excludes€restitution,€except€for€the€property€of€religious€orders.Ð D”  ÐAccordingly,€the€legislation€is€said€to€sanction€the€State€party's€continued€ownership€ofÐ *z  Ðproperty€confiscated€during€the€Communist€period.Ð ` ÐÌ5.5€Mr.€Somers€contends€that€as€victims€of€political€persecution€under€the€former€regime,Ð Ü, Ðhe€and€his€mother€face€particular€disadvantages€under€current€Hungarian€law€and€practiceÐ Â Ðrelating€to€the€privatization€of€(State)€property.€He€explains€that€the€tenants€currentlyÐ ¨ø Ðoccupying€residential€property€in€Hungary€enjoy€an€option€to€buy€their€home€from€the€localÐ ŽÞ Ðgovernment€authority€on€a€priority€basis.Ð tÄ ÐÌ5.6€The€author€submits€that€by€restricting€the€rights€of€former€owners,€including€thoseÐ @ Ðdispossessed€on€account€of€political€persecution,€to€compensation,€the€1991€legislation€hasÐ &v Ðenabled€the€Hungarian€Government€to€reap€substantial€profits€from€the€sale,€at€currentÐ  \ Ðmarket€prices,€of€property€seized€under€the€Communist€regime.€Moreover,€owners€are€barredÐ òB Ðfrom€claiming€even€the€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€their€property€by€the€State.€He€encloses€aÐ Ø( Ðletter€dated€21€June€1994€from€a€Government€agency€acting€on€behalf€of€the€City€CouncilÐ ¾ Ðof€Szekesfehervar,€which€states€that€notwithstanding€the€proceedings€before€the€HumanÐ ¤ô ÐRights€Committee,€the€agency€will€proceed€with€the€sale€of€the€author's€family€home.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ5.7€The€author€further€points€out€that€the€1991€legislation€does€not€distinguish€betweenÐ V"¦! Ðnationalization€of€private€property€by€legislation€from€confiscation€of€the€property€of€formerÐ <#Œ" Ðpolitical€prisoners,€such€as€the€author's€parents.€He€notes€that€the€1991€legislation€obliges€theÐ "$r# ÐState€to€pay€compensation€in€the€form€of€vouchers,€whose€value€is€calculated€by€referenceÐ %X $ Ðto€an€(arbitrarily€chosen)€amount€per€square€meter€of€the€building.€Under€the€legislation,€heÐ î%>!% Ðreceived€vouchers€with€a€face€value€of€Forint€333,000€in€full€settlement€for€his€parents'Ð Ô&$"& Ðformer€home,€an€amount€equivalent€to€approximately€3,330€U.S.€dollars.€The€author€addsÐ º' #' Ðthat€these€vouchers€traded€on€the€Hungarian€stock€exchange€for€only€42€per€cent€of€their€faceÐ  (ð#( Ðvalue€(the€equivalent€of€1,400€U.S.€dollars)€and€have€since€become€worthless,€as€they€haveÐ †)Ö$) Ðceased€to€be€listed€due€to€lack€of€demand.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ5.8€The€discriminatory€nature€of€the€regulation€is€said€to€be€further€demonstrated€by€the€factÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthat€the€current€occupants€of€residential€properties€who€enjoy€a€"buy€first€option"€may€insistÐ -n(- Ðthat€the€òòtotalóó€face€value€of€the€vouchers€circulated€in€accordance€with€the€1991€and€1992Ð ° Ðlegislation€on€partial€compensation€is€set€off€against€the€purchase€price€of€their€home.€TheÐ –æ Ðauthor€therefore€concludes€that€under€the€òòcurrentóó€legislation,€he€is€in€a€substantially€worseÐ |Ì Ðposition€than€someone€who,€though€dispossessed€of€legal€ownership€by€the€1952€LawÐ b² ÐDecree,€was€able€to€remain€in€his/her€home€as€a€tenant.Ð H˜ ÐÌ5.9€The€author€rejects€as€"totally€inconsistent€with€the€State€party's€current€status€as€a€partyÐ  d Ðto€the€Covenant€and€the€Protocol"€the€possibility€that€it€may€now€derive€potential€financialÐ ú J Ðbenefits€from€the€sale€of€his€family's€property.€He€requests€the€Committee€to€seek€restitutionÐ à 0 Ðof€his€property€or,€alternatively,€the€òòfull€proceedsóó€of€its€sale.Ð Æ   ÐÌòòThe€Committee's€admissibility€decisionóó:Ð ’â  ÐÌ6.1€During€its€53rd€session,€the€Committee€considered€the€admissibility€of€theÐ ^®  Ðcommunication.€It€noted€the€author's€claim€relating€to€the€confiscation€of€his€family'sÐ D”  Ðproperty€in€1951€and€observed€that€irrespective€of€the€fact€that€these€events€occurred€priorÐ *z  Ðto€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€Hungary,€the€right€to€property€was€notÐ ` Ðprotected€under€the€Covenant.€The€allegation€concerning€a€violation€of€the€author's€and€hisÐ öF Ðmother's€right€to€property€òòper€seóó€was€thus€inadmissible€òòratione€materiaeóó,€under€article€3€ofÐ Ü, Ðthe€Optional€Protocol.Ð Â ÐÌ6.2€Regarding€the€author's€claims€under€articles€14,€18,€19,€21,€22€and€24,€the€CommitteeÐ ŽÞ Ðnoted€that€the€author€had€failed€to€substantiate,€for€purposes€of€admissibility,€how€State€partyÐ tÄ Ðaction€prior€to€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€Hungary€had€continued€toÐ Zª Ðproduce€effects€which€òòin€themselvesóó€would€constitute€a€violation€of€any€of€these€rights€afterÐ @ Ðthe€entry€into€force.€These€claims€were€deemed€inadmissible€òòratione€Ô_ÔtemporisÔ_Ôóó.Ð &v ÐÌ6.3€As€to€the€author's€further€complaint€that€legislation€on€compensation€for€expropriationÐ òB Ðduring€the€Communist€period€adopted€in€1991€and€1992€(i.e.€òòafteróó€the€entry€into€force€of€theÐ Ø( ÐOptional€Protocol€for€Hungary)€was€discriminatory,€in€that€it€placed€himself€and€his€mother,Ð ¾ Ðas€victims€of€political€persecution€during€the€Communist€period,€in€a€significantly€moreÐ ¤ô Ðunfavourable€position€than€those€expropriated€under€Law€Decree€4€of€1952,€the€CommitteeÐ Š Ú Ðnoted€that€the€State€party€had€not€addressed€this€point€and€merely€argued€that€òòallóó€of€theÐ p!À  Ðclaims€are€inadmissible€òòratione€temporisóó.€It€recalled€that€the€State€party's€obligations€underÐ V"¦! Ðthe€Covenant€applied€as€of€the€date€of€entry€into€force€for€the€State€party.€There€was,Ð <#Œ" Ðhowever,€another€issue€as€to€when€the€Committee's€competence€to€consider€complaints€aboutÐ "$r# Ðviolations€of€the€Covenant€under€the€Optional€Protocol€was:€it€was€the€Committee'sÐ %X $ Ðjurisprudence€under€the€Optional€Protocol€that€it€cannot€consider€alleged€violations€of€theÐ î%>!% ÐCovenant€which€occurred€before€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Protocol€for€the€State€party,Ð Ô&$"& Ðunless€the€violations€complained€of€continue€after€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Protocol.€AÐ º' #' Ðcontinuing€violation€must€be€interpreted€as€an€affirmation,€by€act€or€clear€implication,€of€theÐ  (ð#( Ðprevious€violations€of€the€State€party.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ6.4€It€was€correct€that€Mr.€Somers€and€his€mother€did€not€fall€under€the€terms€of€the€StateÐ R+¢&+ Ðparty's€1991„1992€legislation€concerning€compensation€for€expropriation€during€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐCommunist€period.€The€Committee€noted€that€this€was€the€crux€of€their€claim€under€articleÐ -n(- Ð26:€they€considered€that€the€omission€of€a€clearly€cognizable€group€of€individuals€„€i.e.€thoseÐ ° Ðwho€were€expropriated€on€the€basis€of€political€opinion€and/or€social€origin€prior€to€the€LawÐ –æ ÐDecree€of€1952€„€from€the€scope€of€this€legislation€constituted€discrimination€contrary€toÐ |Ì Ðarticle€26,€and€that€their€situation€should€have€been€addressed€in€relevant€legislativeÐ b² Ðprovisions.€It€concluded€that€this€issue€was€based€on€acts€of€the€State€party€which€occurredÐ H˜ Ðafter€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€Hungary€and€believed€that€it€requiredÐ . ~ Ðexamination€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð  d ÐÌ6.5€On€15€March€1995,€the€Committee€therefore€declared€the€communication€admissible€inÐ à 0 Ðso€far€as€it€appeared€to€raise€issues€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð Æ   ÐÌòòState€party's€observations€on€the€merits€and€author's€comments€thereonóó:Ð ’â  ÐÌ7.1€In€its€submission€under€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€dated€31€JanuaryÐ ^®  Ð1996,€the€State€party€recalls€that€for€compensation€for€expropriation€under€the€formerÐ D”  Ðcommunist€regime,€three€Parliament€Acts€have€thus€far€been€enacted.€Of€theseòò€1óó,€Act€XXXIIÐ *z  Ðof€1992.,€only€Act€XXV€of€1991€is€relevant€to€the€author's€case.€Its€Section€1,€Subsection€2,Ð ` Ðstipulates€that€compensation€is€due€to€those€individuals€whose€property€had€been€seizedÐ öF Ðthrough€application€of€regulations€enacted€after€8€June€1949.€Compensation€is€partial,€andÐ Ü, Ðits€sum€total€must€be€calculated€on€the€basis€of€a€chart€contained€in€Section€4,€Subsection€2,Ð Â Ðof€the€Act.€Regarding€the€modalities€of€compensation,€Section€5,€Subsection€1,€provides€thatÐ ¨ø Ðcompensation€vouchers€will€be€issued€for€the€total€amount€of€compensation.€UnderÐ ŽÞ ÐSubsection€2,€these€vouchers€are€bearer€securities,€transferable,€and€their€face€value€is€theÐ tÄ Ðsum€total€of€debt€owed€by€the€State.€Under€Section€7,€Subsection€1,€the€State€must€ensureÐ Zª Ðthat€bearers€of€such€vouchers€may€use€them€under€the€conditions€laid€down€in€the€Act€(a)€forÐ @ Ðpurchasing€property€etc.€sold€during€privatization€of€State€property,€or€(b)€for€obtainingÐ &v Ðfarmland.Ð  \ ÐÌ7.2€As€to€privatization€legislation,€the€State€party€indicates€that€in€as€far€as€the€author's€caseÐ Ø( Ðis€concerned,€Act€LXXVIII€of€1993€on€the€privatization€of€residential€property€is€relevant.Ð ¾ ÐIts€Section€45€confers€on€tenants€of€apartments€in€State€or€local€Government€ownership€theÐ ¤ô Ðright€to€purchase€the€property€they€occupy.€The€State€party€emphasizes€that€the€right€toÐ Š Ú Ðpurchase€an€apartment€is€conferred€upon€tenants€irrespective€of€his/her€being€a€past€victimÐ p!À  Ðof€violation€of€the€right€to€property€or€other€rights.€Nor€is€the€right€to€buy€the€apartmentÐ V"¦! Ðdependant€on€the€tenant's€other€status,€such€as€residence€or€citizenship;€it€is€immaterialÐ <#Œ" Ðwhether€the€tenant€was€or€was€not€the€owner€of€the€property€he/she€currently€rents€before€theÐ "$r# Ðextensive€nationalization€of€property€in€the€1940s€and€1950s.€The€òòonlyóó€criterion€forÐ %X $ Ðeligibility€to€buy€the€property€is€that€the€buyer€is€currently€the€tenant.Ð î%>!% ÐÌ7.3€As€to€the€claim€under€article€26,€the€State€party€dismisses€the€author's€contention€that€asÐ º' #' Ðvictims€of€political€persecution€under€the€former€political€regime,€he€and€his€mother€faceÐ  (ð#( Ðspecific€disadvantages€since,€contrary€to€tenants€currently€occupying€property€and€enjoy€anÐ †)Ö$) Ðoption€to€buy€the€same€from€the€Government€at€attractive€prices,€they€cannot€do€the€same.Ð l*¼%* ÐIt€notes€that€the€reason€why€the€author€and€his€mother€cannot€recover€their€old€property€isÐ R+¢&+ Ðfactual,€not€legal,€as€they€are€not€tenants€of€any€residential€property€in€State€or€localÐ 8,ˆ', ÐGovernment€ownership.€In€the€State€party's€view,€the€difference€in€treatment€of€two€differentÐ -n(- Ðgroups€of€people€„€tenants€and€non„tenants€„€and€the€difference€in€treatment€of€these€twoÐ ° Ðgroups€by€law€is€based€on€objective€criteria€and€is€reasonable€in€the€sense€that€tenants€have,Ð –æ Ðin€the€practice€of€the€Hungarian€tenancy€system,€always€contributed€financially€to€theÐ |Ì Ðmaintenance€of€their€apartments€or€invested€money€in€those€apartments€so€as€to€increaseÐ b² Ðtheir€comfort.€The€difference€in€treatment€thus€cannot€be€said€to€constitute€prohibitedÐ H˜ Ðdiscrimination.Ð . ~ ÐÌ7.4€In€respect€of€the€author's€claim€that,€in€the€1991€and€1992€legislation€on€compensationÐ ú J Ðfor€past€violations€of€property€rights,€Hungary€failed€to€distinguish€between€cases€in€whichÐ à 0 Ðexpropriation€was€the€result€of€breaches€of€the€ICCPR€and€the€majority€of€cases€whereÐ Æ   Ðexpropriation€had€resulted€from€the€nationalization€of€private€property,€the€State€party€pointsÐ ¬ ü  Ðout€that€at€the€material€time€(i.e.€in€the€early€1950s),€no€clear„cut€distinction€betweenÐ ’â  Ðconfiscation€or€nationalization€on€political€or€other€grounds€existed€in€Hungary:€at€the€time,Ð xÈ  Ðnationalization€provided€for€by€law€and€confiscation€pronounced€by€court€or€administrativeÐ ^®  Ðorders€served€a€political€end,€namely€to€dispossess€the€wealthy€and€others€considered€asÐ D”  Ðopponents€of€the€regime.€Thus,€in€the€State€party's€opinion,€the€author's€starting€point€isÐ *z  Ðincorrect.€In€this€context,€it€notes€that€the€transfer€of€the€author's€parents'€home€into€StateÐ ` Ðproperty€was,€contrary€to€Mr.€Somers'€assertion,€precisely€based€on€Law€Decree€4€of€1952,Ð öF Ðentitled€"[O]n€the€transfer€of€certain€buildings€into€State€ownership".€The€extract€from€theÐ Ü, Ðland€register€and€decision€No.€21„1122543„00€15598€on€the€author's€compensation€show€thatÐ Â ÐMr.€Somers'€father€was€dispossessed€on€the€basis€of€Law€Decree€No.€4.Ð ¨ø ÐÌ7.5€The€State€party€argues€that€the€wording€of€Section€1€of€this€Law€Decree€clearly€showsÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€Decree€was€motivated€by€the€intention€to€dispossess€owners€of€real€estate€onÐ Zª Ðpolitical€grounds.€As€Mr.€Somers€was€compensated€for€the€deprivation€of€his€father'sÐ @ Ðproperty€pursuant€to€Law€Decree€4,€the€State€party€argues€that€it€cannot€be€said€that€theÐ &v Ðauthor€suffered€harm€since€the€legislation€on€compensation€failed€to€take€into€account€thatÐ  \ Ðhis€father€had€been€dispossessed€of€his€property€as€a€result€of€political€persecution.€Hence,Ð òB Ðthis€claim€is€said€to€be€unfounded.Ð Ø( ÐÌ7.6€The€State€party€concedes€that€the€value€of€the€vouchers€the€author€was€given€asÐ ¤ô Ðcompensation€was€indeed€lower€than€the€value€of€his€father's€home.€But,€the€State€party€adds,Ð Š Ú ÐHungarian€compensation€legislation€only€provides€for€partial€compensation€of€pastÐ p!À  Ðgrievances,€as€full€compensation€cannot€be€granted€owning€to€the€"huge€number€of€claimsÐ V"¦! Ðand€the€difficult€economic€situation€of€the€country".€Such€exceptions€as€exist€to€this€rule€doÐ <#Œ" Ðnot€in€any€event€apply€to€the€author's€case.€The€calculation€of€compensation€due€is€based€onÐ "$r# Ðobjective€criteria:€pursuant€to€Section€4€of€Act€XXV€of€1991,€the€same€criteria€are€appliedÐ %X $ Ðto€all€applicants.€Moreover,€all€decisions€on€compensation€are€subject€to€appeal€if€theÐ î%>!% Ðapplicant€believes€that€the€law€was€not€applied€correctly€to€his€case.€The€State€party€notesÐ Ô&$"& Ðthat€on€the€basis€of€available€information,€the€author€did€not€appeal€against€the€decision€onÐ º' #' Ðcompensation.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ7.7€As€to€the€allegation€that€the€Hungarian€compensation€legislation€is€discriminatoryÐ l*¼%* Ðbecause€those€who€are€authorized€to€buy€the€residential€property€they€occupy€can€set€off€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðtotal€face€value€of€the€vouchers€against€the€purchase€price€whereas€the€author,€as€a€non„Ð 8,ˆ', Ðtenant,€cannot€do€so,€the€State€notes€that€while€this€possibility€is€indeed€provided€for€underÐ -n(- ÐSection€7,€Subsection€1,€of€Act€XXV€of€1991,€there€can€be€no€question€of€prohibitedÐ ° Ðdiscriminatory€treatment.€In€the€State€party's€view,€the€author€simply€compares€two€groupsÐ –æ Ðof€people€without€in€fact€taking€into€account€the€substantial€difference€between€the€situationÐ |Ì Ðof€the€two€groups€„€i.e.€those€who€are€the€tenants€of€the€apartment€against€the€purchase€priceÐ b² Ðof€which€vouchers€can€be€set€off,€and€those€who€are€neither€occupants€nor€tenants€of€anyÐ H˜ Ðapartment€in€State€or€local€Government€ownership.€For€the€State€party,€"not€taking€intoÐ . ~ Ðaccount€this€difference€leads€to€an€arbitrary€comparison€of€two€situations€under€article€26Ð  d Ðof€the€Covenant."€An€issue€under€article€26€would€only€arise€if€Hungarian€law€treatedÐ ú J Ðoccupants€or€tenants€of€State„owned€dwellings€differently,€allowing€some€to€set€off€vouchersÐ à 0 Ðand€denying€others€the€possibility€to€do€so.€As€this€is€not€the€author's€situation,€the€StateÐ Æ   Ðparty€concludes€that€he€is€not€discriminated€against,€as€he€is€not€the€tenant€of€any€residentialÐ ¬ ü  Ðproperty€to€be€sold€under€the€privatization€legislation.Ð ’â  ÐÌ7.8€In€conclusion,€and€by€reference€to€paragraph€13€of€the€Committee's€General€CommentÐ ^®  Ð18[37]€on€article€26òò€2óó€,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€Hungarian€legislation€on€compensationÐ D”  Ðof€past€grievances€and€on€privatization€of€residential€property,€as€well€as€their€applicationÐ *z  Ðto€the€author's€case,€is€in€compliance€with€the€provisions€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð ` ÐÌ8.1€In€his€comments,€the€author€notes€that€the€State€party€itself€admits€that€confiscation€ofÐ Ü, Ðresidential€property€under€the€former€regime€violated€the€Covenant,€as€the€nationalizationÐ Â Ðlegislation€and€confiscation€orders€served€the€purpose€of€dispossessing€the€wealthy€andÐ ¨ø Ðopponents€to€the€regime€(see€paragraph€7.4€above).€That€being€the€case,€the€State€partyÐ ŽÞ Ðshould€have€provided€an€"effective€remedy"€to€the€victims€of€such€violations.€The€authorÐ tÄ Ðrefers€to€the€Committee's€Views€on€communication€516/1992€òò3óó€,€where€it€was€held€that€theÐ Zª Ðappropriate€remedy€in€respect€of€unlawful€compensation€of€property€"may€be€compensationÐ @ Ðif€the€property€in€question€cannot€be€returned".€He€recalls€that€his€communication€referredÐ &v Ðòòinter€aliaóó€to€Hungary's€failure€(in€contrast€to€laws€adopted€by€Germany€or€the€CzechÐ  \ ÐRepublic€and€Slovakia)€to€return€property€confiscated€from€individuals€during€theÐ òB ÐCommunist€period.€No€explanations€were€offered€by€the€State€party€about€its€failure€to€returnÐ Ø( Ðresidential€property€to€its€rightful€owners:€Mr.€Somers€observes€that€the€State€party€stillÐ ¾ Ðòòcouldóó,€if€it€wanted,€return€his€father's€home€to€him,€subject€to€the€protection€of€the€currentÐ ¤ô Ðtenants,€as€the€property€exists€and€former€ownership€is€not€disputed.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ8.2€As€to€the€amount€of€compensation€awarded€by€the€State€party,€the€author€recalls€that€theÐ V"¦! Ðsum€payable€for€notional€losses€in€excess€of€Hungarian€Forint€(HUF)€200,000€(appr.€$Ð <#Œ" Ð2,000.„)€is€progressively€reduced€by€applying€the€compensation€scale€in€Section€4,Ð "$r# ÐSubsection€2,€of€Act€XXV€of€1991.€Compensation€is€reduced€to€10%€for€any€part€of€the€lossÐ %X $ Ðover€HUF€500,000.€For€the€author,€this€"scale€of€compensation"€displays€the€sameÐ î%>!% Ðideological€prejudice€as€Law€Decree€4€of€1952,€i.e.€to€dispossess€the€wealthy€and€othersÐ Ô&$"& Ðconsidered€opponents€of€the€regime.€The€negative€effect€on€someone€in€Mr.€Somers'Ð º' #' Ðsituation,€it€is€pointed€out,€is€compounded€by€the€fact€that€there€is€no€compensation€in€respectÐ  (ð#( Ðof€the€land€component€of€the€property,€loss€of€income€from€rent,€or€confiscation€of€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðcontents€of€someone's€home.€That€compensation€is€paid€in€vouchers€rather€than€cash,€andÐ l*¼%* Ðthat€only€"current€tenants"€of€residential€property€in€State€ownership€may€use€vouchers€toÐ R+¢&+ Ðbuy€property,€contrary€to€the€former€owners€of€the€property€who€were€displaced€from€it€inÐ 8,ˆ', Ðviolation€of€their€rights,€is€said€to€further€underline€the€discriminatory€nature€of€theÐ -n(- ÐÑ Oa Ñâ  âÑ°°Ñâ  âÑ  Ñcompensation€legislation.Ð ° ÐÌ8.3€Mr.€Somers€challenges€the€justification€of€the€State€party's€argument€that€the€face€valueÐ |Ì Ðof€the€vouchers€given€to€him€is€lower€than€the€value€of€his€late€father's€property€because€ofÐ b² Ðthe€"difficult€economic€situation€of€the€country".€He€notes€that€Hungary's€economic€situationÐ H˜ Ðis€no€worse€than€that€of€the€Czech€Republic€or€Slovakia,€which€have€restituted€property€toÐ . ~ Ðtheir€rightful€owners:€the€State€party's€obligation€to€provide€for€adequate€compensation€arisesÐ  d Ðfrom€the€State€party's€refusal€to€restitute€property€it€confiscated.€Its€current€economicÐ ú J Ðsituation€is€irrelevant€considering€that€the€income€it€has€derived€from€the€property€sinceÐ à 0 Ð1952,€i.e.€net€proceeds€from€rent€for€more€than€four€decades€and€the€proceeds€from€theÐ Æ   Ðprivatization€sale€of€the€property,€is€sufficient€to€cover€adequate€compensation.€Mr.€SomersÐ ¬ ü  Ðdeplores€that€the€State€party€has€failed€to€address€this€part€of€his€claim.Ð ’â  ÐÌ8.4€The€author€rejects€the€State€party's€contention€that€he€did€not€appeal€against€theÐ ^®  Ðcompensation€decision€as€misleading,€since€the€1991€legislation€(Act€XXV)€does€not€provideÐ D”  Ðfor€an€avenue€of€appeal€in€respect€of€the€criteria€used€to€calculate€the€amount€of€the€author'sÐ *z  Ðcompensation.Ð ` ÐÌ8.5€Mr.€Somers€asserts€that€the€State€party€"conveniently€ignores"€his€claim€that€as€victimsÐ Ü, Ðof€political€persecution€during€the€communist€period,€he€and€his€mother€are€faced€withÐ Â Ðaddition€„€discriminatory€„€disadvantages€under€the€1991€and€1993€legislation.€Thus,€ActÐ ¨ø ÐXXV€of€1991€gives€no€remedy€or€compensation€for€the€violation€inherent€in€his€and€hisÐ ŽÞ Ðmother's€removal€from€their€apartment.€Moreover,€Section€45€of€Act€LXXVIII€of€1993€givesÐ tÄ Ðcontinuing€effect€to€this€removal€by€restricting€the€participation€in€the€privatization€of€allÐ Zª ÐState„owned€residential€property€to€"current€tenants".€The€discriminatory€effect€of€SectionÐ @ Ð45€is€allegedly€reinforced€by€Section€7,€Subsection€1,€of€Act€XXV€of€1991,€which€confersÐ &v Ðon€"current€tenants"€of€residential€property€an€exclusive€right€to€use€compensation€vouchersÐ  \ Ðintroduced€under€the€1991€legislation€to€purchase€the€property€from€the€local€authority.Ð òB ÐÌ8.6€The€author€dismisses€as€absurd€the€State€party's€contention€that€it€is€both€fair€andÐ ¾ Ðreasonable€that€current€tenants€should€participate€in€the€privatization€of€residential€propertyÐ ¤ô Ðon€a€priority€basis€as€tenants€have€contributed€to€the€maintenance€and€improvement€of€theirÐ Š Ú Ðapartments€during€their€tenancy.€To€the€author,€this€is€tantamount€to€the€State€party€in€factÐ p!À  Ðconfirming€the€violations€that€continue€to€affect€him€and€his€mother€òòas€a€result€of€politicalÐ V"¦! Ðpersecutionóó€during€the€communist€period,€as€the€sole€reason€for€their€not€being€the€tenantsÐ <#Œ" Ðor€occupants€of€their€apartment€is€their€removal€from€said€apartment€in€1951€and€theÐ "$r# Ðsequence€of€violations€which€finally€made€them€leave€Hungary.€The€author€moreover€recallsÐ %X $ Ðthat€his€late€father's€entitlement€to€the€apartment€was€not€based€on€tenancy;€hence,€toÐ î%>!% Ðstipulate€tenancy€as€a€precondition€for€entitlement€to€participation€in€the€privatization€of€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðapartment€is€wholly€unreasonable.Ð º' #' ÐÌ8.7€In€respect€of€the€latter€argument,€the€author€explains€that€there€are€two€kinds€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðresidential€property€in€Hungary:€unencumbered€freehold€properties€and€properties€"affected",Ð l*¼%* Ði.e.€encumbered€by€the€rights€of€current€tenants.€In€practice,€under€Act€LXXVIII€of€1993,Ð R+¢&+ Ðcurrent€tenants€of€state€owned€property€can€buy€their€apartment/home€from€the€localÐ 8,ˆ', Ðauthority€for€less€than€half€the€current€unencumbered€freehold€value€of€the€property.€As€theÐ -n(- Ðauthor€cannot,€under€Section€45€of€Act€LXXVIII€of€1993,€participate€in€the€privatization€ofÐ ° Ðresidential€property,€he€would€have,€in€order€to€buy€an€apartment€comparable€to€the€one€heÐ –æ Ðand€his€family€occupied€in€1951,€pay€the€unencumbered€freehold€value,€that€is€appr.€doubleÐ |Ì Ðthe€amount€paid€for€the€property€by€the€current€tenants.€This€is€said€to€be€anotherÐ b² Ðdiscriminatory€element€in€the€State€party's€legislation.Ð H˜ ÐÌ8.8€The€author€summarizes€the€discriminatory€elements€and€disadvantages€he€and€his€motherÐ  d Ðare€facing€under€the€1991€and€1993€legislation€as€follows:Ð ú J ÐÌ(a)€absence€of€any€remedy€in€respect€of€the€unlawful€deprivation€of€their€right€to€occupyÐ Æ   Ðtheir€apartment,€i.e.€forced€displacement€from€their€home;Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ(b)€absence€of€any€remedy€in€respect€of€the€confiscation€of€the€contents€of€their€apartment;Ð xÈ  ÐÌ(c)€exclusion,€under€Section€45€of€Act€LXXVIII€of€1993€from€the€right€to€participate€in€theÐ D”  Ðprivatization€of€residential€property;Ð *z  ÐÌ(d)€exclusion,€under€Section€7,€Subsection€1,€of€Act€XXV€of€1991,€from€the€right€to€use€theÐ öF Ðcompensation€vouchers€they€received€as€nominal€compensation€for€the€expropriation€of€theÐ Ü, Ðauthor's€father's€home€to€purchase€residential€property;Ð Â ÐÌ(e)€and,€because€of€the€exclusions€referred€to€in€(c)€and€(d)€above,€the€authors€were€forcedÐ ŽÞ Ðto€sell€their€compensation€vouchers€on€the€Hungarian€stock€exchange€where€they€traded€forÐ tÄ Ðless€than€half€of€their€face€value.Ð Zª ÐÌThe€author€suggests€that€so€as€to€redress€the€discrimination€inherent€in€his€exclusion,€underÐ &v Ðthe€1993€legislation,€from€any€right€to€participate€in€the€privatization€of€their€former€home,Ð  \ Ðthe€State€party€should€award€them€(at€least)€the€full€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€their€formerÐ òB Ðapartment.Ð Ø( ÐÌòòExamination€on€the€meritsóó:Ð ¤ô ÐÌ9.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€light€ofÐ p!À  Ðall€the€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,€paragraph€1,Ð V"¦! Ðof€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ9.2€The€present€communication€was€declared€admissible€only€in€so€far€as€it€may€raise€issuesÐ %X $ Ðunder€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€As€the€Committee€explained€in€its€admissibility€decision,Ð î%>!% Ðthe€right€to€property€as€such€is€not€protected€under€the€Covenant.€However,€confiscation€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðprivate€property€or€failure€by€a€State€party€to€pay€compensation€for€such€confiscation€couldÐ º' #' Ðstill€entail€a€breach€of€the€Covenant€if€the€relevant€act€or€omission€was€based€onÐ  (ð#( Ðdiscriminatory€grounds€in€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ9.3€The€principal€issue€before€the€Committee€is€whether€the€application€of€Act€XXV€of€1991Ð R+¢&+ Ðand€of€Act€LXXVIII€of€1993€to€the€author€and€his€mother€resulted€in€a€violation€of€their€rightÐ 8,ˆ', Ðto€equality€before€the€law€and€to€equal€protection€of€the€law.€The€author€contends€that€theseÐ -n(- Ðlaws,€in€their€effect,€confirm€the€earlier€discriminatory€confiscation€of€his€father's€property.Ð ° ÐThe€Committee€notes€that€the€confiscation€itself€is€not€at€issue€here,€but€rather€the€allegedÐ –æ Ðdiscriminatory€effect€of€the€compensation€law€on€the€author€and€his€mother.Ð |Ì ÐÌ9.4€The€Committee€must€first€determine€whether€the€application€of€the€State€party'sÐ H˜ Ðcompensation€legislation,€regulated€by€Act€XXV€of€1991,€to€the€authors'€case,€wasÐ . ~ Ðdiscriminatory.€As€noted€in€the€previous€paragraph,€the€òòonlyóó€issue€is€whether€the€award€ofÐ  d Ðless€than€full€compensation€for€the€loss€of€the€author's€property,€under€Act€XXV€of€1991,€isÐ ú J Ðcontrary€to€article€26.€The€Committee€observes€that€Act€XXV€contains€objectiveÐ à 0 Ðcompensation€criteria,€which€are€applied€equally€and€without€discrimination€to€individualsÐ Æ   Ðin€the€author's€situation.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ9.5€As€to€whether€the€compensation€criteria€and€calculation€tables€for€compensation€in€ActÐ xÈ  ÐXXV€are€reasonable,€the€Committee€has€noted€the€author's€argument€that€the€value€of€theÐ ^®  Ðbearer€securities€in€form€of€vouchers€he€received€as€compensation€differs€de€facto,Ð D”  Ðdepending€on€whether€the€bearer€is€the€tenant€of€State€owned€residential€property€or€not,€asÐ *z  Ðonly€the€former€can€use€the€vouchers€under€the€conditions€of€Section€7,€Subsection€1,€of€theÐ ` ÐAct€(i.e.€may€offset€them€fully€against€the€purchase€price€of€the€property).€On€the€basis€ofÐ öF Ðthe€material€available€to€it,€the€Committee€does€not€share€this€reading€of€Section€7€of€ActÐ Ü, ÐXXV.€Ð  ÐÌ9.6€The€corollary€of€the€fact€that€the€Covenant€does€not€protect€the€right€to€property€is€thatÐ ŽÞ Ðthere€is€no€right,€as€such,€to€have€(expropriated€or€nationalized)€property€restituted.€If€a€StateÐ tÄ Ðparty€to€the€Covenant€provides€compensation€for€nationalization€or€expropriation€on€equalÐ Zª Ðterms,€it€does€not€discriminate€against€those€whose€property€was€expropriated€orÐ @ Ðnationalized.€The€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€Section€7€of€Act€XXV€of€1991€providesÐ &v Ðfor€compensation€on€equal€terms.€Under€Section€7(1),€individuals€compensated€by€vouchersÐ  \ Ðbut€not€tenants€of€any€residential€property€may€set€off€the€full€face€value€of€their€vouchersÐ òB Ðagainst€the€price€of€òòanyóó€property,€shares€or€business€shares€sold€during€the€privatization€ofÐ Ø( Ðformer€State„owned€property.€This€means€that€òòifóó€the€author€wanted€to€buy€former€state„Ð ¾ Ðowned€residential€property,€he€would€be€able€to€offset€the€full€face€value€of€the€vouchers€heÐ ¤ô Ðreceived.€Similarly,€òòifóó€he€decided€to€invest€in€other€property,€such€as€business€shares€ofÐ Š Ú Ðformer€State„owned€companies,€he€would€also€be€able€to€offset€the€full€face€value€of€theÐ p!À  Ðvouchers.€òòOnlyóó€if€he€wanted€to€redeem€his€vouchers€on€the€open€market€because€he€is€notÐ V"¦! Ðinterested€in€any€property€other€than€his€former€apartment€will€he€receive€less€than€theÐ <#Œ" Ðnominal€value€of€the€vouchers.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ9.7€On€the€basis€of€the€considerations€in€paragraphs€9.5€and€9.6€above,€the€CommitteeÐ î%>!% Ðconsiders€that€the€compensation€criteria€in€Act€XXV€are€both€objective€òòandóó€reasonable.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ9.8€The€Committee€has€further€examined€whether€article€9€of€Act€XXV€of€1991€and€theÐ  (ð#( Ðprivatization€legislation€of€1993€(Act€LXXVIII)€are€compatible€with€the€requirements€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðarticle€26.€Under€Section€9€of€Act€XXV,€if€the€tenant€does€not€exercise€himself/herself€theÐ l*¼%* Ð"buy€first€option"€to€purchase€the€residential€property€he/she€occupies,€the€former€owner€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€property€may€purchase€it€and,€in€so€doing,€may€offset€the€full€value€of€the€vouchersÐ 8,ˆ', Ðhe/she€received€against€the€purchase€price.€As€in€the€case€of€Act€XXV,€the€criteria€for€theÐ -n(- Ðprivatization€of€former€State„owned€property€in€Act€LXXVIII€of€1993€are€objective.€TheÐ ° ÐState€party€has€justified€the€(exclusionary)€requirement€that€current€tenants€of€former€State„Ð –æ Ðowned€residential€property€have€a€"buy€first€option"€even€vis„„vis€the€former€owner€of€theÐ |Ì Ðproperty€with€the€argument€that€tenants€contribute€to€the€maintenance€of€the€propertyÐ b² Ðthrough€improvements€of€their€own.€The€Committee€does€not€consider€that€the€fact€of€givingÐ H˜ Ðthe€current€tenants€of€former€State„owned€property€priority€in€the€privatization€sale€of€suchÐ . ~ Ðproperty€is€in€itself€unreasonable;€the€interests€of€the€"current€tenants",€who€may€have€beenÐ  d Ðoccupying€the€property€for€years,€are€deserving€of€protection.€If€the€former€owners€are,Ð ú J Ðmoreover,€compensated€on€equal€and€non„discriminatory€terms€(paragraph€9.6),€the€interplayÐ à 0 Ðbetween€Act€XXV€of€1991€and€of€Act€LXVIII€of€1993€can€be€deemed€compatible€withÐ Æ   Ðarticle€26€of€the€Covenant;€with€respect€to€the€application€of€the€privatization€legislation€toÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€author's€case,€the€Committee€does€not€dispose€of€sufficient€elements€to€conclude€that€itsÐ ’â  Ðcriteria€were€applied€in€a€discriminatory€manner.Ð xÈ  ÐÌ10.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€OptionalÐ D”  ÐProtocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€theÐ *z  Ðfacts€as€found€by€the€Committee€do€not€reveal€a€breach€of€article€26€or€of€any€other€provisionÐ ` Ðof€the€Covenant.Ð öF ÐÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.Ð Â ÐSubsequently€to€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee'sÐ ¨ø Ðannual€report€to€the€General€Assembly.]Ð ŽÞ ÐÌÌòòFootnotesóóÐ @ ÐÌ*/€€Made€public€by€decision€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee.Ð  \ ÐÌòò**óó/€€Pursuant€to€rule€85€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€Committee€member€Tams€Bn€did€notÐ Ø( Ðparticipate€in€the€examination€of€the€communication.Ð ¾ ÐÌ1/€€Act€XXV€of€1991,€Act€XXVI€of€1992Ð Š Ú ÐÌ2/€€The€General€Comment€states€that€not€every€differentiation€in€treatment€constitutesÐ V"¦! Ðdiscrimination,€if€the€differentiation€criteria€are€reasonable€and€objective€and€if€the€aim€isÐ <#Œ" Ðto€achieve€a€legitimate€purpose€under€the€Covenant.Ð "$r# ÐÌ3/€€òòÔ_ÔSimunekÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Czech€Republicóó,€Views€adopted€on€19€July€1995.Ð î%>!% ÐÌÓ<Ó