ÿWPCç '®ìr-ifÃþoÎ÷|£M,oÇà*Ðt}>b•×ºŠ‰Óž³¾q§(Á‚ÙUsú¹W©ÅÇ3Í–wŒP½­ŽzhŸUZú~(ÃHI¿ž~Ó03I)~Û{éÑñö—d¦@6dƒw­¬|Ãó6ïMzLëpÞ†{|XÒE"–¿cÚYÑxñí¢Gx•hÕ;¹Ý"ˆŠTE,\D)oÁ…†¿¢—°]WbÕXs]3({cµóâ:ä!¥/ _4 Qga¹àÆ>%€)©fœ%Òý4 &Ó=òjºð𲦹SFa]sBD?¯+ãµûèú«&ë¶4S9ž9£7-TE>¿üÔ«xÓÌ-ŠyDÕ{KMÎQ¨ú¸p¦‹õt±óéèÞ¼ýБÕQbþ•JRÂÿnÅ(…çq¡Y«´g²·ˆ9¼{u"æôªyHr¢{‹ëO=Ùbe!ÔõÍÆèðý˜ÂypF¾PO,(JùŸ0ùè³½ÁæÎ= 6Ìiž X©?ޝÄÔ½©½6´®¯×ã§Ø"o”'csÔUlE„Ó\.Ðú›ÐúåÜ:x.û9©¬g´´úª0s-ª‹{®ªn!~nEüÿ­Ò{š"=ïÖƒ×_eQ=#ÁVUN %e 0:kM¥ 01© 0=Ú 0È 0>ß 0Ê 0´ç 0´› 0aO 0´° 0´d 09 0ÜQ 02- 0ü_ 0:[ 0…• 0_ 0 y 0kƒ 0Çî B*µ D3ß C D+, 0ÇW 0ç 06 0; 0:C 0h} 0Få C+U6EU>{U*¹¹Æã 0U© 0(þ AM&&&&&&&&&^ sw4ƒ—¦ m¨(¿˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÙØÙÙØÈÙ0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ö\$¡¡ÔCEUS.,Ô0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<GDÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó('zÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8SPÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡&<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡'ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6&)ÿÿ4HyperlinkÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡&<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡'ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡&<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡'ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/Ó<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Bottom of ÓI€4$À˜ ** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡(%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡'ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô&ÿÿ0 d d'þÿÈÈÈÈdxd÷ÿdÿÿÿd'ÈÈÈÈdxd<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓI€4$À˜** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡(%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡'ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô0Klÿÿ.SampleÔK‡&<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔS‡'ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡&<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡'ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó:ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô ÿÿÿd<þ6X9`(Courier Newô\  `&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`Arial Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(-2«$££Ý ƒö\!ÝÔCEUS.,ÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’*+,A<< cÿÿ¹è. sä.ê:i¢Ø+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒö\!ÝÔCEUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEó óÐ ° ÐÌòòò òÔ_ÔBrokÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€The€Czech€Republicó óóóÐ ƒÓ ÐÌò òCommunication€No.€774/1997ó óÐ V¦ ÐÌò ò31€October€2001Ð ) y ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/73/D/774/1997Ð ý M ÐÌÌVIEWSÐ »  ÐÌó óÌòòòòSubmitted€by:óó€Mr.€Robert€Brok€(deceased)€and€his€surviving€spouse€Dagmar€Brokova€óóÐ xÈ  ÐÌòòòòState€party€concerned:óó€The€Czech€Republicóó€Ð H˜ ÐÌòòòòDate€of€registered€communication:óó€23€December€1996€(initial€submission)óó€Ð j ÐÌòòÌThe€Human€Rights€Committee,óó€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilÐ Õ% Ðand€Political€Rights,€Ð ¾ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€31€October€2001,€Ð à ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€774/1997,€submitted€to€the€Human€RightsÐ b² ÐCommittee€by€Mr.€Robert€Brok€(deceased)€and€by€his€surviving€spouse€Dagmar€Brokova€under€theÐ K› ÐOptional€Protocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð 4„ ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€authors€of€theÐ  V Ðcommunication€and€by€the€State€party,€Ð ï ? ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:€Ð Á"! ÐÌÌÓ=Óò òÓ  ÓViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocol€ó óÐ |%Ì $ ÐÓÓÓÓÌ1.€€The€original€author€of€the€communication€dated€23€December€1996,€Robert€Brok,€was€a€CzechÐ O'Ÿ"& Ðcitizen,€born€in€September€1916.€When€he€passed€away€on€17€September€1997,€his€wife€DagmarÐ 8(ˆ#' ÐBrokova€maintained€his€communication.€It€is€claimed€that€the€Czech€Republic€has€violated€articlesÐ !)q$( Ð6,€9,€14€(1),€26€and€27€of€the€Covenant.€The€Optional€Protocol€entered€into€force€for€the€CzechÐ  *Z%) ÐRepublic€on€12€June€1991.€The€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€ratified€the€Optional€ProtocolÐ ó*C&* Ðin€March€1991,€but€on€31€December€1992€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€ceased€to€exist.Ð Ü+,'+ ÐOn€22€February€1993,€the€Czech€Republic€notified€its€succession€to€the€Covenant€and€the€OptionalÐ Å,(, ÐProtocol.òò1óó€The€author€is€not€represented€by€counsel.€Ð ®-þ(- Їò òThe€facts€as€submitted€ó óÐ ° ÐÌ2.1€€Robert€Brok's€parents€owned€a€house€in€the€centre€of€Prague€since€1927€(hereinafter€called€theÐ ƒÓ Ðproperty).€During€1940€and€1941,€the€German€authorities€confiscated€their€property€with€retroactiveÐ l¼ Ðeffect€to€16€March€1939,€because€the€owners€were€Jewish.€The€property€was€then€sold€to€theÐ U¥ Ðcompany€Matador€on€7€January€1942.€The€author€himself,€was€deported€by€the€Nazis,€and€returnedÐ > Ž Ðto€Prague€on€16€May€1945,€after€having€been€released€from€a€concentration€camp.€He€wasÐ ' w Ðsubsequently€hospitalized€until€October€1945.€Ð  ` ÐÌ2.2€€After€the€end€of€the€war,€on€19€May€1945,€President€Benes'€Decree€No.€5/1945,€followed€upÐ â 2  Ðlater€by€Act€128/1946,€declared€null€and€void€all€property€transactions€effected€under€pressure€ofÐ Ë   Ðthe€occupation€regime€on€the€basis€of€racial€or€political€persecution.€National€administration€wasÐ ´  Ðimposed€on€all€enemy€assets.€This€included€the€author's€parents'€property€pursuant€to€a€decisionÐ í  Ðtaken€by€the€Ministry€of€Industry€on€2€August€1945.€However,€in€February€1946,€the€Ministry€ofÐ †Ö  ÐIndustry€annulled€that€decision.€It€also€annulled€the€prior€property€confiscation€and€transfers,€andÐ o¿  Ðthe€author's€parents€were€reinstated€as€the€rightful€owners,€in€accordance€with€Benes€Decree€No.Ð X¨  Ð5/1945.€Ð A‘ ÐÌ2.3€€However,€the€company€Matador,€which€had€been€nationalized€on€27€October€1945,€appealedÐ c Ðagainst€this€decision.€On€7€August€1946,€the€Land€Court€in€Prague€annulled€the€return€of€theÐ üL Ðproperty€to€the€author's€parents€and€declared€Matador€to€be€the€rightful€owner.€On€31€January€1947,Ð å5 Ðthe€Supreme€Court€confirmed€this€decision.€The€Court€found€that€since€the€company€with€all€itsÐ Î Ðpossessions€had€been€nationalized€in€accordance€with€Benes€Decree€No.€100/1945€of€24€OctoberÐ · Ð1945,€and€since€national€property€was€excluded€from€the€application€of€Benes€Decree€No.€5/1945,Ð  ð Ðthe€Ministry€had€wrongfully€restored€the€author's€parents€as€the€rightful€owners.€The€propertyÐ ‰Ù Ðthereby€stayed€in€possession€of€Matador,€and€was€later,€in€1954,€transferred€to€the€state€companyÐ r ÐTechnomat.€Ð [« ÐÌ2.4€€Following€the€change€to€a€democratic€government€at€the€adoption€of€restitution€legislation,€theÐ -} Ðauthor€applied€for€restitution€under€Act€No.€87/1991€as€amended€by€Act€No.€116/1994.€The€said€lawÐ f Ðprovides€restitution€or€compensation€to€victims€of€illegal€confiscation€carried€out€for€politicalÐ ÿO Ðreasons€during€the€Communist€regime€(25€February€1948€-1€January€1990).€The€law€also€matterÐ è 8 Ðprovisions€for€restitution€or€compensation€to€victims€of€racial€persecution€during€the€Second€WorldÐ Ñ!!  ÐWar,€who€have€an€entitlement€by€virtue€of€Decree€No.€5/1945.€The€courts€(District€Court€decisionÐ º" ! Ð26€C€49/95€of€20€November€1995€and€Prague€City€Court€decision€13€Co€34/94-29€of€28€FebruaryÐ £#ó" Ð1996),€however,€rejected€the€author's€claim.€The€District€Court€states€in€its€decision€that€the€amendedÐ Œ$Ü# ÐAct€extends€the€right€to€restitution€to€persons€who€lost€their€property€during€the€German€occupationÐ u%Å $ Ðand€who€could€not€have€their€property€restituted€because€of€political€persecution,€or€who€wentÐ ^&®!% Ðthrough€legal€procedures€that€violated€their€human€rights€subsequent€to€25€February€1948,€onÐ G'—"& Ðcondition€that€they€comply€with€the€terms€set€forth€in€Act€No.€87/1991.€However,€the€court€was€ofÐ 0(€#' Ðthe€opinion€that€the€author€was€not€eligible€for€restitution,€because€the€property€was€nationalizedÐ )i$( Ðbefore€25€February€1948,€the€retroactive€cut-off€date€for€claims€under€Act€No.€87/1991€Section€1,Ð *R%) Ðparagraph€1,€and€Section€6.€This€decision€was€confirmed€by€the€Prague€City€Court.€Ð ë*;&* ÐÌ2.5€€Pursuant€to€section€72€of€Act€No.€182/1993,€the€author€filed€a€complaint€before€theÐ ½, (, ÐConstitutional€court€that€his€right€to€property€had€been€violated.€This€provision€allows€an€individualÐ ¦-ö(- Ðto€file€a€complaint€to€the€Constitutional€Court€if€the€public€authority€has€violated€the€claimant'sÐ ° Ðfundamental€rights€guaranteed€by€a€constitutional€law€or€by€an€international€treaty€in€particular€theÐ ™é Ðright€to€property.€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌ2.6€€The€Constitutional€Court€concluded€that€since€the€first€and€second€instances€had€decided€thatÐ T¤ Ðthe€author€was€not€the€owner€of€the€property,€there€were€no€property€rights€that€could€have€beenÐ =  Ðviolated.€In€its€decision,€the€Constitutional€Court€invoked€the€question€of€fair€trial€on€its€own€motionÐ & v Ðand€concluded€that€"the€legal€proceedings€were€conducted€correctly€and€all€the€legal€regulationsÐ  _ Ðhave€been€safeguarded".€Accordingly,€the€Constitutional€Court€rejected€the€author's€constitutionalÐ ø H Ðcomplaint€on€12€September€1996.€Ð á 1  ÐÌò òThe€complaint€ó óÐ ³  ÐÌ3.1€€The€author€alleges€that€the€court€decisions€in€this€case€are€vitiated€by€discrimination€and€thatÐ †Ö  Ðthe€courts'€negative€interpretation€of€the€facts€is€manifestly€arbitrary€and€contrary€to€the€law.€Ð o¿  ÐÌ3.2€€The€author's€widow€contends€that€the€Act€No.€87/1991,€amended€by€Act€No.€116/1994,€is€notÐ A‘ Ðapplied€to€all€Czech€citizens€equally.€She€deems€it€obvious€that€Robert€Brok€met€all€the€conditionsÐ *z Ðfor€restitution€set€forth€in€the€law,€but€contends€that€the€Czech€courts€were€not€willing€to€apply€theseÐ c Ðsame€criteria€to€his€case,€in€violation€of€articles€14€paragraph€1€and€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð üL ÐÌ3.3€€The€author's€widow€contends€that€the€decision€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€1947€was€contrary€toÐ Î Ðthe€law,€in€particular€Benes€Decree€No.€5/1945€and€Act€No.€128/1946,€which€annul€all€propertyÐ · Ðtransfers€after€29€September€1938€taken€for€reasons€of€national,€racial€or€political€persecution.€SheÐ  ð Ðpoints€out€that€at€the€time€that€Benes€Decree€No.€5/1945€was€issued€(10€May€1945),€the€companyÐ ‰Ù ÐMatador€had€not€yet€been€nationalized€and€that€the€exclusion€of€restitution€therefore€did€not€apply.€Ð r ÐÌ3.4€€The€author's€widow€states€that€the€Act€No.€87/1991€amended€by€Act€No.€116/1994€Section€3,Ð D” Ðparagraph€2€contains€an€exception€to€the€time€limitations€and€enables€the€author€as€entitled€throughÐ -} ÐBenes€Decree€No.€5/1945€to€claim€restitution.€According€to€the€author's€widow,€the€intention€of€thisÐ f Ðexception€is€to€allow€restitution€of€property€that€was€confiscated€before€25€February€1948€owing€toÐ ÿO Ðracial€persecution,€and€especially€to€allow€restitution€of€Jewish€property.€Ð è 8 ÐÌ3.5€€The€author's€widow€further€claims€that€since€the€initial€expropriations€happened€as€part€ofÐ º" ! Ðgenocide,€the€property€should€be€restored€regardless€of€the€positive€law€in€the€Czech€Republic.€TheÐ £#ó" Ðauthor€points€to€other€European€countries€where€confiscated€Jewish€properties€are€restituted€to€theÐ Œ$Ü# Ðrightful€owners€or€to€Jewish€organizations€if€the€owners€could€not€be€identified.€Article€6€of€theÐ u%Å $ ÐCovenant€refers€to€obligations€that€arise€from€genocide.€In€the€authors'€opinion,€the€provision€shouldÐ ^&®!% Ðnot€be€limited€to€obligations€arising€from€complainants€killed€in€genocide,€but€also€to€those,€likeÐ G'—"& ÐRobert€Brok,€who€survived€genocide.€The€refusal€to€restitute€property€thereby€constitutes€violationÐ 0(€#' Ðof€article€6,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant.€Ð )i$( ÐÌ3.6€€The€Czech€Republic€has,€according€to€the€author's€widow,€systematically€refused€to€returnÐ ë*;&* ÐJewish€properties.€She€claims€that€since€the€Nazi€expropriation€targeted€the€Jewish€community€asÐ Ô+$'+ Ða€whole,€the€Czech€Republic's€policy€of€non-restitution€also€affects€the€whole€group.€As€a€result€andÐ ½, (, Ðfor€the€reason€of€lacking€economical€basis,€the€Jewish€community€has€not€had€the€same€opportunityÐ ¦-ö(- Ðto€maintain€its€cultural€life€as€others,€and€the€Czech€Republic€has€thereby€violated€their€right€underÐ ° Ðarticle€27€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ™é ÐÌò òObservations€by€the€State€party€ó óÐ k» ÐÌ4.1€€By€note€verbale€of€16€October€2000,€the€State€party€objects€to€the€admissibility€of€theÐ > Ž Ðcommunication.€The€grounds€for€the€State€party's€objections€are€the€following:Ð ' w ÐÌà0  à(1)€€It€argues€that€the€author€invoked€only€the€right€to€own€property€in€the€domesticÐ ù I Ðprocedure,€and€not€the€rights€covered€by€the€Covenant.€Thus,€the€vindication€of€domesticÐ â 2  Ðremedies€for€Covenant€rights€are€not€engaged;€ÐË  (#(# ÐÌà0  à(2)€€The€State€party€points€out€that€the€events€complained€of€occurred€prior€to€the€entry€intoÐ í  Ðforce€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€the€Czech€Republic,€when€the€property€was€subject€toÐ †Ö  Ðconfiscation€in€the€1940s,€and€the€communication€is€therefore€inadmissible€ratione€temporis;Ð o¿  Ðand€ÐX¨ (#(# ÐÌà0  à(3)€€The€State€party€notes€that€the€communication€concerns€the€right€to€own€property,€whichÐ *z Ðis€not€covered€by€the€Covenant,€and€the€communication€is€therefore€inadmissible€Ô_ÔrationeÔ_ÔÐ c ÐÔ_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ô.ÐüL(#(# ÐÌ4.2€€€The€State€party€contends€that€the€author€on€19€February€1946€obtained€restitution€of€hisÐ Î Ðproperty€on€the€basis€of€the€Industry€Ministry€Decision€No.€II/2-7540/46€and€not€on€the€basis€of€theÐ · ÐNational€Committee€decision€as€empowered€by€Decree€No.€5/1945.€It€further€states€that€theÐ  ð Ðprocedure€chosen€by€the€author€was€inconsistent€with€the€special€legislation€governing€exemptionsÐ ‰Ù Ðfrom€national€administration.€In€addition,€the€author's€father€did€not€avail€himself€of€Decree€No.Ð r Ð108/1945€that€regulated€the€confiscation€of€enemy€assets€and€the€establishment€of€NationalÐ [« ÐRestoration€Funds.€He€thereby€waived€enlarged€avenues€for€appeals€against€dismissal€of€claims€forÐ D” Ðexemptions€from€national€administration,€to€the€Ministry€of€Interior.€Ð -} ÐÌ4.3€€€Furthermore,€the€State€party€contends€that€the€author€in€his€claim€to€the€courts€in€1995/1996Ð ÿO Ðdid€not€complain€about€discrimination€nor€challenge€the€handling€of€the€case€by€the€courts€in€1946Ð è 8 Ðand€1947.€Ð Ñ!!  ÐÌ4.4€€€The€State€party€points€out€that€in€communication€No.€670/1995€Schlosser€v.€the€CzechÐ £#ó" ÐRepublic€and€in€communication€No.€669/1995€Malik€v.€the€Czech€Republic,€the€CommitteeÐ Œ$Ü# Ðconcluded€that€the€said€legislation€applied€in€these€cases€was€not€prima€facie€discriminatory€withinÐ u%Å $ Ðthe€meaning€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant€merely€because€it€did€not€compensate€victims€of€injusticesÐ ^&®!% Ðcommitted€in€the€period€before€the€Communist€regime.€Ð G'—"& ÐÌÔ_Ô4.5Ô_Ô€€€The€State€party€contends€that€all€formal€restoration€of€title€according€to€Decree€No.€5/1945€wasÐ )i$( Ðcompleted€before€25€February€1948,€whereas€the€Act€No.€87/1991€as€amended€only€coversÐ *R%) Ðrestitution€of€property€that€was€confiscated€between€25€February€1948€and€1€January€1990.€Ð ë*;&* ÐÌò òAuthor's€comments€to€State€party's€submission€ó óÐ ½, (, ÐÐ §-÷(- Ð5.1€€By€letter€of€29€January€2001,€the€author's€widow€contends€that€the€State€party€has€not€addressedÐ ° Ðher€arguments€concerning€the€amendment€to€Act€No.€87/1991€by€Act€No.€116/1994,€which€sheÐ ™é Ðconsiders€crucial€for€the€evaluation€of€the€case.€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌ5.2€€She€further€states€that€the€property€would€never€have€become€subject€to€nationalization€if€it€wereÐ T¤ Ðnot€for€the€prior€transfer€of€the€assets€to€the€German€Reich€which€was€on€racial€basis,€and€thereforeÐ =  Ðthe€decisions€allowing€nationalization€were€discriminatory.€The€author's€widow€concedes€that€theÐ & v Ðcommunication€concerns€a€property€right,€but€explains€that€the€core€of€the€violation€is€the€elementÐ  _ Ðof€discrimination€and€the€denial€of€equality€in€contravention€of€articles€6,€14,€26€and€27€of€theÐ ø H ÐCovenant.€Ð á 1  ÐÌ5.3€€The€author's€widow€further€contends€that€the€claim€complies€with€the€ratione€temporisÐ ³  Ðcondition,€since€the€claim€relates€to€the€decisions€made€by€the€Czech€courts€in€1995€and€1996.€Ð œì  ÐÌ5.4€€With€regard€to€the€State€party's€claim€that€the€author's€father€could€have€claimed€the€propertyÐ n¾  Ðpursuant€to€Act€No.€128/1946€until€31€December€1949,€the€author's€widow€contends€that€the€author'sÐ W§  Ðfather€had€good€reason€to€fear€political€persecution€from€the€Communist€regime€after€25€FebruaryÐ @ Ð1948.€Moreover,€the€violations€of€the€Communist€regime€are€not€before€the€Committee,€but€ratherÐ )y Ðthe€ratification€and€continuation€of€those€violations€by€the€arbitrary€denial€of€redress€following€theÐ b Ðadoption€of€restitution€legislation€in€the€1990s.€The€author's€submission€was€transmitted€to€the€StateÐ ûK Ðparty€on€7€February€2001.€The€State€party,€however,€has€not€responded€to€the€author's€comments.€Ð ä4 ÐÌò òExamination€of€admissibility€ó óÐ ¶ ÐÌ6.1€€€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ ‰Ù Ðmust€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€not€it€is€admissibleÐ r Ðunder€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð [« ÐÌ6.2€€As€required€under€article€5,€paragraph€2€(a)€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€Committee€hasÐ -} Ðascertained€that€the€same€matter€is€not€being€examined€under€another€procedure€of€internationalÐ f Ðinvestigation€or€settlement.€Ð ÿO ÐÌ6.3€€The€Committee€has€noted€the€State€party's€objections€to€the€admissibility€and€the€author'sÐ Ñ!!  Ðcomments€thereon.€It€considers€that€the€State€party's€allegations€that€the€author€has€not€met€theÐ º" ! Ðratione€temporis€condition€for€admissibility,€is€not€relevant€to€the€case,€viewing€that€the€authorÐ £#ó" Ðspecifically€noted€that€his€claim€relates€to€the€decisions€of€the€Czech€courts€in€1995€and€1996.€Ð Œ$Ü# ÐÌ6.4€€With€regard€to€the€State€party's€objections€ratione€materiae,€the€Committee€notes€that€theÐ ^&®!% Ðauthor's€communication€does€not€invoke€a€violation€of€the€right€to€property€as€such,€but€claims€thatÐ G'—"& Ðhe€is€denied€a€remedy€in€a€discriminatory€manner.€Ð 0(€#' ÐÌ6.5€€Furthermore,€to€the€State€party's€objections€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€forÐ *R%) Ðnon-exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€Committee€notes€that€the€facts€raised€in€the€presentÐ ë*;&* Ðcommunication€have€been€brought€before€the€domestic€courts€of€the€State€party€in€the€severalÐ Ô+$'+ Ðapplications€filed€by€the€author,€and€have€been€considered€by€the€State€party's€highest€judicialÐ ½, (, Ðauthority.€However,€the€issues€relating€to€article€6,€9€and€27€appear€not€to€have€been€raised€beforeÐ ¦-ö(- Ðthe€domestic€courts.€The€Committee€considers€that€it€is€not€precluded€from€considering€theÐ ° Ðremaining€claims€in€the€communication€by€the€requirement€contained€in€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),Ð ™é Ðof€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌ6.6€€€In€its€inadmissibility€decisions€on€communications€No.€669/1995€Malik€v.€the€Czech€RepublicÐ T¤ Ðand€670/1995€Schlosser€v.€the€Czech€Republic,€the€Committee€held€that€the€author€there€had€failedÐ =  Ðto€substantiate,€for€purposes€of€admissibility,€that€Act€No.€87/1991€was€prima€facie€discriminatoryÐ & v Ðwithin€the€meaning€of€article€26.€The€Committee€observes€that€in€this€case€the€late€author€and€hisÐ  _ Ðwidow€have€made€extensive€submissions€and€arguments€which€are€more€fully€substantiated,€thusÐ ø H Ðbringing€the€case€over€the€threshold€of€admissibility€so€that€the€issues€must€be€examined€on€theÐ á 1  Ðmerits.€Moreover,€the€instant€case€is€distinguishable€from€the€above€cases€in€that€the€amendment€ofÐ Ê   ÐAct€No.€87/1991€by€Act€No.€116/1994€provides€for€an€extension€for€a€claim€of€restitution€for€thoseÐ ³  Ðentitled€under€Benes€Decree€No.€5/1945.€The€non-application€of€this€extension€to€the€author's€caseÐ œì  Ðraises€issues€under€article€26,€which€should€be€examined€on€the€merits.€Ð …Õ  ÐÌ6.7€€€The€Committee€finds€that€the€author€has€failed€to€substantiate€for€purposes€of€admissibility€hisÐ W§  Ðclaims€under€articles€14,€paragraph€1€of€the€Covenant.€Thus,€this€part€of€the€claim€is€inadmissibleÐ @ Ðunder€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð )y ÐÌò òExamination€of€merits€ó óÐ ûK ÐÌ7.1€€€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€light€of€all€theÐ Î Ðinformation€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,€paragraph€1,€of€the€OptionalÐ · ÐProtocol.€Ð  ð ÐÌ7.2€€The€question€before€the€Committee€is€whether€the€application€of€Act€No.€87/1991,€as€amendedÐ r Ðby€Act€No.€116/1994,€to€the€author's€case€entails€a€violation€of€his€right€to€equality€before€the€lawÐ [« Ðand€to€the€equal€protection€of€the€law.€Ð D” ÐÌ7.3€€€These€laws€provide€restitution€or€compensation€to€victims€of€illegal€confiscation€carried€outÐ f Ðfor€political€reasons€during€the€Communist€regime.€The€law€also€provides€for€restitution€orÐ ÿO Ðcompensation€to€victims€of€racial€persecution€during€the€Second€World€War€who€had€an€entitlementÐ è 8 Ðunder€Benes€Decree€No.€5/1945.€The€Committee€observes€that€legislation€must€not€discriminateÐ Ñ!!  Ðamong€the€victims€of€the€prior€confiscation€to€which€it€applies,€since€all€victims€are€entitled€toÐ º" ! Ðredress€without€arbitrary€distinctions.€Ð £#ó" ÐÌ7.4€€The€Committee€notes€that€Act€No.€87/1991€as€amended€by€Act€No.€116/1994€gave€rise€to€aÐ u%Å $ Ðrestitution€claim€of€the€author€which€was€denied€on€the€ground€that€the€nationalization€that€tookÐ ^&®!% Ðplace€in€1946/47€on€the€basis€of€Benes€Decree€No.€100/1945€falls€outside€the€scope€of€laws€of€1991Ð G'—"& Ðand€1994.€Thus,€the€author€was€excluded€from€the€benefit€of€the€restitution€law€although€the€CzechÐ 0(€#' Ðnationalization€in€1946/47€could€only€be€carried€out€because€the€author's€property€was€confiscatedÐ )i$( Ðby€the€Nazi€authorities€during€the€time€of€German€occupation.€In€the€Committee's€view€this€disclosesÐ *R%) Ða€discriminatory€treatment€of€the€author,€compared€to€those€individuals€whose€property€wasÐ ë*;&* Ðconfiscated€by€Nazi€authorities€without€being€subjected,€immediately€after€the€war,€to€CzechÐ Ô+$'+ Ðnationalization€and€who,€therefore,€could€benefit€from€the€laws€of€1991€and€1994.€Irrespective€ofÐ ½, (, Ðwhether€the€arbitrariness€in€question€was€inherent€in€the€law€itself€or€whether€it€resulted€from€theÐ ¦-ö(- Ðapplication€of€the€law€by€the€courts€of€the€State€party,€the€Committee€finds€that€the€author€wasÐ ° Ðdenied€his€right€to€equal€protection€of€the€law€in€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ™é ÐÌ8.€€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€isÐ k» Ðof€the€view€that€the€facts€before€it€substantiate€a€violation€of€article€26€in€conjunction€with€articleÐ T¤ Ð2€of€the€Covenant.€Ð =  ÐÌ9.€€In€accordance€with€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a),€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€is€under€anÐ  _ Ðobligation€to€provide€the€author€with€an€effective€remedy.€Such€remedy€should€include€restitutionÐ ø H Ðof€the€property€or€compensation,€and€appropriate€compensation€for€the€period€during€which€theÐ á 1  Ðauthor€and€his€widow€were€deprived€of€the€property,€starting€on€the€date€of€the€court€decision€of€20Ð Ê   ÐNovember€1995€and€ending€on€the€date€when€the€restitution€has€been€completed.€The€State€partyÐ ³  Ðshould€review€its€relevant€legislation€and€administrative€practices€to€ensure€that€neither€the€law€norÐ œì  Ðits€application€entails€discrimination€in€contravention€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð …Õ  ÐÌ10.€€Bearing€in€mind€that,€by€becoming€a€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€hasÐ W§  Ðrecognized€the€competence€of€the€Committee€to€determine€whether€there€has€been€a€violation€of€theÐ @ ÐCovenant€or€not€and€that,€pursuant€to€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€has€undertaken€toÐ )y Ðensure€to€all€individuals€within€its€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€the€rights€recognized€in€theÐ b ÐCovenant€and€to€provide€an€effective€remedy€in€case€a€violation€has€been€established,€the€CommitteeÐ ûK Ðwishes€to€receive€from€the€State€party,€within€90€days,€information€about€the€measures€taken€to€giveÐ ä4 Ðeffect€to€the€Committee's€Views.€Ð Í ÐÌ___________________€Ð Ÿï ÐÌ*The€following€members€of€the€Committee€participated€in€the€examination€of€the€presentÐ qÁ Ðcommunication:€Mr.€Abdelfattah€Amor,€Mr.€Nisuke€Ando,€Mr.€Prafullachandra€Natwarlal€Bhagwati,Ð Zª ÐMs.€Christine€Chanet,€Mr.€Maurice€Gll€Ahanhanzo,€Mr.€Louis€Henkin,€Mr.€Ahmed€Tawfik€Khalil,Ð C“ ÐMr.€Eckart€Klein,€Mr.€David€Kretzmer,€Mr.€Rajsoomer€Lallah,€Ms.€Cecilia€Medina€Quiroga,€Mr.Ð ,| ÐRafael€Rivas€Posada,€Sir€Nigel€Rodley,€Mr.€Martin€Scheinin,€Mr.€Ivan€Shearer,€Mr.€Hipð;ðlito€SolariÐ e ÐYrigoyen€and€Mr.€Maxwell€Yalden.€Ð þN ÐÌ**The€texts€of€one€partly€concurring,€partly€dissenting€individual€opinion€signed€by€CommitteeÐ Ð!   Ðmember€Martin€Scheinin,€and€of€two€dissenting€individual€opinions€signed€by€Committee€membersÐ ¹" ! ÐMr.€Nisuke€Ando€and€Ms.€Christine€Chanet€are€appended€to€the€present€document.€Ð ¢#ò" ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌò òNotesó óÐ t%Ä $ ÐÌòò1óó€€The€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€ratified€the€Optional€Protocol€in€March€1991,€but€on€31Ð G'—"& ÐDecember€1992€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€ceased€to€exist.€On€22€February€1993,€theÐ 0(€#' ÐCzech€Republic€notified€its€succession€to€the€Covenant€and€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð )i$( Ѐ€€€€€€Ð *R%) ÐÓÓò òÓ  ÓAppendicesó óÐ ë*;&* ÐÌò òIndividual€opinion€by€Committee€member€Martin€Scheinin€Ð ¾,(, Ð(partly€concurring,€partly€dissenting)€ó óÐ ¨-ø(- ÐÓ"hÓÓÓÌWhile€I€concur€with€the€main€part€in€the€Views€of€the€Committee,€I€dissent€as€to€the€remedyÐ ™é Ðproposed.€As€established€by€the€Committee,€the€author€was€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€26€inÐ ‚Ò Ðthat€his€claim€for€restitution€of€property€was€arbitrarily€denied.€This€is€the€human€rights€violationÐ k» Ðsuffered€by€the€author€after€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Covenant€and€its€Optional€Protocol.€Ð T¤ ÐÌWhether€the€author€is€entitled€to€the€restitution€of€his€parent's€property€is€an€issue€of€domestic€law.Ð & v ÐWhat€the€Covenant€requires€is€that€the€domestic€law€and€its€application€must€be€free€ofÐ  _ Ðdiscrimination€and€must€secure€that€any€restitution€claim€is€decided€without€discrimination€andÐ ø H Ðthrough€a€fair€trial.€Consequently,€the€proper€remedy€for€the€violation€found€by€the€Committee€isÐ á 1  Ðthat€the€State€party€secures€to€the€author's€widow€a€fresh€possibility€to€have€the€restitution€claimÐ Ê   Ðconsidered,€without€discrimination€or€arbitrariness€and€with€all€the€guarantees€of€a€fair€trial€if€theÐ ³  Ðmatter€cannot€be€decided€without€a€judicial€determination€of€the€claim.€If€the€State€party€fails€toÐ œì  Ðafford€that€remedy,€for€instance€due€to€the€unwillingness€of€its€legislature€to€amend€discriminatoryÐ …Õ  Ðlaws,€the€alternative€remedy€is€compensation€for€the€discrimination€the€author€suffered,€duly€takingÐ n¾  Ðinto€account€the€economic€loss€and€moral€suffering€caused€by€the€discrimination€established€by€theÐ W§  ÐCommittee.€Ð @ ÐÌThe€case€of€Des€Fours€Walderode,€decided€by€the€Committee€is€to€be€distinguished€from€the€presentÐ b Ðcase€because€in€that€case€the€title€had€already€been€recognized€before€the€State€party,€throughÐ ûK Ðretroactive€and€discriminatory€legislation€interfered€in€that€recognition.€Therefore€the€restitution€ofÐ ä4 Ðthe€property€is€the€proper€remedy€in€that€case.€Ð Í ÐÌ€ÌÓïhÓò òÓ  ÓIndividual€Opinion€by€Committee€member€Mr.€Nisuke€Ando€Ð ˆØ Ð(dissenting)ó óÐ r ÐÓ]qÓÓkÓÌWhile€I€heartily€sympathize€with€the€situation€in€which€the€author€found€himself€and€his€widow€stillÐ E• Ðfinds€herself€with€respect€to€the€property€in€question,€I€am€unable€to€share€the€Committee's€ViewsÐ .~ Ðfinding€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant€in€the€present€case.€The€relevant€facts€of€the€caseÐ g Ðas€I€see€them€are€as€follows:€Ð  P ÐÌDuring€1940€and€1941€a€house€in€Prague€owned€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔBrokÔ_Ô's€parents€was€confiscated€by€theÐ Ò!"  ÐGerman€authorities€then€occupying€Czechoslovakia€because€the€owners€were€Jewish.€In€JanuaryÐ »" ! Ð1942€the€house€was€sold€to€the€company€Matador.€In€May€1945,€after€the€end€of€the€war,€PresidentÐ ¤#ô" ÐÔ_ÔBenesÔ_Ô'€Decree€No.€5/1945€declared€null€and€void€all€property€transactions€effected€under€theÐ $Ý# Ðoccupant's€pressure€on€the€basis€of€racial€or€political€persecution,€imposing€national€administrationÐ v%Æ $ Ðon€all€enemy€assets.€On€2€August€1945€the€Ministry€of€Industry€decided€to€include€the€house€inÐ _&¯!% Ðquestion€among€the€enemy€assets,€but€on€19€February€1946€the€Ministry€reversed€its€decision€andÐ H'˜"& Ðreinstated€the€author's€parents€as€the€rightful€owners€of€the€house.€However,€the€company€Matador,Ð 1(#' Ðwhich€had€been€nationalized€with€its€all€possessions€in€October€1945€under€the€Ô_ÔBenesÔ_Ô€Decree€No.Ð )j$( Ð100/1945,€appealed€against€the€Ministry's€decision,€and€on€7€August€1946€the€Land€Court€in€PragueÐ *S%) Ðannulled€the€return€of€the€property€to€the€author's€parents€and€declared€the€company€Matador€as€itsÐ ì*<&* Ðrightful€owner€for€the€reason€that€the€national€property€had€been€excluded€from€the€application€ofÐ Õ+%'+ ÐÔ_ÔBenesÔ_Ô€Decree€No.€5/1945.€On€31€January€1947€the€Supreme€Court€confirmed€this€decision.€(SeeÐ ¾,(, Ðparas.€2.1€and€2.3).€The€State€party€contends€that€the€author's€father€did€not€avail€himself€of€DecreeÐ §-÷(- ÐNo.€108/1945€(No.€126/1946)€which€regulated€the€confiscation€of€enemy€assets€and€theÐ ° Ðestablishment€of€National€Restoration€Fund,€thereby€waiving€avenues€for€appeals€against€dismissalÐ ™é Ðof€claims€for€exemptions€from€national€administration€to€the€Ministry€of€Interior.€(para.€5.1)€It€alsoÐ ‚Ò Ðcontends€that€all€formal€restoration€of€title€according€to€Ô_ÔBenesÔ_Ô€Decree€No.€5/1945€was€completedÐ k» Ðbefore€25€January€1948.€(para€5.4)€Against€these€contentions€the€author's€widow€asserts€that€theÐ T¤ Ðauthor's€father€had€good€reason€to€fear€political€persecution€from€the€Communist€regime€after€25Ð =  ÐFebruary€1948.€(para.€6.4).€Ð & v ÐÌAfter€the€collapse€of€Communist€regimes€in€Czechoslovakia€Act€No.€87/1991€as€amended€by€ActÐ ø H ÐNo.€116/1994€was€legislated,€providing€for€restitution€or€compensation€to€victims€of€illegalÐ á 1  Ðconfiscation€carried€out€for€political€reasons€during€the€Communist€regime.€The€amendment€refersÐ Ê   Ðto€victims€affected€under€Ô_ÔBenesÔ_Ô€Decree€No.€5/1945,€but€the€Act€applies€only€to€"certain€propertyÐ ³  Ðlosses€and€other€injustices€caused€by€civil€and€labour€law€provisions€as€well€as€by€someÐ œì  Ðadministrative€acts€between€the€dates€of€25€February€1948€and€1€January€1990".€(Part€One,€SectionÐ …Õ  ÐOne).€The€author€applied€for€restitution€of€the€property€in€question€under€the€Act,€but€despite€theÐ n¾  Ðauthor's€widow's€contention€that€the€reference€to€victims€affected€under€Ô_ÔBenesÔ_Ô€Decree€No.€5/1945Ð W§  Ðwas€to€allow€restitution€of€property€which€was€confiscated€before€25€February€1948€due€to€racialÐ @ Ðpersecution€(para.€3.3),€the€Czech€courts€(District€Court€and€Prague€City€Court.€See€para.€2.4)€asÐ )y Ðwell€as€its€Constitutional€Court€(para.€2.6)€rejected€the€authors€claim€because€the€house€had€beenÐ b Ðconfiscated€before€25€February€1948,€the€retroactive€cut-off€date€for€claims€under€the€Act.€Ð ûK ÐÌAs€far€as€these€facts€are€concerned,€I€consider€it€difficult€to€find€any€intent€for€discriminating€aÐ Í Ðcertain€category€of€persons€from€others.€Act€No.€87/1991€as€amended€by€Act.€No.€116/1994Ð ¶ Ðgenerally€aims€to€mitigate€the€consequences€of€confiscation€of€private€property€under€theÐ Ÿï ÐCommunist€regime.€As€such€it€covers€the€period€between€25€February€1948€and€1€January€1990.€TheÐ ˆØ Ðauthor's€widow€asserts€that€the€amendment€is€to€allow€restitution€of€property€confiscated€before€25Ð qÁ ÐFebruary€1948,€but€the€State€party,€contends€that€all€formal€restitution€of€title€according€to€Ô_ÔBenesÔ_ÔÐ Zª ÐDecree€No.€5/1945€was€completed€before€25€January€1948.€Moreover,€the€"good€reason€to€fearÐ C“ Ðpolitical€persecution€from€the€Communist€regime€after€25€February€1948"€which€the€author's€widowÐ ,| Ðclaims€as€having€prevented€her€father€from€availing€himself€of€possible€remedies€is€not€sufficientlyÐ e Ðspecific€to€establish€that€he€was€unable€to€pursue€them€before€25€January€1948.€It€is€unfortunate€thatÐ þN Ðthe€Act€fails€to€recover€the€property,€which€belongs€to€the€author€and€persons€in€similar€situations.Ð ç 7 ÐNevertheless,€since€the€Act€is€not€intended€to€recover€all€and€every€property€confiscated€in€the€pastÐ Ð!   Ðon€political€or€racial€grounds,€I€consider€it€difficult€to€find€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€CovenantÐ ¹" ! Ðin€the€present€case.€Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌÌÌÓéqÓò òÓ  ÓIndividual€Opinion€by€Committee€member€Ms.€Christine€Chanet€Ð F'–"& Ð(dissenting)ó óÐ 0(€#' ÐÓ–‰ÓÓtÓÌThis€decision€by€the€Committee€constitutes€a€break€with€the€position€taken€by€all€internationalÐ *S%) Ðjurisdictions€and€upheld€by€the€Committee€thus€far,€namely€the€principle€of€subsidiarity€with€regardÐ ì*<&* Ðto€the€rule€of€non-exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies.€Ð Õ+%'+ ÐÌIn€the€case€at€hand,€only€the€question€of€the€right€to€property€was€raised€in€the€domestic€courts:€atÐ §-÷(- Ðno€time€did€the€author€of€the€communication€submit€a€complaint€to€the€courts€allegingÐ ° Ðdiscrimination.€Ð ™é ÐÌThe€decisions€of€the€domestic€courts€that€were€transmitted€to€the€Committee€clearly€show€that€theÐ k» ÐCommittee€is€the€first€instance€in€which€discrimination€has€been€alleged.€Ð T¤ ÐÌFurthermore,€by€its€decision€the€Committee€is€setting€a€disturbing€precedent€by€taking€the€domesticÐ & v Ðcourts€to€task€for€not€automatically€providing€a€means€of€action€or€defence€to€address€the€violationÐ  _ Ðof€a€right€guaranteed€by€the€Covenant.€Ð ø H ÐÌThe€Committee€has€also€gone€against€its€jurisprudence€a€third€time€by€involving€itself€in€theÐ Ê   Ðassessment€of€evidence€by€the€domestic€courts€(para.€3.1).€Ð ³  ÐÌLastly,€the€Committee€is€substituting€its€own€interpretation€of€the€domestic€law€of€a€State€for€theÐ …Õ  Ðinterpretation€recognized€by€the€courts€of€that€State;€in€so€doing,€the€Committee€is€overstepping€theÐ n¾  Ðbounds€of€its€competence€as€defined€by€the€Covenant€and€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð W§  ÐÌIt€is€therefore€to€be€hoped€that€this€particular€decision€by€the€Committee€will€remain€an€isolatedÐ )y Ðexception.€Ð b ÐÌÌÓ'ŠÓ