Property Restitution in Central and Eastern Europe

During World War II, the Nazis seized property, real and movable, from organizations and individuals which the Nazi regime was persecuting -- Jews, members of some Christian organizations, Roma, homosexuals, and others. Much of that property in Western Europe was returned during the post-war period -- under occupation law in areas occupied by the Allies, and under the laws of individual countries. This was not generally possible behind the Iron Curtain, where the newly-established communist governments simply took over property seized earlier by the Nazis. Those governments also frequently confiscated additional property from their own citizens.

The collapse of communism in 1989-91 made it possible to restitute property in the former Iron Curtain countries. Many countries enacted legislation to provide for the restitution of both private and communal property. (Communal property is property previously owned by religious and other organizations. It includes churches, synagogues, community halls, parochial schools, medical facilities, etc.)

The United States has strongly supported the emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to return property to rightful owners. Positive action on property issues was one of the criteria used to judge the progress of countries that aspired to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership. The European Union (EU) also recognizes the relevance of property issues in applicant countries.

The United States has strongly supported efforts to restitute to rightful owners property confiscated by the Nazis 1933-45, and by the subsequent communist governments of Central and Eastern Europe.

A successful property restitution program is an indicator of how effective the rule of law is in a democratic country. Non-discriminatory, effective property laws are also of crucial importance to a market economy.

We recognize that in rem property restitution may not be possible in all cases. Payment of compensation is the obvious alternative.

Property restitution is complicated and controversial. Changing the ownership and use of buildings and land from one party or purpose to another can cause major disruptions that already economically challenged countries can ill afford. There is no single system of property restitution laws and procedures that can be applied to all countries. In encouraging restitution, we try to keep in mind the following considerations:

• Restitution laws should govern both communal property owned by religious and community organizations, and private property owned by individuals and corporate entities.
  
  
• To document claims, access to archival records, frequently requiring government facilitation, is necessary. Reasonable alternative evidence must be permitted if archives have been destroyed.
  
  
• Uniform enforcement of laws is necessary throughout a country.
  
  
• The restitution process must be non-discriminatory. There should be no residence or citizenship requirement.
  
  
• Legal procedures should be clear and simple.
  
  
• Privatization programs should include protections for claimants.
  
  
• Governments need to make provisions for current occupants of restituted property.
  
  
• When restitution of property is not possible, adequate compensation should be paid.
  
  
• Restitution should result in clear title to the property, not merely the right to use the property.
  
  
• Communal property should be eligible for restitution or compensation without regard to whether it had a religious or secular use. Some limits on large forest or agricultural holdings may be needed.
  
  
• Foundations managed jointly by local communities and international groups may be appropriate to aid in the preparation of claims and to administer restituted property.
  
  
• Cemeteries and other religious sites should be protected from desecration or misuse before and during the restitution process.

The United States has been most encouraged with the progress that many countries have made on this difficult, complex and frequently controversial issue. Still, there is a great deal of work to be done in this area. Some countries still do not have property restitution laws. Others have found administering existing laws in a non-discriminatory manner to be difficult.

We urge all OSCE states to make certain that property restitution is implemented in a manner that honors democratic principles and practices.