Ukratko O Savezu Jevrejskih Opština Srbije

FEDERATION OF JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN SERBIA Str. Kralja Petra 71a/III floor, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia Website:www.savezscg.org,e-mail: [email protected]

RESTITUTION IN SERBIA, A NEVER-ENDING STORY

Authors: Aleksandar Necak, President of the FJC SERBIA Ljubica Dajc, Member of the FJC Serbia Restitution Task Force

Belgrade, 23. July, 2009 2

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE FEDERATION OF JEWISH COMMUNITIES OF SERBIA

The Federation of Jewish Religious Communities was founded in 1919, and has since existed under different names, which changed with the changes in the name of the country, for the past 90 years.

The Federation of Jewish Communities of Serbia is an umbrella organization consisting of ten Jewish Communities in Serbia.

The Jewish community in Serbia has about 3,000 members. We have survived as a community thanks to the solidarity of international Jewish organizations, primarily the American Joint Distribution Committee.

At the end of 1940, the Federation of Jewish Religious Communities and the Association of Orthodox Religious Communities in the territory of present-day Serbia included 46 religious communities and 9 orthodox communities.

The Federation of Jewish Religious Communities at that time consisted of the following members: 1. Apatin, 2. Bačka Palanka, 3. Bačka Topola, 4. Bajmok, 5. Bela Crkva, 6. Beograd (Aschenasi and Sephardic communities), 7 Bezdan, 8. Čantavir, 9. Čonoplja, 10. Čurug, 11. Debeljača, 12. Horgoš, 13. Kosovska Mitrovica, 14. Kragujevac, 15. Kula, 16. Leskovac, 17. Mali Iđoš, 18. Niš, 19 Novi Bečej, 20. Novi Kneževac, 21. Novi Pazar, 22. Novi Sad, 23. Novi Vrbas, 24. Pančevo, 25 Parabuć, 26. Petrovaradin, 27. Pirot, 28. Priština, 29. Ruma, 30. Senta, 31. Smederevo, 32. Sombor, 33. Sremska Mitrovica, 34. Stanišić, 35. Stara Kanjiža, 36. Stara Moravica, 37. Stari Bečej, 38. Stari Sivac, 39. Subotica, 40. Šabac, 41. Temerin, 42. Titel, 43. Velika Kikinda, 44 Vršac, 45. Zemun (Aschenasi and Sephardic communities), 46. Žabalj. (The Jewish People’s Calendar, 5700; 1939-1940, p. 154-157)

The Association of the Orthodox Religious Communities consisted of the following members: 1. Ada, 2. Bačka Palanka, 3. Bački Petrovac, 4. Bačko Petrovo Selo, 5. Mol, 6. Senta (Aschenasi and Sephardic communities), 7. Sombor, 8. Stara Kanjiža, 9. Subotica. (The Jewish People’s Calendar, 5700; 1939-1940, p. 154-157)

85% of the Jews living in the territory of present-day Serbia perished in the Holocaust. After World War Tow, in 1947 the surviving Jews, with voluntary work of individuals and the assistance of Jewish organizations, renewed the work of the Federation of the Jewish Communities of Yugoslavia. Work was re-established in 24 Jewish communities in the territory of present-day Serbia.

The Jewish communities in Serbia in 1947 (5707) include: 1. Ada, 2, Apatin, 3. Bač, 4. Bačko Petrovo Selo, 5. Beograd, 6. Kikinda, 7. Kosovska Mitrovica, 8. Mol, 9. Niš, 10. Novi Pazar and Prizren, 11. Novi Sad and its surroundings, 12. Pančevo and its surroundings, 13. Pirot, 14. Priština, 15. Senta, 16. Senta (orthodox), 17. Sombor and its 3 surroundings, 18. Sremska Mitrovica and its surroundings, 19. Subotica and its surroundings (orthodox), 20. Subotica, 21. Šid, 22. Vrbas and its surroundings, 23. Zemun, 24. Zrenjanin. (Chronicles 1919-1969, p. 207)

Of the 46 religious and 9 orthodox communities which existed in Serbia in 1940, only 24 communities re-established their operations in 1947.

In the period between 1948 - 1952, a major part of the activities of the Federation focused on assistance and support to members of the community who wanted to emigrate to Israel. Emigration to the newly-founded state of Israel further reduced the number of Jews in Serbia by about 4,000. This resulted in the extinguishing of activities of some communities due to lack of members.

Presently, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Serbia is made up of ten Jewish communities.

Present Jewish communities in Serbia: 1. Beograd, 2. Novi Sad, 3. Subotica, 4. Pančevo, 5. Zemun, 6. Zrenjanin, 7. Kikinda, 8. Niš, 9. Sombor, 10. Priština (with the seat in Belgrade).

Seizure of Our Property

During the holocaust, the occupation authorities in Serbia seized all Jewish property.

On 30 May 1941, the chief commander of the German occupation forces in Serbia ordered that Jews and persons married to Jews, must report all their property.

The right of ownership on all Jewish property was registered in the land books, in List «A» as property of Serbia.

This seizure of Jewish property was sanctified by the Decree of the Council of Ministers (the quisling government) of General Milan Nedić, Decree nr. 3313 of 26 August 1942, signed by all members of General Nedić’s Government. This decree seized all the Jewish property without any compensation and was transferred to state property of Serbia.

All movable and immovable property was seized from the 35,000 Jews, which was the number of Jews in Serbia before the occupation, and seizure also covered all the Jewish community property, property of cultural, educational, religious, social, economic, youth and sports organizations. The seizure applied to synagogues, hospitals, old peoples’ homes, children’s institutions, etc.

The value of seized property is difficult to assess. Documents and archives were missing, completely or partially. Many Jewish communities after the war did nor renew their activities since in those towns there were no more Jews. Numerous Jewish families perished during the Holocaust, and there were no heirs and it was not possible to identify all of their property. 4

Some approximate assessments indicate that the present value of the Jewish property seized during the Holocaust in Serbia would be about EURO 500,000,000.

RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY SEIZED FROM CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES (HISTROY AND EXPLANATIONS)

After the WWII, the property that was owned by physical persons, churches and religious communities, legacies, different associations, and also foreign capital, was seized on several occasions and on different basis. Seizure of property happened on the basis of CONFISCATION, LAND REFORM, NATIONALIZATION, SEQUESTRATION, etc. Property was seized, for instance, because the regulations adopted by the newly-established state defined the maximum property over agricultural land, or because there was a decision that companies, factories, and other business operators could not be the property of private persons, or property was seized on the basis of cooperation with the occupiers, emigrations, inactivity of certain associations, religious communities, etc.

In certain cases the state simply placed certain enterprises under its control, and subsequently such seized (sequestrated) property became state property, later transformed into social property.

In case of certain forms of property seizure, the newly established authorities identified certain monetary compensation, which in most cases was inadequate and which subsequently either was not paid or was in the meantime so devalued that the sense of compensation was lost.

AGGRARIAN REFORM

Owners of agricultural land and forest land were among the first who were struck by the after WWII measures of the new Yugoslav state. The agrarian reform was implemented in 2 stages. The first stage according to regulations adopted in 1945 covered the seizure of land from „big owner“ – those whose total agricultural and forest land exceeded 45 hectares. During this stage, most of the agricultural and forest land was seized since, according to data of 1931, the number of estates in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia with more than 20 hectares was somewhat under 50,000 estates. Through this reform the agricultural and forest land of non-farmers, banks, companies, churches, religious communities, and all religious and secular legacies, citizens of the German Reich and persons of German nationality, national enemies, and other persons under specific decisions, was transformed into state property.

The second stage of the agrarian reform was implemented according to regulation of 1953, whereby the maximum allowable ownership of agricultural and forest land was further reduced to 10 hectares for farmers and 5 hectares for non-farmers.

The seized agricultural land was distributed to persons for whom farming was the only profession, and who did not have property over agricultural land, but also to veterans and invalids of the national liberation movement, families of fallen war veterans, disabled persons 5 after the Balkan wars, victims and families of fascist terror, and in rare cases also to veterans, non-farmers, provided that with their families they settle in that land and work the land.

It often happened that these persons, unused and unready for such work and the obligations resulting from working the land, left this land unworked or rented it to former owners, and the state did not have the adequate instruments to prevent this.

CONFISCATION

After the end of WWII, the instrument of confiscation of property was often used, as an accompanying sentence pronounced along with the main judgment, in this case mostly for reasons of cooperation with the enemy. The specific nature of this measure as used in Yugoslavia after WWII is that it was not pronounced only as an accompanying judgment, but often also as the main judgment, and curiously very often without the criminal proceedings, but often only on the basis of general regulation. The implementation of this measure resulted in seizure of more private property than in the case of nationalization.

Persons who were unable to meet the obligation introduced by regulation on mandatory buying off of agricultural produce (wheat, corn, livestock, etc.) which they were obliged to turn in to the local authorities, were forced to give up their agricultural land and “give it as a present” to the state, or it was in some cases seized from them based on court judgments..

Through implementation of regulation on confiscation, a considerable part of property of foreign nationals was put under state control (sequestration) and was later transformed into state property.

The implementation of regulation on confiscation often implied irregularities, different interpretation in different parts of Yugoslavia, for different categories of persons and communities, which resulted in silent dissatisfaction, without the possibility to practice the principles of legality and justice.

NATIONALIZATION

The Law on Nationalization of Private Enterprises adopted in 1946 was the basis for nationalization and transfer to state property of private enterprises in 42 economic sectors, and nationalization covered all movable and immovable property of enterprises, all property rights – patents, licenses, right of use, etc. Nationalization also covered all branches and subsidiaries of private enterprises, warehouses, shops, transport facilities, shares and stocks. Through the implementation of regulation on nationalization, all nationalized enterprises became state enterprises and continued to operate according to the Basic Law on State Enterprises.

Nationalization practically transformed into state property all the remaining private property that was not covered by confiscation, so that after nationalization the only remaining private property was some 30% of enterprises of local significance, which was also subsequently nationalized through the amendments to the regulation on nationalization in 1948. 6

The regulation of 1948 covered also all credit and insurance companies, mines and enterprises for mining surveys, railways, power plants, etc. After this, there was not a single enterprise in private ownership. All of this referred also to the property of foreign nationals.

The implementation of regulation on nationalization meant also the seizure of property of all persons who emigrated from Yugoslavia and who gave up the Yugoslav citizenship, which was one of the conditions for emigration. Property of many former citizens of Yugoslavia was seized under this basis, most often without any legal proceedings, always without any compensation, and many Jewish citizens were affected by this measure of the state.

During 1958, with the adoption of the Law on nationalization of rented buildings and construction land, the nationalization of construction land and buildings was implemented and through this all rented residential and commercial buildings exceeding a certain maximum of residential space owned by physical persons, organizations, associations, etc. became social property. Compensation was planned to be paid to former owners, but payment was never effected.

A specific form of nationalization was also expropriation, as one form of transforming private property into state (social) property with payment of compensation, but the practice in Yugoslavia was such that the compensation was significantly lower than the nominal and market value of such property, so it is possible to say that the expropriated property was in fact nationalized. When we take into consideration here the fact that inflation in Yugoslavia was almost always two-digit inflation, it is clear that even when the state did pay compensation, it was in negligible amounts.

SEIZURE OF PROPERTY ON OTHER GROUNDS

COOPERATIVE PROPERTY – the establishment of farmers agricultural cooperatives meant that farmers entered into such cooperatives all of their property, excluding houses and apartments, specifically they entered their farming land, farming machines, livestock, etc. which so became cooperative property. However, when these cooperatives ceased to exist, farmers received back only their immovable property (which actually never changed the owner), while the cooperative retained the livestock, the farming machinery, and the profit resulting from their labor in the cooperative, and this was never returned to them, nor was compensation paid.

GENERAL INTEREST – private property in the past was also subject to seizure in cases of proclaimed general interest, where the idea of „general interest“ was very flexible and often was in fact particular of local interest, and was dictated by such interest, and was not in fact the public general interest under which principle it was introduced.

There were also other forms of seizure of private property and transformation of private property into social property, such as confiscation of property from perpetrators of criminal acts, or seizure of property under regulations relevant to the origin of property, etc. Although the percentage of property seized in this way is not high, the very fact that there is regulation regarding the origin of property illustrates the endless appetite of the state and its permanent aspiration to transform private property into state property. 7

CONCLUSION

The adoption of the Law on Restitution of Property to Churches and Religious Communities should at least partially remedy the injustice that has been done, and restitution can take place in three forms: 1. RESTITUTION IN NATURAL FORM (IN KIND) 2. RESTITUTION OF OTHER (SUBSTITUTE) IMMOVABLE PROPERTY 3. MONETARY COMPENSATION AND REGRESS

Certainly, restitution in natural form is the most just and most favorable form of restitution, but the Law provides for much discretion for the state to avoid such restitution in kind.

Restitution by giving of another immovable property as a substitute for the seized property which, for reasons stated in the Law, can not be subject to restitution, is one form of restitution which can satisfy the principle of justice but it is unrealistic to expect that the state will be willing to give up its property which it can freely dispose of and it should be expected in this respect that there will be attempts on the side of the state to compensate by payment of a certain monetary value. It is important to note that monetary compensation, in cases when the party obliged to compensate is the state, is paid in form of securities issued by the Republic of Serbia. If we speak of „just compensation“ to former owners, we can not avoid to note that the same model is implemented as in the case of seizure of property, and including inflation into the picture, and the fact that despite the fact the Law was adopted 2 years ago, the criteria for setting the amount of compensation are not yet defined, it is then obvious that there is a real likelihood that parties entitled to restitution will once again be damaged.

Where are we today in terms of restitution of Jewish Property?

The Republic of Serbia has adopted the Law on Restitution of Property to Churches and Religious Communities. The Law was adopted in 2006, and it then took more than a year for the Government to set up the Directorate to receive claims.

Although, due to the negligence of the state, more than a year has been wasted, our request for the extension of the deadline for submission of claims was not granted.

This Law regulates the restitution of community property, including among other also the Jewish community in Serbia. The Jewish community in Serbia is classified among seven traditional churches and religious communities recognized by the regulation and to which this Law applies.

The draft version of this law was published in February 2005.

The Federation of Jewish Communities has contacted the relevant Committee on Privatization, the President of the National Assembly Mr. Predrag Marković, and others, presenting their suggestions, and finally we submitted 36 proposed amendments to the proposed draft law. 8

We organized a seminar in Belgrade, on the topic of restitution, in cooperation with the JOINT and the US Embassy in Belgrade.

Our comments were defined after a comprehensive round of consultations with the WJRO and the US Embassy in Belgrade, experts.

Regretfully, none of the proposed amendments were accepted.

After the adoption of the Law we had to accept the actual situation and within the given deadline (31 September 2008) in line with the Law, we filed 513 claims for restitution of community property.

Until today, two apartments have been returned to us, and one of them cannot be used because it is occupied by a non-Jewish family and their children. The Jewish Community cannot move out this family.

The restitution process stopped and we bring this fact in connection with the letter of the Minister of Finance Mrs. Diana Dragutinovic addressed to the Director of the Main Office for Restitution. She suggested in her letter as follows: "In the forthcoming period the Law on Denationalization which will be approved, will in public interest, foresee reducing of compensation to the former owners of nationalized property in relation to the full value of the property, whereas the compensation in the form of other estate will have the characteristic of compensation and not restitution, which will make indispensable simultaneous changes and amendments of the Law on Return (Restitution) of Property to Churches and Religious Communities. Therefore, as the Ministry in charge for proposing acts in relation to denationalization, we are pointing out that for the time being the decisions on financial compensation, that is return of other appropriate property to churches and religious communities should not be carried out, taking into consideration that such decisions would be in discord with the above mentioned principles of the future Law, and would have to be applied on other cases also which will be regulated by the Law on Denationalization." (Letter no.021-01.42/2008-08 of 19.08.2008.)

The Law on Denationalization and Construction Land which is to regulate the restitution of private property is not yet submitted for parliamentary procedure of adoption. The draft version of this law was announced by the then Minister of International Economic Relations and the author of this draft law, Mr. Milan Parivodić, already on 19 April 2007.

The Federation of Jewish Communities has submitted a number of proposed amendments to the draft Law on Denationalization and Construction Land and has participated actively in round tables organized by the Government of the Republic of Serbia.

The Law on Denationalization and Construction Land (Restitution of Private Property) has been discussed and changed on several occasions, so at this point we do not know which of our requests has remained in the Draft of the Law, which still has not entered the parliamentary procedure for adoption. We have some evidence that our requests have been left out. That is why I have turned to the Minister Diana Dragutinovic with my letter no. 307 of 6.11.2008, and 9 received from her a reply no.011-00-487/2008-01 of 10.11.2008, that I will be informed in time on the text of the Law. Until today have not received any information from the Ministry.

After the visit to Serbia by US Vise-President, Mr. Biden, the Serbian Minister for Environment and Spatial Planning, Mr. Oliver Dulić announced the adoption of the new draft Law on Spatial Planning and Construction which will regulate the restitution of private property (although the Ministry of Finance announced that the Law on Denationalization and Construction Land will be adopted by the end of 2009).

Minister Oliver Dulić emphasized that we can not wait for the law announced by the Ministry of Finance, Ms. Diana Dragutinović.

The Federation of Jewish Communities has asked for a meeting with the Minister Oliver Dulić wishing to present to him the requests of the Federation regarding the restitution of private movable and immovable property. We express our strong concerns regarding the manner in which the draft law which is to regulate the issues of return of private property is developed.

Serbia has not adopted a Law on Restitution of Private Property.

We have a vital interest in the adoption of a Law on Restitution of Private Property, but not just any law, only a law which would be just and reasonable.

The draft law must take into account the fact that the looting of Jewish property resulted from the most tragic crime of the 20th century – the Holocaust. The principles of this law would have to take that into account because property was not lost only through nationalization, sequestration and confiscation by the state, but also with the idea of destroying whole Jewish families during the Nazi occupation of Serbia.

The draft law should include also restitution of property seized during the most cruel occupation and quisling period from 1941 to 1945.

The rejection of our just and reasonable request that the law should, in the case of Jewish property, include also the period from 1941 to 1945 is, in our opinion, motivated by ideological reasons – the rehabilitation of the quisling government.

By leaving out this time period, the heirs are automatically prevented from claiming what has been seized from them.

As history professor Ranko Končar says, it is absurd to exclude the terror, destruction, looting, and seizure of overall property of Jews, who during that time were subject to genocide.

There are some who are against exposing the fact that the Nedić Government worked against the interests of the citizens of Serbia, in this case the Jews. As Ms Olivera Milosavljević says, ignoring the right of Jews to restitution of property can be interpreted as historical revisionism attempting to rehabilitate quislings. 10

We request that all Jews – citizens of Serbia, as one of the successor states of former Yugoslavia, be given back their citizenship which they were forced to give up as a condition of receiving a permit to emigrate to the newly established state of Israel, as of the year 1948.

We also request that immovable property which was taken from emigrants as a condition to leave the country, be returned to them or their heirs, as we believe that this was a deeply unethical act which made Jews, victims of the Holocaust, equal with those who perpetrated crimes and cooperated with the Nazis, whose property was seized due to taking part in the war on the side of the enemy and war criminals. We note here that this is property which was, despite nationalization and other forms of seizure of property, in their rightful possession at the time of their leaving the country.

We note that we are in possession of information that during the recent years organizations have been established of ethnic Germans and their descendants who were expelled from Yugoslavia after WWII and that their purpose is to request restitution of seized property from successor states of former Yugoslavia. Since these are people who, predominantly, took part in the war directly on the side of the Nazis (the complete SS division Prinz Eugen consisted exclusively of them) and who actively cooperated with them, and were among the main perpetrators of the “Arianization” of Jewish property – communal and private, we request that this be prevented because the property that they would be claiming is mostly Jewish property seized from them after they were expelled and declared “enemy property” which, as such, belonged then and still does now, to the state of Yugoslavia and currently Serbia.

Conclusion

The survival of the Jewish community depends of the restitution of our property and is directly related to it. We therefore emphasize that our claims are just and reasonable. We must not allow ideologically motivated reasons to lead to the extinction of the Jewish community in Serbia.

We must not allow the requests of Danube Germans for restitution of property which was seized from them in 1945 be settled by again giving away of Jewish property. We must reiterate that the overall Jewish property was seized in the German occupation area, at the beginning of the occupation of Serbia, and that the so-called «Final resolution of the Jewish issue» in that region was achieved by 10 March 1942, at the time of resettlement of the last remaining Jews (women and children) detained in the death camps on the Belgrade Fair Grounds, suffocated in special suffocating closed trucks «Dušegubka». (Historian Professor Milan Koljanin, Ph.D.)

APPEAL

Ladies and gentlemen, participants of the Holocaust Era Assets Conference, we appeal to you to support the reasonable and just requests of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Serbia who represent the Jewish community of Serbia in the country and abroad.

We have requested and still request that the Law includes the following: 11

1. That the property of Jews who were killed in the Holocaust and are heirless, should be transformed into a Fund which would serve for the life and work of the Jewish Community in Serbia, and would be managed by the FJC Serbia.

2. That the year 1941, and not 1945 should be counted as the year when the property was taken away from the Jews in Serbia.

3. That this Law should include all Jews who had to renounce their property when immigrating to Israel (Aliyah 1948-1952).

4. That before the Law goes to the Serbian parliament for discussion and adoption, the FJC Serbia should obligatory be called and included into public discussion.

5. That there should be no deadline for the submission of claims for restitution of movable property, as was the case of the Law on Restitution of Property of Churches and Religious Communities.