The Long Road Home: Struggling for Property Rights in Post-Communist Europe
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE LONG ROAD HOME: STRUGGLING FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN POST-COMMUNIST EUROPE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 25, 1999 Printed for the use of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE 106-1-3] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/csce U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 58-813CC WASHINGTON : I999 COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS HOUSE SENATE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman Co-Chairman FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan MATT SALMON, Arizona KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas STENY H. HOYER, Maryland TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland BOB GRAHAM, Florida LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New York RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin MICHAEL P. FORBES, CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAROLD H. KOH, Department of State DR. EDWARD L. WARNER III, Department of Defense PATRICK A. MULLOY, Department of Commerce COMMISSION STAFF DOROTHY DOUGLAS TAFT, Chief of Staff RONALD J. MCNAMARA, Deputy Chief of Staff AMBASSADOR WILLIAM H. COURTNEY, Senior Advisor ELIZABETH M. CAMPBELL, Staff Assistant\Systems Administrator MARIA V. COLL, Office Administrator OREST DEYCHAKIWSKY, Staff Advisor JOHN F. FINERTY, Staff Advisor CHADWICK R. GORE, Communications Director, Digest Editor ROBERT HAND, Staff Advisor JANICE HELWIG, Staff Advisor (Vienna) MARLENE KAUFMANN, Counsel for International Trade MICHAEL KOBY, Special Counsel KAREN S. LORD, Counsel for Freedom of Religion MICHAEL J. OCHS, Staff Advisor ERIKA B. SCHLAGER, Counsel for International Law MAUREEN T. WALSH, Counsel (ii) CONTENTS THE LONG ROAD HOME: STRUGGLING FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN POST-COMMUNIST EUROPE MARCH 25, 1999 OPENING STATEMENTS PAGE Opening Statement of Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman .................................................................................................... 1 WITNESSES Testimony of Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business And Agricultural Affairs And U.S. Special Envoy for Property Claims In Central And Eastern Europe .................................................... 4 Testimony of Michael Lewan, Chairman, United States Commission for the Preservation of Americas Heritage Abroad .............................................. 8 Testimony of Bishop John Michael Botean, Romanian Catholic Diocese of Canton, Ohio ............................................................................................. 19 Testimony of Vladislav Bevc, Executive Officer, American Owners of Property In Slovenia ................................................................................. 23 Testimony of Jan Sammer, the Czech Coordinating office ......................... 25 APPENDICES Written Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Co-chairman .. 39 Written Testimony of Under Secretary of State Stuart E. Eizenstat ........ 41 Questions Submitted for the Record by Chairman Christopher H. Smith to Under Secretary of State Stuart E. Eizenstat ........................................ 51 Written Testimony of Michael Lewan, Chairman, United States Commis- sion for thePreservation of Americas Heritage Abroad ......................... 53 Written Testimony of Bishop John Michael Botean, Romanian Catholic Diocese of Canton, Ohio ........................................................................... 57 Written Testimony of Vladislav Bevc, American Owners of Property in Slovenia ................................................................................................. 64 Written Testimony of Jan Sammer, the Czech Coordinating Office .......... 72 Written Testimony of Vytautas J. Sliupas, P.e., Organizer of Lithuanian Class Action Complaint Group.............................................................. 75 American-Lithuanian Property Owners and Property Restitution Laws of 1991 and 1997 by Gaila E. Klimas, Fulbright Fellow 1998 ............. 79 Vytautas Sliupas on Existing Property Restitution Problems in Lithuania .. 83 Written Statement of theRutherford Institute Submitted for the Record .. 87 Written Statement of the Committee for Private Property, Inc. Submitted for the Record ............................................................................................ 89 Written Statement of Susan R. Benda Submitted for the Record .............. 91 Written Statement of Prof. Dr. Renatus J. Chytil, Juris Consult, Submitted for the Record ......................................................................... 93 (iii) 1 THE LONG ROAD HOME: STRUGGLING FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN POST-COMMUNIST EUROPE THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1999 COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN E UROPE WASHINGTON, DC. The Commission met at 10:00 a.m. in room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, pre- siding. Commission Members present: The Hon. Christopher H. Smith; Hon. James C. Greenwood; and the Hon. Michael Forbes. Congress members present: The Hon. Edward Royce. Witnesses present: Amb. Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs and U.S. Special En- voy for Property Claims in Central and Eastern Europe; Michael Lewan, Chairman, United States Commission for the Preservation of Americas Heritage Abroad; Bishop John Michael Botean, Romanian Catholic Dio- cese of Canton, Ohio; Vladislav Bevc, Executive Officer, American Own- ers of Property in Slovenia; Jan Sammer, The Czech Coordinating Of- fice; Vytautas Sliupas, Lithuanian Class Action Complaint Group. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, CHAIRMAN Mr. SMITH. The Commission will come to order. First, I want to thank everyone for being here, especially our very distinguished witnesses. Sec. Eizenstat will be here very shortly. The Commission today, ladies and gentlemen, examines one of the most challenging issues confronting post-Communist OSCE countries: how to right the wrongful confiscation of property by former totalitar- ian regimes. During and after the Second World War, millions fled from East and Central Europe to escape Nazi and Communist persecution. Most of them lost everything they and their families had earned and built up over many generationshomes, businesses and farms. (1) 2 In addition, these totalitarian regimes took from religious and ethnic communities tens of thousands of communal properties, such as churches, synagogues, hospitals and schools. A decade ago, the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of communist tyranny inspired hope that wrongs committed by previous regimes, in- cluding the seizure of private and communal property, would be ad- dressed and redressed by the newly elected democratic governments of Central and Eastern Europe. For those seeking restitution or compensation, this issue is not in the end just about land or money, but rather about coming to terms with an unjust history in Europe. Seizures of property by fascist and com- munist regimes occurred in the greater context of religious persecu- tion, suppression of religious freedom, denial of the most basic human rights and civil liberties, and ultimately genocide. Individuals in religious communities that seek property restitution are, in large part, striving for a measure of justice for the oppression and persecution they and their families suffered in the past. This process will also help lay the foundation necessary to prevent the history of fascism and communism from repeating itself in the re- gion. The OSCE participating States have acknowledged the importance of private property rights. The 1990 document of the OSCE Bonn Confer- ence includes a commitment by participating States to endeavor to achieve or maintain full recognition and protection of all types of prop- erty, including private property, and the right of citizens to own and use them as well as the right to a prompt, just, and effective compensa- tion in the event private property is taken for public use. As the Helsinki Commission has monitored the property restitution and compensation efforts being made by post-communist countries, I have had to conclude that the efforts to return property to former own- ers have been uneven and often unsuccessful or, worse, discriminatory. It appears as if the governments in this region want to be perceived as reform governments that distinguish themselves by their willingness to undo what the previous communist regimes have done. In fact, much of their behavior to date, at least concerning property restitution, undermines that image. Government officials have lacked the political will to make the diffi- cult decisions necessary to carry out restitution and compensation laws. Discriminatory citizenship restrictions in the laws prevent former citi- zens from recovering the properties that they or their parents or grand- parents owned. With respect to property restitution, the ill treatment afforded some religious communities suggests that religious inequality and discrimi- nation are often at the heart of a governments restitution policies rather than economic constraints or other legitimate issues that need to be worked through. Restitution programs vary from one country to the next, and some countries have not adopted comprehensive restitutions laws at all. As a result, thousands of people, including Americans, have unresolved prop- erty claims in