Tag: InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights

Date of judgement: 31 July 1995

Court: United Nations Human Rights Committee

Citation(s): Communication No. 516/1992, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/54/D/516/1992 (1995)

Short summary 

This decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee Violation of Article 26 ICCPR; OHCHR decision on Czech law requiring citizenship as a necessary condition for restitution of confiscated property.

Summary by: Yusuf Lahham

Link to original judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

This case concerns the Czech Republic, a signatory of the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, thus the ruling is legally binding in the sphere of International Law.

Key facts

The applicants, Alina Simunek (a Polish citizen) and Jaroslav Simunek (a Czech citizen), were forced to leave former Czechoslovakia in 1987 due to the actions of the security forces of the Communist regime. 

In 1990, following the fall of the Communist government, both applicants returned to the country in order to reacquire their property through the regulations that had been put in place for returning Czech citizens. However, the applicants were informed that between 1989 and 1990, their property had been auctioned and sold by the District National Committee (DNC) of Jablonece. Whilst some items had been destroyed, the real estate was transferred to Mr Simunek’s employer, the Sklarny factory in Jablonece. 

Previous instances 

An arbitration hearing was arranged between the applicants and representatives of the factory after a complaint was lodged against the DNC. However, the latter’s representatives argued that the transfer of real estate had not been conducted illegally. The applicants then requested an investigation by the district public prosecutor on the grounds that the transfer of property had taken place without court proceedings or a court order. An investigation was launched, and a report was produced in November 1990. It asserted that there had been no violation of the relevant regulations and that the applicants’ claims should be dismissed. 

In February 1991, the regulations were amended by Act 87/1991, which set out the conditions for returning Czech citizens to be entitled to restitution. Section 3(1) of the Act stated that those with State-seized property were only entitled to restitution if they were both citizens of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, and permanent residents in its territory. Other sections of the Act set out that where a property is illegally possessed and the claimant requests restitution, the burden of proof would be with the applicant to show that there was a valid claim to the property, and to prove how the property was turned over to the State. 

The Act stipulated that a request for restitution had to be submitted within 6 months of the entry into force of the Act, and failure to do so meant that the claim could be submitted to a tribunal within one year of the date of entry into force of the Act.

The applicants had not submitted a claim for restitution to the local courts as required by the Act, because due to Alina Simunek’s Polish citizenship, they did not fulfil the citizenship and residency requirements set out in Section 3(1).

Continued on the next page…