RESTITUTION

The Prime Vice President of the National Liberal Party (PNL) responds to Adrian Nastase

The Party of Social Democracy in Romania (PDSR) is reticent about the reparation of abusive measures suffered by the opponents of Communism

 

 

The application procedure of the proposed bill about the juridical status of abusively confiscated (nationalized) homes after 6 March 1945 caused numerous controversies among politicians.

 

Among the most energetic opponents of the proposed bill is Mr. Adrian Nastase, the President of the Parliamentary Group representing the PDSR in the Chamber of Deputies.  Mr. Adrian Nastase asked the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to give an opinion on this issue of property restitution.  Mr. Adrian Nastase's opinion was presented in the same letter to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as well as on other occasions.  Mr. Nastase's opinion is that the coalition power in Romania has no mandate to adopt such a bill and pass it into law.  Mr. Nastase believes that the adoption of such a law would jeopardize the payment of salaries, pensions and it would lead to the return of property situations prevalent in the period between the two World Wars in Romania.  Despite the strong criticism of the proposed bill, there are also opinions that are in agreement with those of the initiators and sponsors of the present proposed bill.

 

First of all, nobody contests the abusive nature of the depossedation methods employed in Romania starting with the year 1945.  Everybody agrees, at least at the declarations level, that there is an intention to repair, now, the abusive measures through legislation.  Even Mr. Nastase in the previously mentioned letter, states that there is a need for reparation. 

At the same time, it is not contested that the reparations must be done in such a way that there will be kept a balance between the rights of the individual and the general interests of the society.

 

Our conclusion is therefore that apparently the political dispute is not generated by the refusal of the PDSR to admit the necessity of equitable reparations of the abusive expropriations but the dispute is based in the interpretation of the notion of "equitable reparations". 

 

The representative of the principal opposition party states that the equitable reparation was done through the implementation of the Law 112/1995.  He also states that through the adoption of the present proposed bill the tenants of nationalized homes will absolutely lack protection, the public wealth will be drastically reduced, and the future generations will be greatly put into debt.

 

To support his statements, Mr. Adrian Nastase, invoked the Recommendation nr. 1326 and the Resolution nr. 1123 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as well as the necessity to respect the European Convention on Human Rights.  For clarification purposes, here is what the international instruments mentioned by Mr. Nastase prescribe.  One of the conditions imposed by Resolution nr. 1123 in order to stop the monitoring of Romania, "Romania must change legislation with regard to the restitution of confiscated and expropriated goods, especially the Law nr. 18/1991 and the Law 112/1995, so that the new legislation will grant full restitution (in integrum) or if not possible will give an equitable compensation."

 

The Recommendation nr. 1326 is based on the report of the Council of Europe regarding Romania's obligations to give back the confiscated homes. The findings of the report are extremely conclusive.  Law 112/1995 assures the restitution of properties only in 1% (percent) of cases and the compensations given by the State are "against the principle of an equitable compensation".  The cap amount ordered by Law 112/1995 is far from representing the real value of the property.  Moreover, in many cases the value of the compensation given is not more than 15% of the true value of the property. 

 

With regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, we must mention that many cases registered with the European Court for Human Rights deal with the application of the Law 112/1995.  If the Court for Human Rights finds the Romanian State violating articles of the Convention with regard to private property, Romania will have to pay immediately compensations much higher than those proposed by the bill. 

 

Here is what "equitable compensation" means in Mr. Nastase's opinion. Besides the equitable character of the reparations, Mr. Nastase also is concerned with the situation of the tenants living in nationalized homes. Some explanations are necessary here.  On the one hand, the sale contracts done in good faith based on Law 112/1995 will not be affected by the proposed bill.  On the other hand, persons who have not bought homes based on Law 112/1995 and who continue to live as tenants will take advantage by the protection offered by the Law protecting tenants which was recently adopted by the Romanian Parliament.

 

Regarding the so called unconstitutionality of some of the articles of the proposed bill, we mention only article 2, paragraph b, as being criticized.  Article 2, paragraph b, includes goods confiscated through judgments of cases considered criminal.  The criminal cases were cases in which individual's property was confiscated because of anti-communist opinions expressed by the individual.  The confiscation were meant to be executed as punishments for anti-communist activities.

 

The criticism, as to the proposed bill being unconstitutional, is ill-founded because the law does not want to dissolve a final judgement or to put aside a punishment that was applied.  Such an interpretation would have been unconstitutional because it touches on the principle of a matter already judged upon.  That would mean a violation of the Constitution. 

 

Actually, through article 2, paragraph, of the proposed bill, the State only transfers ownership from the State to the physical person.  The ownership of the property by the State was obtained through the criminal sentencing of individuals, a transfer mode which is currently granted by the present Romanian Constitution.

 

We ask ourselves, if this criticism is not only the masking of the reservations expressed by the principal opposing party to the reparations of abusive measures suffered by the opponents of the Communist system. The proposed bill is being criticized also because, in Mr. Nastase's opinion, it represents the expression of political interests of the now in power coalition.  Mr. Nastase states that the proposed bill is far from serving the general interests of the community.

 

In reality, the adoption of the proposed bill means the consolidation of private property in Romania and it will facilitate the emerging of a stable middle-class without which we cannot speak of the application of free market principles.

 

These are, Mr. Nastase, the general interests of the community for the realization of which in November 1996 the present coalition obtained a mandate from the voters to protect the general interests of the community. 

 

Finally, we want to remind Mr. Nastase that his request that the Council of Europe gives an opinion on the issue of restitution of the properties confiscated abusively during the Communist period has already been granted.   This opinion of the Council of Europe made the basis of the present proposed bill.  We present Mr. Nastase with a copy of this report so that he can realize that the present proposed bill is in full agreement with the existing principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and with the common European laws.

 

Valeriu Stoica

 

Romania Libera 31 august 1999

Translation by Angela Maior