Nine years after the right to private property was reinstated into the Romanian Constitution, the unsolved status of the houses confiscated by the communist authorities during the previous forty years proves that this constitutional right is a relative matter in Romania. Following endless speculations, the number of previously confiscated houses was finally established. It is neither three million as the PDSR [The Party of Democratic Socialism of Romania] wanted to make us to believe, nor 600,000 as was quoted by PD [Democratic Party], but rather a mere 187,000 houses. Now that a restitution law is being debated, it becomes apparent that 90,000 of these houses were bought from the state by the tenants inhabiting them, while the politicians have been brushing aside the issue of restitution "in integrum" for electoral reasons. Minister Noica drew the conclusion clearly: "So far, there has been no goodwill for solving the problem of the confiscated houses. Everyone wanted legislative chaos." And chaos it is.

The problem of the confiscated houses does not belong to either the former owners, or the current tenants. Actually, the Romanian State carries the entire responsibility because it abusively deprived the owners of their lawful properties [over forty years of communism]. The Romanian State of today, under the care of the Constantinescu presidency, is the inheritor of all injustice done by the previous communism regime, and therefore it is its duty to solve the problem of the confiscated properties and return what it stole. Exasperated by the lack of governmental initiative and often by official malevolence, wronged owners reclaimed their confiscated properties by suing the Romanian State in the European courthouses. Currently, there are twenty-two lawsuits at the European Court of Human Rights [in Strasbourg, France] dealing with houses confiscated by the Romanian State in the past. However, many more cases are expected to be filed [in Strasbourg] if the restitution law is going to be enacted in its current wording. Foreign specialists indicated to us that the financial compensation expected to be awarded to the claimants by the European Court would bring the Romanian government into bankruptcy in the future. The Minister of Justice, Valeriu Stoica, expressed his concern regarding this potential financial crisis as well. However, these words of wisdom passed unnoticed in the hope that the issue will die out in the future.

The members of the Romanian political establishment, with or without personal business interests, embraced a demagogical attitude by emphasizing the tenants’ requests over the owners’ rights. This approach has been the basis for the few and incomplete legislative solutions offered. The Law 112 [from 1995] complicated matters even further by making a distinction between properties confiscated "with" and "without" title of ownership. Its outcome has been to fragment the former owners’ lobbing efforts, and to open new avenues for further political rhetoric, interpretations and manipulations. The mess created by this law and its disjoint application is best exemplified by the subgroup of owners that live as tenants in confiscated houses. For example, A.O. Marita used to be the owner of a house that was confiscated by the communist authorities based upon the Decree 92/1950, and tenant in another house confiscated in the name of the same unconstitutional and illegal decree. After 1990, Mr. Marita reclaimed his ancestors’ house in court, but the verdict was given in favor of the tenants residing in Mr. Marita’s confiscated house, following the appeal filed by Attorney General Cochinescu. Soon after, the former owners of the house where Mr. Marita was residing as a tenant won their property in court, and the seventy-three year old Mr. Marita became homeless. In a similar situation is the writer Octavian Paler who lost one house in court as the former owner, and another one as the tenant. Regulations to protect the tenants could have been found with only one condition: the Romanian State had to enforce the right to private property out of conviction, rather than simulating a change of heart. If the Government had been honest in its desire to solve the issue of the confiscated properties, the nine-year inadmissible delay could have been the source of the solution. For the last decade of inaction regarding the confiscated properties, the Government could have used the status quo to raise significant funds by eliminating the current rent controls (which enforce absurdly low prices), and allowing rents to reach their true market value. These funds could have been loaned at convenient interest rates to the tenants willing to purchase other houses.

A law proposal advanced by the Liberal Party sanctions the theft of confiscated properties,
just like the law promulgated by PDSR and PD did before

The Law 112 born in 1995 [out of the previous Parliament dominated by a far-left and center-left coalition] had a perfect resemblance to the political agenda of its creator, PDSR: the preservation of the status quo that was benefiting many renters [newly enriched former communists] who were avid supporters of the PDSR, the party in power till 1996. The new law proposal [dealing with the confiscated properties] that was recently adopted by the government was Valeriu Stoica’s pet project, the Minister of Justice from the Liberal Party [junior member of the governing coalition]. It is difficult to comprehend how a cabinet member [from a pro-property and pro-owner rights party] could support some of the provisions included in the latest law proposal. The most controversial provision will authenticate the title of property given to the tenants who bought houses confiscated "with" title in the past. This law will sanction the 90,000 contracts that gave tenants illegal ownership over other people’s houses, houses that were confiscated from their lawful owners by the communist state. The Supreme Court decision from September [1998] states that "the current legal framework allows the Romanian justice system to handle all litigation concerning property rights violations and all other real rights arisen between 1944-1989 [i.e., the period of communist dictatorship]. The former owners of confiscated properties believe that this Supreme Court decision provides a great legal loophole for corruption in the justice system. Mircea Craciunescu, the president of Asociatia celor cu Imobile Confiscate (The Association of Owners Whose Properties Were Confiscated) is very pessimistic following his own many-year long legal ordeal to recover the two confiscated houses of his ancestors: "I cannot trust the judiciary and the prosecutors any longer. Judges are corrupt, and no controversial litigation will ever be solved correctly". We are eagerly waiting to see the final version of the new law dealing with the confiscated properties once it passes the Parliament. The opposition [PDSR] is dissatisfied with the original version of the law proposal despite its leftist leaning, as it was described by Senator Razvan Dobrescu from PNT-CD [The National Peasant Party — Christian Democrat, a pro-property and pro-owner rights center-right party, and a major partner in the governing coalition].

Translated by
Alexandru C. Bageac, M.D.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Harvard Medical School