INFORMATION ON HOW PROPERTY RESTITUTION IS CARRIED OUT
IN THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA

Expropriated persons, members of the Slovenian Association of Former Owners of Expropriated Persons (SAFOEP), assembled at the +Public Discussion of Unfinished Property Restitution Process* held on 12 December 2003 in Ljubljana, hereby set forth the principal obstacles to the restitution of nationalized property to the original owners.

The experiences and opinions of numerous participants stated in the following are being submitted to the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and the appropriate institutions of the European Union.

1. Irresponsible attitude of the Republic of Slovenia toward its own citizens is apparent in the systematic delays in returning the nationalized property required by the Law on Denationalization (Property Restitution) and Law on Execution of Penal Sanctions.

   It is obvious that the intention of the authorities is to return as little as possible of the nationalized property so that as much of it as possible can remain in the possession of its current users or the state. The efforts to achieve this objective are shared by all three branches of the government, viz., the legislative, executive, and judicial.

2. The Law on Denationalization (Property Restitution) was enacted in November 1991 with the objective to return as soon as possible the property that was nationalized during the time of the communist regime. Following the regrouping of the leftist forces and its takeover of the government in 1992 the political will for returning the confiscated property began to weaken. Attempts were being made in the Parliament to introduce amendments to the law with the purpose to arrest the restitution. These efforts culminated in the 1998 amendments to the Law on Denationalization, the so-called +Bav?ar amendment,* which after seven years' made substantial changes in the conditions required for recovering confiscated property.

   With the advent of Slovenia's integration into the European Union the present leftist government is naturally aware of the significant difference between its conduct and the expectation of the democratic Europe. For this reason it is making an effort to conclude as many of the pending claims as possible by denying them to the detriment of the claimants.



3. What are the principal obstacles for the return of nationalized property?

   Expropriated persons have long been aware that the property restitution process is not unfolding in accordance with the time table prescribed by law and with the realization of the authorities that the property restitution is one of the fundamental requirements of Slovenia's transition and dismantling of the heritage of communist savagery exercised over its own nation.

   In rendering its decisions the administrative authorities frequently do not exercise their own judgment. Rather they are subserviently following various written or verbal instructions, negative examples, and legal opinions coming from leftist political lobbies or influential individuals. Officials act in this way because they fear that their careers could be in jeopardy if they acted otherwise. By obstinately and repeatedly denying justified claims the administrative officialdom drives the claimants to the state of desperation in view of the homelessness of their situation. In absence of effective administrative oversight no sanctions are provided for deliberately erroneous decisions, failure to observe deadlines prescribed by law or disregard of material facts.

   Dtermination of claimant’s citizenship, which is a prerequisite for a claim to be processed, has in numerous cases not yet been made. That determination is made by the Ministry of Internal Affairs which is controlled by a party with a long history of communist tradition. Because the same ministry is in charge of the entire administrative apparat the resulting hostility toward restitution of property is quite understandable.

   Negative also is the attitude of the Guardian of Human Rights who remains silent about the thwarted process of property restitution or even opposes the rights of original owners as he did in connection with the restitution of apartment buildings. His subservience to the leftist authorities and post-communist values is reflected in his dislike of property owners entitled to recovery of their property.

   The Public Defender plays a particularly negative role in the process of property restitution. Pretending to protect the state from excessive claims he automatically opposes many justified property restitution claims. He even opposes those favorable resolutions of denationalization claims which are deemed justified by the government of the Republic of Slovenia.

   Unconstitutional situations arise even in cases of property that has already been returned to the original owners. According to the Housing Law, apartments returned in the restitution process which were up to 1991 rented from the state for a token sum can continue to be occupied by the same persons or their successors for a noncompensatory rent determined by the state. Thus the original owner is not allowed to cancel a lease if he needs the apartment for himself or his family nor is he allowed to charge a normal rent that would permit maintenance and repair of buildings most of which have been neglected during the last 50 years. Of course, the owner is subject to the same obligations as other owners who are renting at the market value of their rental property. This means that the real property in such cases has not been returned to the possession of the original owner as it is still administered by the state as it used to be when it was nationalized, that is, owned by the state. Such is yet another face of property restitution in Slovenia, a country which cleverly dissembles and artfully conceals before the democratic Europe these abuses or attempts to justify them by alluding to some kind of nation specific legislation to which European legal norms supposedly do not apply. The Law on Hunting, adopted in December 2003, is another piece of legislation which does not respect private property although about 80% of all Slovenia's forests are now privately owned due to denationalization.

4. Lack of good will has protracted the property restitution process ten years beyond the time limit prescribed by law. This is particularly vexing for older claimants who have to spend their time and effort battling hostile authorities. In most cases they are unable to seek redress in the courts of the European Union which require that they should first exhaust all legal remedies available in their own country. In Slovenia's convoluted legal system with new avenues of appeal, procrastination and delay available to the authorities these +legal remedies* cannot be exhausted in a lifetime of an ordinary mortal. The authorities can always find a forum which the claimant has not yet addressed or such forum can be created in the course of a process that has already been under way for ten years.

   Original owners of property, assembled at the public discussion have reviewed with renewed interest the Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe No, 1096 (27 June 1996, 23 Sitting), On Measures to Dismantle the Heritage of Former Communist Totalitarian Systems. Regretfully, we must observe that the recommendations of that resolution have never been observed in Slovenia and that this fact is one of the principal reasons for the present state of affairs in our country on the eve of its admission to the European Union. On the contrary, the +velvet restoration of a totalitarian regime* mentioned in Paragraph 3 of Resolution 1096 is in many walks of life already a reality. Evidence of this is the negative approach toward reparation of injustices wrought by the communist regime. This shows that Slovenia has a long way to go before it can achieve the +transformation of hearts and minds* of which speaks Resolution 1096.

Presidency of SAFOEP