DESETO LETO IZVAJANJA ZAKONA O DENACIONALIZACIJI
V REPUBLIKI SLOVENIJI
(DOPOLNJENO S PRIPOMBAMI O VRAČANJU PREMOŽENJA PO ZAKONU O IZVAJANJU KAZENSKIH SANKCIJ)

(click for english version)


1) ZGODOVINSKA OSNOVA

Podržavljanje zasebnega premoženja po II. svetovni vojni je imelo v Republiki Sloveniji različne oblike, a jasne namene: uničenje meščanskega sloja in privatne iniciative ter razlastitev vseh večjih lastnikov in Rimsko katoliške cerkve kot uvod v popolno odpravo zasebne lastnine.

Za doseganje teh ciljev je bila dovoljena vsakršna svojevoljnost totalitarne komunistične oblasti, podprta s politično državno upravo in prav takšnim sodstvom. V tedanjem času so bile najbolj grobo kršene vse človekove pravice, kot jih poznamo danes, saj je oblast v odnosu do svojih državljanov posegala po najbrutalnejših boljševističnih metodah.


2) ZAKON O DENACIONALIZACIJI (ZDEN) IN ZAKON O IZVRŠEVANJU KAZENSKIH SANKCIJ (ZIKS) TER NJUNO IZVAJANJE

Konec totalitarnega komunizma je 1991 omogočil sprejem Zakona o denacionalizaciji (ZDEN), ki naj bi vsaj delno poravnal povojno divjanje nad privatno lastnino. Nesrečne usode razlaščenih lastnikov se zakon ne dotika.

Že pred osamosvojitvijo je veljal v Sloveniji Zakon o izvrševanju kazenskih sankcij (ZIKS), ki v svojem 145. čl. določa pogoje in postopke za vračanje v sodnih procesih zaplenjenega premoženja po krivem obsojenim in rehabilitiranim bivšim lastnikom. Samostojna Slovenija je ta zakon prevzela.


Odločanje po ZDEN o odvzeti lastnini je doslej uspelo komajda v dobri polovici obravnavanih primerov, pri čemer so upoštevane tako pozitivne kot negativne rešitve.

Za vračanje po ZIKS ni natančnih podatkov, je pa prav tako ovirano in počasno.

Za katastrofalno počasno vračanje premoženja je kriva predvsem politična klima, v kateri se je Republika Slovenija znašla že ob koncu leta 1992 s prihodom dr. Janeza Drnovška na oblast. Značilno za odnos do komunistične preteklosti je dejstvo, da slovenski politični vrh vse do danes še ni javno obsodil zločinskega razlaščanja v povojnem obdobju. Prav tako se še ni opravičil žrtvam in njihovim svojcem, ki jih je lastna država načrtno oropala premoženja, ob tem pa največkrat tudi poštenega imena, državljanstva, eksistence, bivališča, prostosti in celo življenja.

Odnos Republike Slovenije do lastnih zločinov v preteklosti se bistveno razlikuje od ravnanja drugih prizadetih evropskih držav. Njihovo vrnitev v družino demokratičnih narodov sta namreč omogočila predvsem popolno priznanje in obžalovanje, česar slovenska oblast, temelječa na kontinuiteti iz komunističnega obdobja, očitno še vedno ni sposobna. Zaradi takega odnosa do izvirnih lastnikov je razumljivo, da za hitro in pošteno vrnitev premoženja prava politična volja še vedno ne obstaja.

Izvajanje vračanja nenehno spremljajo poskusi, da bi se z nerazumno dolgimi roki, negativnim spreminjanjem zakonodaje, administrativnimi ovirami in ščuvanjem javnosti proti izvirnim lastnikom vrnilo čim manj podržavljenega premoženja.

Zaradi jasnega odpora oblasti do vračanja premoženja je po letu 1992 takšna miselnost prevladala tudi v javni upravi, sodstvu, zakonodajni oblasti, pri vseh vodilnih medijih in seveda uporabnikih podržavljenega premoženja.

Takšno je bilo glede vračanja premoženja stanje, ko je Republika Slovenija začela intenzivne pridružitvene pogovore za EU in NATO. Predstavniki Republike Slovenije so sicer skušali v tujini širiti neresnične trditve, da je bilo po vojni premoženje zaplenjeno samo "kolaborantom", čeprav je bilo v resnici do leta 1958 (!) podržavljeno vse vrednejše zasebno premoženje ne glede na politično opredelitev lastnikov. Namen povojne oblasti je bil namreč vzpostaviti na naših tleh sovjetsko republiko in odpraviti zasebno lastnino po sovjetskem vzorcu. Ko pa se je lastnina v 60. letih začela nabirati tudi pri novih komunističnih oblastnikih, je želja po nacionalizacijah hitro zamrla.


3) IZVEDENO VRAČILO ODVZETE LASTNINE - POLITIČNI POGOJ ZA SPREJEM V EU IN NATO

Aktivnosti Združenja lastnikov razlaščenega premoženja (ZLRP), organizacije civilne družbe, ki si že od leta 1990 prizadeva za hitro in pravično vrnitev odvzetega premoženja, so se zaradi domače blokade že po letu 1995 začele usmerjati v EU, ZDA in NATO.

ZLRP je seznanjalo demokratično svetovno javnost s stanjem na področju vračanja premoženja in kršenjem človekovih pravic ter prosilo za pomoč pri svojih prizadevanjih. Danes je vrnitev premoženja eden od pomembnih političnih kriterijev za sprejem Republike Slovenije v EU in NATO.

Vlada Republike Slovenije se očitno zaveda resnosti trenutka, predvsem pa doslej izgubljenega časa. Z glasnim izražanjem volje in sprejemanjem pospeševalnih sklepov skuša ustvariti vtis, da se je po devetih letih resno lotila izvajanja veljavne zakonodaje. Vendar sámo dogajanje pri vračanju premoženja še vedno ne daje upanja, da bi se utegnile stvari hitro obrniti na bolje.

ZLRP ugotavlja kljub najnovejšim aktivnostim Vlade Republike Slovenije še vrsto pomanjkljivosti pri realizaciji vračanja po ZDEN in ZIKS. Vlada Republike Slovenije bi morala predvsem predlagati takšne zakonske rešitve, ki ne bi več omejevale lastninskih pravic in bi zagotavljale pravično odškodnino. Te so med drugim:

- garancija države za obveznice Slovenske odškodninske družbe (SOD);

- sprememba sedanjega stanovanjskega zakona, po katerem se izvirnim lastnikom samo navidezno vračajo denacionalizirana stanovanja skupaj s trajnimi najemniki in predpisano simbolično najemnino;

- odprava tistih določil Novele ZDEN in Novele ZIKS iz leta 1998, ki so bila sprejeta z glavnim namenom, da oškodujejo izvirne lastnike;

- popolno spoštovanje Ustave Republike Slovenije, predvsem členov 14, 33 in 67, ki so pri dosedanjem izvajanju vračanja nenehno kršeni;

- sprejem še druge potrebne zakonodaje s področja zasebne lastnine (npr. lovski zakon).

ZLRP izraža začudenje nad nekaterimi najnovejšimi potezami Vlade Republike Slovenije, ki nikakor niso v skladu z njenimi zadnjimi sklepi in izraženo voljo za izvedbo vračanja odvzetega premoženja:

- praktično ukinja vladni Urad za denacionalizacijo, ustanovljen pred letom in pol;

- z mesta državnega sekretarja za denacionalizacijo je razrešila dipl.ing. Martina Jakliča, eksperta za področje vračanja lastnine;

- z ničimer ne zavezuje upravnih delavcev k zakonitemu reševanju denacionalizacijskih vlog, s čimer ostaja v veljavi dosedanja praksa, da je najbolj zaželena negativna rešitev. Ali pa je morda to najenostavnejši način, kako do sredine leta 2002 "počistiti" zadeve na 1. upravni stopnji?

- ne stori ničesar, da bi postopki po ZIKS pred sodišči stekli, in dovoli ali celo podpira manipulativna zaviranja Državnega pravobranilstva.


4) STALIŠČA ZLRP GLEDE IZVAJANJA VRAČANJA PREMOŽENJA IN VKLJUČEVANJA SLOVENIJE V EU IN NATO

ZLRP po vsem navedenem zahteva od Republike Slovenije predvsem naslednje:

- Država Slovenija naj deklarativno obsodi in obžaluje razlaščanje prebivalstva po II. svetovni vojni in se opraviči vsem prizadetim za storjeno gorje.

- Vrnitev premoženja naj se opravi pred vstopom Republike Slovenije v EU in NATO.

- Vrnjeno premoženje naj se glede lastninskih pravic izenači z vsem drugim zasebnim premoženjem po določilih Ustave Republike Slovenije in mednarodnih pravnih normah.

ZLRP bo podprlo Vlado Republike Slovenije pri vsakem njenem ukrepu za hitro in pravično vrnitev premoženja. Še naprej si bo prizadevalo za vzpostavitev pravne države in spoštovanje človekovih pravic še pred sprejemom Republike Slovenije v EU in NATO in s tem za uveljavitev demokratične evropske ureditve tudi v Republiki Sloveniji. Prav tako bo svetovno javnost redno seznanjalo z dejanskim stanjem pri odpravljanju še vedno žive dediščine komunizma v Republiki Sloveniji.


Ljubljana, marec 2001
dopolnjeno maja 2001



Podpredsednika ZLRP: V.d. predsednika ZLRP:

Zdenka Goriup, dipl.ing.arh. Inka Stritar, prof.


Peter Logar, novinar

 

THE TENTH YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DENATIONALIZATION (RESTITUTION) ACT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA
(TEXT SUPPLEMENTED WITH THE INCLUSION OF RESTITUTION FOLLOWING COURT CONFISCATION)

1) BACKGROUND

Nationalization of private property in the aftermath of World War II in the Republic of Slovenia had a clear purpose: the destruction of the middle class and private initiative and the expropriation of all large owners and the Roman Catholic Church as an introduction to total abolition of private property.

To attain these goals, all means in the repertory of the totalitarian communist regime were allowed by the political state administration and the judiciary. At that time human rights as we understand today were flagrantly violated. The regime used the most brutal Bolshevik methods.

2) ACT ON DENATIONALIZATION (ZDEN) AND THE ACT ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF PENAL SANCTIONS AND THEIR APPLICATION

The formal end of totalitarian communism in 1991 made possible adoption of the Denationalization (Restitution) Act (ADEN) intended to make at least partial amends to the post-war plundering of private property.

Even before the proclamation of Slovene independence, there existed in Slovenia an Act on the Implementation of Penal Sanctions. Its Art. 145 showed the conditions and procedures in the restitution of property to the original owners if they were wrongly sentenced and the sentence included confiscation of property. The appropriate legal provisions were taken over by the Republic of Slovenia.

The question of restitution of property confiscated on the basis of the AVNOJ Decisions from persons of German-Austrian origin but of Yugoslav citizenship will not be considered here.

Decisions on denationalization claims have been issued in barely one-half of submitted claims. This includes the decisions in which restitution was denied.

There exist no precise data on the restitution according to ZIKS but these procedings meet with more obstacles and are therefore slower.

Since the end of 1992, with the advent of the regime of Janez Drnovšek the implementation of the Restitution acts was slowed down and came to a standstill. Characteristic of the attitude towards the communist past is the fact that the Slovenian political nomenclatura has still not publicly repudiated the expropriations of the post-war period, nor has it apologised to the victims and their families for the systematic destruction of their property, their good name, nationality, subsistence, home, freedom and even their lives..

The Republic of Slovenia is attempting to attribute its past wrongdoings to the former communist regime. However, communists and their ideological successors have remained in power and continue their former practices under the guise of a constitutional democracy.. Because of this the political will for fair and equitable restitution of seized property is lacking.

The implementation of restitution is bogged down in unreasonably long and complicated processes, adverse changes to to legislation, administrative obstructionism and presenting the original owners in a negative light to the public incitement of the public with the intent to minimize the property that must be returned.

These attitudes are widespread in public administration, the Ministry of Justice, among the legislators, the leading media and, of course, those favored supporters of the communist regimewho had been awarded and at present hold and enjoy the use of the confiscated property.

When the Republic of Slovenia intensified its negotiations for accession to the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the question of restitution of property was brought up by member states whose nationals were expropriated for the sole reason that they were nationals of Germany and Italy, Slovenian representatives attempted to justify their conduct by making false statements to the effect that property was confiscated only to those who had collaborated with the Germans. The truth, however, is that all valuable private property was nationalised irrespective of the owner's political persuasion. The intent of the post-war regime was to set up a Soviet republic and do away with private property as had been done in the Soviet Union.

3) IMPLEMENTATION OF DENATIONALISATION AND RESTITUTION OF
PROPERTY SHOULD BE A POLITICAL CONDITION FOR ACCEPTING SLOVENIA
TO THE EUROPEAN UNION AND NATO

Activities of the Slovenian Association of Former Owners of Expropriated Property (SAFOEP), an organisation of civil society, that has since 1990 advocated a speedy, fair and equitable return of expropriated property, has initiated a campaign to inform the EU and NATO of the property restitution problems in Slovenia.

Noting that denial of property rights is a violation of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our association the (SAFOEP) appealed to the public opinion of the democratic world. Today the restitution of property is one of the important criteria for the acceptance of the Republic of Slovenia into the EU and NATO.

The government of the Republic of Slovenia realizes the seriousness of the situation and is concerned over the reluctance shown by EU and NATO to accept it as a member. Therefore Slovenia published several resolutions designed to create the impression that, after nine years of delays and chicanery, it is intends to make a serious effort to implement the restitution law. Notwithstanding these declarations, however, Slovenia's stated intentions are not reflected in the operation of the restitution processes.

Slovenia should take the following actions:

ˇ Guarantee the indemnity bonds of the Slovenian Indemnification Society (SIS);
ˇ Change the present housing law under which rental property that is returned to its owner is encumbered by an obligation to continue renting the property to existing tenants at rents that are far below the market value;
ˇ Repeal those alterations of the Restitution laws (ZDEN and ZIKS adapted in 1998) whose sole purpose is to reduce the rights of original owners;
ˇ Comply with Articles 14, 33, and 67 of the constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, which have been consistently violated in the course of the restitution proceedings;
ˇ Adopt necessary legislation on hunting on private property.

It is a matter of grave concern to our Association (SAFOEP) that certain measures of the government are in contravention with its recent resolutions on the impementation of restitution. These are:

ˇ Termination of the Office for Denationalisation, established a year and a half ago;
ˇ the dismissal of Martin Jaklič, Professional Engineer, an expert in the area of returning property, from the position of state secretary for denationalisation;
ˇ Failure to kep employees in public administration accountable for the resolution of restitution claims, particularly in the area of denied applications;
ˇ Failure to speed up the proceedings in courts connected with the implementation of ZIKS. On the contrary, the government allows or even encourages the State lawers to obstruct the course of restitutional proceedings.

4) THE POSITION OF SAFOEP WITH RESPECT TO IMPLEMENTING RESTITUTION
AND ACCESSION OF SLOVENIA TO THE EU AND NATO

After all the above, SAFOEP demands that the Republic of Slovenia:

ˇ Declare that it repudiates and deplore the expropriation of its citizens that took place in the aftermath of World War II;
ˇ Apologise to all affected for the harm and damages they sustained;
ˇ Return the confiscated property before joining the EU and NATO.
ˇ Accord to property rights recovered by restitution the same status as to other property rights in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and international legal norms.

Our Association (SAFOEP) will support the Republic of Slovenia in all measures it should take for a speedy, fair and equitable restitution of confiscated property. It shall continue to inform the world opinion of the state of affairs in Slovenia endeavopring to establish a state in which the rule of law is supreme and human rights are universally respected. Only in this way can accession of the Republic of Slovenia to the EU and NATO ensure that the values of European democracies are respected in Slovenia.


Ljubljana, March 2001
Supplemented, May 2001

Zdenka Goriup, dipl. eng. arh. Inka Stritar, prof.
Vice president SAFOEP Acting president SAFOEP


Peter Logar, journalist
Vice president SAFOEP


Peter Logar, novinar