|
|
| 2010 Július 29 (Csütörtök) |
Márta, Flóra névnapja |
Articles/Cikkek |
 |
Delays and Legal Obstacles Continue to Hinder the Restoration of Church and Community Properties to Romania’s Hungarian Minority
Dark Spot Continues to Blot Romania’s Record
Delays and Legal Obstacles Continue to Hinder the Restoration of Church and Community Properties
to Romania’s Hungarian Minority
The Special Committee set up to implement the Romanian church property restitution law (No. 501/2002) has ruled on a total of 277 claims out of 7,568 submitted by the March 2, 2003 deadline. Beginning their work several months past the deadline mandated by law, the number of claims approved at seven of its sessions for the four historic Hungarian churches (Roman Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran and Unitarian) totaled 181 (see chart below) of the 2,140 submitted. This brings the total number of properties approved either by government decree or through Law 501/2002 for the Hungarian churches and the minority community to 227. However, the churches have still not regained title to, or occupancy of, these properties. In an unexpected move, the Special Committee announced on June 27, 2003 that instead of issuing written decisions immediately — thereby allowing the claimants to register title to, and, where applicable, regain occupancy of their confiscated properties — it would do so within only 30 days. But it has failed to keep that promise as well: To date, it has only mailed written decisions to the rightful owners in the case of 49 properties, failing to meet its self-imposed deadlines several times. And so, the delay of justice continues for the 1.5 million-strong Hungarian minority of Romania.
Progress in processing the claims has been and continues to be impeded by (1) administrative understaffing of the Special Committee (one year after it began working, plans are to increase the staff to eight in February) and (2) obstruction from local authorities in procuring documentation proving the rightful owners’ claims. As HHRF has previously noted: the Special Committee does not have the power to constrain local authorities to comply. Moreover, in the majority of Hungarian cases, local authorities have a vested interest in not providing any documentation, since they stand to be disadvantaged by the return of property currently in their possession. The overarching result has been repeatedly protracted deadlines for completing the restitution process — now an optimistic end of 2004.
ź An example of the convolutions associated with the restitution process is the case of the Roman Catholic Premonstrant Order which applied for restitution of a property in Sanmartin/Váradszentmárton, Bihor/Bihar County. The Special Committee informed the claimant that its claim was incomplete. Meanwhile, on June 17, 2003 the state privatization agency (APAPS) sold the majority shares of the S.C. SANIFARM S.A, a factory occupying the building, for 34 billion ROL to a private individual. Thus, one government agency is able to undermine another by taking advantage of the legal omission which does not prohibit such “restructuring” while a claim is being considered.
ź In an attempt to rectify one of the Law 501/2002’s deficiencies, the government adopted Decree 184/2002 in December 2002 amending the Law to allow former owners of confiscated properties sold illegally after December 1989 (notably, it does not apply to properties confiscated and sold between 1945 and 1989) to reclaim their properties by way of nullifying contracts. Now a DAHR motion before the Senate, should it be adopted, the deadline for commencing lawsuits will be a six-month period thereafter.
Most importantly, HHRF has learned of a highly disturbing development: the Special Committee has classified 60 percent of the submitted claims as falling outside the jurisdiction of the Law. Accordingly, these claims will be outright rejected by the Special Committee because they were allegedly made for items not covered under the Law (such as lands, demolished buildings, properties confiscated before 1944 or church buildings themselves). Consequently, 4-4,500 claims stand to be rejected. Obviously, the fate of these claims is a vital issue which must either be addressed by the Special Committee or through new legislation in Parliament.
Fourteen years after the fall of communism, only 227 of 2,140 properties illegally confiscated from the churches between 1945-1989 have been returned on paper. Of these, full ownership and use has been established in only 13 cases (returned under five previous government decrees) including three communal properties. Only when the rightful owners finally regain title to, use of and compensation for these properties will the ongoing, major blow to religious freedom, civil society and the 1.5 million Hungarians ability to maintain community and church life be reversed.
|
 |
|
|
HAL: List 
