TFL Vsebine / Revija Revus

V kroniki je predstavljena pomembnejša sodna praksa organov Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah v primerih, v katerih v vlogi toženca nastopajo države Srednje in Vzhodne Evrope in ki zadevajo zahteve pritožnikov za vračilo zaplenjenega premoženja. Prispevek se omejuje na zahteve za vračanje premoženja oz. za dodelitev odškodnine zaradi razlastitve premoženja, ne obravnava pa primerov, v katerih je bilo odločeno o varstvu premoženjskopravnih zahtevkov tretjih oseb, npr. novih lastnikov nepremičnin, ki so bile vrnjene prvotnim lastnikom. Uvodni predstavitvi osnovnih konvencijskih prvin pravice do premoženja, v nadaljevanju sledi pregled novejše sodne prakse z izbranimi citati.

The aim of this article is to present an overview of the recent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning claims for restitution of or compensation for property confiscated during the communist era in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It begins by defining property as protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the principles developed in case-law prior to the ratification of the European Convention of Human Rights by the new Member States. The article then goes on to show that already existing principles of property protection have been applied in recent case-law and it brings out in particular that deprivation of property constitutes an instantaneous act not producing lasting consequences and that there is no right to acquisition or restitution of property per se. By virtue of the principle of international law whereby the Convention does not cover events that occurred before its ratification by a respondent State, the Strasbourg supervisory organs have declared that they do not have jurisdiction to review the initial taking of property. It is only when applicants still have a substantive interest or a legitimate expectation provided in their domestic law or when the taking of property is illegal at its inception that the European Court of Human Rights may examine the alleged violations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Thus, the definition of those entitled to restitution of or compensation for confiscated property is a matter that falls within the purview of the domestic authorities. In cases in which the State has interfered with property protected by Article 1 of Protocol no. 1, the European Court of Human Rights decides whether or not such interference was provided for by law and whether or not a “fair balace” was struck between public interest and the burden on the individual.