Mr. Zdeněk Kříž v. Czech Republic

October – 3 November 2005

The author of the communication is Zdeněk Kříž, a U.S. and Czech citizen, born in 1916 in Vysoké M‎‎ýto, Czech Republic, currently residing in the United States. He claims to be a victim of a violation by the Czech Republic of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant). He is not represented by counsel.

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its Rules of Procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

The Committee has noted that the State party concedes to the admissibility of the complaint and decides that the communication is admissible in as far as it appears to raise issues under article 26 of the Covenant.

The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.

The issue before the Committee is whether the application to the author of Act 87/1991 amounted to discrimination, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant. The Committee reiterates its jurisprudence that not all differentiations in treatment can be deemed to be discriminatory under article 26. A differentiation which is compatible with the provisions of the Covenant and is based on objective and reasonable grounds does not amount to prohibited discrimination within the meaning of article 26. Whereas the citizenship criterion is objective, the Committee must determine whether its application to the author was reasonable in the circumstances of his case.

The Committee recalls its Views in the cases of Adam, Blazek and Marik , where it held that article 26 had been violated. Taking into account that the State party is itself responsible for the departure of the author and his family from Czechoslovakia in seeking refuge in another country where he eventually established permanent residence and obtained a new citizenship, the Committee considers that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the author to satisfy the condition of Czech citizenship for the restitution of his property or alternatively for compensation.

The Committee considers that the precedent established in the above cases also applies to the author of the present communication, and that the application by the domestic courts of the citizenship requirement violated his rights under article 26 of the Covenant.

The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 26 of the Covenant.

In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, which may be compensation if the property cannot be returned. The Committee reiterates that the State party should review its legislation to ensure that all persons enjoy both equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognised the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not, and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s views. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.]