Renatus J. Chytil v. The Czech Republic

The author of the communication is Mr. Renatus J. Chytil, born in 1925 in the former Czechoslovakia. He claims to be a victim of violations by the Czech Republic of his rights under article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.³ He is not represented by counsel.

3. The Covenant was ratified by Czechoslovakia in December 1975 and the Optional Protocol in March 1991. The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic ceased to exist on 31 December 1992. On 22 February 1993, the Czech Republic notified its succession to the Covenant and Optional Protocol. ↩

On 13 June 1948, the author escaped from Czechoslovakia. He was recognized as a political refugee in Germany, before emigrating to the United States of America, where he acquired US citizenship in 1957, thereby losing his Czech citizenship pursuant to a bi-lateral treaty, the 1928 Naturalization Treaty⁴. In 1948, the Czechoslovak authorities confiscated his law certificates and professional degree allowing him to practice law. According to the author, the following property was confiscated over time by the Czechoslovak authorities: The Vonmiller textile mill at Zamberk, East Bohemia, confiscated in 1945, which was subsequently privatized in 1995; About 1.500 kg of gold coins and bars. The author claims that the gold which was confiscated by the Nazis during World War II was recovered in Germany, and taken and stored in the United States. The author further claims that his family gold was commingled with 18.4 metric tons of the Czech gold labeled as ‘monetary restitution gold’, and shipped by the United States government to the regime in Prague in February 1982. The author did not receive compensation from the United States government; The Chytil family villa in 1983, while the author’s mother and sister were visiting him in California. Both subsequently obtained political asylum in the United States;

4. Treaty of Naturalisation, concluded between Czechoslovakia and the United States of America on 16 July 1928 (date of entry into force: 14 November 1929). ↩

In 1990, pursuant to Act 119/1990, the author’s doctorate and professional certificate of magister juris were returned to him. He made a statement on 19 January 1994 before the constitutional committee of the Czech parliament. He also sought restitution of the family’s former property and gold by lodging a complaint before the Czech Constitutional Court for violation of human rights and other matters on 10 June 1994. On 26 November 1995, and according to the author, the Czech Constitutional Court denied him standing on the ground that he was not an entitled person under law, as required by article 3 of the Act No. 87/1991, since he did not meet the continuous nationality criterion. He claims that this decision is final and no appeal is allowed. He tried to pursue his case, which was denied on 4 March 1996 by an assistant judge of the Czech Constitutional Court.

The author invokes the Committee’s jurisprudence against the Czech Republic (Communication No. 516/1992, Simunek et al v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 19 July 1995)⁵ and recalls that it has found violations of the Covenant in situations similar to his. He claims that the Czech government’s failure to restitute his property to him violates article 26 of the Covenant.

5. The author indicates that he was the first to bring the Simunek decision of the Committee to the attention of the U.S. government in 1996. The author also includes the text of a submission dated 19 March 1999, addressed to the Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which refers to Simunek. ↩

On 28 February 2007, and in relation to the State party’s claims that he failed to provide documentary evidence on his properties, the author refers to his initial communication and the list of confiscated properties which he provided. The author invokes the Simunek decision¹¹ in support of his claim that the citizenship issue is discriminatory and incompatible with the requirements of article 26. As to the argument that he did not exhaust domestic remedies, he argues that even if he had been re-naturalised as a Czech citizen¹², he would breach the State party’s requirement of continued nationality. Only Czecho-Slovak citizens enjoy restitution rights under Act No. 87/1991, and he is not an ‘eligible person’ under Section 3 of the Act. Although the residency condition was removed by the State party in 1993, the discriminatory citizenship condition remains. Under these conditions, the author, as a U.S. citizen and not a continuous Czech citizen, has no standing in Czech courts of law and therefore is unable to exhaust domestic remedies. Under the ‘entitled person’ definition, his rights to a remedy do not exist. In his view, the State party uses procedural rules to block restitution, and therefore breaches the Simunek precedent and article 26¹³. He concludes that his communication should be declared admissible.

11. Communication No. 516/1992, Simunek et al v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 19 July 1995. ↩
12. The author claims he never lost Czech citizenship in light of the law of ius sanguinis. ↩
13. The author also refers to article 46 of the 1907 Hague Convention which states that “private property cannot be confiscated”. ↩

The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: that the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol; that this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]