March to 3 April 2009
Facts as presented by the author
The author used to live in the . His possessions included a private house and the surrounding land in the Rímov community, district of České Budějovice. The original property belonged to Vojtěch Persan since 1933. Upon his death, the author inherited half of that property. He purchased the other half in 1974.
The author left the with the intention to emigrate on 14 August 1981. On 3 May 1982, the District Criminal Court found him guilty of leaving the country and sentenced him to the punishment of property confiscation (1T 97/82-38). As part of the decision, the author’s property was seized by the government. The property was subsequently sold to another private person (reg. 212/86).
The author obtained citizenship on 1 May 1989. According to the Naturalization Treaty between and the of 16 July 1928, he automatically lost his Czech citizenship when acquiring American citizenship.
On 17 December 1990, the decision of the District Criminal Court was overturned by resolution of the District Court of České Budějovice under law 119/90 on judicial rehabilitation. On 13 October 1999, the District Office in České Budějovice issued a certificate of citizenship of the to the author.
On 15 July 1996, the author applied to the District Land Office in České Budějovice for restitution of his property under law 30/1996. On 28 May 1999, the District Land Office rejected the application on the ground that the author was not a Czech citizen on 31 January 1996, as required under Law 30/1996.
The author appealed to the in České Budějovice on 19 July 1999. The confirmed the decision of the District Land Office on 22 November 1999. It argued that the author was not a Czech citizen when Law 30/1996 entered into force, nor when he filed the restitution claim and did not become a citizen before the deadline for filing a claim. The fact that the author acquired Czech citizenship on 13 October 1999 was deemed irrelevant. The author did not attempt other judicial remedies in the , as he anticipated that they would be futile.
The author applied to the European Court of Human Rights on 5 August 2000, but his case was declared inadmissible on 21 February 2001 because it was not submitted within the statutory six-month time-limit.
We do not share the Committee’s opinion in that regard and would like to:
Refer to my dissenting opinion on communication No. 1533/2006 (Ondracka v. Czech Republic);
Point out that the author provided an explanation for the delay in submitting his communication only in response to the State party’s assertion that the communication constituted an abuse of rights;
Specify that the only explanation given by the author to justify the delay was that he had not been aware of the Committee’s decisions since the State party did not publish them, which is neither a reasonable nor a convincing explanation for the delay, leaving the way wide open for all kinds of evasions and seriously jeopardizing legal certainty;
Stress that the Committee has not taken it upon itself to analyse and establish whether the delay was justified, thereby giving the impression that it was distancing itself from what its jurisprudence consistently required or did not consider it important in this particular case to establish whether the delay was justified or not;
Note with regret the inconsistencies in the Committee’s jurisprudence regarding the deadline for the submission of communications, which undermined the authority of the Committee’s Views and called into question its credibility.