Jaroslav and Ms. Alena SLEZÁK v. Czech Republic

The authors of the communication are Jaroslav and Alena Slezák, naturalised American citizens residing in Massachusetts, United States of America (U.S.A.), born in Czechoslovakia on 28 February 1926 and 20 December 1930 respectively. They claim to be victims of a violation by the Czech Republic of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights⁴. They are not represented.

4. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 22 February 1993. ↩

The authors state that they left Czechoslovakia for political reasons in 1969, and have lived in the U.S.A. ever since. In 1980, they both obtained the U.S. citizenship and lost their Czechoslovak citizenship⁵.

5. On the basis of the USA- Czechoslovakia bilateral “Naturalisation Treaty” of 16 July 1928, article I. ↩

In January 1971, the District Court of Olomouc sentenced them in absentia to a jail term, and to the confiscation of their property, including their family home in Sternberk, estimated by the authors to be worth 2.5 million Czech crowns.

Following the enactment of Act No. 119/1990, the authors were rehabilitated and their sentence, including the property confiscation, was overturned ex tunc. They asked their nephew, who had bought the house from the State, to return it to them, but he refused to do so. The authors then filed a court action in 1994. The District Court of Olomouc decided in November 1998 that the authors did not qualify for restitution under Act No. 87/1991 as they had lost their Czech citizenship when they became U.S. citizens. The Regional Court confirmed this decision on appeal on 25 February 1999. The authors then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which rejected it on formal grounds on 15 December 1999. The authors also refer to the Constitutional Court decision of 4 June 1997, which rejected all claims for restitution from persons who were not Czech citizens at the time of filing their claim.

Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with article 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

The Committee has noted the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible as an abuse of the right of submission because of the long delay between the final judicial decision in the case and the submission of the communication to the Committee. The Committee notes that the Optional Protocol does not establish time limits within which a communication must be submitted. It is only in exceptional circumstances that the delay in submitting a communication can lead to the inadmissibility of a communication¹⁴. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the delay of nearly six and a half years between the last decision of the relevant authority and the submission of the communication to the Committee does not render the communication inadmissible as an abuse under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

14. See Communication No. 1434/2005, Fillacier v. France, para. 4.3, and Communication No. 787/1997, Gobin v. Mauritius, para. 6.3. ↩

The Committee has also considered whether the violations alleged can be examined ratione temporis. It notes that although the confiscations took place before the entry into force of the Covenant and of the Optional Protocol for the Czech Republic, the new legislation that excludes claimants who are not Czech citizens has continuing consequences subsequent to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the Czech Republic, which could entail discrimination in violation of article 26 of the Covenant¹⁵.

15. Communication N° 586/1994, Adam v. the Czech Republic, Views of 23 July 1996, para. 6.3. ↩

In the absence of any further objections to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares the communication admissible in so far as it may raise issues under article 26 of the Covenant, and proceeds to its consideration on the merits.

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 authors of Act No. 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 26¹⁶.

16. See Communication No. 182/1984, Zwaan-de Vries v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 9 April 1987, paragraph 13 ↩

The Committee recalls its Views in the numerous Czech property restitution cases,¹⁷ where it held that article 26 had been violated, and that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to obtain Czech citizenship as a prerequisite for the restitution of their property or, alternatively, for the payment of appropriate compensation. Bearing in mind that the authors' original entitlement to their properties was not predicated on their citizenship, the Committee found that the citizenship requirement was unreasonable. In Des Fours Walderode,¹⁸ the Committee observed that a citizenship requirement in the law as a necessary condition for restitution of property previously confiscated by the authorities makes an arbitrary and discriminatory distinction between individuals who are equally victims of prior state confiscations, and constitutes a violation of article 26 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the principle established in the above cases equally applies to the authors of the present communication. The Committee therefore concludes that the application to the authors of the citizenship requirement laid down in Act No. 87/1991 violated their rights under article 26 of the Covenant.

17. Communication 516/1992, Simunek v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 19 July 1995, paragraph 11.6; Communication No. 586/1994, Adam v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 23 July 1996, paragraph 12.6; Communication No. 857/1999, Blazek v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 12 July 2001, paragraph 5.8; Communication No. 945/2000, Marik v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 26 July 2005, paragraph 6.4; Communication No. 1054/2002, Kriz v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 1 November 2005, paragraph 7.3; Communication No. 1445/2006, Polackova and Polacek v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 24 July 2007, paragraph 7.4; Communication 1463/2006, Gratzinger v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 25 October 2007, paragraph 7.5; and Communication No. 1533/2006, Ondracka v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 2 November 2007, paragraph 7. ↩
18. Communication 747/1997, Des Fours Walderode v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 30 October 2001, paragraph 8.3-8.4. ↩

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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, including compensation if the property in question cannot be returned. The Committee reiterates that the State party should review its legislation and practice 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 recognized 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 180 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 also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]