Facts as presented by the author
The author is the only child and heir of her mother, who owned an apartment building in downtown . In this building she had a large apartment and during the German occupation she accepted a married couple as subtenants. As the subtenants were very untidy, the author’s mother complained to the office in charge of dwellings to request another subtenant.
After the war, the subtenants went to the Prague National Committee to denounce the author’s mother for having gone to the German authorities with her complaint. As a result, the author’ mother was fined. In a later amnesty of 20 December 1948 her mother was pardoned.
After the communist coup in February 1948, the Regional National Committee reopened the case and decided to confiscate the apartment building pursuant to Decree No. 108/45. The author’s mother was evicted. She died in 1956.
The author re-acquired Czech citizenship on 30 September 1991. After the overthrow of the former communist government, she tried to recover the confiscated property in . The Regional Court of Prague rejected her restitution claim under Act No. 87/1991 on 31 January 1994, on the grounds that she was not a resident of the . The author appealed to the City Court of Prague which, on 29 June 1994, confirmed the previous decision. An appeal to the was rejected on 21 November 1994.
Additional comments by the parties
On 11 December 2008, the State party submitted additional observations in reply to the author’s comments. It argues that the 1948 amnesty only stated that certain minor administrative penalties under Decree No. 138/1945 would not be served, and not that they would be quashed or erased.
As regards the alleged lack of information on the work of the Committee, the State party considered the explanation given by the author unreasonable, especially in relation to her Czech lawyer. The State party maintains that both the Covenant and the Optional Protocol were duly published in its Official Gazette.
On 6 January 2009, the author informed the Committee of two new suits of law initiated by her: On 4 June 2004, the District Court of Prague rejected her ownership claim arguing that it was not competent to examine the factual correctness of the confiscation, which was decided according to valid administrative rules. On 25 October 2007, the City Court of Prague confirmed the decision of the District Court. The appellate court added that the author’s mother did not own the property at the time of her death and thus, the author could not become an owner through inheritance.
On 3 June 2009, the State party submitted additional observations on the claim on article 14, paragraph 7, made by the author. It states that the claim is inadmissible ratione personae, as the author is not the victim of the alleged violation, and ratione temporis, as the confiscation of property took place before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party. The State party adds that the claim is manifestly ill-founded, as the author’s mother was not tried or punished again for an offence for which she had already been finally convicted or acquitted. The confiscation was a consequence of having committed an administrative offence under decree No. 138/1945.
Consideration of admissibility
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 notes that the author considers the requirement of permanent residence in Act No. 87/1991 to be in violation of article 26 of the Covenant. In this regard, the Committee has already had occasion to hold that laws relating to property rights may violate article 26 of the Covenant if they are discriminatory in character. The question the Committee must therefore resolve in the instant case is whether Act No. 87/1991, as applied to the author, was indeed discriminatory.
The Committee observes that permanent residence was not the only reason invoked by the court of first instance in its rejection of the author’s restitution claim under Act No. 87/1991, which was also dismissed ratione temporis. The appellate court and the , in turn, rejected the restitution claim under articles 2 and 1 of the law, respectively, without making reference to the requirement of permanent residence.
The Committee notes that the instant case differs from those property restitution cases previously dealt with by it, in that the requirement of permanent residence was not crucial for the rejection of the author’s claim. The Committee further notes that the author has not argued how, apart from the issue of permanent residence, the application of Act No. 87/1991 to her case amounts to prohibited discrimination within the meaning of article 26. In view of the above, the Committee considers that this claim has been insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility.
The author has also alleged that the State party violated article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant. The author does not advance any meaningful arguments in substantiation of her claim, which accordingly is deemed inadmissible.
The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol;