Communal Property

Stuart E. Eizenstat

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC, BUSINESS,

AND AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES

Plenary Session on Nazi-Confiscated Communal Property

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for agreeing to preside over

our sessions on communal property today. As Chairman of the House

International Relations Committee, you have proudly been one of the

leaders on this issue in the United States Congress. Through the hearings

that you have chaired you have brought public attention to the

opportunity we have had since the end of the Cold War to right this

injustice. You have focused on the progress achieved by the new

democracies in Central and Eastern Europe as well as on the obstacles

which make early resolution of these claims difficult. Your efforts have

provided a real service to the international community.

Earlier in this conference we reviewed the looted gold issue and

commenced our dialogue on insurance and art. We now turn to

communal property, that is the land, buildings and religious artifacts

owned by religious organizations and other community-based groups in

Central and Eastern Europe prior to World War II. This property has a

significant value; returning it to its rightful owners, or compensating

owners, will correct yet another of the injustices of the Holocaust era.

Before going into the communal property issue in more detail, I

want to mention briefly the twin issue of private property. In planning

this Conference, we concluded that the private property issue was too

complex to be dealt with adequately in the time available. I do not want

to leave the impression, however, that by omitting private property we

are somehow downgrading or ignoring that issue. The contrary is the

case. Omitting private claims from the agenda of this Conference

acknowledges the complexities which those claims pose and the need to

consider that issue in a different context. But it is essential that

governments make a start to return private – or pay compensation.

Communal property was one of the early targets of the Nazi

regime. By expropriating churches, synagogues and other

community-controlled property – such as community centers and schools

– the Nazis denied religious communities the temporal facilities which
688 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

held those communities together. After the war, the authoritarian regimes

that succeeded to power nationalized the property, compounding the

persecution of the Nazis. In the former Soviet Union, the communist

government expropriated property as part of Stalin's effort to eliminate

religion from Soviet life. Religious objects, such as Torah scrolls and

artifacts of a religious nature, also fell victim to authoritarian regimes

both during and after World War II.

While the circumstances of each parcel of real estate and artifact

are different, the component parts of the communal property issue share

a common characteristic: governments improperly took this property

from the rightful owners without compensation. Now it is our common

responsibility to ensure that, finally, justice is done.

Addressing these issues in a forthright and sympathetic manner

is part of the broader process of moving to closure on the questions left

open after World War II and which merely became more complicated

during the Cold War. For those states which gained independence as a

result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, dealing with these issues is

part of the broader challenge of building democratic institutions and

establishing the rule of law.

As many of you know, the issue of communal property

restitution has a special importance for me. Since 1995, I have had the

privilege of leading a U.S. government initiative to promote the just

resolution of this issue. My role as special envoy has brought me both

satisfaction and frustration. Satisfaction during visits to communities of

Holocaust survivors in Central and Eastern Europe which have endured

50 years of oppression under Nazi and Communist governments.

Satisfaction to see that many are rebuilding their communities.

Frustration that these double victims – who lost nearly everything to the

Nazis and who endured another 40 years of repression under communist

governments – continue to see justice delayed.

The U.S. Government encourages the return of communal

property, and supports the revitalization of religious and other

communities. We want to see schools and community centers included in

the process. We encourage governments to establish equitable,

transparent and non-discriminatory procedures to evaluate specific

claims, and to work closely with local religious communities to resolve

those claims. We feel that cemeteries should never be desecrated or used

for any other purpose – to maintain in dignity those buried there.

Let me cite one example of a restitution success story which I

believe is symbolic of the kind of property transfer which can benefit us

all. Part-of the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht
COMMUNAL PROPERTY 689

last month was the re-dedication of a small synagogue in Oswiecim,

Poland. The name may not be familiar to many of you but the German

name of that town, Auschwitz, is all too well-known. Here, a short

distance from the infamous Nazi death camp, the Polish Jewish

community has used Poland's new restitution law to reclaim one of the

city's former synagogues, used for a commercial purpose in more recent

years. Together with a small nearby house, the synagogue will serve as a

museum to show the daily life of Oswiecim's once substantial Jewish

population during the pre-Nazi period. The restoration of this synagogue

in an area which is the symbol of the Holocaust shows how a

well-conceived, carefully administered restitution law can work.

Progress has been made on this subject in many countries.

Recent legislation in Poland and Hungary has laid a solid foundation for

sound restitution programs. Hungary established a public foundation to

claim and receive communal property, and also established a fund which

will pay Holocaust survivors small monthly pensions. Other countries are

actively dealing with this issue.

But while a start has been made, we should be under no illusion

about the difficulties of this task. As the Department's Special Envoy for

Property Restitution in Central and Eastern Europe, I have visited eleven

countries, many more than once, to address this issue.

More recently, my colleague, Ambassador Henry Clarke, visited

several countries to gain a more detailed appreciation of the complexities

of restituting communal property. We have both been impressed with the

progress which has been made in many instances. At the same time, we

have observed obstacles which make the resolution of this issue a

daunting task.

For example, despite the commitment of national governments to

restitution, local governments often block implementation. In some

countries laws on restitution apply only to narrowly defined religious

properties, leaving out the far more numerous communal properties such

as schools and community centers that were and are so important to these

communities. The legitimate interests of the current tenants can be used

to block progress. Access to records that can help clarify claims is often

difficult. Complex and costly legal procedures can discourage claimants.

The issue of who should receive and manage restituted property can

generate controversy and slow the process.

We have made clear that we support a process of communal

property restitution that reflects a commitment to religious freedom and

tolerance, a sense of justice, and the concept that property can be

expropriated only through due process and for prompt and effective
690 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

compensation. I think the governments represented here today share

those basic tenets. But while we seek consistent standards for restitution,

we also recognize the widely divergent circumstances that exist where

this property is located and the need to take these circumstances fully

into account. It appears obvious that no single grand solution will work

effectively in all countries.

However, my hope is that to guide our efforts we can agree on a

system of principles along the following lines:

First, we want to encourage national governments to take the

necessary steps to ensure that restitution policies established by the

national government are implemented at regional and municipal levels of

government. Differences between various levels of government should

not thwart the effort to return property to legitimate owners. Having a

federal government ourselves, we recognize the constitutional and legal

problems which can arise on issues having implications at both national

and local levels. Nevertheless, I would hope that we in this Conference

could agree that the resolution of this issue requires each country to have

some uniformity of policy and administrative practice in this area.

Secondly, as a general principle, communal property should be

eligible for restitution irrespective of whether the property had a religious

or a secular use. There may be cases of secular property such as

extensive agricultural land or factories for which restitution is not

possible. Fair treatment may require new legislation which more properly

defines and describes property eligible for restitution.

Thirdly, legal procedures for filing claims should be clear and

simple. Complex legal procedures delay or deny the justice we all seek in

resolving communal property issues. Those preparing claims should have

easy access to archives.

Fourthly, we should encourage the establishment of foundations

jointly managed by local communities and international groups to aid in

the preparation of claims and to administer restituted property, where

these are needed to assist the local communities. Such foundations

enable international groups to share the burdens, and potentially some of

the benefits, of the restituted property.

Finally, elected governments must make provisions for the

present occupants of restituted property. In most cases, those now using

property wrongfully seized in the past had no hand in its original

expropriation. We therefore urge governments to establish procedures

that will allow for the restitution of as many properties as possible, and

that take into account legitimate needs of the current tenants.
COMMUNAL PROPERTY 691

We hope that a consensus on principles can give new impetus to

the encouraging initiatives already underway in many countries, and that

this intergovernmental forum can be a catalyst for many other belated

efforts to address this unfinished business of the twentieth century. With

a bit of good will and some imagination, we will be able to implement

these or similar principles to resolve communal property claims.

The traumatic events of the 1930's and 1940'sr followed by the

long period of totalitarian communist rule, destroyed trust within

religious communities, among religious communities and between

religious communities and governments. A successful communal

property restitution process will help to re-establish trust, understanding

and acceptance at all these levels.

The issue will not simply vanish; the fact that we are discussing

it more than fifty years after the war is ample evidence that this question

has considerable staying power. What could occur, of course, is that

delay and obfuscation could simply run the clock out on Holocaust

survivors, most of whom are already elderly. I think I speak for the

countries represented here when I say that to delay justice further would

dishonor us all. We have a clear obligation, which we must meet now.

The right and honorable solution is to deal with this issue in an

expeditious manner, and to do so through a process that is transparent,

fair and nondiscriminatory. This will take courage, vision and

persistence. Given the passage of over fifty years, absolute justice may

not be obtainable for either the original owners or the current occupants

of disputed real property. But producing a measure of justice for

thousands who suffered most will help all of us to come to terms with

history as we end the 20th Century and begin a new millennium.

I believe that we should proceed from the premise that this is a

problem which can be solved. With that as our starting point, I am

confidant that we can reach mutually agreeable formulas for bringing this

issue to closure. I look forward to a profitable exchange of views in this

morning's plenary, and in the breakout session this afternoon.

Mr. Ignatz Bubis

PRESIDENT

EUROPEAN JEWISH CONGRESS

Statement translated from the original German by the

U.S. Department of State Office of Language Services, Translating Division

Plenary Session on Nazi-Confiscated Communal Property

Mr. Mikva, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Eizenstat, Ladies and Gentlemen:

Let me first of all ask your understanding for giving my speech

in German, because I find it easier to express myself clearly in that

language. I shall limit my remarks to matters relating to restitution of real

estate property in the Federal Republic [of Germany] and the countries of

the former East Bloc.

It is bad enough that it has taken us more than 50 years after the

end of the nazi dictatorship to talk about this.

In Western Europe in general, and especially in the Federal

Republic, there have been laws on compensation for the injustices

suffered and the restitution of assets. As far as real estate is concerned,

this has been implemented in an exemplary fashion in the Federal

Republic and has long since been concluded. After the unification of the

two German states, the Federal Republic undertook treaty obligations to

return real properties to their former Jewish owners in the same manner,

or to provide compensation, with restitution being given priority vis-à-vis

compensation. A large part of these restitutions has already been carried

out, and where this was not possible, compensation has been provided. It

is true that there are a few cases left to decide, but they, too, are nearing

completion. Among the cases yet to be decided are, among other things,

emergency sales forced on the Jewish communities by the former rulers

of the former GDR.

Formerly, the Jewish communities in Germany were very rich.

Today, the new Jewish communities are very poor and consist mostly of

refugees or their descendents. Without support form the federal

government and the federal states, the existence of the Jewish

communities today would be in jeopardy. This, too, is a consequence of
694 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

the nazi dictatorship that is still being felt to this day. Without the help of

the federal government and the federal states, even the rebuilding of

synagogues would be impossible.

As concerns the countries of the former East Bloc, restitution is

coming along very unevenly. Some countries, as for instance Ukraine,

categorically refuse to return former Jewish real estate, be it private or

communal. One must take into account in this connection that the

expropriations took place as early as in the 1920s, after the formation of

the Soviet Union. Other countries, such as the Czech Republic, Slovakia,

and Poland, are at least partially willing to return communal real estate,

though not private properties. The fairest agreements could be concluded

and implemented with Hungary. It is true that there are positive

agreements with Romania, but none of them have been implemented so

far. I am mentioning all of this in order to make clear how differently

compensation and restitution matters are handled in different places.

It may be true that one or the other country can claim that the

statute of limitations has run out, however, this should not have anything

to do with the moral aspect. Today, hundreds of thousands of refugees

are living in foreign countries and are still dependent on assistance by

charitable organizations. These people must receive assistance through

compensation for heir-less assets.

Another subject is the archives, which very often could shed

light on possessions and property. In this regard, I would like to appeal to

all countries to open their archives to research in order to facilitate

justice.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the initiators of this

Conference, especially the Congress and the Senate, as well as the U.S.

Administration. Special appreciation is also owed to the Department of

State, and especially to Stuart Eizenstat, who began working on this

matter years ago, when he was still ambassador to the EU in Brussels.

Thank you for your attention.
Ms. Erzsébet Pék

SECOND SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

HUNGARY

Plenary Session on Nazi-Confiscated Communal Property

As the representative of the Republic of Hungary I would like to

express my government's gratitude to the United States Holocaust

Memorial Museum and the United States Department of State for hosting

the Conference. My delegation is well aware of the complexity and

difficulty of the issues to be solved. At the same time, we are of the view

that this Conference presents an excellent opportunity to evaluate the

historical facts and will contribute to finding a just resolution for the

Holocaust injustices.

In Hungary, during the five decades under totalitarian political

regimes, the property rights of a great number of citizens have been

gravely violated. After the historical changes of 1989-1990 it has been

the obligation of the Hungarian State to recognize and protect private

property and to compensate the citizens for wrongful acts caused by the

State. Within this context the Hungarian Parliament has enacted two

fundamental laws, Act XXV of 1991 on partial compensation for

damages unlawfully caused by the State to properties owned by the

citizens aggrieved by the application of regulations enacted after June 8,

1949, and Act XXIV of 1992 for the damages caused by regulations,

enacted between May 1, 1939 and June 8, 1949. These acts provided

compensation to all persons whose property had been injured either by

the racial discriminating regulations enacted after May 1, 1939, or by the

measures of nationalization. According to the above mentioned two acts,

partial compensation was due not only to Hungarian citizens, but also to

persons who had been Hungarian citizens when the injury occurred, to

persons who had been aggrieved in connection with deprivation of their

Hungarian citizenship, and to those non-Hungarian citizens who had

their ordinary residence in Hungary on December 31, 1990. If the

claimant had deceased, his descendant, or in absence of such, the

surviving spouse was entitled to lay claim for compensation. With the

enactment of Act XXIV of 1992, Hungary also fulfilled its obligations

under Art. 27. par. I of the Paris Peace Treaty, according to which
696 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

Hungary was required to pay fair compensation to persons who

aggrieved damages due to their race or religion.

At the same time, the Hungarian Constitutional Court in a

decision in 1993 stated that the implementation of Art. 27. par. 2 of the

Paris Peace Treaty was still missing. That paragraph of the Peace Treaty

obliged Hungary to transfer the claims of the former owners without

legal successors to the interest organizations of the victims. The

Constitutional Court gave notice to the Parliament to lift this

unconstitutional state. In order to execute the above decision of the

Constitutional Court, the Hungarian Parliament enacted Act X of 1997

by which the National Jewish Indemnification Fund was established by

the Government. For the purposes of the Fund the Government gave

indemnification vouchers of 4 billion forints transferable into life

annuity, the distribution of which is to be decided by the Board of

Trustees. In 1997 life annuity of 900,000 million forints were distributed,

in 1998 1.8 billion, and in 1999 2.3 billion is planned in the budget. At

the same time the government transferred the ownership of 7 real estates

and 10 objects of art and has ensured a yearly budgetary contribution to

the operational expenses of the Fund. Through the enactment of Act X of

1997 and the establishment of the Fund the Republic of Hungary fulfilled

its obligation taken under Art 27 par. 2 of the Paris Peace Treaty.

A further obligation of the State was to compensate the churches

for the damages unlawfully caused by the State. The basic principle of

the legislation was to enable the churches to again fulfill their social role

freely, without restrictions. In order to create the material and financial

conditions, necessary to the fulfillment of their activities, the Hungarian

Parliament has enacted Act XXII of 1991 on the settlement of the

ownership relations of the properties owned by the churches. In

connection with this Act it must be stressed that the measures of

nationalization applied after January 1, 1948 affected all churches, and as

the Hungarian Government repealed the discriminating decrees after the

war, the application of nationalization in 1948 did not relate to

Holocaust.

The Act, based on functional principles, made it possible for the

churches to submit claims for compensation for damages caused by

application of regulations enacted after January 1, 1948, on condition

that the claimed real estates were used for religious, educational,

social-health care or cultural purposes before the nationalization and the

churches intended to use them for the same purposes. In the interest of

settling the ownership relations of the real estates, a Commission was set

up, comprised of the representatives of the Government and the
COMMUNAL PROPERTY 697

concerned churches. On the basis of the claims of the churches the

Commission drew up the list of the real estates to be returned. The

commission submitted the list to the Government for approval. Having

approved, the Parliament determined the sum to be expended on the

settlement. The Act made it also possible that the churches, instead of

the claimed immovable, could obtain, on agreement, an adequate real

estate or financial compensation.

In September 1996 negotiations started between the Government

of the Republic of Hungary and the representatives of the Holy See on

the financing of the civil and religious activity of the Catholic Church

and among others on the settlement of the ownership of the former

Catholic property. The Agreement was signed on 20th June, 1997 by the

Prime Minister of the Republic of Hungary and the competent state

secretary of the Holy See. According to the agreement, the Catholic

Church renounced its compensation claim of 42 billion forints, on

condition that the Hungarian Government pay annuity which is to be

used for financing its religious activity.

The Agreement served as a basis for a comprehensive legislative

process, involving the settlement of the ownership of the churches,

according to which the Parliament modified the above Act, making it

possible for the churches that their claims which were to be compensated

not in kind, but not yet returned, or compensated can be transferred into

annuity on the basis of an agreement between the Government and the

concerned church. According to the claims submitted by the churches

till 30th June, 1998, the basis of the annuity of the Catholic Church is the

above mentioned 42 billion forints, 6.66 billion of the Hungarian

Reformed Church, 4.2 billion of the Hungarian Evangelical Church and

13, 511 billion of the Association of the Hungarian Jewish Communities.

The first agreement on the transfer of the claims into annuity was signed

with the Association of the Hungarian Jewish Communities in October of

this year.

The total number of the claims submitted by the churches is

7221. About 1000 cases were settled by direct agreement. The number of

claims settled by government decision exceeds 1065. On the basis of the

above decisions, 20 billion forints were paid between 1992-97 and the

Government undertook to pay further 14 billion forints as compensation

due till 2001. 3380 of the submitted claims remain to be settled. 1200 of

these claims were renounced by the Catholic Church for the abovementioned annuity. The Agreement between the Government of the

Republic of Hungary and the Association of the Hungarian Jewish
698 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

Communities settled 157 claims. Preparation of similar agreements with

the other churches is in progress.
Mr. Saul Kagan

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

CONFERENCE ON JEWISH MATERIAL

CLAIMS AGAINST GERMANY

Plenary Session on Nazi-Confiscated Communal Property

Last month the world marked the 60th anniversary of the burning

of the synagogues in Germany and Austria by Nazi mobs. This was the

most extreme demonstration- of the Nazi plans to destroy the Jewish

communities of Germany and Austria. As we know now, the Nazis

intended not only to murder the Jews but to destroy their communities –

the schools, synagogues, the old age homes, and all of the institutions of

the millennium of vibrant Jewish life, culture, and traditions in Europe.

As the Third Reich conquered most of Europe, the design to

destroy Jewish lives and life was brutal and merciless. The three million

strong Jewish community of Poland was practically obliterated. This was

the largest Jewish community in Europe and the heart of the Jewish

world at that time.

As the war ended and the world awoke to the immensity of the

Holocaust and began to confront the human and social carnage, we were

faced with two enormous tasks: first. to bind the wounds and resettle the

survivors, and, second, to establish the principle that one should not

profit from murder and pillage. To paraphrase the biblical admonition:

"You shall not murder-and inherit."

Immediately after the war the major Jewish organizations turned

to the victorious Allies, primarily to the United States to secure

restitution for Jewish property in Germany. As a result of these efforts

the United States military government introduced in November, 1947, 51

years ago, the first property restitution legislation on German soil. One of

the historic achievements of this law was the recognition of the principle

that heirless and unclaimed property of Nazi victims should not become

the property of the successor state of the Third Reich. This was a

revolutionary development in international law acknowledging that

ordinary legal principles could not be applied when dealing with the

consequences of this enormous tragedy.

The United States military government law provided for the

designation of a successor organization to recover heirless and unclaimed
700 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

property in the American occupation Zone and to use the proceeds for

the benefit of survivors. Following the enactment of this law, we

established the first Jewish successor organization, which recovered

private and communal property in the American occupation zone. Later,

similar laws were enacted by British and French military government for

their respective occupation zones, as well as West Berlin. No such

legislation was enacted in the Soviet zone of occupation. One of the first

things we did was to use proceeds to buy prefabricated housing for the

concentration camp survivors living in tents in Israel in the first year of

its independence.

After the German Federal Republic came formally into existence

in 1949, and thereafter, the principles of the Allied restitution legislation

were subsequently incorporated into its national law.

A major task for the successor organizations was the recovery of

the property of the Jewish communities and organizations such as

synagogues, old age homes, hospitals, schools, cemeteries, and other

institutional property.

We turned over to. the newly constituted Jewish communities the

buildings that they needed for the use of their community, such as

synagogues and community centers. We also established the principle of

sharing the proceeds with the local communities and the needs of the

survivors who were rebuilding their lives and communities elsewhere.

Four decades later, upon the unification of Germany, the Claims

Conference succeeded in obtaining restitution legislation along similar

principles for property subject to forced sale or confiscation during the

Nazi period in the former East Germany. Following the precedent of

West Germany, the Claims Conference worked out with the Central

Council of Jewish communities in Germany a sharing agreement for the

proceeds from the sale of the assets of the former Jewish communities

and organizations of East Germany.

Although the task of recovery of Jewish communal property in

the former East Germany is far from complete, the principles and

experience that guided us in Germany can serve as a model for similar

measures in the many other countries that have not as yet fully faced the

historic and moral responsibility to return Jewish communal property.

This is the challenge which the governments concerned must

meet promptly. The legal principles and the methods for restitution of

such property have already been tested. The needs of the local Jewish

communities and Holocaust survivors around the world are great.

It is tragic that many governments have not as yet responded to

this challenge. We expect this conference to bring about the universal
COMMUNAL PROPERTY 701

acceptance of the principle that Jewish communal property must be

restituted and where in some specific instances restitution may not be

feasible, properly compensated.

We expect the implementation of this principle to be encouraged

and monitored by whatever mechanism will be evolved as a follow-up to

this conference. This will be the ultimate test of the determination of the

world community to help restore Jewish life which the Nazis set out to

destroy.

Rabbi Andrew Baker

DIRECTOR, EUROPEAN AFFAIRS

AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

Jewish Communal Property

Plenary Session on Nazi-Confiscated Communal Property

"Why now?” seems to be the question that is most frequently

asked. After fifty years have passed, why now is so much attention

being given to the question of Holocaust assets. Why now is this

conference taking place? Each of us is, perhaps, both asking and being

asked this question. There are many answers to “Why now,” but no

single answer serves to explain it. The passing of eye-witnessed events

into history; the last opportunity to address the injustices of the survivor

generation; the popularizing through movies and television of stories

once ignored; the need to get things straight before the close of the

century? We may not be able to answer the question, Why now?, with

any satisfaction, but we should be able to say what now we can do about

it.

Fifty years ago, after the Nazis were defeated it was fair to

conclude that much of Central and Eastern Europe would remain

irredeemably inhospitable to Jewish life. In Germany and Austria, for

example, Allied occupation forces took stock of the small number of

Jewish survivors, the adverse conditions, the high level of anti-Semitism

still present in society, and determined that no effort should be made to

encourage former Jewish residents to return. In fact, those present would

be offered assistance to emigrate. Pogroms in Poland and elsewhere

which left thousands of returning Jews dead at the hands of their former

gentile neighbors sent a similar message. The future for those who

survived the Holocaust would be found in other places—primarily in

Israel and America.

It is hard not to imagine what we might have been able to do if

this conference took place fifty years ago. All of those assets which we

are discussing this week—insurance policies, bank accounts, looted
704 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

gold—could have been directed to the benefit of these survivors when

they would have done the most good, as they were starting new lives in

new places and when the trauma was most severe. All of the difficulties

in the passing years of identifying assets, of sifting through lost and

discarded and incomplete records, of trying to match accounts with

claimants and their heirs, would have been so much less. The work

would have been much simpler; the benefit for Holocaust survivors so

much greater. But, fifty years ago, no one was ready to do what we are

prepared to do today.

We know there are survivors in need, and they deserve to be

helped now. Everyone agrees with this statement, but it appears to be the

beginning and not the end of problems and controversy, as help is

delayed and as organizations and lawyers and governments vie with

each other to be the conduit for this aid. Meanwhile, the cynicism

increases and the embarrassing private battles become public news.

This, too, will be part of the discussion at this conference, even if it goes

on only in the corridors rather than the official sessions.

We know that even now, at this late date, we should make every

effort to find the heirs of newly-identified assets. Works of art, insurance

policies and bank accounts may still have legal claimants. Fifty years of

neglect and resistance make this a difficult and time-consuming task, and

the cost may far exceed the actual assets identified. But, if this enterprise

really is about justice and not just about money—a sentiment that seems

increasingly challenged by the day-to-day statements of some—we need

to follow this path.

Still, there is something wrong if all we succeed in doing is

reckoning the accounts fifty years late. There ought to be some things

we can do now that go further. After all, the very changes that have

occurred in many of the countries represented at this conference are

much greater than just open archives and a willingness to look at history.

The problems we are examining and trying to redress can also be a

bridge to the future. This possibility may be most evident in the difficult

and still largely-unresolved area of Jewish communal property

restitution.

It was only in this last decade that one could even imagine the

possibility that what was once Jewish property in the Communist nations

of Central and Eastern Europe might again pass into Jewish hands. But,

the euphoria which greeted the fall of the Berlin Wall and the successful

and largely peaceful revolutions which brought democracy to these

countries was not easily shared in the Jewish world. More frequently,

our assessment resembled those reached in 1945. After the destruction
COMMUNAL PROPERTY 705

of the Holocaust and decades of Communist tyranny and state-sponsored

anti-Semitism, what future could there be for Jewish life in these

countries? These were still inhospitable places, to be sure. And if Jewish

communal property could now be restituted, the heirs—or at least the

proper heirs—would be found in America and Israel. Not only were

these the places where the majority of Jewish survivors had settled, but

they were still the places where the Jewish future was thought to be

located.

In these last half-dozen years we have acted in various and

contradictory ways. We have provided support for the communal,

religious and educational revival of Jewish life in Central and Eastern

Europe, and we have encouraged the brightest of them to make aliyah to

Israel. We have put political and moral pressure on their governments to

restitute Jewish property, and we have fought with local Jewish

communities over this property. In the meantime, very little has

happened in the area of restitution, but a great deal has happened

nonetheless.

In almost all of these countries Jewish life has “revived.” We

can still debate the long-term prognosis, but they’re off life-support

systems and out of intensive care. They are small; they are poor; they

are disadvantaged. Let us acknowledge after all that these communities,

too, are survivors. But, they believe they have a future in their respective

countries, and they are acting on that belief. They face enormous

challenges, and they still confront anti-Semitism in the societies around

them. But, they also, for the most part, have governments that want to

see them succeed. And they have at least some fellow citizens who

believe it is in their own best interests to build a pluralist society in

which Jews and other minorities can feel at home.

However, their survival will depend on their resources. And

these resources will need to come from the restitution of communal

property. So far, the efforts have been difficult and the results have been

disappointing. In some countries we have seen only a handful of

formerly religious properties returned to the Jewish community. Even in

the best of situations the gains have been modest.

Last year, legislation was enacted which provides for the return

to the Jewish community in Poland of former religious property.

Property is reclaimed through a cumbersome and costly process, and

much communal property is excluded under the law. Instead, it involves

primarily synagogues and cemeteries, and the latter, which are in need of

repair and restoration, are a financial burden, not a benefit to the small

community.
706 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

Legislation was never adopted in the Czech Republic. Its Jewish

community identified only two hundred communal properties--a fraction

of the pre-war total--for which it sought restitution. While the Federal

government offered verbal support, decisions were left to individual

municipalities, and after several years about half of these properties have

been returned. Only in these last few days, has the government created a

commission to examine ways in which the Jewish community might

receive back or receive compensation for the remaining properties.

In Hungary, which has the largest Jewish community of Central

Europe, an agreement was reached only this October, which provides for

financial compensation in the form of an annual payment, determined to

be a percentage of the communal property value. This will provide the

Jewish community with several million dollars a year to help it address

the needs of over 100,000 Hungarian Jews.

In these communities and in others, restitution efforts were

initially aided by the work of the World Jewish Restitution Organization,

which drew public attention to this need and assisted in the cataloguing

of former Jewish properties. The WJRO also enunciated the position that

world Jewry is the correct heir to the full pre-war assets of Jewish

communities that had numbered in the millions. But, such assets are not

now being and perhaps never will be restituted to the local Jewish

communities or to international Jewish organizations. Nevertheless, this

has not precluded tensions to grow and adversarial relationships to

develop. What should have been a collaborative and cooperative

relationship has all too often turned into a fight over who is the rightful

owner of property not yet being returned.

It is correct to insist that the governments in these new

democracies have a moral obligation to return all former Jewish

communal and private property, and no one should dispute that heirless

assets ought to be the inheritance of the Jewish community worldwide.

But, at the very least and in the "short term" which is unfortunately not

very short, resources should first be directed to aid the reviving Jewish

communities and to maintain the cemeteries and other historical sits of

pre-war Jewry in Europe.

Perhaps, this is the area in which the surrounding non-Jewish

world can also play a role. Reclaiming these sites, reclaiming history, is

also a means of reclaiming memory and educating ourselves and others.

This is critical for a new generation of Jews who choose to make their

homes in Central and Eastern Europe, but valuable, too, for their nonJewish neighbors. In the end, tangible assets must pass to the rightful

inheritor. But, these other "assets"--the assets of history, the assets of
COMMUNAL PROPERTY 707

memory, the detailed knowledge that a culturally rich and vibrant Jewish

community once flourished where now only small remnants, but at least

and remarkably so small remnants, live on--these assets can be shared. If

we work together, we can also make them a bridge between Jews and

non-Jews, a bridge between present and future generations.

Mr. Jerzy Kichler

PRESIDENT, UNION OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS IN POLAND

POLAND

Restitution of Jewish Communal

Property in Poland

(Status as of November 23, 1998)

Break-out Session on Communal Property: Progress and Challenges

1. INTRODUCTION

The continuity of the Polish Jewish communities was interrupted

by World War II and by the changes that came into being soon after the

end of the War. In 1945, the Polish Communist government permitted

the re-establishment of Jewish communities as cultural societies only.

Regulation #3 of February 6, 1945 denied them legal personality. Thus,

unlike the situation in other Soviet satellite countries, where Jews were

permitted to own some communal property, all Jewish communal

property was legally considered abandoned property and on that basis

confiscated by the State.

2. CURRENT STATUS OF THE JEWISH RELIGIOUS

CONGREGATIONS

Nine Autonomous JRCs (in Warsaw, Krakow, Lódz, Wroclaw,

Katowice, Bielsko-Biala, Gdansk, Szezecin, and Legnica), and seven

affiliates connected with different JRCs (in Walbrzych, Dzierzoniów,

Zary, Bytom, Czestochowa, Lublin, Poznan) exist today. Their number,

after a steady downwards trend over the last 30 years, has again started to

grow, when last year the Warsaw JRC and the Pozna affiliate were set
710 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

up. The Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland is a

coordinating body for all the JRCs.

The Communities and their affiliates operate synagogues, prayer

houses, and kosher kitchens, run welfare and educational programs.

Since up to now they had no independent revenue, all this activity was

made possible through grant and organizational support from the Joint

Distribution Committee and the Ronald S. Lauder Foundation. The

former supplies the main budget of the JRCs, while the latter

supplements it and runs youth clubs, summer and winter camps and a

school and a kindergarten in Warsaw. A second school will open this fall

in Wroclaw. The JRCs also take care of Jewish cemeteries and historical

monuments they have title to.

There Union has prepared a program of reviving of Jewish life in

Poland, which postulates the setting up of Jewish Community centers

and schools in all the main towns where Jewish communities exist, as

well as expanding services for the sick and elderly, with new day-care

centers, retirement homes and medical facilities. The program covers

also the preservation of unused Jewish cemeteries and historical

monuments.

3. LEGAL SITUATION

The Law on the relationship between the State and the Jewish

Religious communities was submitted by the Government to Parliament

on February 20, 1997, passed and signed by the President soon

thereafter, and effective as of May 11 of the same year. It was published

in the Official Gazette (Dziennik Ustaw) on April 24, 1997 as Item #41.

This law grants the Jewish communities legal status similar to

that they enjoyed in Poland before World War II, and identical tot hat

which applies to all the eleven recognized cults today. All relevant laws

to that effect had been passed in the post-Communist period, the first

being that on the relationship between the State and the Catholic church,

passed in 1989. This law is based on previous legal solutions dealing

with kehilloth existing on Polish territory, especially a regulation issued

by the President of Poland in 1927.

This law deals mainly with the issues of taxation of the Jewish

community, the status of Rabbis and Hazzanim, Jewish holidays as paid

vacation days, etc. It has historical significance, inasmuch as it will allow

the return to the Polish Jewish community of a part of its material

heritage, thereby enabling it greater self-sufficiency. The goal of this law
COMMUNAL PROPERTY 711

is to make Jewish continuity in Poland possible, and to regulate issues of

preservation of the spiritual and material heritage of Polish Jews.

3. RESTITUTION OF JEWISH COMMUNAL PROPERTY

In accordance with Article 29 of the law, property that was in the

use of the Jewish community on the day of May 11, 1997, becomes its

property, no matter to whom it belonged at that moment, and what was

previously located there. On the basis of this regulation, three properties

have been returned already, including the Nozyk Synagogue in Warsaw,

the premier temple of Polish Judaism.

Article 30 deals with Jewish communal property and the

property of other formally registered Jewish religious organizations, held

by its owners before the war on what is now Polish territory. These

properties can now be reclaimed by member communities of the Union

of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland.

Paragraph 1of that Article concerns that part of current Polish

territory which was contained within Polish borders as of September 1,

1939. Here, Jewish Religious Communities may claim ownership of

cemeteries and synagogues. In respect to synagogues, a property may be

claimed even if it is now an empty plot or if there is another building

built over it (p.1). If the actual building or plot of land cannot be

returned, financial compensation can be offered. In the case of other

relevant buildings used for religious, cultural, educational or charitable

purposes, the property can be returned only if the original building is still

standing. In the case of cemeteries, only the actual plot can be returned

and no financial compensation will be offered. If a property was sold to a

third party before the restitution claim had been filed, it cannot be

returned.

Paragraph 2 deals with the issue of the Western Territories

(former Germany) that were incorporated by Poland after World War II

on the basis of treaties made by the Allies. The difference with Paragraph

1 in claiming properties there is as follows: (a) the property has to have

belonged to the Jewish community, or another religious Jewish

organization on January 30, 1933, i.e., before the Nazis came to power;

and (b) the local Jewish community now existing there and claiming it

has to prove that the property will be used for religious, cultural,

educational or charitable activities (except cemeteries, synagogues and

kehillot offices buildings where it must not to be proved). If the property

cannot be returned, there is no way to receive compensation.
712 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

With the help of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw a list

has been made of Jewish cemeteries (about 1,000), still existing

synagogues (about 300), buildings of different institutions: hospitals,

mikvaot, schools, etc. (about 100).

In order to file their claims, Jewish Religious Communities have

to gather the appropriate documentation: proofs of legal status of the

property before the war (maps, registers, land registry books, proofs of

ownership); certificates of present legal status (documents as above

together with the maps presenting changes that came into being –

property division, etc.). In the case of properties that used to belong to a

Jewish organization other than the Jewish Community, documents that

prove its religious purpose have to be gathered (statutes, experts opinion,

testimonies).

The gathering of such documents is obviously very difficult due

to the effects of the Shoah and other man-made and natural disasters.

Therefore, any documentation and testimonies that will lead to the

location of Jewish communal property will be very helpful and

appreciated.

4. RESTITUTION PROCESS

The return of Jewish property is based on the work of a specially

assembled Regulation Commission which functions as an arbitration

court. The commission was set up by a Decree of the Minister of Internal

Affairs and Administration on October 10, 1997. Its body is composed of

six people (three from the said Ministry and three from the Union of

Jewish religious Communities).

The period of sending complete applications to the Regulatory

Commission is 5 years; the deadline is May 2002.

To date, 217 applications have been submitted to the Regulation

commission. Of those, 182 applications have been acted upon, other have

been returned to applicant because of incomplete documentation, and

decisions have been made in the case of 23 (positively 16, negatively 6,

given to voivoda decision 1) – including 5 cemeteries, 8 synagogues.

Moreover, the boards of the communities in Warsaw and in Wroclaw

were given by the respective Governors (Voivods) legal title to the

buildings they use.

The proper implementation of the law is a historical challenge

for the community – our future depends on it. The restitution of

communal properties should finally bring to an end the suffering and
COMMUNAL PROPERTY 713

humiliation experienced by Polish Jews and Jewish organizations during

and after World War II.

5. JEWISH COMMUNITIES OF POLAND AND THE WJRO

The law states that, as far as restitution and other relations are

concerned, the Jewish Religious Communities in Poland are the sole

partner of the Polish State. Only the Communities can file restitution

claims. Any changes to that law would require not only amending the act

itself, but also probably making amendments to laws pertaining to the

relationship of the State to other recognized cults, since all should be

constitutionally equal.

Cooperation with the WJRO is a basic requirement for the

Jewish Religious Communities of Poland. The Board of the Union of

Jewish Religious Communities in Poland (UJRCP) sees in the setting up

of a conjoint foundation with the WJRO an expression of our shared

responsibility for the heritage of Polish Jews. However, the principles of

such foundation cannot violate the continuity of the rights of the

communities in Poland, both in respect to their property and to their

autonomy, nor can they contradict Polish law.

In April 1998 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by

Israel Singer representing the WJRO and Jerzy Kichler representing the

UJRCP. This Memorandum is the base for the establishing of a conjoint

foundation. A negotiating tem finished at present a work to elaborate the

billow of the joint foundation. With help of the foundation, the process of

restitution of Jewish properties in Poland should not only lead to the

proper revival of the Jewish community of Poland and to covering the

needs of the Communities, but should also enable the participation of all

Polish Jewish living outside of Poland in that process.

Mr. Michael Lewan

CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES COMMISSION FOR THE PRESERVATION

OF AMERICA’S HERITAGE ABROAD

UNITED STATES

Break-out Session on Communal Property: Progress and Challenges

"May we live in interesting times." The sentiment expressed by

the old Polish proverb certainly applies to all of us concerned with the

return of communal property. Today, more than a half-century since the

defeat of fascism and a decade after the fall of communism, the nations

of Eastern and Central Europe and grappling with their past. They need

help. This is truly a time for strong and supportive American leadership

and friendship.

My name is Michael Lewan and I have been appointed twice by

President Bill Clinton to Chair the United States Commission for the

Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad. The Commission was

founded in recognition that the United States, as a nation of immigrants,

has its values rooted in lands distant in miles and time. As a people, we

believe that the fabric of our society is strengthened by visible reminders

of our ancestral past. The history, culture, politics, sociology, economy,

and religion of our forefathers have stamped upon our souls an indelible

mark of character. As the years go by, Americans need to see the sites,

hear the echoes, touch the tombstones, feel the pain, and relive the joy of

our ancestral past. How else can we understand the present or prepare

for the future?

The Commission's charge is to encourage the preservation and

protection of communal properties. Specifically, the buildings,

monuments, collections and cemeteries connected with the heritage of

Americans from the 22 countries that comprise Eastern and Central

Europe and the former Soviet Republic. Americans who trace their

family roots to these cultures are, for the first time, able to visit the

churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and monuments to which they have

binding ties.

What they see often shocks and saddens them. The Nazi

extermination of six million Jews and so many other innocents extended

to physical places as well. Schools, libraries, museums, and social halls
716 WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS

were all expropriated. Synagogues, churches, and cemeteries were

especially sought out for vandalism or destruction.

The Communists continued this wanton behavior. Buildings and

graveyards were bulldozed to make room for development. Those sites

that escaped were left to suffer the ravages of time and natures. Many, if

not most, important sites passed into oblivion.

Some did survive. Today there exist hundreds of synagogues,

churches, cemeteries, and other places in desperate need of attention.

They stand now not as a reminder of death and decay, but as a testament

to the strength and substance of those vital, vibrant souls that once

prayed, sang, studied, danced, and lived within their walls. Some sites

are artistic treasures and deserve restoration on that basis, some are

sacred and demand the highest degree of devotion.

Our Commission has spent much time and energy preserving and

protecting Jewish cemeteries. To take care of the dead is the highest

calling. A mitzvah. An obligation. The Book of Ruth teaches, "Blessed

is he by God, for his kindness to the living as well as the dead." (Ruth

2:20).

Central to our work as participants in the Holocaust Assets

Conference must be the legal and spiritual status of these Jewish

cemeteries. The United States Commission for the Preservation of

America's Heritage Abroad stands undivided in this regard. Jewish

cemeteries are sacred; they cannot be sold; their soil must not be

disturbed; their sanctity must be respected by all.

It is my hope that in its deliberations on the status of communal

properties that special consideration is given to cemeteries. Clearly there

are challenges. As economies of the region prosper, these sacred plots of

land will become increasingly valuable. Pressures to sell and develop

these sites will grow. Legitimate social service needs will be held as a

reason to destroy these old graveyards. These are monetary temptations

that must be resisted.

The Commission acknowledges that few if any Jewish citizens

remain to care for these sites, and that the Diaspora cannot provide the

needed resources to tend the graves. With this in mind, the Commission

respectfully recommends that "national communal property restitution"

laws be passed that returns all cemeteries to the remnant Jewish

communities. This will protect them from sale or unbridled

development.

We also suggest that a certain percentage of funds realized from

the sale or lease of other communal property be set aside for the

perpetual care of these cemeteries. This we believe is the framework for
COMMUNAL PROPERTY 717

a right and proper solution. It respects not only the land on which so

many are buried, but indeed is a symbol that on this land once lived a

people that contributed mightily to the fabric of their society, their

religion and their country.

The United States Commission for the Preservation of America's

Heritage Abroad will continue to use all its influence on governments,

NGOs and all parties involved to ensure that we find the ways and means

to preserve and protect these sacred places for all eternity.

The historic and moral importance of the Commission's work is

clear. We must help the emerging democracies of Europe settle old

debts and begin anew by building on the foundations of yesterday to

create a better tomorrow.

Tomorrow...Listen to the haunting words of Elie Wiesel,

"Teachers and their pupils; mothers and their infants; rabbis and their

followers rich and poor; learned and illiterate; prince and beggar all

pushed inexorably toward death. "Father," a young boy asks, "is it

painful to die?" Father replies, "Think of something else my son, think

of tomorrow."

My friends Jew and Gentile alike, we are that tomorrow.

So, as we continue our work to repair, restore, recompense, and

return, let us commit together to use whatever resources come available

to build a future that honors the past. For the age-old values, traditions,

and observances so critical to survival must never be lost as new

generations make their way.

This is our legacy. This is our burden. This is our tomorrow.