WRITTEN QUESTION P-2089/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Compatibility of the Benes Decrees, the 1946 Amnesty Law and the 1992 Restitution Law with EU law

On 2 June 2002, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) published an interview with Commissioner Verheugen concerning the compatibility of the Benes decrees with EU law. In reply to the question whether the 1946 law granting amnesty still had legal effect to this day, Mr Verheugen answered that it was not a question of immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in connection with driving out the Germans. The intention was to give resistance fighters legal protection. Acts committed on the basis of dishonourable motives did not fall within that law. Mr Verheugen went on to say that in so far as these laws still had legal effect, they would be brought into line with EU law by means of individual measures and other steps in the Czech Republic.

In an article on 18 August 1995, the FAZ reported the case of a Czech citizen who had shot dead and buried 14 people in Schwarzbach on 24 May 1945. On 16 March 1992, the Ceské Budejovice district court ruled that the perpetrator of this crime was not subject to prosecution.

On 11 June 2002, the Czech Interior Minister, citing Decree No 33/1945, refused Count Salm-Reifferscheid the restitution of his property (FAZ, 14 June 2002).

In the Commission's view, is the current use of the 1946 amnesty law by Czech case law contrary to the principles laid down in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union?

What steps does the Commission intend to take as indicated by Commissioner Verheugen in the abovementioned interview to bring the laws still effective (the 1946 amnesty law, the 1992 restitution law and the Benes Decrees) into line with EU law?

What is the Commission's view of the idea of the Czech Republic setting up a reconciliation fund as symbolic compensation for the expropriation of the Sudeten German population as an option for settling this dispute (along the lines of the Austrian compensation fund for expropriated Jewish property set up in 2001)?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

As is correctly reported in the interview to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission is still conducting an analysis, together with the Czech authorities, regarding some aspects related to the Czechoslovak Presidential decrees of 1945 and some related legislation of the immediate post-war period. Work is also continuing on restitution laws and practice of the 1990s.

Final results are not yet available, but the following points can already be made:

- The 1946 law to which the Honourable Member refers is not an amnesty law providing blanket exculpation for all crimes committed against occupying forces and the German- or Hungarian-speaking minorities. It was rather conceived as an impunity law that sought to provide legal protection for resistance fighters and persons in temporary positions of authority in the liberation and initial post-war periods. The legislator had not intended the law to cover acts committed for dishonourable motives. In the public consciousness, this original intent has been increasingly overlooked in view of the Communist-era legal practices. Various Czech statements make it clear that there are no legal obstacles in the Czech Republic to prosecute persons suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity which are not subject to prescription.

- The Commission is examining the relevant Czech legal order and individual cases of judiciary decisions but has not completed its work on this. The Parliament has also commissioned outside legal expertise on these matters.

- As was stated in the Joint Press Statement of 11 April 2002 by Prime Minister Zeman and the Commissioner in charge of enlargement, any part of a candidate country's legal order that is still capable of producing new legal effects cannot escape the scrutiny of Union/Community (EU/EC) law. This includes the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality.

- Any decision to establish a reconciliation fund would be a matter of national sovereignty about which the Commission cannot speculate. In any case, apart from investigating aspects of relevance to EU/EC law, the Commission remains fully committed to assist politically in achieving satisfactory solutions to the dispute over the Czechoslovak Presidential decrees and related matters.