WRITTEN QUESTION P-2089/02 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Compatibility of the Benes Decrees, the 1946 Amnesty Law and the 1992 Restitution Law with EU law.
Date: 2002-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, Czechia, Second World War, accession to the European Union, barring of penalties by limitation, discrimination on the basis of nationality, expropriation, indemnification, interpretation of the law, national law, war crime

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/129

areas, Community finance was allocated only to the towns and cities in the top ten places; the Italian
authorities have submitted the relevant programmes to the Commission in accordance with Article 19 of
the Communication.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.

(2003/C 52 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/02

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Council

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Lengthy delays in the adoption of children from Andhra Pradesh (India)

Fifteen Spanish families (and others from the USA, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium) are
involved in the process of adopting children from the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, in which connection
UNICEF has drawn up reports condemning the precarious physical and psychological conditions in which
children available for adoption find themselves.

Cooperation on the part of the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Department (which is responsible for adoptions) is
not yet forthcoming, even though Spanish and Indian law relating to international adoptions has been
complied with. In the meantime, India and its neighbour Pakistan have placed themselves on a war
footing.
In these circumstances, could the EU make representations to the Indian Prime Minister
(and, where appropriate, to the Prime Minister of Andhra Pradesh) with a view to speeding up the
adoption process?

Reply

(11 November 2002)

The Council does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the ongoing adoption process.

(2003/C 52 E/148)

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,
Reifferscheid the restitution of his property (FAZ, 14 June 2002).

the Czech Interior Minister, citing Decree No 33/1945, refused Count Salm-

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?

C 52 E/130

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

What steps does the Commission intend to take (cid:1) as indicated by Commissioner Verheugen in the
abovementioned interview (cid:1) 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:

(cid:1) 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
intended the law to cover acts committed for
initial post-war periods. The legislator had not
dishonourable motives.
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.

In the public consciousness,

this original

(cid:1) 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.

(cid:1) 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.

(cid:1) 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.

(2003/C 52 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2108/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Closure of subsidised company Typopoiitiria Thivas

(17 July 2002)

In its answer to my previous questions (P-3402/01 (1), P-1011/02 (2)) concerning the probable closure of
the Typopoiitiria Thivas company, which was subsidised under Regulations (EEC) 355/77 (3) and 866/
90 (4), the Commission states that it has not received a reply from the Greek authorities, that ‘the
Commission is particularly concerned that the schemes part-financed by the Structural Funds should be