Source: http://www.mitteleuropa.de/frowein-e0.htm
Timestamp: 2017-12-12 15:55:11+00:00

Document:
Frowein-Gutachten englisch. Arbeitspapier A
Die amtliche Deutsche Fassung ist bei der EU abrufbar
Legal Opinion on the Bene-Decrees and the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union
Prof. Dr. Dres. h.c. Jochen A. Frowein, Heidelberg
COMMON CONCLUSIONS. 1
Prof. Frowein. 3
1. The Mandate. 5
2. The interpretation of Article 49 TEU. 6
3. The so-called Bene-Decrees. 7
4. Preliminary remarks. 9
5. The issue of confiscations in 1945/1946. 11
7. A possible discrimination in restitution. 16
8. Issues of citizenship. 21
9. The Decrees on criminal law and proceedings. 22
10. The exclusion of criminal responsibility on the basis of Law No. 115 of 8 May 1946. 23
11. Minority protection. 30
12. Conclusions. 32
ANNEX: GERMAN-CZECH DECLARATION ON MUTUAL RELATIONS. 34
Prof. Bernitz.37
1. The Mandate. 39
2. Scope and Limitations of my Opinion. 39
3. The Fundamental EU Law on Citizenship, Discrimination and Minorities. 41
4. General Assessment of the Study. 42
5. The Legality of the Benes Decrees. 43
6. The Restrictive Czech Rules on Restitution. 44
7. The Decrees on Criminal Law and Procedures. 47
8. The Exclusion of Criminal Responsibility on the Basis of the 1946 Law. 47
9. Minority Protection. 48
10. Right to Return. 48
11. Conclusions. 50
The Rt. Hon. Lord Kingsland Q.C. 51
The Benes Decrees. 53
The validity of the Benes Decrees. 53
Criteria for accession to the EU. 55
Decrees relating to property and its confiscation . 56
Citizenship . 61
The Decrees relating to criminal acts and procedure. 62
The supremacy of EU law. 65
The estoppel argument. 66
Conclusions. 67
Legal Opinion concerning Bene-Decrees and related issues prepared by Prof. Dr. Dres. h.c. Jochen A. Frowein
former Director of the Max-Planck-Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany
1) I have received the mandate to prepare a study on the question to what extent the so-called Bene-Decrees may be of relevance in the context of Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) for the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union. The mandate formulated by the Presidency of the European Parliament is worded as follows:
- focus on todays validity and legal effects of the so-called Bene-Decrees and the restitution laws related to them, and on their status in the context of compliance with EU law, with the criteria of Copenhagen and international law relevant for accession;
- indicate whether any action from the candidate countries concerned ought to be taken in view of their accession.
3) According to Article 49 TEU Any European State which respects the principles set out in Article 6 (1) may apply to become a member of the Union .. Article 6 § 1 TEU reads: The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.
6) It is beyond doubt, therefore, that provisions as Articles 49 TEU and 6 TEU must be interpreted in a manner which looks to the future and not to the past. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that provisions having been adopted in earlier periods may have legal effects which must be evaluated as to their compatibility with Articles 49 and 6 TEU. This is the issue which has arisen around the so called Bene-Decrees.
7) The European Parliaments resolutions of 15 April 1999 and 5 September 2001 are important in this context. In the latter resolution the European Parliament welcomed the Czech governments willingness to scrutinise the laws and decrees of the Bene government, dating from 1945 and 1946 and which are still on the statute books, to ascertain whether they run counter to EU law in force and the Copenhagen criteria.[3]
3. The so-called Bene-Decrees
8) The notion of Bene-Decrees refers to a number of acts of President Edward Bene who, on the basis of a constitutional decree of 15 October 1940, exercised emergency powers after having left the territory of Czechoslovakia from London. These powers were also exercised after President Bene returned to Czechoslovakia.[4] After the legislative power for Czechoslovakia was transferred to the provisional National Assembly on 28 October 1945 a specific constitutional law of 28 March 1946 confirmed all Bene-Decrees with retroactive effect as to their legal validity.[5]
d) On 8 May 1946 the provisional National Assembly passed legislation concerning the legality of actions connected to the struggle to recover the liberty of the Czechs and Slovaks (Law No. 115). Article 1 of that law states as follows:
Any act committed between September 30, 1938 and October 28, 1945 the object of which was to aid the struggle for liberty of the Czechs and Slovaks or which represented just reprisals for actions of the occupation forces and their accomplices, is not illegal, even when such acts may otherwise be punishable by law.[6]
11) When the State of Czechoslovakia, by a procedure based on the agreement of the Czech and the Slovak side, ceased to exist, the two new republics, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic came into being.[7] In both republics the Bene-Decrees remain part of the legal order. Although many of the matters being discussed in the following legal opinion will also be applicable for the Slovak Republic the opinion is limited to the situation in the Czech Republic. The reason for this limitation is that the materials available, including the opinions by the European Parliament and by the European Commission, mainly concern the Czech Republic. Since the accession of the Czech Republic is expected to come first it is justifiable to limit the present opinion to the situation for the Czech Republic.
15) The confiscation without compensation of property of former Czechoslovak or other citizens considered to belong to the German and Hungarian people is a matter fully concluded in 1945 and 1946. For this reason the Czech Constitutional Court, in a ruling of 8 March 1995, argued that Decree No. 108 of 25 October 1945 should be seen to be extinct as a source of law.[8] However, it is clear that the Decree was considered to have been validly adopted and having had the legal effect of transferring property originally held by those against whom the measures of confiscation were taken. Therefore, it has relevance for the present legal status of the property concerned in the Czech legal order.
21) For these reasons I come to the conclusion that the confiscations on the basis of the so-called Bene-Decrees do not raise an issue in the context of the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union.
23) The European Court of Human Rights had to decide whether a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights followed from the refusal of German courts to decide on the compatibility with international law of Czechoslovak confiscations based on the Bene-Decrees. The Prince of Liechtenstein had argued that this refusal was a violation of his rights under the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights held that the application, by the German courts, of an international treaty preventing German courts from evaluating any confiscation measures after World War II was fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. This shows that the Court did not in any way decide on the confiscation measures.
24) As far as the allegation of a violation of the right to property under Art. 1, First Protocol to the ECHR was concerned, the Court concluded that there was no violation. The Prince of Liechtenstein had argued that he was still the owner of the painting concerned and the confiscation, which had been contrary to public international law, had to remain ineffective. The Court found that the applicant had no possession in the sense of Art. 1. The Court held as follows:
85. As regards this preliminary issue, the Court observes that the expropriation had been carried out by authorities of former Czechoslovakia in 1946, as confirmed by the Bratislava Administrative Court in 1951, that is before 3 September 1953, the entry into force of the Convention, and before 18 May 1954, the entry into force of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the Court is not competent ratione temporis to examine the circumstances of the expropriation or the continuing effects produced by it up to the present date (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), cited above, and the Commissions case-law, for example, Mayer and Others v. Germany, applications no. 18890/91, 19048/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92, Commission decision of 4 March 1996, Decisions and Reports 85, pp. 5-20).
Subsequent to this measure, the applicants father and the applicant himself had not been able to exercise any owners rights in respect of the painting which was kept by the Brno Historical Monuments Office in the Czech Republic.
In these circumstances, the applicant as his fathers heir cannot, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, be deemed to have retained a title to property nor a claim to restitution against the Federal Republic of Germany amounting to a legitimate expectation in the sense of the Courts case-law.
86. This being so, the German court decisions and the subsequent return of the painting to the Czech Republic cannot be considered as an interference with the applicants possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see paragraph 78 above).
87. The Court thus concludes that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
26) According to the Law of 15 April 1992, No. 243/1992, a possibility of restitution was introduced for certain persons who had lost their property on the basis of the Bene confiscation decrees. This restitution was limited to citizens of the Czech Republic. According to Article 11 a, § 3, of the Law 243/1992 persons entitled pursuant to Article 2 (2) may assert claims for the restitution of non-movable property pursuant to this Law not later than 30 June 2001. This means that the deadline for restitution claims has expired long before the accession process can come to an end.
31) In several cases concerning former Sudeten German property the Committee decided that it was not arbitrary and discriminatory to limit the restitution to the confiscations effected by the communist regime and not to extend them to confiscations under the so called Bene-Decrees.[23]
32) In 2001 the Committee had to deal with restitution under Law 243/1992 concerning confiscations under the Bene-Decrees. The case De Fours Walderode[24] is characterised by very specific facts. The author of the communication, K. De Fours Walderode, was a citizen of the newly created Czechoslovak State since 1918. His estate was confiscated in 1945. However, on account of his proven loyalty to Czechoslovakia during the occupation he retained his Czechoslovak citizenship.
34) The question arises whether in the view of the Human Rights Committee the Czech restitution legislation as regards confiscations under the Bene-Decrees is in general discriminatory and should be amended before accession, because it does not provide for restitution to people who have today German, Hungarian or any other citizenship.
35) There are decisive arguments against such a view. Nobody has so far argued that the Czech Republic should restitute all property confiscated under the Bene-Decrees to former owners. It is beyond question that this would exceed the financial and legal possibilities of any state in a comparable situation. But it would also raise an issue as to the background of the confiscation, i. e. the transfer of the German and Hungarian populations, confirmed at the Potsdam Conference.[25] As already explained, this decision has been recently confirmed by the powers which were parties to the Potsdam agreements.[26]
38) This brings me to the conclusion that even an extended view of the rule of non-discrimination in Article 12 of the TEC and Article 6 TEU does not permit to question the procedure laid down in the Czech restitution legislation which, because of the time limit of 30 June 2001, is no longer applicable when accession takes place. Therefore, the limited system of restitution concerning confiscations under the Bene-Decrees does not raise an issue in the context of accession.
45) Law No. 115 of 1946 provides: Any act committed between September 30, 1938 and October 28, 1945, the object of which was to aid the struggle for liberty of the Czechs and Slovaks or which represented just reprisals for actions of the occupation forces and their accomplices, is not illegal, even when such acts may otherwise be punishable by law.[34] This legislation still has legal effects. It precludes possible criminal investigations, charges, and convictions of people who have acted during the defined period in the way circumscribed by the rule.
46) While it seems easy to understand that actions directed at aiding the struggle for liberty of the Czechs and Slovaks was being exempted from any possible sanction this is less easy to understand for the second category. This second category refers to just reprisals for actions of the occupation forces and their accomplices. It is not doubtful that during the compulsory transfer (Vertreibung) of large numbers of Germans and Hungarians many people lost their lives on the basis of arbitrary actions by guards, militias or violent members of the population.[35] The Law No. 115 has been used to exempt acts from criminal sanctions which violated elementary humanitarian principles as has been recognised in the German-Czech Declaration of 1997.[36] Such a legislation is, applying the standards of Art. 6 TEU, a blatant violation of the guaranty of human rights, the rule of law and the obligation of the State to protect all individuals on its territory against violence.
48) As far as it could be established there were no other laws in European states which were under German occupation which resemble the Law of 1946. The French legislation 46/729 of 16 April 1946 provided for an amnesty concerning all those criminal acts which had the aim of liberating France.[39] This may be interpreted in a similar manner as the Law No. 115. However, the formal exclusion from criminal sanctions of acts which represented just reprisals for actions of the occupation forces and their accomplices seems to be unique.
49) It is not generally known that Law No. 115 of 8 May 1946 was apparently influenced by a Decree of Hitler of 7 June 1939, which exempted all those from criminal responsibility who had committed crimes in the battle for preservation of the German element in the Sudeten German territories or for the coming home of these territories into the empire before 1st December 1938.[40] Czech authors explain that Law No. 115 was in fact drafted after the model of the German Decree of 7 June 1939. They also indicate that Law No. 115 was not applied in practice in cases where only personal motives existed, as for instance for robberies. This was apparently confirmed by decisions of the Supreme Court of Czechoslovakia in 1947 and 1949.[41] It is also stated by at least two authors that the Law would not apply to crimes against humanity.[42] But apparently no charges have been brought.
The raw brutality with which the Germans had treated those whose countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, they had occupied now backlashed against the whole German people. During the last months of the war the Germans harvested the storm of unlimited barbarity which the Hitler regime had sowed.
The Czech side regrets that, by the forcible expulsion and forced resettlement of Sudeten Germans from the former Czechoslovakia after the war as well as by the expropriation and deprivation of citizenship, much suffering and injustice was inflicted upon innocent people, also in view of the fact that guilt was attributed collectively. It particularly regrets the excesses which were contrary to elementary humanitarian principles as well as legal norms existing at that time, and it furthermore regrets that Law No. 115 of 8 May 1946 made it possible to regard these excesses as not being illegal and that in consequence these acts were not punished.
59) In June 1993 the European Council has fixed in Copenhagen some of the standards which should be respected in the context of Articles 6 and 49 of the TEU. In that context respect for and protection of minorities is expressly mentioned.[53]
2) The limited Czech rules concerning restitution as to property confiscated under the Bene-Decrees cannot be put into question on the basis of European Union law because application for restitution is no longer possible today and European Union law applies only from the date of accession.
6) Law No. 115 of 1946 is still in force and prevents criminal proceedings against persons who have taken just reprisals for actions during the occupation. Although this has included crimes against innocent people during the forced transfer, a repeal of the law would not seem to be mandatory in the context of accession. The reason is that a repeal would violate the expectations people could have over more than 50 years. It is of legal relevance that Germany, the country most directly affected, did not insist on a repeal when the German-Czech Declaration of 1997 was negotiated. It would be appropriate that the Czech Republic confirms that it regrets specific consequences of Law No. 115, as it has done in the German-Czech Declaration of 1997.
8) The Czech accession to the European Union does not require the repeal of the Bene-Decrees or other legislation mentioned in that context. But this opinion is based on the understanding that from accession all European Union citizens have equal rights in the territory of the Czech Republic.
For the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany: Dr. Helmut Kohl, Dr. Klaus Kinkel
For the Government of the Czech Republic: Prof. Václav Klaus, Josef Zieleniec
These principles are also enshrined in the new Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, Article 21 of the Charter prescribes: Any discrimination based on any ground such as  ethnic or social origin, language, membership of a national minority, shall be prohibited.
Even if one takes into account the views expressed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Czech legislation, distinguishing as to restitution between those having shown loyalty to Czechoslovakia and therefore retaining citizenship, and others, cannot be put into question under European Union law, because the distinction is based on reasonable grounds.
The limited Czech rules concerning restitution as to property confiscated under the Benes-Decrees cannot be put into question on the basis of European Union law because application for restitution is no longer possible today and European Union law applies only from the date of accession.
It must be ensured that in absentia judgements on the basis of the specific Decrees adopted in 1945 and thereafter cannot be enforced against persons who enter the Czech Republic after accession. If necessary, legislation must be adopted in that context.
In the Czech Republic there is still in force a law of 1946 which prevents criminal proceedings to be taken against persons who have taken just reprisals for actions during the occupation. After careful consideration Professor Frowein comes to the conclusion that it would not be necessary for the EU to demand the repeal of the law as a condition for accession (conclusion nr 6).
Expulsion in the proper sense includes not only a duty to leave but also a prohibition to return. Obviously the expulsion in 1945-46 was based on the principle that the people who were forced to leave should not be permitted to return. The harsh way in which the expulsion was executed and the following transition of Czechoslovakia into a communist state situated behind the iron curtain certainly reduced the interest in returning greatly. However, under present conditions and in the light of the forthcoming accession, it is an important issue whether or not the Benes Decrees still have remaining effects, restricting the possibilities for individuals belonging to the relevant groups or their descendants to return to the Czech Republic in order to settle there, work there, purchase real property in the country or etablish business activity.
The questions put in the mandate formulated by the European Parliament do not in any way indicate that the accession negotiations could envisage any distinction among citizens of the European Union after accession. Indeed, it should be stressed that this would be a fundamental breach with European Union traditions and might even give rise to legal challenge as a discriminatory provision not in line with the general constitutional principles on which the European Union has been established.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE BENES DECREES AND THE ACCESSION OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
The Bene Decrees
There are nine decrees which have been highlighted as potential obstacles to the Czech Republics accession to the EU. These are as follows:
(a) Decree 5/1945 (19.5.45)  Invalidity of certain property-related acts effected in the period of non-freedom
(b) Decree 12/1945 (21.6.45)  Confiscation and expedited distribution of agricultural properties of Germans, Hungarians, traitors and collaborators and certain organisations and institutes
(d) Decree 108/1945 (25.10.45)  Confiscation of enemy property and the national renewal funds
(e) Decree 33/1945 (2.8.45)  Citizenship of Persons of German and Hungarian Nationality
(f) Decree 16/1945 (19.6.45)  Great Retributions Decree  Punishment of Nazi criminals and their accomplices and concerning extraordinary peoples courts
(g) Decree 138/1945 (27.10.45)  Small Retributions Decree  Punishment of certain offences against the national honour
(h) Decree 71/1945  Forced labour for persons who had lost Czechoslovakian citizenship as a result of Decree 33/1945
(i) Act No. 115/1946 (8.5.46)  The Amnesty Act  Exclusion of criminal responsibility for acts committed as reprisals against occupation forces
The Provisional National Assembly passed this Act to approve and declare as law the presidential decrees, thus finally sanctioning the rathabitio. Article 1 of this Act provides that the Provisional National Assembly approves and declares as law the constitutional and presidential decrees issued on the basis of the Constitutional Decree on the Provisional Exercise of Legislative Power of 15 October 1940, including the said decree. All presidential decrees were to be regarded as laws from the very beginning and constitutional decrees were to be regarded as constitutional acts.[64]
With regard to the successful ratihabitio, the debate surrounding the decrees, their potential declaration null and void from the very beginning or their amendment or repeal, in effect questions the very foundations of post-war Czechoslovak legislation.[65]
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (CCCR) is the final, determinative tribunal on matters of constitutional law in the Czech Republic. Its opinion is binding on all people and authorities in Czechoslovakia. This is clearly established by Article 89 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic:
Article 89
(2) Effective rulings of the Constitutional Court shall be binding for all authorities and persons.
since the enemy occupation of the Czechoslovak territory by the armed forces of the Reich had made it impossible to assert the sovereign state power which sprang from the Constitutional Charter of the Czechoslovak Republic, introduced by Constitutional Act No. 121/1920, as well as from the whole Czechoslovak legal order, the provisional Constitutional Order of the Czechoslovak Republic, set up in Great Britain, must be looked upon as the internationally recognised legitimate constitutional authority of the Czechoslovak state. In consequence thereof and as a result of their ratification by the Provisional National Assembly by Constitutional Act No 57/1946 of 28 March 1946, all normative acts of the Provisional Constitutional Order of the Czechoslovak Republic are expressions of legal Czechoslovak (Czech) legislative power, so that as a result thereof the striving of the nations of Czechoslovakia to restore the constitutional and legal order of the Republic was achieved.[66]
Article 47 of the Treaty on European Union [YEAR] (TEU) states the criteria for accession to the EU:
1. Any European State which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) may apply to become a member of the Union. It shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by an absolute majority of its component members.
2. the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded which such admission entails shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the Applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.
membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.[67]
In its paper Making a success of enlargement [SEC (2001) 1744 to 1753], the European Commission states at page 5:
The conditions for membership, set out by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 and further detailed by subsequent European Councils, provide the benchmarks for assessing each candidates progress. These conditions remain valid today and there is no question of modifying them.[68]
DDecrees relating to property and its confiscation
any form of property transfer and transaction affecting property rights in terms of movable and immovable assets and public and private property shall be invalidated, if it was adopted after September 29, 1938, under pressure of the Nazi occupation or national, racial or political persecution[69]
The property of persons upon whom the country cannot place reliance, being within the territory of the Czech Republic will be placed under national administration in accordance with the further provisions of this edict.[70]
Decree 12/1945 related to the confiscation and accelerated allocation of agricultural property of the German and Hungarian persons and of those having committed treason and acted as enemies of the Czech and Slovak people. It provided for the expropriation, with immediate effect, and without compensation, of agricultural property, for the purposes of land reform. It concerned agricultural property, including inter alia buildings and movable goods on such property, in the ownership of all persons of German and Hungarian nationality irrespective of their citizenship status.[71]
Decree 108/1945 related to the confiscation of property of Germans, Hungarians, traitors and collaborators and persons with an unreliable attitude to the state. However, the properties of people (including Germans and Hungarians) who took an active part in the fight for the preservation of territorial integrity and liberation of the Czechoslovak Republic were not confiscated.[72]
In view of the fact that this normative act has already accomplished its purposes and for a period of more than four decades has not created any further legal relations, so that it no longer has any constitutive character, in the given situation its inconsistency with constitutional acts or international treatiescannot be reviewed today.[74]
It may be true that the expropriation of property by virtue of the Benes Decrees, if done today, would probably constitute a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the CCCR makes the following point:
it is true in principle that that which emerges from the past must, face to face with the present, pass muster in respect to values; nevertheless, this assessment of the past may not be merely the present passing judgment upon the past. In other words, the present order, which has been enlightened by subsequent events, draws upon those experiences, and looks upon and assesses a great many phenomena with the advantage of hindsight, may not sit in judgment upon the order which has prevailed in the past.[75]
A. Each Signatory Government shall, under such procedures as it may choose, hold or dispose of German enemy assets within its jurisdiction in manners designed to preclude their return to German ownership or control and shall charge against its reparation share such assets
E. The German enemy assets to be charged against reparation shares shall include assets which are in reality German enemy assets, despite the fact that the nominal owner of such assets is not a German enemy.[77]
Article II: The German side is also conscious of the fact that the National Socialist policy of violence towards the Czech people helped to prepare the ground for post-war flight, forcible expulsion and forced resettlement.[78]
Article III: The Czech side regrets that, by the forcible expulsion and forced resettlement of Sudeten Germans from the former Czechoslovakia after the war as well as by the expropriation and deprivation of citizenship, much suffering and injustice was inflicted upon innocent people, also in view of the fact that guilt was attributed collectively.[79]
In any event, Article 295 of the Treaty of the European Community (TEC)provides:
This Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.
For all the above reasons, I do not consider that the decrees relating to expropriation of property should form any obstacle to the Czech Republics accession to the EU.
The ECtHR pointed out that the right of access to the courts secured by Article 6(1) is not absolute but subject to limitations. To be compatible with Article 6(1), a limitation must pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate. The ECtHR found that, in the circumstances of World War II and Germanys resulting particular status under public international law, the limitation on access to a German court, as a result of the Settlement Convention, had a legitimate objective. Thus, the ECtHR accepted the finding of the German courts that they had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and found that this was not in breach of the Article 6(1) of the ECHR.
66.  The genuine forum for the settlement of disputes in respect of these expropriation measures was, in the past, the courts of former Czechoslovakia and, subsequently, the courts of the Czech or of the Slovak Republic. Indeed, in 1951 the applicants father had availed himself of the opportunity of challenging the expropriation in question before the Bratislava Administrative Court.[80]
The ECtHR also dismissed the applicants argument that his property rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol had been violated, the ECtHR stated:
83. the hope of recognition of the survival of an old property right which it has long been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered as a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see the recapitulation of the relevant principles in theMalhous decision)[81]
85. the Court observes that the expropriation had been carried out by authorities of former Czechoslovakia in 1946, as confirmed by the Bratislava Administrative Court in 1951, that is before 3 September 1953, the entry into force of the Convention, and before 18 May 1954, the entry into force of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the Court is not competent ratione temporis to examine the circumstances of the expropriation or the continuing effects produced by it up to the present date (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec), no. 33071/96, 13 December 2000, ECHR 2000-XII and e.g. Mayer & Others v Germany (application no.s 18890/91, 19048/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92, Commission decision of 4 March 1996, Decisions and Reports 85, pp 5-20).
Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate the case of De Fours Walderode v The Czech Republic. In any event, I do not think that it is directly relevant as it determines whether or not restitution measures are compatible with the CFRF. As the CFRF is not incorporated into EU law and as the Prince of Liechtenstein v Germany has ruled that the expropriation measures were not in breach of the ECHR, I do not consider that the decision in De Fours Walderode will be of direct relevance to the Czech Republics accession to the EU.
Czechoslovak citizens having German or Hungarian nationality who have acquired German or Hungarian nationality under the regulations of a foreign occupying power, have lost their Czechoslovak citizenship with effect from the date of acquisition of such citizenship.[82]
However, citizenship would be retained by persons who had demonstrated their loyalty to the Czechoslovak Republic, had never committed any offence against the Czech and Slovak nations, and who had either actively participated in the struggle for the liberation of the country, or had suffered under Nazi or fascist terror.[83] Citizenship was also retained by Germans and Hungarians who in the period of increased threat to the Republic officially registered as Czech or Slovaks.[84] A further category provided for people who could apply to recovery of citizenship within 6 months from the date of the publication of the relevant Interior Ministry regulation. This group included German opponents of Nazism and Fascism.[85] Applications for recovery of Czechoslovak citizenship were to be filed with the district National Committee between 10 August 1945 and 10 February 1946.[86]
Article 12
(2) Nobody may be deprived of the state citizenship against his will.
1. Citizenship of he Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.
It is therefore for each individual Member State to decide who is eligible for national citizenship and how such citizenship is to be obtained. In my view, the decree on citizenship is irrelevant in the context of the Czech Republics accession to the EU.
Any act committed between September 30, 1938 and October 28, 1945, the object of which was to aid the struggle for liberty of the Czechs and Slovaks or which represented just reprisals for actions of the occupation forces and their accomplices, is not illegal, even when such acts may otherwise be punishable by law.[88]
This Act clearly still has legal effects today as it prevents the investigation or trial of certain criminal acts, many of which may also have been inhumane. Whilst this may be justifiable and reasonable where such acts were done in the struggle for liberty from occupation, I do not think this can be justified or reasonable where such acts were reprisals. The word just in this context seems to me to be arbitrary and contrary to principles of legal certainty. However, the repeal of a law that has exonerated people from criminal consequences for over 50 years with the result that these people may now be prosecuted could also be criticised as being contrary to principles of legitimate expectation and legal certainty.
Act No. 115/1945 is viewed as one of the key problems in the context of Czechoslovakian post-war legislation impeding or preventing the Czech Republics accession to the EU. The key proponent of this view is Professor Christian Tomuschat, a former member of the United Nations Committee under the Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, but as his writing is in German, I am unable to comment on it first hand. Professor Tomuschat proposes that this Act would have to be repealed by the Czech Republic.[89] He points out that in Germany, people do stand trial for war crimes which they committed during World War II, even if they are not discovered until many years later.[90] Professor Frowein draws attention to the difference between Germany, where there was never any question that the Germans would have to take responsibility for the crimes committed during the war and where no legitimate expectation that they would be precluded from responsibility could have arisen, and the Czech Republic.
The Czech government makes the point that, as a matter of fact, many perpetrators of post-war crimes against persons belonging to the German minority were convicted, although not all offenders were tried and punished and not all sentences may seem adequate today.[91] Further, many administrative decisions and general legal standards were amended in the following period by subsequent legislation as well as through administrative and judicial proceedings in which bodies such as the Supreme Administrative Court often had the last word. Guidelines instructing the Czechoslovakian population to respect those German citizens who remained loyal to the Republic, took an active part in the fight for the liberation of the Republic or suffered under the Nazi and Fascist terror were adopted by the Government as early as 15 June 1945.[92]
III. The Czech sideparticularly regrets the excesses which were contrary to elementary humanitarian principles as well as legal norms existing at that time, and it furthermore regrets the excesses which were contrary to elementary humanitarian principles as well as legal norms existing at that time, and it furthermore regrets that Law No. 115 of 8 May 1946 made it possible to regard these excesses as not being illegal and that in consequence these acts were not punished.
This declaration indicates acceptance by Germany of the effects of Act 115/1945 and strongly implies that a repeal is not considered necessary by Germany
Sentences imposed under Great Retributions Decree No. 16/1945 are not enforceable today, for legal and factual reasons. The Decree itself was repealed and cannot conflict with the acquis communautaire.[94]
The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (CFRF) is incorporated into the Constitution of the Czech Republic by virtue of Constitutional Act of 9 January 1991 and by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution which provides:
The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms shall form part of the Czech Republics constitutional order.
The question whether an act is punishable or not shall be considered and penalties shall be imposed in accordance with the law in force at the time when the act was committed. A subsequent law shall be applied if it is more favourable for the offender.
Article 62
g) forgive and mitigate sentences imposed by courts, order that criminal proceedings should not be instituted, or if they have been instituted, that they should be discontinued, and allow judicial sentences to be deleted from personal records
1.1.1. Article 87
b) about the annulment of laws or of their individual provisions, if they are in contradiction with a constitutional law or with an international treaty according to article 10
17. Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of the precedence of Community law, the relationship between provisions of the Treaty and directly applicable measures of the institutions on the one hand and the national law of the Member States on the other is such that those provisions and measures not only by their entry into force render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of current national law
21. It follows from the foregoing that every national court must, in a case within its jurisdiction, apply Community law in its entirety and protect rights which the latter confers on individuals and must accordingly set aside any provision of national law which may conflict with it, whether prior or subsequent to the Community rule.
The ratified and promulgated international treaties on human rights and fundamental freedoms, by which the Czech Republic is bound, shall be directly binding regulations having priority before the law.
In the case of Prince of Liechtenstein v Germany, the German courts cited Chapter 6, Article 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation of 23 October 1954 (the Settlement Convention). Chapter 6, Article 3 provides as follows:
1. The Federal Republic of Germany shall in the future raise no objections against the measures which have been, or will be, carried out with regard to German external assets or other property, seized for the purpose of reparation or restitution, or as a result of the state of war, or on the basis of agreements concluded, or to be concluded, by the Three Powers with other Allied countries, neutral countries or former allies of Germany.
3. No claim or action shall be admissible against persons who shall have acquired or transferred title to property on the basis of the measures referred to in paragraph 1of this Article, or against international organisations, foreign governments or persons who have acted upon instructions of such governments.[96]
In my view, Germanys agreement to these terms estops it from raising issues related to the Benes Decrees on expropriation.
IV Both sides agree that injustice inflicted in the past belongs in the past, and will therefore orient their relations towards the future. Precisely because they remain conscious of the tragic chapters of their history, they are determined to continue to give priority to understanding and mutual agreement in the development of their relations, while each side remains committed to its legal position and respects the fact that the other side has a different legal position. Both sides therefore declare that they will not burden their relations with political and legal issues which stem from the past.[97]
The rights and obligations arising from agreements concluded before 1 January 1958 or, for acceding States, before the date of their accession, between one or more Member States on the one hand and one or more third countries on the other, shall not be affected by the provisions of this Treaty.
In applying the agreements referred to in the first paragraph , Member States shall take into account the fact that the advantages accorded under this Treaty by each Member State form an integral part of the establishment of the Community and are thereby inseparably linked with the creation of common institutions, the conferring of powers upon them and the granting of the same advantages by all the other Member States.
The Decrees relating to the expropriation of property and to citizenship are no longer capable of creating new legal relations. Their effect has been established and property rights have been based on these Decrees for over 50 years. A legitimate expectation has arisen that these Decrees are good law and rights to property which would now be protected by the ECHR have been established. In any event, they are irrelevant in the context of the Czech Republics accession to the EU.
The Decree relating to forced labour has no legal effect today and so should not affect the Czech Republics accession to the EU.
[1] Documents: Legal Service of the European Parliament, Legal Opinion on the legal effect and on certain legal implications of the so-called Bene-Decrees, Brussels, 24 April 2002, SJ-0071/02; Legal Service of the European Commission, The so-called Bene-Decrees and their relevance under Community Law, informal copy of the analysis by the Legal Service of the European Commission on the Bene-Decrees, confidential and restricted, no document number.
[2] The preamble reads in part: [.] Resolved to substitute for age old rivalries the merging of their essential interests; to create, by establishing an economic community, the basis for a broader and deeper community among peoples long divided by bloody conflicts; and to lay the foundations for institutions which will give direction to a destiny henceforward shared, have decided to create a European Coal and Steel Community [.]
[3] European Parliament resolution on the Czech Republics application for membership of the European Union and the state of negotiations (Official Journal C 72 E of 21 March 2002).
[4] According to my information a total of 143 decrees were adopted, 98 of which after the return of President Bene at the end of World War II. Cf. Legal Service of the European Parliament, ibid., para. 16; H. Slapnicka, Osteuropa Recht 1999, p. 512. For an unofficial translation of some of the most important Bene-Decrees into German, see http://www.mitteleuropa.de/benesch-d01.htm.
[6] Translation in: Legal Service of the European Parliament, ibid., para. 60. Sometimes just retribution is used for just reprisals.
[8] Czech Constitutional Court ruling of 8 March 1995 - Dreithaler (Pl. ÚS 14/94, Sb. n. u. ÚS 3 (1995  Vol. I), 73 et seq.); for the German translation, see G. Brunner/M. Hofmann/P. Holländer, Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in der Tschechischen Republik, 2001, p. 151 et seq.
[9] This issue could not be discussed limited to the actions by Czechoslovakia but it would be necessary to address the decisions taken by the allied powers at the Potsdam Conference in 1945. According to the Protocol of that Conference: The transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. It was added that transfers should be effected in an orderly and humane manner. It is common knowledge that this condition was widely disregarded before and after the Potsdam Conference. By this decision of the allied powers confiscation of the property remaining in the countries from where the people were transferred was apparently accepted as a consequence. A recent Czech publication includes statements by the ambassadors of Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom in Prague confirming the Potsdam decisions. They show that any discussion of the transfer of the German population from the territory of Czechoslovakia and the confiscation of the property remaining there would involve the powers having participated in the decision at Potsdam. The Czech publication is: Právní aspekty odsunu sudetských Nemcu, 1996, p. 103. For a discussion of the Potsdam Conference see J. A. Frowein, Potsdam Agreements on Germany, Encyclopedia of Public International Law (ed. R. Bernhardt), Vol. III, 1997, p. 1087-1092. For a critical discussion of the transfer in particular, C. Tomuschat, Die Vertreibung der Sudetendeutschen  Zur Frage des Bestehens von Rechtsansprüchen nach Völkerrecht und deutschem Recht, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 56 (1996), p. 1-69. It must also be kept in mind, in the present context, that Germany had started to forcibly transfer populations. This was not limited to Jews but concerned Poles and others. Cf. G. Aly, Endlösung, 1998.
[13] Legal Service of the European Parliament, ibid., para. 165 et seq., p. 24 s. The opinion of the Parliament refers to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 12 July 2001 in the case Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein. However, in this judgment the Court does not deal with the issue of confiscation in the present context. (See p. 10).
[16] Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfGE 84, 90, 122-128; 94, 12.[17] ECHR, Judgment of 12 July 2001, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany, Application No. 42527/98.
[20] This is probably the view behind the formulation in the Opinion of the Legal Service of the European Parliament: Doubts exist as to whether these laws would still create new rights and obligations after accession. Conclusions, par. 171b, p. 26. Restitution legislation the time limit of which has expired before accession, cannot create new rights or obligations after accession.
[21] Art. 26 reads: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
[22] UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 516/1992, Simunek et al. v. The Czech Republic, final views, 19 July 1995, UN Report of the HRC, Vol. II, GA Official Records, 50th Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/50/40); Communication No. 586/1994, Adam v. The Czech Republic, final views, 23 July 1996, UN Report of the HRC, Vol. II, GA Official Records, 51st Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/51/40); Communication No. 857/1999, Blazek et al. v. The Czech Republic, final views, 12 July 2001, UN Report of the HRC, Vol. II, GA Official Records, 56th Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/56/40). It should be underlined that the mandate for this legal opinion is limited to the restitutions as related to confiscations under the Bene-Decrees.
[29] Art II par. 2 stated: The present Treaty shall not affect the nationality of living or deceased persons ensuing from the legal system of either of the two Contracting Parties.
[30] The opinion of a Czech lawyer comes to the following conclusion: Sentences imposed under Great Retributions Decree No. 16/1945 are not enforceable today, for legal and factual reasons. The Decree itself was repealed and cannot conflict with the acquis communautaire.
[33] The legal opinion of the Parliament comes to the conclusion that it would be useful to verify whether the right of enforcement is precluded by prescriptions under the provisions of the Czech Penal Code in force, (par. 171k, p. 27). This must be seen as a condition for accession.
[39] The text is as follows: Art. 6.  Pendant un délai de six mois à compter de la promulgation de la présente loi pourront demander à être admises, par décret, au bénéfice de lamnistie, les personnes poursuivies ou condamnées pour toutes infractions pénales, quelle quen soit la juridiction appelée à en connaître, civile ou militaire, commises antérieurement au 8 mai 1945 pour lensemble du territoire, ou à la date du 18 août 1945 pour les départements du Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin et Moselle, à condition que les actes reprochés aient été accomplis avec lesprit de servir la cause de la libération définitive de la France.
[40] Reichsgesetzblatt 1939 I, 1023. The German text is: Darüber hinaus gewähre ich für Straftaten und Verwaltungsübertretungen, die im Kampfe für die Erhaltung des Deutschtums in den sudetendeutschen Gebieten oder für ihre Heimkehr ins Reich vor dem 1. Dezember 1938 begangen wurden, Straffreiheit mit folgender Maßgabe: Straftaten, die beim Inkrafttreten dieses Erlasses rechtskräftig erkannt und noch nicht vollstreckt sind, werden ohne Rücksicht auf ihre Höhe erlassen. Anhängige Verfahren werden eingestellt, neue Verfahren werden nicht eingeleitet.
[42] J. Hon/J. itler, Law no. 115/46, dated 8 May 1946, its genesis and implementation and criticism. According to the text communicated to me the manuscript was published in 1996 and edited in 2002. The authors explain in detail the discussions around Law 115 including the criticism expressed at the time by Czechoslovak politicians and other citizens. They describe several cases where the Law was not applied to acts called Gestapoism.
[46] J. Hon/J. itler, as note 42.
[51] The German side acknowledges Germany's responsibility for its role in a historical development which led to the 1938 Munich Agreement, the flight and forcible expulsion of people from the Czech border area and the forcible breakup and occupation of the Czechoslovak Republic. It regrets the suffering and injustice inflicted upon the Czech people through National Socialist crimes committed by Germans. The German side pays tribute to the victims of National Socialist tyranny and to those who resisted it. The German side is also conscious of the fact that the National Socialist policy of violence towards the Czech people helped to prepare the ground for post-war flight, forcible expulsion and forced resettlement.
[53] Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union. (Copenhagen European Council, 21-22 June 1993, Presidency Conclusions).
[56] Vertrag zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Tschechischen und Slowakischen Föderativen Republik über gute Nachbarschaft und freundschaftliche Zusammenarbeit, Bundesgesetzblatt 1992 II, 463. For the unofficial English-language translation see de Varennes, Language, Minorities and Human Rights, 1996, p. 368. Art. 20 reads in part: [.] (2) Accordingly, members of the German minority in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, which means persons having Czechoslovak citizenship, who have a German background or identify themselves with the German language, culture, or traditions, have in particular the right, individually or in association with other members of their group, to free speech, preservation and development of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious identity free from any attempts to assimilate them against their will. They have a right to exercise their human rights and basic freedoms fully and effectively without any discrimination and in complete equality under law. (3) The affiliation to the German minority in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic is a personal decision of each individual, which must not be detrimental to that person. [.].
[66] Ibid, page 3
[68] Making a success of enlargement  Strategy Paper and Report of the Eurpeam Commission on the progree towards accession by each of the candidate countries [SEC (2001) 1744 to 1753] /* COM/2001/0700 final */, page 5.

References: § 1
 Art. 1
 Art. 1
 § 3
 Art. 6
 Art. 26
 Art. 20