Примеры использования Restitution of their property на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
It stated that the Catholic andArmenian churches had not claimed restitution of their property in a court of law.
She requested restitution of their property from Mr. and Mrs. Ch. under the provisions of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act No. 87/1991.
With regard to the Catholic and Armenian churches,that they had not claimed restitution of their property in a court of law.
Died, and the son of the couple contacted another lawyer enquiring about restitution of their property. On 20 May 2003, he received a letter explaining that they had no options to get their property back as the restitution laws did not apply to Czechs who had lost their citizenship.
He suggested that the words“where appropriate” should be followed by the words“if the restitution of their property is not any more possible”.
Finally, the author was informed that Act No. 87/1991, article 3, provided that citizens of the Czech andSlovak Federal Republic who had permanent residency in the country were entitled to the restitution of their property.
It argues that the authors were themselves responsible for the failure to obtain restitution of their property, as they failed to apply for citizenship within the deadline.
The Committee recalls its Views in the cases of Adam, Blazek, Marik, Kriz, Gratzinger and Ondracka where it held that article26 had been violated, and that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to meet the condition of Czech citizenship for the restitution of their property or alternatively for its compensation.
The report stated that the return of displaced Roma to their homes and the restitution of their property were crucial to their enjoyment of fundamental rights.
The Committee further recalls its Views in the cases of Simunek, Adam, Blazek, Des Fours Walderode and Gratzinger, where it held that article 26 of the Covenant had been violated andthat it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to meet the condition of Czech citizenship for the restitution of their property or alternatively for its compensation.
It argues that the authors themselves were responsible for the failure to obtain restitution of their property, as they failed to apply for citizenship within the deadline see paragraph 3.1.
In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy,including prompt restitution of their property or compensation therefore.
On 27 May 1992, the authors applied to the Bucharest district court,seeking to quash Resolution 1434 and to order restitution of their property. On 8 July 1992 the court rejected their application and on 17 November 1992 their appeal was rejected by the Bucharest city court.
In case No. 1158/2003(Blaga v. Romania), involving a violation of article 26, the State party was under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy,including prompt restitution of their property or compensation therefore.
Even if the authors had satisfied the citizenship condition, it is not clear whether they would have been successful in obtaining restitution of their property, given that the District Court rejected their claims on the ground that they were not entitled persons under the restitution laws.
The Committee further recalls its Views in the cases, inter alia, of Simunek, Adam, Blazek, Des Fours and Gratzinger, where it held that article 26 of the Covenant had been violated andthat it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to meet the condition of Czech citizenship for the restitution of their property or alternatively for its compensation.
Moreover, the Committee recommends that the State party ensure that persons affected by forced evictions have access to an adequate remedy, restitution of their property and compensation, as appropriate, taking into account the Committee's general comment No. 7(1997) on the right to adequate housing: forced evictions.
The Committee recalls its Views in the cases of Simunek, Adam, Blazek, Marik, Kriz, Gratzinger and Ondracka where it held that article26 had been violated, and that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to obtain Czech citizenship as a prerequisite for the restitution of their property or, alternatively, for the payment of appropriate compensation.
Due to the fact that all legal predecessors of the authors had lost their citizenship,they could not apply for restitution of their property under Law No 87/1991 of 21 January 1991 on extrajudicial rehabilitation or under Law No. 229/1991 of 21 May 1991 on the return of agricultural property. .
Taking into account that the State party itself is responsible for the departure of the author's parents in 1949, it would be incompatible with theCovenant to require the author and his brothers to obtain Czech citizenship as a prerequisite for the restitution of their property or, alternatively, for the payment of appropriate compensation.
The authors allege that they are victims of discrimination, andargue that the requirement of citizenship for restitution of their property under Act No. 87/1991 is in violation of article 26 of the Covenant.
Taking into account that the State party itself was responsible for the departure of the authors from the former Czechoslovakia in seeking refuge in another country, where they had eventually established permanent residence and obtained that country's citizenship,the Committee considered that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to meet the condition of Czech citizenship for the restitution of their property or alternatively for its compensation.
The authors claim that they are victims of discrimination, andargue that the requirement of citizenship for restitution of their property under Act No. 87/1991 is in violation of article 26 of the Covenant.
Taking into account that the State party itself is responsible for the departure of the author from the former Czechoslovakia to another country, where he eventually established permanent residence and obtained that country's citizenship,the Committee considers that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to meet the condition of Czech citizenship for the restitution of their property or alternatively for its compensation.
With regard to work and housing for example,the law"on forced migrants" stipulates a right for the displaced to restitution of their property and to regain work equivalent to the previous one held.
Taking into account that the State party itself is responsible for the departure of the authors from the former Czechoslovakia in seeking refuge in another country, where they eventually established permanent residence and obtained that country's citizenship,the Committee considers that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to meet the condition of Czech citizenship for the restitution of their property or alternatively for its compensation.
Taking into account that the State party itselfis responsible for[their]… departure, it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require[them]… to obtain Czech citizenship as a prerequisite for the restitution of their property, or, alternatively, for the payment of compensation" CCPR/C/57/D/586/1994, para. 12.6.
The Committee recalls its Views in the cases of Simunek, Adam, Blazek, Marik, Kriz, Gratzinger and Zdenek and Ondracka where it held that article26 had been violated, and that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to obtain Czech citizenship as a prerequisite for the restitution of their property or, alternatively, for the payment of appropriate compensation.
It recommends that the State party take steps to prevent arbitrary interpretations of article 49 of the Constitution, andto ensure that persons affected by such confiscations have access to an adequate remedy, restitution of their property, and compensation, as appropriate, including in line with the Committee's general comment No. 7(1997) on forced evictions.
Also, the Yugoslav side must note that the Republic of Croatia slowly and inadequately fulfils its obligations assumed under the Basic Agreement on the Region of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium(the Erdut Agreement) and the letter of intention concerning the unimpeded and free return of expelled and displaced Serbs, protection of human rights andsecurity of all Serbs living in the area, restitution of their property and compensation for seized, destroyed or damaged property. .