Gov't criticized over lack of property restitution law
Parliamentarians came under sharp criticism last week for failing to make changes in draft property restitution legislation that would give former owners not currently living in Poland the right to seek the return of or compensation for property lost under the Nazi or communist regimes.
Under the current draft bill now sitting in the Sejm's extraordinary committee on property restitution, only Polish citizens living in the country for at least five years are eligible to make claims related to lost property against the government.
"The fact that this (change) was not made is the best proof what a terrible course the issue of reprivatization is taking," said Ignacy Stanislaw Krasicki, president of property restitution agency Reprywatyzacja, which represents about 100 pre-war owners.
This most recent controversy forms the latest chapter in the country's decade-long attempt to introduce a comprehensive law on property restitution. Unlike other Central European countries, Poland has since the fall of communism failed to pass a law on property restitution. The lack of progress on the issue has stalled development, worried some property buyers and frustrated owners who lost holdings either to the Nazis in World War II or to nationalization by the communists.
The restitution issue gained momentum last June when 11 Jews filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. courts against the Polish government, seeking the return of property. Not only did the case filed in a New York court on June 18 place the problem on the international agenda, it also spurred the government and Parliament to speed up work on draft legislation.
But as the first anniversary of the filing of the New York case approaches, property owners and legislators said last week that work on the bill is at a standstill, and the lack of progress may weaken the government's position in U.S. courts, leaving the country vulnerable to a flood of costly litigation at home and abroad.
"We are as far along as we were 10 years ago," said Jan Wyrowinski, a Freedom Union (UW) deputy who serves as vice chairman of the Sejm's extraordinary commission on reprivatization. "There have been dozens of projects in the Sejm and none of them have become law."
According to Wyrowinski, the parliamentarians working on the bill are still wrangling over basic issues central to the law such who is eligible to make claims, how much compensation should be paid out and what form that compensation should take.
Counter to the scope outlined in the government's original draft bill submitted to Parliament late last summer, the current draft bill limits eligibility for restitution to Polish citizens living in Poland for five years from the date the bill will become law. The change to the government's project was sharply criticized by property owners in Poland and by the Polish community abroad.
"This really harms Polish citizens living abroad and holocaust survivors," Krasicki said.
While the issue was not settled last week as planned, some deputies from Solidarity Election Action (AWS) and UW are still pushing to broaden the bill's scope to encompass individuals who were Polish citizens at the time the property was lost, regardless of their current citizenship and residence status.
"The commission will probably decide to go back to the original (version) proposed by the government, which didn't awaken such emotions outside of Poland," Wyrowinski said.
The amount of compensation available to former owners is also up in the air. When possible, former owners will get their property back in-kind, according to the bill. If the property has already been sold or is in private hands, under the current bill former owners will receive coupons worth up to 50% of the estimated value of their assets. Those coupons can then be sold outright to third parties or redeemed in the purchase of land or real estate owned by the state treasury.
But if the scope of the final version of the bill is broadened to encompass Poles living abroad, the amount of compensation former owners will get could fall to as low as 30%, Wyrowinski said. "If the circle of individuals who have the right to make reprivatization claims is broadened, the size of compensation will probably also go down to 40% or less."
In the case of property owners living in Poland, the treasury has estimated the value of property seized to be roughly zl. 95 billion ($21.6 billion). However, if eligibility is broadened, some estimates of the value of the property reach as high as zl. 200 billion ($45 billion), Wyrowinski said.
Regardless of the final shape the restitution bill will take, the absence of a law in Poland has meant that many former property owners are seeking a remedy in courts abroad. To date, 36 Poles have joined the action suit in New York, said Miroslaw Szypowski, president of the Polish Union of Former Property Owners (PUWN).
And that number is growing. According to Mel Urbach, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in New York, he receives hundreds of inquiries every month and "a number" of those people join the case. According to Krasicki of Reprywatyzacja, about 30 of his clients are looking into joining the class action case in New York. "A certain desperation is leading people to join the suit in New York," he said. "People are convinced that no political party wants reprivatization in Poland."
The failure to pass a restitution law also heightens the chances for plaintiffs in the New York case. Later this summer, a federal judge in Brooklyn is due to rule whether or not the case can be heard in a U.S. court. In a similar case last year, a Chicago judge ruled that the Polish government is protected by sovereign immunity and cannot be sued in a foreign court. The continued absence of a restitution law in Poland could mean that the federal judge in New York might ultimately decide to grant jurisdiction.
"We fear the judge will be inclined to accept the case," said Witold Danilowicz, executive partner at law firm White and Case, which represents the Polish government.
Because plaintiffs don't have any way of seeking compensation in Poland, the judge might be inclined to give them a chance to seek justice in the United States, Danilowicz said.
"There is also a human element in all of this," he said. "We're not saying that the judge will rule against us because there is no reprivatization law in Poland, but judges are different and (the Brooklyn judge) might decide to look at the bigger picture."
