Laszkiewicz:
The need to complete the legislative project gained greater impetus after two groups of Polish Jews filed separate class action lawsuits in the United States seeking the return of property. While various governments since the fall of communism in 1989 have tried to resolve the restitution issue, every effort has so far failed. The current government hopes that this time around it will succeed. However, with the bill now in the hands of Parliament, a tumultuous debate is likely to pick up both in the legislature and among the populace. Already, the project's proposal to compensate former owners for up to 50% of the value of their property through privatization coupons has come under fire from Polska Unia Wlascicieli Nieruchomosci (PUWN), an association of pre-war owners of real estate. This group has called the current proposal unjust and unacceptable. As the official who was responsible for drafting this legislative project, Deputy Treasury Minister Krzysztof Laszkiewicz is soon to be in the line of fire when the debate on the bill gets underway. A member of the governing Solidarity Election Action (AWS) party, Laszkiewicz recently sat down with the WBJ's Anna Kocinska to talk about the rationale behind the restitution law and why he believes a solution to the problem must be found. The following is an edited, translated version of their conversation.
Q: Why did it take so long to complete draft legislation for the restitution law. Is it because you don't have the necessary political support for this bill?
A: It is a very difficult problem. Please, remember that there was not only nationalization in Poland and the seizure of private property after the Second World War, but in addition state borders changed completely. These two issues overlap. There is yet another fact that makes it so difficult for this government to solve for good the property issues. Due to the decision made by the former Prime Minister Waldemar Pawlak, who annulled the decree banning trade of property whose ownership status was unclear, a lot of property which could be returned now, had been already sold to third persons. This is why the state has to compensate former owners in a different way. It is just one of many problems we encountered. A few years ago it would have been a lot easier to implement the reprivatization process.
Q: How do you think the Sejm will react to that draft of the restitution bill?
A: If deputies from the left side of the political scene prefer to cherish and consider as permanent ownership relations established in communist Poland, they will certainly contest such a political, in a sense, operation. But one has to remember that today's Poland is a state of law. We signed various international agreements, for instance a declaration of human rights, of which property rights are among the most protected. You cannot create a state of law on the basis of communist Poland where law was abused.
Q: Any forecasts for possible voting on the bill?
A: You would have to ask 460 deputies about that. I cannot tell you now whether it will be a problem. Theoretically, the coalition has the majority of votes. If there are leftist deputies who openly oppose reprivatization, there are also other MPs of the left who strongly support it.
Q: Is it really possible it will succeed given the complexity of the property issue?
A: It is possible. It is a question of consensus. People who purchased property whose ownership rights were claimed by others will get a confirmation that they are real owners now and former owners will have to get compensation in the form of some other property. This is what I call consensus.
Q: Is your project a compilation of all subsequent proposals that have been submitted since the presidency of Lech Walesa?
A: In 1993, the reprivatization bill was almost ready and needed just two weeks more to become law. Unfortunately, the Parliament was dissolved earlier than that. All the other projects that have been so far submitted to the Sejm stick to the basic philosophy that says reprivatization shouldn't affect people who purchased someone else's property in good faith. Restitution should be implemented in different ways. Where it's possible, property should be returned in-kind, if not, reprivatization coupons should be provided. Such coupons will allow you to buy real estate or can be put into a special reprivatization fund. The bill encompasses real estate and movables that are directly connected with the real estate, for instance goods such as paintings, furniture taken when owners had to leave their houses. One cannot forget a group of owners, 'zabuzanie' who lived in the eastern part of Poland, which now belongs to Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarussia. They account for 50% of possible property claims. They also have the right to compensation which results from Polish and international law. Unfortunately the act of communalization of property complicated dealing with their claims in light of the current law. So, all those rules mentioned above were taken into account in projects submitted since 1993. One cannot think of anything new that can be added to that. We cannot recreate the ownership structure that existed in Poland before nationalization, and at the same time reprivatization shouldn't divide the society. I believe that our project is well balanced and will not result in conflicts between former and current owners.
Q: Do you have the support of the Finance Ministry?
A: The Finance Minister opted to lower compensation to 60% (the government has finally accepted 50%) so he must have analyzed it well before submitting such (a provision) in the bill. But there were also ministers who opted for 100% compensation. One has to remember, though, that if reprivatization is not introduced, former owners will try to settle their claims in courts and that will result in necessary budget spendings. I don't think there will be money for compensation at a time when four great reforms are being introduced. At the beginning of the transition, there was only a small group of former owners who could count on the restitution of their property. Under the current law today, I would say, only a few couldn't seek justice in court. Unfortunately, that may affect us all because court rulings result in monetary compensation to be paid from the budget. Obviously, we cannot afford it now. This is why we opted for property reprivatization. In the present situation, it's the only possible way.
Q:What are your estimates of possible property claims?
A: Credible estimates are only possible in a case where every individual claiming his rights to a property is able to start an administrative or legal procedure. By what we've seen so far, I can say that one third of those who filed their claims can count on a legal settlement. Some of them, for instance, cannot effectively prove they actually have their property rights. We were too careful at the beginning. Now we estimate possible claims at some zl. 50 billion-zl. 60 billion ($12.5 billion-$15 billion), (which is) fewer claims than we expected that would be effective.
Q: Do you expect more property claims against the government if the reprivatization law doesn't come into effect soon enough?
A: Polish law is also undergoing transformation and is in the process of being upgraded to international standards of democratic countries. So at the moment, a lot of people can try to settle their claims in court. Legal firms will help them do that and it will obviously affect the state budget. But as long as those people believe that reprivatization will be finally introduced, they won't feel obligated to use the services of legal firms, and I am not afraid of a superabundancy of claims against the government. But if they lose hope for reprivatization to be implemented by the state, they will certainly turn to their lawyers. The bill, if introduced, will give them less, but they will get a guarantee of compensation and they will get it soon.
Q: Do you think that the introduction of the bill will settle lawsuits that have been filed in New York and Chicago?
A: I think so. But first I need to know whether all the plaintiffs are or were Polish citizens. I know that one of them was a citizen of the Third Reich and his property was seized in 1937 by the Nazi government, so filing a claim against the Polish government, in this case, is problematic, to put it mildly.
Q: Aren't the claims against the government made abroad eroding Polish public support for property restitution?
A: If Poland weren't a state of law, its citizens couldn't settle their claims under the current law and it wouldn't be possible to do that at the Strasbourg Tribunal. It's a normal, acceptable legal path, that some claims are submitted to the Strasbourg Tribunal. I know about a certain number of claims accepted by the European Commission of Human Rights that are now waiting for the final ruling of the tribunal. On the other hand, I would prefer if those rulings come after we introduce the restitution law. If not, they will motivate other citizens who will doubt that Polish law can bring them a positive solution, and that will affect the image of Poland. I talk to many people who are not even interested in the bill itself, but say that if the restitution law is introduced it will make them feel safer. If one day they buy some property and then it's seized from them, they will be sure that it will be possible, sooner or later, to get it back. It's what makes public opinion surveys positive towards the idea of reprivatization. All Eastern European countries have already settled the reprivatization issue. Poland also needs to do it.
Q: How much will the reprivatization process cost?
A: If we consider reprivatization in monetary terms, we couldn't afford it. The Economy Ministry had to deal with just 170 claims and that resulted in payments that exceeded zl. 700 million ($175 million). According to our estimates, there might be some 170,000 claims in total. So obviously there is no such money in the budget. That's why we will use property to compensate former owners. There is a lot of property which hasn't been properly used by the state. The state wasn't a good owner. But, if it's given to private owners, it will become marketable and in addition the new owner will start paying taxes. So it's not a question of money.
Q: Why did it take so long to complete draft legislation for the restitution law. Is it because you don't have the necessary political support for this bill?
A: It is a very difficult problem. Please, remember that there was not only nationalization in Poland and the seizure of private property after the Second World War, but in addition state borders changed completely. These two issues overlap. There is yet another fact that makes it so difficult for this government to solve for good the property issues. Due to the decision made by the former Prime Minister Waldemar Pawlak, who annulled the decree banning trade of property whose ownership status was unclear, a lot of property which could be returned now, had been already sold to third persons. This is why the state has to compensate former owners in a different way. It is just one of many problems we encountered. A few years ago it would have been a lot easier to implement the reprivatization process.
Q: How do you think the Sejm will react to that draft of the restitution bill?
A: If deputies from the left side of the political scene prefer to cherish and consider as permanent ownership relations established in communist Poland, they will certainly contest such a political, in a sense, operation. But one has to remember that today's Poland is a state of law. We signed various international agreements, for instance a declaration of human rights, of which property rights are among the most protected. You cannot create a state of law on the basis of communist Poland where law was abused.
Q: Any forecasts for possible voting on the bill?
A: You would have to ask 460 deputies about that. I cannot tell you now whether it will be a problem. Theoretically, the coalition has the majority of votes. If there are leftist deputies who openly oppose reprivatization, there are also other MPs of the left who strongly support it.
Q: Is it really possible it will succeed given the complexity of the property issue?
A: It is possible. It is a question of consensus. People who purchased property whose ownership rights were claimed by others will get a confirmation that they are real owners now and former owners will have to get compensation in the form of some other property. This is what I call consensus.
Q: Is your project a compilation of all subsequent proposals that have been submitted since the presidency of Lech Walesa?
A: In 1993, the reprivatization bill was almost ready and needed just two weeks more to become law. Unfortunately, the Parliament was dissolved earlier than that. All the other projects that have been so far submitted to the Sejm stick to the basic philosophy that says reprivatization shouldn't affect people who purchased someone else's property in good faith. Restitution should be implemented in different ways. Where it's possible, property should be returned in-kind, if not, reprivatization coupons should be provided. Such coupons will allow you to buy real estate or can be put into a special reprivatization fund. The bill encompasses real estate and movables that are directly connected with the real estate, for instance goods such as paintings, furniture taken when owners had to leave their houses. One cannot forget a group of owners, 'zabuzanie' who lived in the eastern part of Poland, which now belongs to Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarussia. They account for 50% of possible property claims. They also have the right to compensation which results from Polish and international law. Unfortunately the act of communalization of property complicated dealing with their claims in light of the current law. So, all those rules mentioned above were taken into account in projects submitted since 1993. One cannot think of anything new that can be added to that. We cannot recreate the ownership structure that existed in Poland before nationalization, and at the same time reprivatization shouldn't divide the society. I believe that our project is well balanced and will not result in conflicts between former and current owners.
Q: Do you have the support of the Finance Ministry?
A: The Finance Minister opted to lower compensation to 60% (the government has finally accepted 50%) so he must have analyzed it well before submitting such (a provision) in the bill. But there were also ministers who opted for 100% compensation. One has to remember, though, that if reprivatization is not introduced, former owners will try to settle their claims in courts and that will result in necessary budget spendings. I don't think there will be money for compensation at a time when four great reforms are being introduced. At the beginning of the transition, there was only a small group of former owners who could count on the restitution of their property. Under the current law today, I would say, only a few couldn't seek justice in court. Unfortunately, that may affect us all because court rulings result in monetary compensation to be paid from the budget. Obviously, we cannot afford it now. This is why we opted for property reprivatization. In the present situation, it's the only possible way.
Q:What are your estimates of possible property claims?
A: Credible estimates are only possible in a case where every individual claiming his rights to a property is able to start an administrative or legal procedure. By what we've seen so far, I can say that one third of those who filed their claims can count on a legal settlement. Some of them, for instance, cannot effectively prove they actually have their property rights. We were too careful at the beginning. Now we estimate possible claims at some zl. 50 billion-zl. 60 billion ($12.5 billion-$15 billion), (which is) fewer claims than we expected that would be effective.
Q: Do you expect more property claims against the government if the reprivatization law doesn't come into effect soon enough?
A: Polish law is also undergoing transformation and is in the process of being upgraded to international standards of democratic countries. So at the moment, a lot of people can try to settle their claims in court. Legal firms will help them do that and it will obviously affect the state budget. But as long as those people believe that reprivatization will be finally introduced, they won't feel obligated to use the services of legal firms, and I am not afraid of a superabundancy of claims against the government. But if they lose hope for reprivatization to be implemented by the state, they will certainly turn to their lawyers. The bill, if introduced, will give them less, but they will get a guarantee of compensation and they will get it soon.
Q: Do you think that the introduction of the bill will settle lawsuits that have been filed in New York and Chicago?
A: I think so. But first I need to know whether all the plaintiffs are or were Polish citizens. I know that one of them was a citizen of the Third Reich and his property was seized in 1937 by the Nazi government, so filing a claim against the Polish government, in this case, is problematic, to put it mildly.
Q: Aren't the claims against the government made abroad eroding Polish public support for property restitution?
A: If Poland weren't a state of law, its citizens couldn't settle their claims under the current law and it wouldn't be possible to do that at the Strasbourg Tribunal. It's a normal, acceptable legal path, that some claims are submitted to the Strasbourg Tribunal. I know about a certain number of claims accepted by the European Commission of Human Rights that are now waiting for the final ruling of the tribunal. On the other hand, I would prefer if those rulings come after we introduce the restitution law. If not, they will motivate other citizens who will doubt that Polish law can bring them a positive solution, and that will affect the image of Poland. I talk to many people who are not even interested in the bill itself, but say that if the restitution law is introduced it will make them feel safer. If one day they buy some property and then it's seized from them, they will be sure that it will be possible, sooner or later, to get it back. It's what makes public opinion surveys positive towards the idea of reprivatization. All Eastern European countries have already settled the reprivatization issue. Poland also needs to do it.
Q: How much will the reprivatization process cost?
A: If we consider reprivatization in monetary terms, we couldn't afford it. The Economy Ministry had to deal with just 170 claims and that resulted in payments that exceeded zl. 700 million ($175 million). According to our estimates, there might be some 170,000 claims in total. So obviously there is no such money in the budget. That's why we will use property to compensate former owners. There is a lot of property which hasn't been properly used by the state. The state wasn't a good owner. But, if it's given to private owners, it will become marketable and in addition the new owner will start paying taxes. So it's not a question of money.
