Analiza osnovnih elemenata opšteg zakonskog rešenja restitucije u Srbiji iz perspektive prakse Evropskog suda za ljudska prava

Abstract

Krug lica kojima se zakonom priznaje status korisnika restitucije, kategorije prava koja se restituišu, kao i postojanje i visina naknade dugovane u vezi s tim postupkom, osnovni su izvori sporova pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava u oblasti restitucije. Praksa Suda u toj oblasti državama dozvoljava veoma široko polje slobodne procene u pogledu sva tri najspornija pitanja. U Srbiji je upravo donet opšti zakon o denacionalizaciji, nakon niza parcijalnih propisa u prethodne dve decenije. Analizom usvojenog rešenja na osnovu odgovarajuće prakse Suda ispitane su tvrdnje koje su se bile pojavile u stručnoj i političkoj javnosti o ograničavajućem dejstvu zakona o vraćanju crkvene i imovine verskih zajednica na rešenja u opštem aktu. Takođe, ukazuje se na mogućnost da bi praksa Suda u pogledu instituta 'legitimnog očekivanja', primenjena na Srbiju, upravo zahtevala naturalnu restituciju u onim slučajevima u kojima je moguća. Pružen je osnov za tvrdnju da bi različiti pravni režimi restitucije u odnosu na različite kategorije korisnika mogli opstati pred Sudom pod uslovom da je razlikovanje zasnovano na zakonu, da ima opravdanu svrhu i da predstavlja odgovarajuće sredstvo za postizanje te svrhe. Najzad, analiza prakse Suda ukazuje da bi rešenje koje predviđa naturalnu restituciju, praćenu naknadom nižom od tržišne vrednosti oduzetog u slučajevima kada naturalna restitucija nije moguća, takođe opstalo pred Sudom.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has established a practice whereby states are afforded a wide margin of appreciation in the area of restitution, since this process concerns property rights and transpires along wide-ranging socio-economic changes. A general statute on restitution, providing for primacy of restitution in kind over compensation, was adopted in Serbia in September 2011. Given the substantial number of statutes providing for partial in-kind restitution that were enacted in the past two decades, as well as given the fact that at least three laws that have remained in force have expressly promised enactment of such a law, the ECtHR would have deemed citizens of Serbia as already possessing a legitimate expectation of in-kind restitution, which made the adopted solution inevitable. Another issue is the interplay between the presently valid law on restitution of church and religious property, of 2006, and the new statute, for the two differ in terms of the mechanism for determining amount of compensation owed to respective beneficiaries in cases when restitution in kind is not possible. Analysis of ECtHR case-law suggests that a state may differentiate between various categories of beneficiaries in respect of terms of restitution provided that the aim of differentiation is legitimate and that the differentiation constitutes adequate means for achievement of such aim. A question arose whether the statute providing for in-kind restitution in all cases in which it is possible, and affording compensation in an amount smaller than full market value in all cases in which in-kind restitution is objectively impossible, will survive scrutiny of the ECtHR. Analysis of several exemplary judgments hints at probability that such a provision will be upheld, since the persons condemned to below-market value compensation would succeed neither in proving that they were afforded a legitimate expectation to receive full marketvalue of their properties by such a legislative act, nor that they possessed appropriate right protected by the Convention at the time of enactment of the subject statute.