Searching for Justice After the

Holocaust: Fulfilling the Terezin

Declaration and Immovable Property
Restitution Michael J. Bazyler
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/searching-for-justice-after-the-holocaust-fulfilling-the-t
erezin-declaration-and-immovable-property-restitution-michael-j-bazyler/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ and the Holocaust: A Prelude to

Genocide John J. Michalczyk

https://ebookmass.com/product/hitlers-mein-kampf-and-the-
holocaust-a-prelude-to-genocide-john-j-michalczyk/

British Fascism After the Holocaust: From the Birth of

Denial to the Notting Hill Riots 1939–1958 Joe Mulhall

https://ebookmass.com/product/british-fascism-after-the-
holocaust-from-the-birth-of-denial-to-the-notting-hill-
riots-1939-1958-joe-mulhall/

China in Global Governance of Intellectual Property:

Implications for Global Distributive Justice Wenting
Cheng

https://ebookmass.com/product/china-in-global-governance-of-
intellectual-property-implications-for-global-distributive-
justice-wenting-cheng/

Advancing International Human Rights Law

Responsibilities of Development NGOs: Respecting and
Fulfilling the Right to Reparative Justice for Genocide
Survivors in Rwanda 1st Edition Noam Schimmel
https://ebookmass.com/product/advancing-international-human-
rights-law-responsibilities-of-development-ngos-respecting-and-
fulfilling-the-right-to-reparative-justice-for-genocide-
Introduction to Paleobiology and the Fossil Record
Michael J. Benton

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-paleobiology-and-
the-fossil-record-michael-j-benton/

Still Searching for Satoshi: Unveiling the Blockchain

Revolution 1st Edition Anders Lisdorf

https://ebookmass.com/product/still-searching-for-satoshi-
unveiling-the-blockchain-revolution-1st-edition-anders-lisdorf-2/

Still Searching for Satoshi: Unveiling the Blockchain

Revolution 1st Edition Anders Lisdorf

https://ebookmass.com/product/still-searching-for-satoshi-
unveiling-the-blockchain-revolution-1st-edition-anders-lisdorf/

Empathetic Memorials: The Other Designs for the Berlin

Holocaust Memorial Mark Callaghan

https://ebookmass.com/product/empathetic-memorials-the-other-
designs-for-the-berlin-holocaust-memorial-mark-callaghan/

The Rational software Engineer: Strategies for a

Fulfilling Career in Tech 1st Edition Mykyta Chernenko

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-rational-software-engineer-
strategies-for-a-fulfilling-career-in-tech-1st-edition-mykyta-
chernenko/
i

SEARCHING FOR JUSTICE

AFTER THE HOLOCAUST
ii
iii

SEARCHING
FOR JUSTICE
AFTER THE
HOLOCAUST
Fulfilling the Terezin Declaration
and Immovable Property Restitution

Michael J. Bazyler
Kathryn Lee Boyd
Kristen L. Nelson
Rajika L. Shah

1
Searching for Justice after the Holocaust. European Shoah Legacy Institute.
© European Shoah Legacy Institute 2019. Published 2019 by Oxford University Press.
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of
excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© European Shoah Legacy Institute 2019

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in
any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly
permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization.
Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Names: Bazyler, Michael J., author. | Boyd, Kathryn Lee, author. | Nelson, Kristen (Lawyer), author. |
Shah, Rajika, author.
Title: Searching for Justice after the Holocaust : fulfilling the Terezin declaration and
immovable property restitution / Michael Bazyler, Kathryn Lee Boyd, Kristen Nelson, Rajika Shah.
Description: New York : Oxford University Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018019063 | ISBN 9780190923068 ((hardback) : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues (2009 June 30) | World
War, 1939–1945—Claims. | Jewish property. | Holocaust, Jewish (1939–1945)—Economic aspects.
Classification: LCC KZ193.2 2009 .F85 2018 | DDC 940.53/18144—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018019063

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2

Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America

Note to Readers
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to
the subject matter covered. It is based upon sources believed to be accurate and reliable and
is intended to be current as of the time it was written. It is sold with the understanding that
the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.
If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional
person should be sought. Also, to confirm that the information has not been affected or
changed by recent developments, traditional legal research techniques should be used,
including checking primary sources where appropriate.

(Based on the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the

American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations.)

You may order this or any other Oxford University Press publication
by visiting the Oxford University Press website at www.oup.com.
v

In memory of victims of mass murder and mass theft, which take place during
every genocide and other mass atrocity

and

To Halyna Senyk, former Executive Director of the European Shoah Legacy Institute, whose
vision led to the Holocaust (Shoah) Immovable Property Restitution Study and this book
vi
vii

Contents

Foreword xi
Acknowledgments xiii
Table of Cases xv
Table of Legislation xix
Introduction xxxiii

1. Albania 1
2. Argentina 7
3. Australia 9
4. Austria 11
5. Belarus 29
6. Belgium 35
7. Bosnia-​Herzegovina 45
8. Brazil 59
9. Bulgaria 61
10. Canada 79
11. Croatia 81
12. Cyprus 99
13. Czech Republic 103
viii

viii Contents

14. Denmark 117

15. Estonia 123
16. Finland 133
17. France 137
18. Germany 151
19. Greece 171
20. Hungary 179
21. Ireland 193
22. Israel 195
23. Italy 201
24. Latvia 213
25. Lithuania 225
26. Luxembourg 241
27. Macedonia 249
28. Malta 265
29. Moldova 267
30. Montenegro 273
31. Netherlands 291
32. Norway 303
33. Poland 311
34. Portugal 357
35. Romania 359
36. Russia 379
37. Serbia 385
38. Slovakia 401
39. Slovenia 415
40. Spain 431
41. Sweden 435
42. Switzerland 441
ix

Contents ix

43. Turkey 447

44. Ukraine 449
45. United Kingdom 455
46. United States 463
47. Uruguay 479
Conclusion 481

Index 497
x
xi

Foreword

HOW TO DO JUSTICE TO JUSTICE?

There is a general assumption that people at their core are good, given ordinary circumstances. In
the early part of the twentieth century during the two world wars, circumstances were, however,
quite extraordinary, in fact extraordinarily horrible for some. Since the end of the Second World
War, our modern civilization has been grappling with the reality of the Holocaust’s blunt trau-
matic blow to our assumptions of humanity’s goodness. Through many attempts, the postwar
democracies consoled their hurt consciences by restoring a modicum of justice. Yet the results
were unsatisfying and inadequate. There remains much unfinished business in the aftermath of
the Holocaust. However, it is not right to be dispirited. On the contrary, this unfinished business
spurs and encourages our collective imagination to persevere and hope that we, as people, still
can be in principle good—​without forgetting anything or forgiving everything. Moreover, we re-
alize our human efforts can only approximate a Platonic justice. There is not, and should not be,
any silver bullet, magic formula, or quick fix for full restoration of post-​Holocaust losses. Within
this post-​modern realization of our imperfect collective “goodness,” we strive.
From this vantage point, the Czech Republic in 2009, while holding the Presidency
of the Council of the European Union, convened the International Holocaust Era Assets
Conference in Prague. This conference led to the adoption of the Terezin Declaration,
endorsed by all 47 participating countries, in which these nations committed themselves to
ensuring assistance, redress, and remembrance for victims of Nazi persecution.
The European Shoah Legacy Institute, created in 2010, strived over the following seven
years to carry out activities addressing several key post-​Holocaust issues included in the
Terezin Declaration: restitution of immovable property, art, Judaica, and Jewish cultural as-
sets stolen by the Nazis; social welfare for Holocaust survivors and other victims of Nazism;
and the promotion of Holocaust education, research, and remembrance, in order to help
with the process of restoration of justice.
In 2017, after exploiting its full potential, the work of ESLI ended and its individual
partner states remain committed to carrying out its objectives. This Study, which ESLI
initiated and financed using respective Israeli and U.S. grants, is an important legacy of
ESLI, and ensures that its results and materials are available to all who are interested. May it
be found as useful in our common striving for restored justice.
Ambassador Tomáš Kafka, Chair of the Administrative Board of the European Shoah
Legacy Institute (2014–2018)

xi
xii
xiii

Acknowledgments

Preparation and publication of this Study was a four-​year journey. Along the way, hun-
dreds of people generously assisted us in many ways, big and small. We acknowledge their
contributions with gratitude and appreciation.
There are individuals and organizations without whom the Study would not have been
possible. First, the enthusiastic support and assistance of five major law firms, whose pro bono
assistance was crucial to the success of the Study. The law firm attorneys who supervised
these pro bono efforts are Lauren Schmidt at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP; Amber
Fitzgerald at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; Seth Gerber at Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP; David Lash at O’Melveny & Meyers LLP; and Owen Pell at White & Case
LLP. We give our heartfelt thanks to the dozens of lawyers throughout these law firms who
contributed hundreds of pro bono hours to this effort and started us on our way. Each is
named individually in the bibliography of the country chapter they worked on. We also
thank Stan Levy at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP for his support over the years. Stan, who
has devoted years to obtaining a modicum of justice for Holocaust survivors, came up with
the brilliant idea of getting pro bono assistance from law firms in the massive effort to com-
pile restitution laws from the 47 countries that signed on to the Terezin Declaration.
The Study also benefited from the able work of numerous volunteer law student interns
from the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and the University of Houston Law
Center: Ren Henry, Kirill Nielson, D’Andrea Sykes, Garrett Schiponi, and Elaine Turner.
The World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) provided invaluable advice and
assistance throughout this process. Their expertise in the field of Holocaust immovable
property restitution, deep connections with local Jewish community groups, and keen un-
derstanding of governmental affairs helped us to better appreciate the context of current
Holocaust-​era property restitution efforts. In particular, Evan Hochberg and Gideon Taylor
gave generously of their time and knowledge.
We also thank the Oxford University Press, our editor Blake Ratcliff, assistant editor
David Lipp, and editor-​in-​chief John Louth for recognizing the valuable contribution the
Study makes to the field of Holocaust property restitution, as well as wider developments
in the international law of property restitution following mass atrocities.
Finally, we turn to those who conceived of and sponsored the Study: the European
Shoah Legacy Institute (ESLI), which commissioned the Study; the Ministry of Foreign

xiii
xiv

xiv Acknowledgments

Affairs of the Czech Republic, which established ESLI as a Prague-​based NGO in 2010
following the issuance of the Terezin Declaration, and Czech Ambassador Tomáš Kafka,
Chair of the Administrative Board of ESLI. They are all to be commended for their tireless
and unwavering support in ensuring that this Study reached completion. The Study was
their brainchild, and it forms a lasting part of their legacy. Publication of this Study will, we
hope, help to ensure that states’ compliance with the Terezin Declaration remains in the
spotlight for years to come.
xv

Table of Cases

ALBANIA
Bushati v. Albania, ECHR, App no 6397/​04, 8 December 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   3
Driza v. Albania, ECHR, App no 33771/​02, 13 November 2007 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   3
Ramadhi v. Albania, ECHR, App no 38222/​02, 13 November 2007 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   3

AUSTRIA
Anderman v. Fed. Republic of Austria, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (U.S.)   23
Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Jan. 22, 2014, 15 Os 133/​13t 22–​23
Whiteman v. Dorotheum GmbH & Co. KG, 431 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2005) (U.S.)   23

BULGARIA
Avramova v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (U.S.)   73
Kehaya and ors v. Bulgaria, ECHR, App nos 47797/​99 & 68698/​01, 12 January 2006 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   72
Todorova and ors v. Bulgaria, ECHR, App no 48380/​99, 24 July 2008 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   72
Velikovi and ors v. Bulgaria, ECHR, App no 43278/​98, 9 July 2007 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   71

CROATIA
Gottwald-​Markušić v. Croatia, ECHR, App no 49049/​06, 30 March 2010 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   92
Kolarić-​Kišur v. Croatia, ECHR, App no 17129/​05, 17 September 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   92
Pavlinović v. Croatia, ECHR, App nos 17124/​05 and 17126/​05, 3 September 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   92
Smoje v. Croatia, ECHR, App no 28074/​03, 11 January 2007 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   92
Tomašić v. Croatia, ECHR, App no 39867/​07, 19 November 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   92

CYPRUS
Xenides-​Arestis v. Turkey, ECHR, App no 46347/​99, 22 December 2005 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   99

CZECH REPUBLIC
Ústavní soud České republiky (ÚS-​st.) (Constitutional Court), Nov. 1, 2005, Sp.zn Pl.ÚS-​st. 21/​05 #1,
Sdělení č. 477/​2005 Sb., ST 21/​39 SbNU 493 [Kinsky case]   111

ESTONIA
Shestjorkin v. Estonia, ECHR, App no 49450/​99, 15 June 2000   128

xv
xvi

xvi Table of Cases

FRANCE
Bodner v. Banque Paribas, Case No. 29 Civ. 7433 (E.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 7, 1997) (U.S.)   144

GERMANY
BGH, NJW 1956, 265 (1956)   160
Decision of the Board of Review of 29 April 1954, decisions of the Board of Review, BOR/​53/​623, part
number 20, p. 41   159
Heir of Dr. Hans Sachs v. German Historical Museum (BGH NJW 2012, 1796)   163
Hugo Hertz v. Marie Louise Klein (Decision of the Wiedergutmachungskammer of 23 April 1952, WgA LG
HH, Z 10)   159

HUNGARY
Abelesz v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, No. 10 C 1884, 2013 WL 4525435, (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2013)
(U.S.)   187
Alkotmánybíróság (AB) [Constitutional Court], Mar. 12, 1993 [Decision of the Constitutional Court of
Hungary No. 15/​1993. (III.12.). Magyar Közlöny (MK) 29/​1993]   186
Alkotmánybíróság (AB) [Constitutional Court], Mar. 12, 1993 [Decision of the Constitutional Court of
Hungary No. 16/​1993. (III.12.). Magyar Közlöny (MK) 29/​1993]   186
de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 169 F. Supp. 3d 143 (D.D.C. 2016), aff’d in part, appeal dismissed in part
and remanded, 859 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2017), petition for cert docketed, No. 17-​1165 (U.S. Feb. 21,
2018) (U.S.)   187
Fischer v. Magyar Államvasutak Zrt., 777 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2015) cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2817 (2015)
(mem.) (U.S.)   187
Kántor v. Hungary, ECHR, App no 458/​03, 22 November 2005 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   187
Rosner v. United States, 231 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (U.S.)   187
Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (U.S.)   187

ISRAEL
Daniel Mayer v. Hashava, The State of Israel and the Administrator General, Israel Supreme Court, 24 Nov.
2014   197
Hashava v. Nahlat Yehuda Ltd., Jerusalem District Court, 26 May 2015   197

LATVIA
Kozlova v. Latvia, ECHR, App no 57381/​00, 23 October 2001 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   218

LITHUANIA
Aleksa v. Lithuania, ECHR, App no 27576/​05, 21 July 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   233
Igarienė v. Lithuania, ECHR, App no 26892/​05, 21 July 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   234
Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania, ECHR, App no 41510/​98, 6 March 2003 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   234
Jurevičius v. Lithuania. ECHR, App no 30165/​02, 14 November 2006 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   229
On the Interpretation of the Provisions of the Constitutional Court’s Rulings of 30 December 2003 and
13 November 2006 Related to Citizenship Issues, No. 40/​03; 45/​03-​36/​04, Constitutional Court of
Republic of Lith., 13 March 2013   231
On the Restoration of the Ownership Rights of Citizens of Land, No. 12/​93, Constitutional Court of
Republic of Lith., 27 May 1994   229
On the Restoration of the Ownership Rights of Citizens to Residential Houses, No. 11-​1993 & 9-​1994,
Constitutional Court of Republic of Lith., 15 June 1994   229
On the Restoration of the Ownership Rights of Citizens to Residential Houses, No. 10/​94, Constitutional
Court of Republic of Lith., 19 October 1994   229
Padalevičius v. Lithuania, ECHR, App no 12278/​03, 7 July 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   234
Shub v. Lithuania, ECHR, App no 17064/​06, 30 June 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   232
xvii

Table of Cases xvii

MACEDONIA
Adži-​Spirkoska v. former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ECHR, App no 38914/​05, 3 November 2011
(Eur. Ct. H.R.)   259
Brajevik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ECHR, App no 58408/​10, 18 September 2012 (Eur.
Ct. H.R.)   259
Mitevska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ECHR, App no 6526/​14, 6 October 2015 (Eur. Ct.
H.R.) 259
Nelčeska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ECHR, App nos 20988/​05, 20599/​08, 29830/​08,
57088/​08, 60140/​08, 43713/​09, 57948/​09, 19 March 2013 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   259
Velevska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ECHR, App no 42886/​07, 6 May 2014 (Eur. Ct.
H.R.)   259
Veljanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ECHR, App no 11190/​07, 13 March 2012 (Eur.
Ct. H.R.)   259

MOLDOVA
Baibarac v. Moldova, ECHR, App no 31530/​03, 15 November 2005 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   270
Popov v. Moldova, ECHR, App no 19960/​04, 6 December 2005 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   269
Prepelită v. Moldova, ECHR, App no 2914/​02, 23 September 2008 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   270
Prodan v. Moldova, ECHR, App no 49806/​99, 25 April 2006 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   269
Scutari v. Moldova, ECHR, App no 20864/​03, 26 July 2005 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   270

MONTENEGRO
Eparhija Budimljansko-​Nikšićka v. Montenegro, ECHR, App no 26501/​05, 9 October 2012 (Eur. Ct.
H.R.)   279
Vuković v. Montenegro, ECHR, App no 18626/​11, 27 November 2012 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   282

POLAND
Broniowski v Poland, ECHR, App no 31443/​96, 22 June 2004 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) 339, 343
Broniowski v. Poland, ECHR, App no 31443/​96, 28 September 2005 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   344
E.K. v. Poland (App no III CZP 82/​05) Supreme Court of Poland, 24 November 2005   333
Garb v. Republic of Poland, 207 F. Supp. 2d 16 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), vacated, 72 F. App’x 850 (2d Cir.
2003), cert. granted, judgment vacated and remanded, 542 U.S. 901 (2004), 440 F.3d 579 (2d Cir. 2006)
(U.S.)   338
Haven v. Polska, 215 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2000) (U.S.)   338
Lubelska Fabryka Maszyn i Narzędzi Rolniczych “Plon” v. Poland (App no I CSK 273/​07) Supreme Court
of Poland, 5 December 2007   333
Ogórek v. Poland, ECHR, App no 28490/​03, 18 September 2012 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) 331, 332
P 46/​13, Constitutional Tribunal, 12 May 2015   327
Pikielny v. Poland, ECHR, App no 3524/​05, 18 September 2012 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) 331, 334
Plechanow v. Poland, ECHR, App no 22279/​04, 7 July 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) 331, 335
Rutkowski v. Poland, ECHR, App nos 72287/​10 and 46187/​11 and 591 Other Applications, 7 July 2015
(Eur. Ct. H.R.)   334
Siermiński v. Poland, ECHR, App no 53339/​09, 2 December 2014 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) 331, 335
Sierpiński v. Poland, ECHR, App no 38016/​07, 3 November 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) 331, 337
Sierpiński v. Poland, ECHR, App no 38016/​07, 27 July 2010 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   337
SK 5/​01, Constitutional Tribunal, 28 November 2001   329
Wolkenberg v. Poland, ECHR, App no 50003/​99, 4 December 2007 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   345

ROMANIA
Atanasiu v. Romania, ECHR, App nos 30767/​
05 and 33800/​
06, 12 October 2010 (Eur. Ct.
H.R.) 359, 369
xvii

xviii Table of Cases

Preda v. Romania, ECHR, App nos 9584/​02, 33514/​02, 38052/​02, 25821/​03, 29652/​03, 3736/​03, 17750/​
03, 28688/​04, 29 April 2014 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) 360, 371
Sukyas v. Romania, No. CV 15-​1946, 2017 WL 6550588 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017) (U.S.) 360, 372

SLOVAKIA
Brežný v. Slovakia, ECHR, App no 23131/​93, 4 March 1996 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   407
Jantner v. Slovakia, ECHR, App no 39050/​97, 4 March 2003 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   407
Rosival v. Slovakia, ECHR, App no 17684/​02, 13 February 2007 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   408
Rosival v. Slovakia, ECHR, App no 17684/​02, 23 September 2008 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   408

SLOVENIA
Grzinčič v. Slovenia, ECHR, App no 26867/​02, 3 May 2007 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   426
Sirc v. Slovenia, ECHR, App no 44580/​98, 8 April 2008 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   425
Smiljanić v. Slovenia, ECHR, App no 481/​04, 2 June 2009 (Eur. Ct. H.R.)   424

SWITZERLAND
In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, No. 1:96-​CV-​04849 (E.D.N.Y.) (U.S.)   443

UNITED STATES
Abelesz v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, No. 10 C 1884, 2013 WL 4525435 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2013)   472
Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 317 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2002), amending opinion on denial of rehearing,
327 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2003), affirming on other grounds, Altmann v. Rep. of Austria, 541 U.S. 677
(2004) 464, 472
Anderman v. Federal Republic of Austria, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (C.D. Cal. 2003)   23
Avramova v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)   73
Cassirer v. Thyssen-​Bornemisza Collection Found., 153 F. Supp. 3d 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2015), rev’d and
remanded, 862 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2017)   472
de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 169 F. Supp. 3d 143 (D.D.C. 2016), aff’d in part, appeal dismissed in part
and remanded, 859 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2017), petition for cert docketed, No. 17-​1165 (U.S. Feb. 21,
2018)   187
Fischer v. Magyar Államvasutak Zrt., 777 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2015) cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2817 (2015)
(mem.)   472
Garb v. Republic of Poland, 207 F. Supp. 2d 16 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), vacated, 72 F. App’x 850 (2d Cir. 2003), cert.
granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Republic of Austria v. Whiteman, 542 U.S. 901 (2004), and cert.
granted, judgment vacated and remanded, 542 U.S. 901, (2004), 440 F.3d 579 (2d Cir. 2006)   338
Haven v. Polska, 215 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2000)   338
Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, In re No. 1:96-​CV-​04849 (E.D.N.Y.)   443
Rosner v. United States, 231 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2002)   187
Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016)   472
Sukyas v. Romania, No. CV 15-​1946, 2017 WL 6550588 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017) 360, 372
Victims of Hungarian Holocaust v. Hungarian State Rys., 798 F. Supp. 2d 934 (N.D. Ill. 2011), vacated and
remanded sub nom. Abelesz v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, 692 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2012), aff’d sub nom. Fischer
v. Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt., 777 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2015)   472
Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, No. 2:07-​CV-​02866 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016),
appeal filed, No. 16-​56308 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2016)   472
Whiteman v. Dorotheum GmbH & Co. KG, 431 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2005)   23
xix

Table of Legislation

ALBANIA
Ligj Nr. 7501, 19.7.1991 [Law No. 7501, 19 July 1991] Për Tokën [On Land]. Gazeta Zyrtare [Official
Gazette] No. 5, August 1991 3
Ligj Nr. 7512, 10.8.1991 [Law No. 7512, 10 August 1991] Për sanksionimin dhe mbrojtjen e pronës private,
të nismës së lirë, të veprimtarive private të pavarura dhe privatizimit [On Sanctioning and Protecting
Private Property and Free Initiative, Private Independent Activities, and Privatization] Gazeta Zyrtare
[Official Gazette] No. 6, August 1991 3
Ligj Nr. 7652, 23.12.1992 [Law No. 7652, 23 December 1992] Për privatizimin e banesave shtetërore [On
Privatization of State Housing] Fletorja Zyrtare [Official Gazette] No. 10, December 1992 3
Ligj Nr. 7698, 15.4.1993 [Law No. 7698, 15 April 1993] Për kthimin dhe kompesimin e pronave ish-
pronarëve [On Restitution and Compensation of Property to the Former Owners] Fletorja Zyrtare
[Official Gazette] No. 5, April 1993 3
Ligj Nr. 9235, 29.7.2004 [Law No. 9235, 29 July 2004] Për kthimin dhe kompensimin e pronës [On
Restitution and Compensation of Property, as amended] Fletorja Zyrtare [Official Gazette] No. 61,
August 2004 3

ARGENTINA
Law No. 24.488, 31 May 1995, B.O. 28.173, Inmunidad Jurisdiccional de Los Estados Extranjeros Ante
Los Tribunales Argentinos [ Jurisdictional Immunity of the Foreign States before the Argentinian
Courts] 7

AUSTRALIA
Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 9

AUSTRIA
Erfassung arisierter und anderer im Zusammenhange mit der nationalsozialistischen Machtübernahme
entzogenen Vermögenschaften [Law on the Recording of Aryanized and Other Property Confiscated in
Connection with National Socialist Seizure of Power], STAATSGESETZBLATT [StGBl] No. 10/1945,
as amended, [19/1945, 23/1945, 135/1945, 201/1945, 150/1946] 15, 16
Auffangorganisationengesetz [Federal Act of 13 March 1957 on the Creation of Receiving Organizations
Pursuant to Article 26 section 2 of the State Treaty, Federal Law Gazette No. 152/1955]
Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 73/1957 25–26

xix
xx

xx Table of Legislation

Drittes Rückstellungsgesetz [Third Restitution Act] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 54/1947 16

Aufteilung der Mittel der “Sammelstellen” [Distribution of Funds of “Collection Agencies”]
Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 108/1962 26
Entschädigungsfondsgesetz [Compensation Fund Act] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl I] No. 12/2001, as
amended 20
Einrichtung des Fonds zur Instandsetzung der jüdischen Friedhöfe in Österreich sowie Änderung des
Nationalfondsgesetzes [Establishment of a Fund for the Restoration of the Jewish Cemeteries in Austria]
Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl I] No. 99/2010, as amended 25
Erstes Rückstellungsgesetz [First Restitution Act] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 156/1946 15
Finanzielle Leistungen an die israelitische Religionsgesellschaft [Federal Act for the Financial Support of the
Israelite Religious Community] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 222/1960 24
Kundmachung des Reichsstatthalters in Österreich, wodurch die Verordnung über die Anmeldung des
Vermögens von Juden vom 26. April 1938 bekanntgemacht wird [Ordinance on the Registration of
Jewish Property] Gesetzblatt für das Land Österreich [GblÖ] No. 102/1938, § 3 14
Nationalfonds der Republik Österreich für Opfer des Nationalsozialismus [Federal Law on the National Fund of the
Republic of Austria for Victims of National Socialism] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 432/1995 18
Nichtigerklärung von Rechtsgeschäften und sonstigen Rechtshandlungen, die während der deutschen
Besetzung Österreichs erfolgt sind [Annulment Law] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 106/1946 15
Rückstellungsanspruchsgesetz [Federal Law of 17 May 1961 Law Concerning Registration of Claims
by Receiving Organizations for the Restitution of Property under the Restitution Acts]
Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 133/1961 15, 16, 17, 26
Sammelstellen-Abgeltungsgesetz [Collection Agencies Settlement Act] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl]
No. 150/1966 26
Verfügungstellung von Bundesmitteln zur Bildung eines Fonds zur Abgeltung von Vermögensverlusten
politisch Verfolgter [Compensation Fund Law] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 100/1961 18
Zweites Rückstellungsgesetz [Second Restitution Act] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 53/1947 15, 16, 24

BELARUS
Об утверждении Положения о порядке восстановления прав граждан, пострадавших от репрессий
в 20 - 80-х годах [Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Belarus On Enactment of the
Regulation on the Procedure for Restoration of Rights of Citizens Affected by the Repressions in 1920s–
1980s] No. 479-XІІ of 21 December 1990. Nat’l Reg. No. 4/1880. Vedamastsi Viarkhounaha
saveta Respubliki Belarus [Official Gazette of Belarus] No. 1(3) of 1991 31–32
О свободе совести и религиозных организациях [On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations]
No. 2054-XII of 17 December 1992, as amended. Nat’l Reg. No. 2/366 32
О практике разрешения судами споров, связанных с правом частной собственности на жилой дом
[Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus On Practice of Adjudication
of Disputes Related to the Private Property on Residential Buildings] No. 5 of 4 June 1993. Nat’l Reg.
No. 6/146. Судовы веснік [ Judicial Gazette] No. 3 of 1993 31

BELGIUM
Loi relative au dédommagement des membres de la Communaute´ juive de Belgique pour les biens dont
ils ont e´te´ spolie´s ou qu’ils ont de´laisse´s pendant la guerre 1940-1945 [Indemnification of Belgian
Jewish Community Assets Plundered or Abandoned During the War 1940-45] of 20 December 2001,
Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], 24 January 2002, at 2402 40

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, REPUBLIC OF, & SRPSKA, REPUBLIC OF

See also Yugoslavia

Republic of Srpska
Закон о враћању одузетих непокретности & Закон о враћању одузетог земљишта [1996 Law on Return
of Seized Property & Law on Return of Seized Land] Službeni Glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the
Republic of Srpska] No. 21/96 [23 September 1996] 46, 52, 82
xxi

Table of Legislation xxi

Закон о враћању одузете имовине и обештећењу [2000 Law on the Return of Confiscated Property and
Confiscation] Službeni Glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska] No. 13/00 [25 May
2000] 46, 53

BiH
Zakon o Prodaji Stanova Na Kojima Postoji Stanarsko Pravo [1998 Law on Sale of Apartments with
Occupancy Right] Službene novine Federacije BiH [Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina] No. 27/97, as amended, 11/98, 22/99, 27/99, 7/00, 32/01 53
Zakon o Slobodi Vjere I Pravnom Položaju Crkava I Vjerskih Zajednica U Bosni I Hercegovini [Law on
Religious Freedom and Legal Position of Churches and Religious Communities] Službeni glasnik
Bosne i Hercegovine [Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina] No. 5/04 46

BULGARIA
See also Macedonia
Закон за възстановяване собствеността върху одържавени недвижими ИМОТИ [Law on the
Compensation of Owners of Nationalized Assets, as amended] State Gazette No. 107 of 18 November
1997 62, 70
Закон за собствеността и ползването на земеделските земи [Law on Ownership and Use of Agricultural
Land] State Gazette No. 17 of 1 March 1991 62, 67
Закон за възстановяване на собствеността върху горите и земите от горския фонд [Law on Restitution
of Property over Forests and the Lands from the Forest Fund] State Gazette No. 110 of 25 November
1997 62, 69
Закон за възстановяване собствеността върху одържавени недвижими имоти [Law on the Restitution of
Nationalized Immovable (Real) Property] State Gazette No. 15 of 21 February 1992 62, 69

CANADA
State Immunity Act, R.S.C., 1985, c S-18 79

CROATIA
See also Yugoslavia
Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o naknadi za imovinu oduzetu za vrijeme jugoslavenske komunističke
vladavine [Amendment to Law No. 92/96 on Restitution/Compensation of Property Taken under the
Yugoslav Communist Rule] Narodne Novine [Official Gazette of Croatia] 80/2002 No. 1292, 5 July
2002 89
Zakon o naknadi za imovinu oduzetu za vrijeme jugoslavenske komunističke vladavine [Law No. 92/96
on Restitution/Compensation of Property Taken under the Yugoslav Communist Rule] Narodne
Novine [Official Gazette of Croatia] 92/1996, No. 1600, 11 October 1996, as amended 82

CZECHOSLOVAKIA
See also Czech Republic; Slovakia
Dekret presidenta republiky o neplatnosti některých majetkově-právních jednání z doby nesvobody a o národní
správě majetkových hodnot Němců, Maďarů, zrádců a kolaborantů a některých organisací a ústavů
[Decree No. 5/1945 Concerning the Invalidity of Transactions Involving Property Rights from the Time
of the Oppression and Concerning the National Administration of Property Assets of Germans, Magyars,
Traitors and Collaborationists and of Certain Organizations and Associations]. Dekret č. 5/1945 Sb. 107
Zákon o neplatnosti některých majetkově-právních jednání z doby nesvobody a o nárocích z této neplatnosti
a z jiných zásahů do majetku vzcházejících [Law No. 128/1946 on the Invalidity of Certain Property-
Related Legal Acts Taken in the Period of Non-Freedom and on Claims Arising from Such Invalidity and
Other Interference with Property]. Zákon č. 128/1946 Sb. 107–108

CZECH REPUBLIC
See also Czechoslovakia; Slovakia
xxii

xxii Table of Legislation

Dekret presidenta republiky o neplatnosti některých majetkově-právních jednání z doby nesvobody a o

národní správě majetkových hodnot Němců, Maďarů, zrádců a kolaborantů a některých organisací
a ústavů [Decree No. 5/1945 Concerning the Invalidity of Transactions Involving Property Rights
from the Time of the Oppression and Concerning the National Administration of Property Assets of
Germans, Magyars, Traitors and Collaborationists and of Certain Organizations and Associations].
Dekret č. 5/1945 Sb. 107
Nález Ústavního soudu ze dne 3. června 1998 ve věci návrhu na zrušení části ustanovení § 13 odst. 3
zákona č. 87/1991 Sb., o mimosoudních rehabilitacích, ve slovech “ode dne účinnosti tohoto zákona”
[Constitutional Law No. 153/1998]. Nález č. 153/1998 Sb. 109, 406
Zákon České národní rady o působnosti orgánů České republiky v mimosoudních rehabilitacích [Czech
National Council Law No. 231/1991 on the Competence of the Czech Republic in Restitution]. Zákon
č. 231/1991 Sb. 108
Zákon České národní rady, kterým se upravují některé otázky související se zákonem č. 229/1991 Sb., o
úpravě vlastnických vztahů k půdě a jinému zemědělskému majetku, ve znění zákona č. 93/1992 Sb. [Act
No. 243/1992 on Restitution]. Zákon č. 243/1992 Sb. 109, 110, 407
Zákon o mimosúdnych rehabilitáciách [Act No. 87/1991 Rehabilitation Law, as amended]. Zákon č.
87/1991 Sb. 108, 109
Zákon o neplatnosti některých majetkově-právních jednání z doby nesvobody a o nárocích z této neplatnosti
a z jiných zásahů do majetku vzcházejících [Law No. 128/1946 on the Invalidity of Certain Property-
Related Legal Acts Taken in the Period of Non-Freedom and on Claims Arising from such Invalidity and
Other Interference with Property]. Zákon č. 128/1946 Sb. 107–108
Zákon o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky některým obětem nacistické perzekuce [Act No. 217/1994
Concerning Lump-Sum Payments to Certain Victims of Nazi Persecution]. Zákon č. 217/1994 Sb. 114
Zákon o úpravě vlastnických vztahů k půdě a jinému zemědělskému majetku [Act No. 229/1991 as amended
on Ownership Rights of Land and Other Agricultural Property]. Zákon č. 229/1991 Sb. 109, 407
Zákon o zmírnění některých majetkových křivd způsobených holocaustem a o změně zákona č. 243/1992 Sb.,
kterým se upravují některé otázky související se zákonem č. 229/1991 Sb., o úpravě vlastnických vztahů k
půdě a jinému zemědělskému majetku, ve znění zákona č. 93/1992 Sb., ve znění pozdějších předpisů [Act
No. 212/2000 on Alleviating Holocaust Injustices]. Zákon č. 212/2000 Sb. 104, 109, 112, 407
Zákon o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky příslušníkům československých zahraničních armád a
spojeneckých armád v letech 1939 až 1945 [Act No. 39/2000 Concerning Lump-Sum Payments to
Members of Czechoslovak Armies Formed Abroad and of Allied Armies in 1939–1945]. Zákon č.
39/2000 Sb. 114
Zákon o ocenění účastníků národního boje za vznik a osvobození Československa a některých pozůstalých
po nich, o zvláštním příspěvku k důchodu některých osobám, o jednorázové peněžní částce některým
účastníkům národního boje za osvobození v letech 1939 až 1945 a o změně některých zákon [Act No.
357/2005 Concerning the Recognition of Participants in the National Struggle for the Establishment
and Liberation of Czechoslovakia and Certain Categories of Their Survivors, a Special Contribution to
Supplement Pensions of Certain Persons, a Lump-Sum Payment to Certain Participants in the 1939–1945
National Struggle for Liberation, and Amending Certain Laws]. Zákon č. 357/2005 Sb. 114
Zákon o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky účastníkům národního boje za osvobození, politickým vězňům
a osobám z rasových nebo náboženských důvodů soustředěných do vojenských pracovních táborů a o
změně zákona č. 39/2000 Sb., o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky příslušníkům československých
zahraničních armád a spojeneckých armád v letech1939 až 1945 [Act No. 261/2001 Concerning Lump-
Sum Payments to Participants in the National Struggle for Liberation, Political Prisoners and Persons
Concentrated in Military Labor Camps Because of Their Race or Religion, and Amending Act No.
39/2000]. Zákon č. 261/2001 Sb. 114

DENMARK
Bekendtgørelse af lov om erstatning til besættelsestidens ofre [Law of Compensation to the Victims of the
Occupation], lovbekendtgørelse nr 279 [LBK No. 279] 13 March 2013, as amended. 119
xxii

Table of Legislation xxiii

ESTONIA
Eesti Vabariigi omandireformi aluste seadus [Republic of Estonia Principles of Ownership Reform Act]
Riigi Teataja [RT] 1991, 21, 257, in force 20 June 1991 123, 126
Maareformi seadus [Land Reform Act] Riigi Teataja [RT] 1991, 34, 426, in force 1 November 1991 126
Õigusvastaselt võõrandatud vara maksumuse määramise ja kompenseerimise seadus [Unlawfully
Expropriated Property Valuation and Compensation Act] Riigi Teataja [RT] 1993, 30, 509, in force
15 June 1993 127

FRANCE
Loi 3086 du 22 juillet 1941 relative aux enterprises, biens et valeurs appartenant aux juifs [Law 3086 of July
22, 1941, on Businesses, Property, and Securities Belonging to Jews], Journal Officiel de l’Etat
Français [ J.O.] [Official Gazette of France], Aug. 26, 1941, p. 3594 141
Ordonnance du 19 août 1944 relative au rétablissement de la légalité républicaine sur le territoire conti-
nental [Order of August 19, 1944, on the Restoration of Republican Law in the Continental Territory],
Journal Officiel de la République Française (Alger) [Official Gazette of France
(Algeria)], Aug. 10, 1944, p. 688 141
Ordonnance du 16 octobre 1944 relative a la restitution par l’administration des domains de certains biens
mis sous séquestre [Order of October 16, 1944, Relating to Restitution by the Administration of Certain
Property Under Sequestration], Journal Officiel de la République Française [ J.O.] [Official
Gazette of France], Oct. 16–17, 1944, p. 964 141
Loi 46-2389 du 28 octobre 1946 sur les dommages de guerre [Law 46-2389 of October 28, 1946, on War
Damages], Journal Officiel de la République Française [ J.O.] [Official Gazette of France], Oct.
29, 1946, p. 9191 138, 142
Ordonnance du 14 novembre 1944 portant application de l’ordonnance du 12 novembre 1943 sur la nullité
des actes de spoliation accomplis par l’ennemi et sous son contrôle [Order of November 14, 1944, on the
Application of the Order of November 12, 1943 on the Nullity of Acts of Spoliation Carried Out by the
Enemy Under Its Control], Journal Officiel de la République Française [ J.O.] [Official Gazette
of France], Nov. 15, 1944, p. 1310 141–142
Ordonnance 45-770 du 21 avril 1945 portant deuxieme application de l’ordonnance du 12 novembre 1943
sur la nullité des actes de spoliation accomplis par l’ennemi ou sous son contrôle et édictant la restitution
aux victimes de ces actes de ceux de leur biens qui ont fait l’objet d’actes de disposition [Order 45-770
of April 21, 1945, on the Second Application of the Order of November 12, 1943, on the Nullity of
Acts of Spoliation Carried Out by the Enemy or Under Its Control and Decreeing the Restitution to the
Victims of These Acts Those of Their Property Which Have Been the Object of Acts of Disposition],
Journal Officiel de la République Française [ J.O.] [Official Gazette of France], Apr. 22, 1945,
p. 2283 142
Loi 46-2389 du 28 octobre 1946 sur les dommages de guerre [Law 46-2389 of October 28, 1946, on War
Damages], Journal Officiel de la République Française [ J.O.] [Official Gazette of France], Oct.
29, 1946, p. 9191 142
Loi 50-1568 du 26 décembre 1950 modifie les art. 14, 22, 23 de l’ordonnance du 21-04-1945: opposition des
actionnaires spolies, nomination d’administrateur proviso ire, action en nullite de l’administration des
domains [Law 50-1568 of December 26, 1950, modifying Articles 14, 22, and 23 of the April 21, 1945,
Order: Opposition of Despoiled Shareholders, Appointment of Provisional Director, Action in Nullity
of the Administration of Domains], Journal Officiel de la République Française [ J.O.] [Official
Gazette of France], Dec. 27, 1950, p. 13193 147
Décret 99-778 du 10 septembre 1999 instituant une commission pour l’indemnisation des victimes de
spoliations intervenues du fait des législations antisémites en vigueur pendant l’Occupation [Decree
99-778 of September 10, 1999, establishing a commission for the compensation of the victims of
spoliations occurring as a result of anti-Semitic legislation in force during the Occupation], Journal
Officiel de la République Française [ J.O.] [Official Gazette of France], Sept. 11, 1999,
p. 13633 138
xxiv

xxiv Table of Legislation

Décret 2014-555 du 28 mai 2014 relatif à certaines commissions administratives à caractère consultatif
relevant du Premier ministre [Decree 2014-555 of May 28, 2014, on certain advisory committees of
the Prime Minister], Journal Officiel de la République Française [ J.O.] [Official Gazette of
France], May 31, 2014, p. 9059 144

GERMANY
Bundesgesetz zur Entschädigung für Opfer der nationalsozialistischen Verfolgung [Bundesentschädigungsgesetz]
[BEG) [Federal Compensation Act], 18 September 1953, as amended 152
Bundesgesetz zur Regelung der rückerstattungsrechtlichen Geldverbindlichkeiten des Deutschen Reichs
und gleichgestellter Rechtsträger [Bundesrückerstattungsgesetz] [BRüG] [Federal Restitution Law], 19
July 1957, as amended 152
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code], § 985 [Claim for Restitution] 163
Gesetz über die Entschädigung nach dem Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen und über staatliche
Ausgleichsleistungen für Enteignungen auf besatzungsrechtlicher oder besatzungshoheitlicher
Grundlage [Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz] [EALG] [Compensation and Adjustment
Payments Act], 27 September 1994, as amended 161
Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen [Vermögensgesetz] [VermG] [Act on the Settlement of Open
Property], 23 September 1990, as amended 152
NS-Verfolgtenentschädigungsgesetz [NS-VEntschG] [Nazi Persecution Compensation Act], 27 September
1994, as amended 152

GREECE
Diatagma (1949) [Royal Decree of 1949 for the Establishment of the Organization for the Relief and
Rehabilitation of the Israelites of Greece], Ephemeris Tes Kyverneseos [Government Gazette], 29
March 1949, A:79 175
Nomos (1943:205) [Occupation Law 205/1943] [Service of Administration of Jewish Properties] [YDIP],
Ephemeris Tes Kyverneseos [Government Gazette], 1 June 1943, A:160 173
Nomos (1944: 1180) [Occupation Law 1180/1944 [Service of Administration of Jewish Properties]
[YDIP], Ephemeris Tes Kyverneseos [Government Gazette], 12 February 1944, A:26 173
Nomos (1944: 1977) [1977/1944 Annulment of Law 1180/1944], Ephemeris Tes Kyverneseos
[Government Gazette], 10 October 1944, A:241 173
Nomos (1944: 2) [2/1944 Annulment of Laws 1977/1944 and 1180/1944 and the Return-Restitution
of Jewish Properties & Possessions (to their rightful owners)], Ephemeris Tes Kyverneseos
[Government Gazette], 27 October 1944, A:6 173
Nomos (1945:337) [337/1945 Concerning the Annulment of Law 205/1944 Regarding the Administration
of Jewish Properties Impounded by the Occupation Authorities or Abandoned], Ephemeris Tes
Kyverneseos [Government Gazette], 23 May 1945, A:121 173
Nomos (1945: 808) [Compulsory Law 808/1945], Ephemeris Tes Kyverneseos [Government Gazette],
31 December 1945, A:324 173
Nomos (1946:846) [Emergency Law 846/1946] [Abolition of the Rights of the Greek State to Inherit
Jewish Property], Ephemeris Tes Kyverneseos [Government Gazette], 22 January 1946,
A:17 175
Nomos (2011:3943) [Cemetery Compensation 3943/2011], Ephemeris Tes Kyverneseos [Government
Gazette] 31 March 2011, A:66, art. 45, para. 10 174

HUNGARY
1991. évi XXV. törvény a tulajdonviszonyok rendezése érdekében, az állam által az állampolgárok tulajdonában
igazságtalanul okozott károk részleges kárpótlásáról (Act XXV of 1991 on the Partial Compensation of
Damages Wrongfully Caused by the State to the Property of Citizens, for the Purpose of the Settlement
of Ownership Relations) 179, 185
1991. évi XXXII. törvény a volt egyházi ingatlanok tulajdoni helyzetének rendezéséről (Act XXXII of 1991
on the settlement of the ownership status of former church owned real properties) 179
xxv

Table of Legislation xxv

1992. évi XXIV. törvény a tulajdonviszonyok rendezése érdekében, az állam által az állampolgárok
tulajdonában az 1939. május 1-jétől 1949. június 8-ig terjedő időben alkotott jogszabályok alkalmazásával
igazságtalanul okozott károk részleges kárpótlásáról (Act XXIV of 1992 on the Partial Compensation of
Damages Wrongfully Caused by the State to the Property of Citizens by Application of Legal Regulations
Adopted between 1 May 1939 and 8 June 1949, for the Purpose of the Settlement of Ownership
Relations) 179, 185
1997. évi X. törvény a Párizsi Békeszerződésről szóló 1947. évi XVIII. törvény 27. Cikke 2. pontjában foglaltak
végrehajtásáról (Act X of 1997 on the implementation of provisions included in Article 27, Item No. 2, of
Act XVIII of 1947, related to the Peace Treaty of Paris) 189
104/1991. (VIII. 3.) Korm. Rendelet a tulajdonviszonyok rendezése érdekében, az állam által igazságtalanul
okozott károk részleges kárpótlásáról szóló 1991. évi XXV. törvény végrehajtásáról (Governmental
Decree No. 104/1991 (VII. 3) on the Implementation of Act XXV of 1991 on the Partial Compensation
of Damages Wrongfully Caused by the State to the Property of Citizens, for the Purpose of the Settlement
of Ownership Relations) 185

ISRAEL
Law No. 5766-2006 [2006 Assets of Holocaust Victims Law—Restitution to Heirs and Dedication to Aid
and Commemoration] 196

ITALY
Regio Decreto Legge 20 gennaio 1944, n.25, G.U. 9 February 1944, n.5 [Royal Law Decree (RDL)
25/1944] 204
Regio Decreto Legge 20 gennaio 1944, n.26 [Royal Law Decree (RDL) 26/1944], see Decreto Legislativo
Luogotenenziale 5 ottobre 1944, n.252, G.U. 20 October 1944, n.71. 204, 205
Decreto Legislativo Luogotenenziale 5 ottobre 1944, n.249, G.U. 18 October 1944, n.70 [Lieutenant
Legislative Decree (DLLGT) 249/1944] 204
Decreto Legislativo Luogotenenziale 12 aprile 1945, n.222, G.U. 22 May 1945, n.61 [RDL 222/1945] 205
Decreto Legislativo Presidenziale 27 giugno 1946, n.35, G.U. 2 August 1946, n.172 [Legislative Decree
(DLG) 35/1946] 209
Decreto Legislativo Luogotenenziale 5 maggio 1946, n.393, G.U. 4 June 1946, n.128 [DLLGT 393/1946] 205
Decreto Legislativo del capo Provvisorio dello Stato, 11 maggio 1947, n.364, G.U. 27 May 1947, n.119
[DLCPS 364/1947] 201, 205, 210
Decreto Legislativo del capo Provvisorio dello Stato 31 luglio 1947, n.801 [DLCPS 801/1947] 205
Decreto Legislativo 17 aprile 1948, n.736, G.U. 22 June 1948, n.143 [Legislative Decree (DLG)
736/1948] 201, 209
Legge 18 luglio 1997, n.233, G.U. 24 July 1997, n.171 [Law 233/1997] 201, 210
Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 8 giugno 2001, n.327, G.U. 16 August 2001, n.189 supp. n.211
[Decree of the President of the Republic No. 327/2001] 209

LATVIA
Par īpašumu atdošanu reliģiskajām organizācijām [12 May 1992 Law of Restitution of Property to Religious
Organizations] Ziņotājs 1992: 22/23 of 4 June 1992 214, 219
Grozījumi likumā “Par nekustamā īpašuma nodošanu sabiedriskajai organizācijai “Rīgas Ebreju kopiena”
[Amendment Concerning the Transfer of Real Property in Riga to the Council of Jewish Communities
in Latvia] Latvijas Vestnesis [Official Gazette of Latvia] No. 48 (48.5) (5620) of 9 March
2016. See also Latvijas Vestnesis [Official Gazette of Latvia] No. 48 (5620) of 9 March 2016,
numbers 48.11 ( Jūrmalā, Kļavu), 48.12 (Kandavā, Lielā), 48.13 (Rīgā, Abrenes), 48.14 (Rīgā, Ernesta
Birznieka-Upīša), and 48.15 (Rīgā, Ludzas) 221

LITHUANIA
Pilietybės [1991 Law on Citizenship, 5 December 1991, Law No. I-2072, Valstybės žinios [Official
Gazette of Lithuania] No. 36-977, 31 December 1991 229
xxvi

xxvi Table of Legislation

Dėl Lietuvos Respublikos Pilietybės Įstatymo Pakeitimo Ir Papildymo [1995 Law Amending the Act on
Citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania, 3 October 1995, Law, No. I-1053], Valstybės žinios [Official
Gazette of Lithuania] No. 86-194, 20 October 1995 230
Dėl Piliečių Nuosavybės Teisių Į Išlikusį Nekilnojamąjį Turtą Atstatymo Tvarkos Ir Sąlygų [1991 Law on the
Procedure and Conditions of Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to Existing Real Property, 18 June
1991, Law No. I-1454], Valstybės žinios [Official Gazette of Lithuania] No. 21-545, 31 July 1991 228
Geros Valios Kompensacijos Už Žydų Religinių Bendruomenių Nekilnojamąjį Turtą [2011 Law on Good
Will Compensation for the Real Estate of Jewish Communities, 21 June 2011, Law No. XI-1470],
Valstybės žinios [Official Gazette of Lithuania] No. 80-3897, 2 July 2011 235
Piliečių Nuosavybės Teisių Į Išlikusį Nekilnojamąjį Turtą Atkūrimo [1997 Law on the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, 27 July 1997, Law No. VIII-359, as
amended], Valstybės žinios [Official Gazette of Lithuania] No. 65-1558, 9 July 1997 228
Pilietybės Įstatymas [2010 Law on Citizenship, 2 December 2010, Law No. XI-1196], Valstybės žinios
[Official Gazette of Lithuania] No. 144-7361, 9 December 2010 231
Piliečių Nuosavybės Teisių Į Išlikusį Nekilnojamąjį Turtą Atkūrimo Įstatymo 10 Straipsnio Pakeitimo [2004
Act Amending the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real
Property, 12 October 2004, Law No. IX-2490], Valstybės žinios [Official Gazette of Lithuania] No.
156-5695, 26 October 2004 231
Religinių Bendrijų Teisės Į Išlikusį Nekilnojamąjį Turtą Atkūrimo Tvarkos [1995 Law on the Procedure for the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Religious Associations to Existing Real Property, 21 March 1995,
Law No. I-822], Valstybės žinios [Official Gazette of Lithuania] No. 27-600, 29 March 1995 234

LUXEMBOURG
Arrêté grand-ducal du 22 avril 1941, relatif aux mesures de dépossession effectuées par l’ennemi [22 April
1941 Decree Relating to the Measures of Dispossession Effected by the Enemy] Memorial A [Official
Gazette of Luxembourg] No. 3 of 1944 241, 244
Arrêté grand-ducal du 7 juillet 1944 modifiant l’arrêté grand-ducal du 22 avril 1941 relatif aux mesures de
dépossession effectuées par l’ennemi [7 July 1944 Amending the 1941 Decree] Memorial A [Official
Gazette of Luxembourg] No. 3 of 1944 244
Arrêté grand-ducal du 17 août 1944 concernant la mise sous séquestre de la propriété ennemie [17 August
1944 Decree Concerning Sequestration of the Enemy] Memorial A [Official Gazette of Luxembourg]
No. 4 of 1944 244
Loi du 25 février 1950 concernant l’indemnisation des dommages de guerre [25 February 1950 Law for War
Damages] Memorial A [Official Gazette of Luxembourg] No. 21 of 1950 244
Code Civil [Civil Code] arts. 811-813 246

MACEDONIA
See also Bulgaria; Yugoslavia
Закон за денационализација [1998 Law on Denationalization] Sluzhben Vesnik [Official Gazette of the
Republic of Macedonia] No. 20/1998 of 29 April 1998 250, 256
Закон за денационализација [2000 Law on Denationalization, as amended] Sluzhben Vesnik [Official
Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia] No. 43/2000 of 30 May 2000 250, 256

MOLDOVA
Privind reabilitarea victimelor represiunilor politice [Law Concerning the Rehabilitation of Victims of
Political Repressions] Law No. 1225-XII of 8 December 1992 as amended by Law No. 295-XIII of 23
November 1994, Law No. 84-XIV of 8 July 1998, Law No. 133-134/656 of 2 December 1999, Law No.
520-XV of 11 November 2001, Law No. 186-XVI of 29 June 2006 268

MONTENEGRO
See also Yugoslavia
Zakon o pravednoj restituciji [ Just Restitution Act] Službeni list Republike Crne Gore [Official
Gazette of Montenegro] broj 34/2002, 262 274
xxvi

Table of Legislation xxvii

Zakon o povraćaju oduzetih imovinskih prava i obeštećenju [Law on Restitution of Property and
Compensation/Restitution of Expropriated Property Rights and Compensation Act] Službeni list
Republike Crne Gore [Official Gazette of Montenegro] broj 21/2004, 178 274
Zakon o opštem upravnom postupku [General Administrative Proceedings Act] Službeni list Republike
Crne Gore [Official Gazette of Montenegro] broj 60/2003, 462 281–282
Zakon o upravnom sporu [Administrative Disputes Act] Službeni list Republike Crne Gore [Official
Gazette of Montenegro] broj 60/2003, 463 281–282

NETHERLANDS
VO 145/1940, 20 September 1940, Verordnung des Reichskommissars für die besetzten niederländischen
Gebiete uber die Erfassung nichtwirtschaftlicher Personenvereinigungen und Stiftungen, in
Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten niederländischen Gebiete, Stück 27, 21 September 1940, 445, reprinted
in Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten niederländischen Gebiete: Jahr 1940 298–299
VO 189/1940, 22 October 1940, Verordnung des Reichskommissars für die besetzten niederländischen
Gebiete über die Anmeldung von Unternehmen, in Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten niederländischen
Gebiete, Stück 33, 26 October 1940, 546, reprinted in Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten
niederländischen Gebiete: Jahr 1940 294
VO 41/1941, 28 February 1941, Verordnung des Reichskommissars für die besetzten niederländischen
Gebiete zur Neuordnung auf dem Gebiete der nichtwirtschaftlichen Personenvereinigungen und
Stiftungen, in Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten niederländischen Gebiete, Stück 8, 3 March 1941, 148,
Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten niederländischen Gebiete: Jahr 1940 298–299
VO 48/1941, 12 March 1941, Verordnung des Reichskommissars für die besetzten niederländischen
Gebiete über die Behandlung anmeldepflichtiger Unternehmen in Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten
niederländischen Gebiete, Stück 10, 13 March 1941, 164, Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten
niederländischen Gebiete: Jahr 1940 294
VO 102/1941, 27 May 1941, Verordnung des Reichskommissars für die besetzten niederländischen
Gebiete über die Anmeldung und Behandlung landwirtschaftlicher Gründstucke in jüdischen
Händen, in Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten niederländischen Gebiete, Stück 24, 31 May 1941, 388,
Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten niederländischen Gebiete: Jahr 1940 294
VO 154/1941, 11 August 1941, Verordnung des Reichskommissars für die besetzten niederländischen
Gebiete über den jüdischen Grundbesitz, in Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten niederländischen
Gebiete, Stück 34, 16 August 1941, 655, Verordnungsblatt für die besetzten niederländischen
Gebiete: Jahr 1940 294
Besluit van 17 September 1944, houdende vaststellinq van het Besluit bezettingsmaatregelen [Besluit
Bezettingsmaatregelen] [Occupation Measures Decree], 17 September 1944, Staatsblad van het
Koninkrijk der Nederlanded [Stb.] [Official Gazette], E93 295
Besluit van 17 September 1944, houdende vaststelling van het Besluit herstel rechtsverkeer [Besluit Herstel
Rechtsverkeer] [Decree for the Restoration of the Rule of Law], 17 September 1944, Staatsblad van
het Koninkrijk der Nederlanded [Stb.] [Official Gazette], E100 295
Besluit van 20 October 1944, houdende vaststelling van het Besluit Vijandelijk Vermogen [Besluit Vijandelijk
Vermogen] [Enemy Property Decree], 20 October 1944, Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der
Nederlanded [Stb.] [Official Gazette], E133 295

NORWAY
Lov om inndraging av formue som tilhører jøder [Law on the Confiscation of Property Belonging to Jews]
Norsk Lovtidend 2 Avd. 1942, No. 55 [Gazette of Norway], Oct. 26, 1942, p. 737. 305

POLAND
Dekret Polskiego Komitetu Wyzwolenia Narodowego z dnia 6 września 1944 r. o przeprowadzeniu reformy
rolnej [6 September 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform] Dziennik Ustaw [Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws]
1944 Nr. 4 poz. 17 [1944 No. 4, item 17] 326
Dekret Polskiego Komitetu Wyzwolenia Narodowego z dnia 12 grudnia 1944 r. o przejęciu niektórych
lasów na własność Skarbu Państwa [ 12 December 1944 Decree on Takeover by the State Treasury of
xxvi

xxviii Table of Legislation

Ownership of Certain Forests] Dziennik Ustaw [Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 1944 nr. 15 poz. 82 [1944
No. 15, item 82] 326
Rozporządzenie Ministra Sprawiedliwości z dnia 21 stycznia 1946 r. w sprawie wykonania dekretu z dnia 6
czerwca 1945 r. o mocy obowiązującej orzeczeń sądowych wydanych w okresie okupacji niemieckiej na
terenie Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej [6 June 1945 Decree on Judicial Decisions Made During the German
Occupation] Dziennik Ustaw [Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 1946 nr. 6 poz. 56 [1946 No. 6, item 56] 324
Dekret z dnia 26 października 1945 r. o własności i użytkowaniu gruntów na obszarze m. st. Warszawy
[26 October 1945 Decree on Ownership and Usufruct of Land in the Area of the Capital of Warsaw]
Dziennik Ustaw [Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 1945 nr. 50 poz. 279 [1945 No. 50, item 279] 327
Ustawa z dnia 3 stycznia 1946 r. o przejęciu na własność Państwa podstawowych gałęzi gospodarki narodowej
[3 January 1946 Act on the Nationalization of Basic Branches of the State Economy] Dziennik Ustaw
[Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 1946 nr. 3 poz. 17 [1946 No. 3, item 17] 328
Dekret z dnia 8 marca 1946 r. o majątkach opuszczonych i poniemieckich [8 March 1946 Decree Regarding
Post-German and Deserted Properties] 325
Ustawa z dnia 29 kwietnia 1985 r. o gospodarce gruntami i wywłaszczaniu nieruchomości [29 April 1985
Land Administration and Expropriation Act] Dziennik Ustaw [Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 1985
nr. 22 poz. 99 [1985 No. 22, Item 99] as repealed by Ustawa z dnia 21 sierpnia 1997 r. o gospodarce
nieruchomościami [21 August 1997 Land Administration and Expropriation Act] Dziennik Ustaw
[Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 1997 nr. 115 poz. 741 [1997 No. 115, Item 741] 339, 340
Ustawa z dnia 10 maja 1990 r. Przepisy wprowadzające ustawę o samorządzie terytorialnym i ustawę o
pracownikach samorządowych [10 May 1990 Local Self-Government Act] Dziennik Ustaw [Dz. U.]
[ Journal of Laws] 1990 nr. 32 poz. 191 [1990 No. 32, Item 191] 340
Ustawa z dnia 10 czerwca 1994 r. o zagospodarowaniu nieruchomości Skarbu Państwa przejętych od wojsk
Federacji Rosyjskiej [10 June 1994 Law on the Administration of Real Property Taken Over by the State
Treasury From the Army of the Russian Federation] Dziennik Ustaw [Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 1994
nr. 79 poz. 363 [1994 No. 79, Item 363] 340
Ustawa z dnia 30 maja 1996 r. o gospodarowaniu niektórymi składnikami mienia Skarbu Państwa oraz
o Agencji Mienia Wojskowego [30 May 1996 Law on the Administration of Certain Portions of the
State Treasury’s Property and the Military Property Agency] DZIENNIK USTAW [Dz. U.] [ Journal
of Laws] 1996 nr. 90 poz. 405 [1996 No. 90, Item 405] repealed Ustawa z dnia 10 lipca 2015 r. o
Agencji Mienia Wojskowego DZIENNIK USTAW [Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 2015 poz. 1322 [2015
Item 1322] 340
Ustawa z dnia 20 lutego 1997 r. o stosunku Państwa do gmin wyznaniowych żydowskich w Rzeczypospolitej
Polskiej [20 February 1997 Law on the Relationship Between the State and Jewish Communities]
Dziennik Ustaw [Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 1997 nr. 41 poz 251 [1997 No. 41, Item 251] 313
Ustawa z dnia 8 lipca 2005 r. o realizacji prawa do rekompensaty z tytułu pozostawienia nieruchomości
poza obecnymi granicami Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej [8 July 2005 Law on Exercising the Right to
Compensation for Immovable Property Left Outside the Borders of the Republic of Poland] Dziennik
Ustaw [Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 2005 nr. 169 poz. 1418 [2005 No. 169, Item 1418] 344
Ustawa z dnia 25 czerwca 2015 r. o zmianie ustawy o gospodarce nieruchomościami oraz ustawy - Kodeks
rodzinny i opiekuńczy [25 June 2015 Act Amending the Law on Real Estate Management and the
Law—the Family and Guardianship Code] DZIENNIK USTAW [Dz. U.] [ Journal of Laws] 2016 poz.
1271 [2016 item 1271] 327
Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego [Code of Administrative Procedure]. For a uniform text of the Act as
of 27 June 2017, see Dziennik Ustaw [Dz. U.] [Journal of Laws] 2017 poz. 1257 [2017 item 1257] 330

ROMANIA
L. nr. 187/23-03-1945 [Decree No. 187/1945] [pentru înfăptuirea reformei agrare] Monitorul Oficial
[Official Gazette of Romania] nr.38/23 March 1945 366
L. nr. 119/11-06-1948 [Law No. 119/1948 of 11 June 1948] [pentru naţionalizarea intreprinderilor
industriale, bancare, de asigurări, miniere şi de transporturi] Monitorul Oficial [Official Gazette of
Romania] nr. 133 bis/11 June 1948 366
xxix

Table of Legislation xxix

D. nr. 113/29-06-1948 [Decree No. 113/1948 of 29 June 1948] [cu privire la bunurile rămase de pe urma
evreilor, victime ale unor măsuri de persecuţie, decedaţi fără moştenitori] Monitorul Oficial
[Official Gazette of Romania] nr. 140/30 June 1948 360, 374
D. nr. 92/19-04-1950 [Decree No. 92/1950 of 19 April 1950] [pentru nationalizarea unor imobile (prin care
se nationalizeaza imobilele cladite ale fostilor industriasi, fostilor bancheri, fostilor mari comercianti şi
celorlalte elemente ale marii burghezii, imobile cladite ale exploatatorilor de locuinte, hoteluri şi alte
asemenea)] Buletinul Oficial [Official Gazette of Romania] nr. 36/20 April 1950 367
L. nr. 112/25-11-1995 [Law No. 112/1995 of 25 November 1995] [pentru reglementarea situaţiei juridice a
unor imobile cu destin aţia de locuinţe, trecute în proprietatea statului] Monitorul Oficial [Official
Gazette of Romania] nr. 279/29 November 1995 359, 367, 370
L. nr. 10/08-02-2001 [Law No. 10/2001 of 8 February 2001] [privind regimul juridic al unor imobile
preluate în mod abuziv în perioada 6 martie 1945 - 22 decembrie 1989] Monitorul Oficial [Official
Gazette of Romania] nr. 75/14 February 2001 359
L. nr. 247/19-07-2005 [Law No. 247/2005 of 19 July 2005] [privind reforma în domeniile proprietăţii şi
justiţiei, precum şi unele măsuri adiacente] 359, 368
L. nr. 165/16-05-2013 [Law No. 165/2013 of 16 May 2013] [privind măsurile pentru finalizarea procesului
de restituire, în natură sau prin echivalent, a imobilelor preluate în mod abuziv în perioada regimului
comunist în România] Monitorul Oficial [Official Gazette of Romania] nr. 278/17 May 2013 360,
370

SERBIA
See also Yugoslavia
Zakon o prijavljivanju i evidentiranju oduzete imovine [2005 Law on Reporting and Recording of
Nationalized Property]. Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije [SR] [Official Gazette of the Republic
of Serbia] No. 45/2005 392
Nacrt zakona o denacionalizaciji [2007 Draft Law on Denationalization], reprinted in Hereticus 1/2008 (VI)
(2008) 386
Zakon o vraćanju oduzete imovine i obeštećenju [Law on Property Restitution and Compensation]. Službeni
glasnik Republike Srbije [SR] [Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia] No. 72/2011 386
Zakon o otklanjanju posledica oduzimanja imovine žrtvama holokausta koje nemaju živih zakonskih
naslednika [Law on the Elimination of Consequences of Property Confiscation of Heirless Holocaust
Victims]. Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije [SR] [Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia] No.
13/2016 386

SLOVAKIA
See also Czechoslovakia; Czech Republic
Dekret presidenta republiky o neplatnosti některých majetkově-právních jednání z doby nesvobody a o
národní správě majetkových hodnot Němců, Maďarů, zrádců a kolaborantů a některých organisací
a ústavů [Decree No. 5/1945 Concerning the Invalidity of Transactions Involving Property Rights
from the Time of the Oppression and Concerning the National Administration of Property Assets of
Germans, Magyars, Traitors and Collaborationists and of Certain Organizations and Associations].
Dekret č. 5/1945 Sb 104, 401, 405
Zákon o neplatnosti některých majetkově-právních jednání z doby nesvobody a o nárocích z této neplatnosti
a z jiných zásahů do majetku vzcházejících [Law No. 128/1946 on the Invalidity of Certain Property-
Related Legal Acts Taken in the Period of Non-Freedom and on Claims Arising from Such Invalidity and
Other Interference with Property]. Zákon č. 128/1946 Sb 401, 405
Zákon o Likvidačním fondu měnovém [Currency Liquidation Fund]. Zákon č. 141/1947 Sb 410
Zákon o mimosúdnych rehabilitáciách [Act No. 87/1991 Rehabilitation Law, as amended]. Zákon 87/1991
Zb 103, 401, 406, 407
Zákon o súdnej rehabilitácii [Law No. 119/1990 on Judicial Rehabilitation]. Zákon 119/1990 Zb 407
Zákon o úpravě vlastnických vztahů k půdě a jinému zemědělskému majetku [Act No. 229/1991 as amended on
Ownership Rights of Land and Other Agricultural Property]. Zákon 229/1991 Zb 103, 109, 401, 407
xxx

xxx Table of Legislation

Zákon Slovenskej národnej rady o zmiernení niektorých majetkových a iných krívd a o pôsobnosti orgánov
štátnej správy Slovenskej republiky v oblasti mimosúdnych rehabilitácií [Law No. 319/1991 on
Redressing Certain Property Injustices, as amended]. Zákon 319/1991 Zb 407
Zákon o úprave majetkových vzťahov a vyporiadaní majetkových nárokov v družstvách [Law No. 42/1992 on
Adjustment of Ownership Relations Concerning Agricultural Property, as amended]. Zákon 42/1992
Zb 407
Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky o zmiernení niektorých majetkových krívd spôsobených cirkvám
a náboženským spoločnostiam [Act No. 282/1993 on the Mitigation of Certain Injustices Caused to
Churches and Religious Communities, as amended]. Zákon 282/1993 Z.z 402
Zákon o navrátení vlastníctva k nehnuteľným veciam cirkvám a náboženským spoločnostiam a prechode
vlastníctva k niektorým nehnuteľnostiam [Law No. 161/2005 on Restitution]. Zákon 161/2005 Z.z 409

SLOVENIA
See also Yugoslavia
Zakon o denacionalizaciji [1991 Denationalization Act] Uradni list Republike Slovenije [RS] [Official
Gazette of Slovenia] št. 27/1991 [No. 27/1991], 29 November 1991 416

SPAIN
Ley Orgánica 16/2015, de 27 de octubre, sobre privilegios e inmunidades de los Estados extranjeros,
las Organizaciones Internacionales con sede u oficina en España y las Conferencias y Reuniones
internacionales celebradas en España [Law 16/2015 on Privileges and Immunity of Foreign States,
International Organizations and Conferences], B.O.E. 2015, 258 431

TURKEY
Varlık Vergisi hakkında Kanun No. 4305 [Wealth Tax Law No. 4305] 11 November 1942, T.C. Resmî
Gazette [Official Gazette of Turkey], 12.11.1942, No. 5255 447

UKRAINE

Laws
Про порядок введення в дію Закону Української РСР “Про реабілітацію жертв політичних репресій
на [. . .] Верховна Рада УРСР”; Постанова від 17.04.1991 No. 963-XII [The Law of Ukraine from 17
April 1991 “On rehabilitation of victims of political reprisals”] 452
Про свободу совісті та релігійні організації Верховна Рада УРСР; Закон від 23.04.1991 No. 987-XII
[The Law of Ukraine from 23 April 1991 “On freedom of worship and religious organizations” (with
amendments and appendices) (Article 17 in particular)] 452

Presidential Decrees
Про заходи щодо повернення релігійним організаціям культового майна Президент України; Указ від
04.03.1992 No. 125 [The Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 125 from 4 March 1992 “On measures
for restitution of iconic property to religious organizations”] 452
Про повернення релігійним організаціям культового майна Президент України; Розпорядження від
22.06.1994 No. 53/94-рп [Ordinance of the President of Ukraine No. 53/94-rp from 22 June 1994 “On
restitution of iconic property to religious organizations”] 452

Cabinet of Ministers Orders

Про внесення змін і доповнень до Положення про порядок виплати компенсацій, повернення майна
або [. . .] Кабінет Міністрів України; Постанова від 18.02.1993 No. 112 [Decree of the Cabinet of the
Ministers Ukraine No. 112 from 18 February 1993 “Regulations on the indemnification payment order,
restitution of property or indemnification of its costs to rehabilitated people”] 452
Про передачу релігійним організаціям культових будівель, в яких розміщуються державні архіви
Кабінет Міністрів України; Розпорядження від 16.06.1995 No. 357-р [Order of the Cabinet of
xxxi

Table of Legislation xxxi

Ministers Ukraine No. 357-p from 16 June 1995 “On passage of iconic constructions where the states
archives are, to religious organizations”] 452
Про умови передачі культових будівель - визначних пам’яток архітектури релігійним організаціям
Кабінет Міністрів України; Постанова від 14.02.2002 No. 137 [Order of the Cabinet of Ministers
Ukraine No. 137 from 14 February 2002 “On conditions of passage of iconic constructions—out-
standing monuments of architecture to religious organizations”] 452

UNITED KINGDOM
Trading with the Enemy Act 1939, 15 & 16 Geo. 5 c.89 455

UNITED STATES
International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, Pub. L. No. 81-455, 64 Stat. 12 (1950) (codified as amended in
scattered sections of 22 U.S.C.) 471
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 (codified as amended in
scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.) 464, 471

YUGOSLAVIA
See also Macedonia; Serbia
Zakon o postupanju sa imovinom koju su vlasnici morali napustiti u toku okupacije i imovinom koja im
je oduzeta od strane okupatora i njegovih pomagača, Službeni list DFJ [Gazette of Yugoslavia] broj
36/45 [Law No. 36/45 on Handling Property Abandoned by Its Owner During the Occupation and
Property Seized by the Occupier and Collaborators] 45, 50, 81, 249, 254, 273, 278, 385, 390
Zakon o potvrdi i izmenama i dopunama Zakona o postupanju sa imovinom koju su sopstvenici morali
napustiti u toku okupacije i imovinom koja im je oduzeta od strane okupatora i njegovih pomagača,
Službeni list DFJ [Gazette of Yugoslavia] broj 64/46) [Law No. 64/46 on Confirmation and Changes
to the Law on Handling Property Abandoned by Its Owners During the Occupation and Property
Seized by the Occupier and Collaborators, as amended] 50–51, 278, 390
Zakon o nacionalizaciji privatnih privrednih preduzeća Službeni list FNRJ [Gazette of Yugoslavia]
broj 98/46 and 35/48 [Law No. 98/46 and 34/48 on Nationalization of Private Commercial
Enterprises] 52, 255, 279
Osnovni zakon o eksproprijaciji Službeni list FNRJ [Gazette of Yugoslavia] broj 28/47 [Law No. 28/47
Fundamental Law on Expropriation] 52, 255
xxxi
xxxi

Introduction

The Nazis and their state-​sponsored cohorts stole mercilessly from the Jews of Europe.
Civilian and government bystanders became beneficiaries of this mass looting. As
summarized in a best-​selling study:

The plunder of Jewish property during the war had taken place in every country, and
at every level of society. The comprehensive nature of this plundering was sometimes
quite astounding. In the old Jewish quarter of Amsterdam, for example, the houses were
stripped of everything right down to the wooden window and door frames. In Hungary,
Slovakia and Romania, Jewish land and property was often divided up amongst the
poor. Sometimes people did not even wait until the Jews had gone. There are examples
in Poland of acquaintances approaching Jews during the war with the words, “Since you
are going to die anyway, why should someone else get your boots? Why not give them
to me so I will remember you?”
When handfuls of Jews began to come home after the war, their property was some-
times returned to them without any fuss—​but this tended to be the exception rather
than the rule. The historiography of this period in Europe is littered with stories of Jews
trying, and failing, to get back what was rightfully theirs. Neighbors and friends who
had promised to look after valuable items for Jews while they were away frequently
refused to return them: in the intervening years they had come to regard them as their
own. Villagers who had farmed Jewish land during the war saw no reason why returning
Jews should benefit from the fruits of their labours. Christians who had been granted
empty apartments by the wartime authorities considered those apartments rightfully
theirs, and they had papers to prove it. All these people tended to regard Jews with
varying degrees of resentment, and cursed their luck that, of all of the Jews that had
“disappeared” during the war, theirs had to be the ones who came back.1

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, returning victims—​not only surviving European

Jews but also Roma, political dissidents, homosexuals, persons with disabilities, Jehovah’s

1
Keith Lowe, Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2012),
at 197–​198 (emphasis in original).

xxxiii
xxxvi

xxxiv Introduction

Witnesses, and others—​were forced to navigate a frequently unclear and cumbersome legal
path to recover their property from governments and neighbors who had failed to protect
them, and often, who were complicit in their persecution. Many survivors persevered for
years, attempting to recover their family’s property with little evidence or hope that they
would succeed. Many others never knew recovering their stolen property was an option.
Law was not the survivors’ ally; more often it was their enemy, providing impunity for
thieves and those who held stolen property.
While the return of Nazi-​looted art starting in the 1990s, and well-​publicized settlements
involving dormant Swiss bank accounts and unpaid insurance policies, have garnered media
attention,2 most legal mechanisms available in domestic courts and international tribunals for
survivors and their heirs to recover real property stolen during the largest theft in history have
not been addressed. Specifically, a significant amount of immovable property confiscated from
European Jews remains unrestituted.
This book is about the less publicized, less well-​known area of restitution: immovable prop­
erty confiscated during World War II, and specifically the restitution efforts of the 47 countries
that endorsed the Terezin Declaration. The success of such efforts is mixed. Countries across the
European continent have passed an array of legal and diplomatic restitution or compensation
measures. Some were enacted even before the war ended (e.g., the 1943 Inter-​Allied Declaration
against Acts of Dispossession committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation and Control,
the “London Declaration” endorsed by 18 governments). Others have come into force more than
70 years later (e.g., Serbia’s 2016 Law on Elimination of Consequence of Property Confiscation
of Heirless Holocaust Victims). Some measures resulted in at least partial restoration of the
victims’ losses. Others existed in name only. In Eastern Europe, many property restitution laws
were in effect for only a few years and were overturned as soon as the Communist authorities
took power. Jews caught behind the Iron Curtain became double victims: first losing their assets
to the Nazis, and then to the Communists. Much has still not been returned.
Against this backdrop of what U.S. Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat has termed “the unfin-
ished business of World War II,”3 47 countries4 in June 2009 issued the Terezin Declaration on
the site of the Terezin concentration camp in the Czech Republic. By endorsing the Terezin
Declaration, these nations agreed to continue and enhance their efforts to right the economic
wrongs that accompanied the genocide committed against European Jews and other groups
persecuted during the Holocaust (“Shoah,” in Hebrew).
The Terezin Declaration (and its companion document, the 2010 Guidelines and
Best Practices,5 endorsed by 43 countries6) focuses in substantial part on the treatment of

2
For Swiss bank deposits, see, e.g., In re: Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Case No. CV-​96-​4849; see also http://​swissbankclaims.com (official website
of the Swiss Banks Settlement). For insurance proceeds, see, e.g., http://​icheic.ushmm.org (official website of
the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims).
3
See, e.g., Stuart Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World
War II (New York: PublicAffairs 2003). Ambassador Eizenstat served as Special Representative of the
President and Secretary of State on Holocaust Issues during the Bill Clinton presidency and as Special
Adviser on Holocaust issues during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies.
4
Serbia attended the 2009 Prague Conference on Holocaust Era Assets as an observer but later became the
47th country to endorse the Terezin Declaration.
5
The complete title of the 2010 Guidelines and Best Practices is: Guidelines and Best Practices for the
Restitution and Compensation of Immovable (Real) Property Confiscated or Otherwise Wrongfully
Seized by the Nazis, Fascists and Their Collaborators during the Holocaust (Shoah) Era between 1933–​
145, Including the Period of World War II.
6
Of the 47 countries that endorsed the Terezin Declaration, only Belarus, Malta, Poland, and Russia did not
endorse the Best Practices.
xxxv

Introduction xxxv

immovable (real) property restitution: private, communal, and heirless property.7 Private
property includes both prewar Jewish private property currently in the hands of the state
and private individuals or entities. Immovable property also includes large amounts of
Jewish communal property such as synagogues, clubs, social service organizations, and
cemeteries, that have never been returned to the local Jewish community or the Jewish
people at large. Finally, because 6 million European Jews were murdered between 1933
and 1945, including up to 90 percent of the Jewish population in some countries, such as
Poland and the Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, much of this lost property
remains heirless, with the state becoming the legal successor to such heirless property. In
the Terezin Declaration, countries agreed that the heirless property instead should be used
to benefit needy Holocaust survivors, and for commemoration of destroyed communities
and Holocaust education.

ESLI AND THE HOLOCAUST (SHOAH) IMMOVABLE

PROPERTY RESTITUTION STUDY
Beginning with the so-​called London Gold Conference in 1997, states have held numerous
international conferences focusing on the restitution of various forms of Jewish property
stolen during the Shoah. At the conclusion of each of these multinational conferences, the
government delegates issued pronouncements to implement measures to finally confront
Holocaust-​era thievery. These pronouncements led to little action and actual implemen-
tation. The 2009 Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference leading to the issuance of the
Terezin Declaration aimed to change this pattern by creating the European Shoah Legacy
Institute (ESLI).
ESLI was established in 2010 to monitor the signatory states’ progress and advocate for
the principles enshrined in the Terezin Declaration.8 In 2014, in fulfillment of its mission,
ESLI commissioned the Holocaust (Shoah) Immovable Property Restitution Study (the
“Study”), published in full in this book. Completed in January 2017, the Study is the first-​
ever comprehensive compilation of significant legislation passed by the 47 endorsing states
since 1945, dealing with the return or compensation of land and businesses confiscated or
otherwise misappropriated during the Holocaust era. It applies both to states where the
Holocaust took place and states to which the proceeds of such misappropriated land and
businesses had been moved.
The Study’s comprehensiveness and methodology aims to break new ground in re-
search and analysis of immovable property restitution following the Holocaust. It captures
historical trends and reflects current gaps in law. It seeks to inspire answers, and raise new
questions, to the intractable problems of property restitution—​for example, with respect
to heirless property that has been sparsely addressed. It aims to promote thoughtful dis-
course on the rationale behind immovable property restitution in general, who should
benefit from it and who should pay for it. It is our hope that the Study will promote an on-
going, multilateral dialogue amongst states, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
domestic and international lawyers and jurists, and will lead to progress on the outstanding
issues related to Holocaust-​era immovable property restitution.

7
See also Elazar Barkan, The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices (New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2000), at 4 (describing the importance of restitution of all three types of
property).
8
After eight years as a supporting platform for post-​Holocaust issues, ESLI closed its doors in August 2017.
xxxvi

xxxvi Introduction

The Study also fulfills a practical purpose. Jewish and non-​Jewish claimants, heirs,
governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders will now have a one-​stop resource where all
significant Holocaust restitution legislation and case law dealing with immovable property
over the last 70 years has been compiled and analyzed.
No such resource, in print or online, in any language, is available elsewhere. The Study is
composed of 47 individual country reports, each of which is contained in a separate chapter
in this book. The success of the restitution experience varies from country to country,
depending largely on how each state has addressed some of the following challenges to
devising a property restitution regime:

• The time frame for enacting restitution legislation—​was restitution immediate or

stalled until the 1990s or the present day?
• The nature and scope of nominal ownership for property to be restituted—​was prop­
erty in both public and private hands subject to restitution?
• The effectiveness of the claims process—​do existing judicial and/​or administrative
structures have the capacity to adequately, efficiently, and transparently resolve prop­
erty claims?
• The eligibility of claimants—​is the claims process available to citizens only or open to
persons of any nationality?
• Who keeps restituted property—​does the state require foreign claimants to sell prop­
erty back to a national?
• The rate of compensation—​are claimants symbolically, partially, or fully compensated
for property (in cash or bonds) when restitution in rem is not practicable?
• Former owners versus subsequent good faith purchasers—​do restitution laws fairly
protect those whose property was stolen as well as subsequent good faith purchasers?
• The treatment of heirless property—​ are the country’s usual inheritance rules
overridden so that heirless property can be used for the benefit of Holocaust survivors
and their heirs most in need?

In one form or another, these challenges track the benchmarks set forth in the 2010
Guidelines and Best Practices. They present a roadmap to carrying out restitution schemes
in countries where there is still, in the words of Ambassador Eizenstat, “unfinished business.”

METHODOLOGY
Work on the Study began in the winter of 2014. The resulting country reports published in
this book are the product of multilayer research and involved four stages.
In the first stage, pro bono attorneys from several top-​tier international law firms
conducted initial independent country research. Five leading multinational law firms
contributed pro bono resources: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP; Fried, Frank,
Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; O’Melveny & Meyers
LLP; and White & Case LLP.
A supervising attorney in each firm coordinated the pro bono work of each firm. Many
of the participating lawyers were physically located in the country they researched and/​or
were licensed to practice there. These pro bono attorneys contributed hundreds of hours of
their time toward gathering primary restitution legislation and case law.
The next stage involved contacting the Terezin Declaration governments directly.
Government consultation is one of the unique features of the Study that sets its content
apart from shorter, less comprehensive (yet still valuable) reports on immovable property
prepared by other organizations. During summer 2015, all Terezin countries received
xxxvi

Introduction xxxvii

questionnaires and preliminary research findings. Nearly half the governments responded,
some with just a few sentences and others with comprehensive information and statistics,
for example, Austria and Israel.9
In the third stage, the ESLI research team (the authors herein) then conducted its own
independent research, to verify, synthesize, and analyze the information provided by the
law firms and governments to create a comprehensive report for each of the 47 Terezin
Declaration countries. The length of each country report varies, depending on that country’s
connection to the Holocaust. For the European countries occupied by Nazi Germany, and
especially those with a large prewar Jewish population such as Poland and the Baltic coun-
tries, the reports are more detailed than for those that remained neutral during the war, for
example, Sweden, Spain, and Turkey—​with the exception of neutral Switzerland, which
disproportionally benefited from Nazi theft of Jewish property, or those countries out-
side the European theater of war (North and South America, Australia) that nevertheless
endorsed the Terezin Declaration.
In the last stage, independent scholars, legal experts, and historians active in the
Holocaust restitution field for that country reviewed each report for accuracy and pro-
vided valued input. The bibliography for each country report lists the outside experts who
reviewed the reports prepared by the Study team.

CHAPTER OVERVIEWS
Each chapter of this book covers the restitution efforts of one of the 47 Terezin Declaration
countries. Each chapter is therefore standardized. The chapters present the legal rubric
for each country in the following order: (1) commitments made in post war armistice
agreements, treaties, and claims settlement agreements following the immediate end of
the Second World War; (2) private property restitution law and legislation, and restitution
efforts undertaken from 1944 to the present time for such property; (3) communal prop­
erty law and legislation, and restitution efforts undertaken from 1944 to the present time
for such property; and (4) heirless property restitution law and legislation, and restitution
efforts undertaken from 1944 to the present time for such property.10
For each country’s restitution regime, either historical or current, the chapter:

• Catalogues the historical scope of restitution in rem and/​or compensation legislation

and its associated regulations;
• Identifies the time period covered by the legislation and what kind of property (pri-
vate, communal, heirless) is covered;
• Ascertains whether eligibility is contingent upon citizenship in the legislating
country;
• Clearly lists claim-​filing deadlines;
• Describes how the claims process works, including who decides the claims, standards
of proof, necessary documentation, associated costs, and appeals procedures;11
• Describes notable judicial decisions interpreting the legislation, including national court
decisions and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights; and

9
The government responses from the Study can be viewed in their entirety at http://​shoahlegacy.org.
10
Some of the countries were liberated in 1944, and so began enacting restitution legislation immediately
upon liberation.
11
The Study team did not conduct on-​the-​ground archival research, but did review digitized archival material
available (or accessible) online in English.
xxxvi

xxxviii Introduction

• Includes, where available, statistical information concerning, for example, the status of
claims, value of restituted property, and length of claims process.

The chapters also place each country’s legislation and restitution regime into its unique
historical context. For example, the chapters include information regarding the so-​called
double confiscations—​ the widespread nationalization efforts by emerging post​ war,
Communist regimes which impacted the entire population, to elucidate why restitution
efforts faltered or failed to come to fruition for decades following the end of the war. In
addition, such context helps explain why restitution in these countries often involves more
than returning or compensating for property confiscated during the Holocaust. It is also a
matter of unwinding subsequent Communist nationalizations of that same property.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Study examined private, communal, and heirless property as discrete components of
each country’s restitution efforts from 1944 to 2016.
While the historical experiences of each country make its country report and the laws
described therein wholly unique, certain patterns emerged as to how, when, and why the
various restitution regimes have been or are still being carried out.
Broadly, countries in Western Europe initiated restitution measures almost immediately
after the end of World War II. The work of national commissions and subsequent legislation
of the 1990s and 2000s was therefore mainly focused on restitution completion efforts—​
gap-​filling the restitution measures of the 1940s and 1950s. By contrast, for Eastern Europe,
there was little time to create successful restitution schemes before Communist regimes
came to power in each country and collectivized and nationalized private property. As a
consequence, for Eastern European countries, legislation of the 1990s and 2000s required a
more comprehensive approach—​covering greater time periods and more property. Often,
Holocaust-​era confiscated property is specifically excluded from post-​Communist restitu-
tion legislation.
More than 70 years after the conclusion of World War II, the “unfinished business”12 of
immovable property restitution remains unfinished. It remains to be seen whether there
will be a future gap-​filling period for restitution measures in Eastern Europe.
The Study examined restitution measures across the three main categories of immov-
able property: private, communal, and heirless. The findings are broken down into each
category, and then grouped by region, Western Europe and Eastern Europe. While Terezin
Declaration countries include many located outside of Europe, the cause and effect of
World War II immovable property confiscation was contained within the continent—​with
certain exceptions, chiefly the United States and Israel.

Private Property
Private immovable (real) property is described in the Terezin Declaration Guidelines and
Best Practices for the purpose of restitution as:

property owned by private individuals or legal persons, who either themselves or

through their families owned homes, buildings, apartments or land, or who had other

12
Stuart Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II
(New York: PublicAffairs 2003). Much of the “unfinished business” identified by Ambassador Eizenstat
concerned restitution or compensation of stolen property.
xxxxi

Introduction xxxix

legal property rights, recognized by national law as of the last date before the commence-
ment of persecution by the Nazis, Fascists and their collaborators, in such properties.
(Terezin Best Practices, para. b.)

For most Western European countries, including Belgium, Denmark, France,

Germany (the then West Germany or Federal Republic of Germany), Greece, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Norway, private property restitution measures were
established immediately after the end of World War II and applied equally to citizens and
noncitizens.13 The measures were relatively successful. This is, however, not to suggest
that it was uniformly easy to get back what had been taken, that there was an absence of
resistance to restitution, or that all property was restituted after the war. And in contrast
to West Germany, in the former East Germany (German Democratic Republic), with few
exceptions, no property restitution regime was established after the war. It was not until
the unification of Germany in 1990 that property restitution measures in East Germany
were established.
A resurgence of interest in Holocaust-​era confiscations in the 1990s led to the crea-
tion of numerous national commissions of inquiry in Western Europe that examined the
extent of property confiscation in each country and the degree to which property was
returned—​for example, the Austrian Historical Commission (Austria), The Study Mission
on the Spoliation of Jews in France (France), and the Van Kemenade Commission (the
Netherlands).
In general, the reports identified gaps in restitution or unfair or unreasonable
consequences resulting from incomplete remedies for property restitution. Due to these
commission findings, new national restitution mechanisms were established or lump-​sum
settlements reached with the domestic Jewish community.
For example, in 1999, the French government established the Commission for the
Compensation for Victims of Spoliation (CIVS), to provide compensation to individual
victims or their heirs who had not been previously compensated for damages resulting from
legislation passed either by the Vichy government or by the occupying Germans.
In 1998, the government of Norway approved a comprehensive settlement with the
Jewish community worth NOK 250 million (USD 33 million) that covered all claims—​
private, communal, and heirless—​of the Jewish community. It has also been the case in
some countries, such as Italy, that despite a historical commission’s finding restitution gaps
and making recommendations that further restitution be made, no additional measures
have since been carried out.
Somewhat unique is private property restitution in the United Kingdom. While not
occupied during World War II, the United Kingdom enacted legislation that confiscated
property from “enemies” of the state. After the war, the United Kingdom set up a scheme to
compensate victims of property confiscation. Around the time that other Western European
national commissions were being set up in the late 1990s, the United Kingdom investigated
the shortcomings of its initial restitution scheme and set up the Enemy Property Payment
Scheme for victims of persecution under the confiscation law.

13
The exceptions included Denmark, whose restitution legislation applied only to Danish citizens, and
France, where the immediate post-​war restitution laws excluded both noncitizens and minors. This effec-
tively excluded nearly half of the surviving Jews in France at the time. In addition, Luxembourg’s 1950 Law
for War Damages only applied to Luxembourg citizens.
xl

xl Introduction

The restitution experience of countries in Eastern Europe also began at the end of the
war, but in the end followed a far more delayed and complicated path than that in most
Western European countries.
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia all passed some form
of restitution legislation shortly after the end of World War II. Many of these states were
compelled to do so by the terms of armistice agreements or a treaty of peace, for example,
Article 5 of the 28 October 1944 Armistice Agreement with Bulgaria required that Bulgaria
cancel all discriminatory legislation.
Shortly after early restitution measures were established, private industry, financial
enterprises, and residential properties were nationalized by the newly installed Communist
regimes throughout Eastern Europe. The outcome was that whatever property had
been restituted was subject to a second round of confiscations, this time by Communist
authorities. In Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, Soviet authorities nationalized private prop­
erty twice, first upon their initial occupation during World War II and then a second time
after expulsion of the Nazi German occupiers.
After emerging as transitional democratic states in the early 1990s, the post-​Communist
regimes passed private property restitution legislation. This legislation covered both
Holocaust-​era confiscations and Communist-​era takings, when applicable. The amount of
compensatory restitution and in rem restitution varied widely by country. Among them, the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, and Slovakia limited eligible claimants to those who
were citizens of their respective countries.14
Yugoslavia, which broke into the constituent states of Bosnia-​Herzegovina, Croatia,
Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia after the fall of Communism, also enacted
private property restitution legislation after World War II, for example, Law No. 36/​45 (on
Handling Property Abandoned by its Owner during the Occupation and Property Seized
by the Occupier and his Collaborators) (Yugoslavia). However, like its Eastern European
neighbors, restituted property was soon subject to Communist takings and nationalization.
The new democratic states of Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Montenegro all passed
denationalization legislation in the 1990s and 2000s, but the laws did not cover Holocaust-​
era takings (e.g., Law No. 92/​96 on Restitution/​Compensation of Property Taken under
the Yugoslav Communist Rule (Croatia), Law No. 43/​2000 (2000 Denationalization Law)
(Macedonia)). Moreover, eligible claimants in Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia were lim-
ited to citizens of the respective countries.15 Serbia passed private property restitution legis-
lation in 2011 (Law on Property Restitution and Compensation). Unlike many of the other
Balkan countries, Serbia’s legislation applies to both citizens and noncitizens. However, the
text of the law is not clear whether it covers Holocaust-​era property confiscations. Similarly,
Moldova passed a law on restitution in 1992 and set up property commissions, such as the
Law Concerning the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repressions. But on its face, the
law does not include Holocaust-​era property confiscations.

14
A portion of a 2001 endowment fund set up by the Czech Republic later provided symbolic compensa-
tion for people unable to make restitution claims because of the citizenship requirement. In the case of
Hungary, while the law did not strictly limit restitution to current citizens, it limited eligible claimants to
those persons who were Hungarian citizens at the time of suffering the damage, suffered damage in con-
junction with being deprived of their Hungarian citizenship, or were non-​Hungarian citizens but were
permanent residents in Hungary on December 31, 1990.
15
Contrary to the provisions of the existing laws in Croatia, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia
held in 2010 that a foreign national claimant did have a right to compensation.
xli

Introduction xli

Among Eastern European countries, Belarus, Bosnia-​Herzegovina (BiH), Poland,

Russia, and Ukraine have all failed to establish a comprehensive private property restitu-
tion regime for property taken either during the Holocaust or Communist eras, or one that
addresses both types of takings. A few of these countries established private property resti-
tution legislation shortly after the war—​for example, the 6 June 1945 Decree on the Binding
Force of Judicial Decisions made during the German Occupation in the Territory of the
Republic of Poland. But these measures were again short-​lived due to the nationalization
measures of the Communists who took over each country. In the mid-​to late 1990s, one
of the two autonomous entities that comprise BiH—​the Republic of Srpska—​also passed
legislation on the denationalization of property, but not for Holocaust-​era confiscations.
The laws were later annulled and no new legislation has come into force at either the entity
or national level.
Poland is the only member of the European Union (and a former Eastern European
member of the Communist bloc) not to have passed comprehensive private property res-
titution legislation in the post-​communist era. In the case of Poland, with the exception of
so-​called Bug River properties (property located in prewar Poland east of the Bug River
that became part of the Soviet Union after the war), where legislation from 2005 has pro-
vided for a property compensation scheme that has withstood scrutiny from the European
Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Poland has no comprehensive private property restitu-
tion scheme for either Holocaust-​era confiscations or Communist-​era takings. The only
recourse for rightful owners and heirs is to rely on long-​standing provisions of generally
applicable Polish law in the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Administrative Procedure
Code, which are not tailored to address the experience of Holocaust victims and others
who suffered massive personal and property losses in Poland during the war. Successful
claimants before Polish courts appear to be only those who can demonstrate that their prop­
erty was nationalized contrary to the letter of Communist legislation. This means that for
property “legally” nationalized under then-​existing Soviet-​styled laws, there is no recourse.
The situation in Poland regarding restitution remains fluid, with proposals for a com-
prehensive restitution program still being hotly debated in the country.16
As the U.S. Department of State Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues explained in
late 2015, “Jewish and non-​Jewish Americans of former Polish citizenship have long
complained that Polish laws governing property and the Polish court system are especially
cumbersome, challenging, time consuming and expensive for claimants outside of Poland.
The United States has consistently advocated for legislation or reforms to the court system
that are fair, comprehensive, and nondiscriminatory and that are neither burdensome nor
costly to the individual claimant.”17

16
For example, a special restitution regime was established in 1945 just for Warsaw under the so-​called
Bierut Decree (named after the first Communist leader of postwar Poland). The Communist authorities,
however, failed to implement the law. Reprivatization of Warsaw properties only began taking place after
1989, but the process has lacked transparency. In 2016, city officials involved with the reprivatization pro-
cess of Warsaw properties were forced to resign and the Anti-​Corruption Bureau began an investigation,
which is still ongoing. A law passed by the national parliament that came into effect on September 17,
2016, created a six-​month deadline for pre-​war owners of property in Warsaw to reactivate previous claims
made under the Bierut Decree, although there are a number of exceptions and limitations on who may
apply and what property is covered.
17
Letter from U.S. Dept. of State Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues to Nowy Dziennik (Polish Daily News),
December 22, 2015, available at http://​w jro.org.il/​cms/​assets/​uploads/​2016/​01/​Nick-​Dean-​Response-​
to-​Nowy-​Dziennik-​Letter-​12.22.15.pdf.
xlii

xlii Introduction

When asked about the situation in Poland during a visit to Israel in 2016, Polish Foreign
Minister Witold Waszczykowski explained:

[P]‌roperty restitution has been underway in Poland for well over two decades now [. . .]
Property restitution is a process in which claimants’ ethnic or religious background is
irrelevant: the Polish law treats everyone in the same manner. As far as private property
is concerned, the existing legal system in Poland makes it perfectly clear that any legal
or natural person (or their heir) is entitled to recover prewar property unlawfully seized
by either the Nazi German or the Soviet occupation authorities, or by the postwar com-
munist regime.18

Finally, in Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Portugal, Switzerland, Spain, and Sweden,19
private property of targeted groups was not confiscated as a cause or consequence of World
War II and the Holocaust (Shoah). As a result, these countries do not have specifically ap-
plicable private property restitution legislation.

Communal Property
Communal property is described in the Terezin Declaration Guidelines and Best Practices
for the purpose of restitution as:

property owned by religious or communal organizations and includes buildings and

land used for religious purposes, e.g. synagogues, churches[,]‌cemeteries, and other
immovable religious sites which should be restituted in proper order and protected
from desecration or misuse, as well as buildings and land used for communal purposes,
e.g. schools, hospitals, social institutions and youth camps, or for income generating
purposes.
(Terezin Best Practices, para. b.)

In Western Europe, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, and Norway have all made provisions for communal property restitution. In
many of the countries, communal property was restituted pursuant to the same laws as
private property restitution. This contrasts with communal property legislation enacted in
Eastern European countries, where communal property laws were often separate from pri-
vate property laws.
For countries such as Austria, France, and Germany (West Germany), efforts were
made shortly after World War II to return or pay compensation for communal property,
for example, the First, Second, and Third Restitution Acts (Federal Law Gazette Nos. 156/​
1946, 53/​1947, 148/​1947) (Austria). Those initial measures have been supplemented by
more recent legislation meant to gap-​fill the return of communal property that was for-
merly missed or not included, for example, the Amendment to the General Social Security

18
Eldad Beck, “Polish Foreign Minister: There’s more to us than the Holocaust,” ynetnews.com, June 15,
2016 (last accessed August 1, 2016). The restitution of immovable property stolen during the Nazi and
Communist eras remains a volatile issue in Poland. See, e.g., Joanna Berendt, “Polish Court Limits World
War II–​Era Restitution Claims in Warsaw,” N.Y. Times, July 27, 2016 (last accessed October 20, 2016).
19
In certain instances, German firms with Swedish subsidiaries used German Aryanization measures to their
own advantage. However, Aryanization efforts in Sweden were largely unsuccessful. There is also evidence
that some German Jewish property in Sweden was liquidated after the war.
xliii

Introduction xliii

Law and the Victims’ Welfare Act (setting up the General Settlement Fund) (Federal Law
Gazette No. 12/​2001) (Austria).
Countries such as Greece and Italy relied upon laws passed immediately after the
war for restitution and repair of communal property, for example, Law DLG 736/​1948
(extending the provisions of DLG 35/​1946 to non-​Catholic buildings of worship, which
were destroyed or damaged during the war) (Italy).
For Belgium and Luxembourg, communal property confiscation and damage was more
isolated, and the Jewish communities were compensated directly for damages after the war.
For Norway, as a result of its national commission of inquiry established in the late 1990s, a
comprehensive settlement with the Jewish community was made to compensate for the ec-
onomic and physical liquidation of the community, and for the local preservation of Jewish
culture and the Jewish community.
In Eastern Europe, communal property restitution legislation of some type—​
be it applicable to both Holocaust-​ era confiscations and denationalization, or just
denationalization—​has been passed in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Serbia.
Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia all passed communal property restitu-
tion legislation in the early 1990s that covered property confiscated during the Holocaust
era and during the Communist era, for example, Act No. 282/​1993 (on the Mitigation of
Certain Injustices Caused to Churches and Religious Communities) (Slovakia), and the
1997 Law on the Relationship Between the State and Jewish Communities (Poland). In
Slovakia, the communal property restitution law applied generally to property seized after
1945, but a special provision permitted Jewish communities to file claims dating back
to 1938.
For Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania, limitations written into their communal property
restitution laws from the early 1990s—​which addressed restitution of communal property
confiscated during both the Holocaust era and Communist era—​made it difficult for Jewish
communities to receive restitution or compensation for communal property, for example,
the 1992 Law of Restitution of Property to Religious Organizations (Latvia). However, be-
tween 2011 and 2016 each of these countries passed specific legislation facilitating the re-
turn of or compensation for formerly Jewish communal property to the Jewish community,
for example, the 2011 Good Will Compensation Law (Lithuania), the 2016 laws returning
five pieces of property to the Jewish community (Latvia), and 2016 legislation addressing
community successorship and forced “donation” issues (Romania). For countries such as
Latvia, recent communal property legislation is a positive development. But ownership
over many other formerly Jewish communal properties in Latvia remains in dispute and
the properties are not subject to current restitution legislation.
Regarding countries in the Balkans, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia passed restitu-
tion laws in the early 1990s which covered only Communist-​era property confiscations
and excluded property that was taken during the Holocaust. And in the case of Croatia,
its law also did not cover properties that were not directly owned by Jewish organizations,
for example, Law No. 92/​96 (on Restitution/​Compensation of Property Taken under
the Yugoslav Communist Rule) (Croatia), and the 1991 Denationalization Act (Official
Gazette RS, No. 27/​91) (Slovenia).20 The laws addressed both private and communal prop­
erty that had been confiscated during the Communist era. Similarly, Serbia’s 2006 Law on
the Restitution of Property to Churches and Religious Communities only covers property

20
Note, however, that in 2002, the government and the Jewish Community of Macedonia settled all re-
maining Jewish communal property claims.
xliv

xliv Introduction

confiscated after 1945. Only Bosnia-​Herzegovina and Montenegro have failed to enact
communal property restitution legislation covering either Holocaust-​era confiscations or
Communist-​era takings, or both.
In Belarus, Moldova, and Russia, property has been returned to Jewish communities
only on an ad hoc basis. In Ukraine, there are a variety of regulations and decrees, but no
specific law that governs communal property restitution. While some property is being
returned to the Jewish community in Ukraine, it is being carried out at a much slower rate
than property belonging to other religious institutions.
For Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
and the United Kingdom, no communal property was confiscated during the Holocaust
era. As a result, there is no specific communal property restitution legislation.

Heirless Property
Heirless property is described in the Terezin Declaration Guidelines and Best Practices for
the purpose of restitution as:

property which was confiscated or otherwise taken from the original owners by the
Nazis, Fascists and their collaborators and where the former owner died or dies intes-
tate without leaving a spouse or relative entitled to his inheritances. . . . From these
properties, special funds may be allocated for the benefit of needy Holocaust (Shoah)
survivors from the local community, irrespective of their country of residence. From
such funds, down payments should be allocated at once for needy Holocaust (Shoah)
survivors. Such funds, among others, may also be allocated for purposes of commemo-
ration of destroyed communities and Holocaust (Shoah) education.
(Terezin Best Practices, para. j.)

Heirless stolen property has received the least legislative attention, for the obvious
reason that there are no direct claimants to the property. Heirless property restitution
presents the most challenging problem in addressing the lingering injustice from the geno-
cide of the Jews committed in Nazi-​occupied Europe, where almost the entire Jewish com-
munity in certain countries of Europe was wiped out. In such instances, equity principles
dictate that it would be inappropriate to apply the usual rule that heirless property simply
reverts (escheats) to the state. As Elazar Barkan explains, using the example of Jewish com-
munal property in Czechoslovakia:

By law, since the Hapsburg premodern period, heirless property reverts to the state. Yet
since the genocide created heirless property to an unprecedented extent, the commu-
nity has a strong moral claim for the property of its members who were murdered in the
Holocaust. The notion that the state, rather than the community, would be the benefi-
ciary of this property may have been legally correct but was viewed by Jews outside the
Czech Republic as morally offensive. The moral justification for restitution has collided
with the new realities of privatization. Pragmatically, rapid privatization severely lim-
ited possible restitution because much of the potential property for restitution has been
transferred to private ownership.21

21
Elazar Barkan, The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, Inc. 2000), at 150–​151.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Järven rannalla oleva kylä oli kuollut. Asukkaat olivat muuttaneet
pois uusia kalavesiä etsimään. Vain yksinäinen rappeutunut talo
seisoi vielä aavan laidassa. Siinä ei ollut ovia eikä ikkunoita. Pappila,
jolle niitty kuului, käytti sitä heinälatona. Se oli Matias Niileksen ja
Iidan kohtauspaikka.

Paikalla sanottiin kummittelevan, mutta mitäpä välittää kaksi

rakastavaista kummituksista. Heidän rakkautensa pystyy
karkoittamaan pahat henget. Koko muu maailma on lakannut heille
olemasta.

Kuu teki nousuaan, kun Matias Niiles laski viistoon tunturin

rinnettä alas kylän itäpäässä. Rinne oli tällä kohtaa loiva. Sieltäpäin
olisi muuten ollut paljoa helpompi nousta torppaan, jollei tie olisi
tehnyt niin suurta mutkaa. Matias Niileksellä oli oma latunsa. Hän
viiletti laaksoon niin että korvissa soi.

Puolisen tuntia hiihdettyään hän saapui Riihiaavalle. Kuu valoi

keltaista valoaan hiljaisen seudun yli. Riihiaapa lepäsi autiona.
Kuunsäteet taittuivat sen lumista pintaa vasten. Näytti siltä, kuin
olisivat ne tahtoneet palata takaisin alkulähteeseensä. Mutta siihen
ne eivät enää kyenneet laskeuduttuaan niin etäälle alas. Heikkoina
ja hapuilevina ne kallistuivat kuuta kohti. Kylmän aavan pinta
tyrehdytti niiden lennon jo alkuun.

Matias Niiles tunsi mielensä apeaksi. Ilta ei vastannut hänen

kuvittelujaan. Hän ei osannut selittää, mistä se johtui, mutta häntä
painosti. Hän rupesi jo horjumaan päätöksessään. Eikö ollut
hulluutta esittää Iidalle pakoa —?

Kuului suksen sihajava ääni. Joku lykkeli lylyä tasaisessa,

nopeassa tahdissa. Matias Niiles arvasi kyllä, kuka se oli; hänen
sydämensä vapautui hetkiseksi alakuloisuudestaan. Sieltä saapui
Iida, hänen morsiamensa.

Jo tuli tuttu lapinlakki näkyviin metsän aukeamasta. Kuunvalo

iskeytyi lakin punaiseen verkaan kuin koetellakseen, pystyisikö sen
kantaja ratkaisemaan illan ongelman. Näytti siltä kuin hän pystyisi,
sillä samassa valaisi kuu kirkkaasti tytön kasvot, jotka hymyilivät
rohkeasti. Muutaman minuutin kuluttua hän oli pojan luona.

— Matias Niiles, huohotti hän onnellisena. — Sinä olet jo täällä!

— Olen odottanut sinua.

Tyttö nosti suksensa tikapuita vasten. Hänen vartalonsa oli notkea

ja liikkeet sulavat. Matias Niiles katseli häntä hellästi nojatessaan
rakennuksen seinää vasten.

Tyttö hiipi hänen luoksensa ja painoi kasvonsa hänen kasvojaan

lähelle. Hänen kuuraiset kiharansa koskettivat pojan poskea, saaden
tämän heikosti vapisemaan.

— Onko se mörkö? kuiskasi hän lämpimästi.

Kasvot painuivat yhä lähemmäs, kunnes poski kosketti poskea.

Seuraavassa silmänräpäyksessä etsivät tytön huulet pojan huulia.

Pojan povi paisui onnesta. Hän sulki tytön syliinsä. Tässä, vanhan,
hyljätyn rakennuksen seinustalla levähti Rakkaus.

Matias Niiles esitti, että mentäisiin sisään.

He astuivat käsikädessä heiluvia portaita ylös. Avonaisesta ovesta

heloitti kuu heitä vastaan. Se paistoi ruuduttomasta peräikkunasta
suoraan poikki pirtin, jonka katto oli jonkun verran sisäänpainunut.

— Me kiipeämme heiniin, kuiskasi poika.

Heinät kahisivat somasti heidän kiivetessään. Poika auttoi tyttöä

kädestä. Hetken kuluttua he lepäsivät vieretysten heiniin
kaivautuneina. Kuu levitti keltaisen vaippansa heidän ylitsensä.

Matias Niiles rupesi kehimään auki suunnitelmaansa. Mitä Iida

arvelisi, jos he pakenisivat yhdessä? Ruotsiin, rajan toiselle
puolen…?

Tyttö makasi hetkisen aivan hiljaa. Hänen hengityksensä kohosi

heikkona huuruna kattoa kohti. Matias Niiles koetti pyydystää sitä
kiinni, mutta se oli tietysti turhaa vaivaa.

— Matias Niiles, kuiskasi hän hetken päästä. — Pakenisimmeko…

niinkö sanoit? Tiedätkö, olen sitä monesti miettinyt, mutta aina
hyljännyt sen ajatuksen. Äiti kuolisi suruun.

Äiti —? Niin — äiti. Iidalla oli äiti ja hänellä myös. Hän ei vain ollut
ajatellut äitinsä surua.

— Sinä rakastat äitiäsi enemmän kuin minua.

Tyttö huokasi pitkään.

— En, Matias Niiles, en rakasta. Sinua rakastan yli kaiken, mutta

sittenkään en hyväksy pakenemista.

Matias Niiles vain innostui tytön vastustuksesta. Hän ryhtyi

kuvailemaan heidän tulevaa kotiaan.
 Pirtti tällainen kuin tämäkin, mutta korkeampi. Se seisoisi
yksinäisellä paikalla huurteisten metsien keskellä, kaukana
kyläläisistä kylistä. Lähimpään naapuriin olisi penikulma. Mutta
siellä… siellä he asuisivat onnellisina, he kaksi. Sillä heidän kotiaan
lämmittäisi rakkaus.

Poika lämpeni. Hän pääsi oikein henkeen. Hänen kasvonsa

loistivat, kun hän viittasi katto-orteen.

— Tuossa… juuri tuossa olisivat minun reenjalaspuuni ja tuolla

ovisuuseinällä verkot. Tuolla olisi poronvaljaiden paikka ja tuolla
perällä, nurkkakaapissa, sinun tavarasi. Minä veistäisin kaapin,
koristaisin sen siroin puuleikkauksin ja siihen pantaisiin
patenttilukko… Tuolla ikkunan vasemmalla puolen olisi kello, sinun
kukkukellosi, ja tuolla pitkällä seinällä sänky… meidän yhteinen
vuoteemme…

Tyttö naurahti.

— Minusta on hauskempi maata heinissä.

No — jos niikseen tuli, niin saattaisivathan he kantaa heinäkasan

pirttiin ja nukkua siinä. Sieltä he sitten aamuisin kurkistelisivat kuin
kaksi kananpoikaa pesästään.

Nyt ei tyttö enää jaksanut nauruaan hillitä. Hän oikein hihitti.

— Voi sinua, sinä heinissä loikova ritari! Vai niin me nukkuisimme!

Hän ryömi lähelle poikaa, pujotti kädet tämän kaulaan ja suuteli

häntä pitkään ja tulisesti.
 Kuu valaisi huurupilveä heidän päänsä yläpuolella. Siinä kohosi
tytön ja pojan hengitys yhteensulaneena. Kuu siivilöi sitä tarkkaan
kuin huolellinen perheenäiti maitoa. »Samanlaista, samanlaista»,
sanoi se itsekseen.

— Mutta, Iida, mitä ajattelet vakavasti puhuen ehdotuksestani?

— Ei, Matias Niiles, emme me pakene. Me odotamme ensi

syksyä. Silloin minä täytän yksikolmatta ja silloin minä ratkaisen
solmun. Minä astun silloin isän eteen ja sanon: »Minä menen
Näköala-Niileksen pojanpojalle tuonne ylös». — Olihan teillä kamari?

— On, on.

— No, muuta me emme tarvitsekaan. Minä haluan asua täällä,

missä olen oppinut sinut tuntemaan ja sinua rakastamaan. Minusta
tulee Näköala-Niileksen pojanpojan Iida.

Kuinka Matias Niileksen oli hyvä ja suloinen olla. Ehkäpä oli Iidan
ehdotus sittenkin paras. Odottaa ensi syksyä. Sinne oli vielä pitkä
aika, mutta rakkaushan kestäisi kaiken.

Ja nyt rupesi tyttö vuorostaan kuvailemaan pojalle tulevaisuutta.

He asuisivat torpassa tunturin rinteellä. Hän oli aina rakastanut

sitä paikkaa. Jo pikku tyttönä hän oli kerran katsellut maailmaa sen
pihalta ja silloin oli nimismiehen puustellikin tuntunut perin
mitättömältä. Kunhan hän vain pääsisi sinne ylös, kävisi kaikki kuin
tanssi.

Hänellä ei ollut paljon tavaroita. Ompelukone ja kukkuva kello,

joka riippui piirongin yläpuolella. Ja sitten kirjat. Luuliko Matias Niiles,
että kirjat mahtuisivat kamariin?
 Oliko niitä niin kauhean paljon?

Ei — yksi pieni hyllyllinen vain.

No, sitten ei hätää. Kirjat sovitettaisiin vaikka sängyn alle.

Vai sängyn alle sinä panisit minun kirjani!

Ehkä ne mahtuisivat kehruukoppaan. Heillä oli sellaisia kaksi eikä

äiti juuri koskaan tarvinnut toista.

Nyt täytyi tytön uudelleen nauraa. Hän pusersi lujasti pojan kättä
heinien läpi. Ei, kirjahyllylle piti olla huoneen paras paikka.

No, olkoon. Ei Matias Niileksellä ollut mitään sitä vastaan.

Mutta missä Iida kaikki koreat leninkinsä säilyttäisi?

No, eikö heillä ollut vinttiä?

Oli kyllä, mutta se oli vastoja täynnä. Isäukko oli ahkera kylpijä.

— Silloin sinun pitää rakentaa vaateaitta.

— Se taitaisi tulla kalliiksi.

— Vai kalliiksi! Ja äsken rakensit talon Ruotsin korpiin. Millä sinä

sen rakensit?

— Näillä käsillä, näillä voimakkailla käsivarsilla!

Poika puristi tytön syliinsä niin että tämä oli tukehtua.

— No, kyllä sitten vaateaittakin saadaan, huokui tyttö

hengästyksissään ja nauroi.
 He kuiskuttelivat toistensa korvaan suloisia asioita. Heinät
kahisivat hiljaa ja kuuäiti sai jälleen siivilöidä heidän yhteistä
hengitystään. »Sitäpä onkin nyt runsaasti!» sanoi se.

— Mutta yksi sinun pitää luvata minulle, Matias Niiles. Sinä et saa
koskaan katsahtaakaan kehenkään muuhun naiseen.

Silloin olisi parasta, että hänelle laitettaisiin silmälaput niinkuin

pappilan vanhalle ruunalle.

— Ei, ei… vaan rakastua — sitä minä tarkoitin.

No, siitä ei vaaraa! Hänelle ei ollut muuta naista olemassa kuin

erään
Lapin nimismiehen hiukan nenäkäs tytön lepakko. Se riitti hänelle.

Tyttö nauroi.

Mutta — entäpä jos Iida rupeaisi katselemaan muita miehiä.

Papilla oli maisteri-poika, jolla oli nenäkakkulat ja korkea kaulus.

— Niin — ja nenä kuin paleltunut peruna.

— No, no… kylläpä sinä. Ajattele, rovastin poika ja osaa hepreaa.

Oppia oli tarpeeksi. Hänestäkin oli aiottu ylioppilasta, mutta hän oli
sanonut: ei! Puuronkeittäjiäkin tarvittiin.

Siinä oli Iida oikeassa. Mutta — entäpä jos hän kerran rupeaisi
halveksimaan miestänsä, kun tämä ei ollut oppinut? Oli käynyt vain
kansakoulun.

Suu poikki! Näköala-Niileksen pojanpojalla oli sydäntä enemmän

kuin monella oppineella. Sitäpaitsi hän osasi hoitaa poroja, heittää
suopunkia, tunsi kaikki poronmerkit… Se oli enemmän kuin heprea.
Kahdenkymmenen vuoden perästä ei rovastin poika enää tuntisi
kaikkia heprean kirjaimia, mutta Näköala-Niileksen pojanpoika tuntisi
poronmerkit vielä kuolinvuoteellaankin.

Se kyllä piti paikkansa. Mutta — kauppiaan poika sitten? Hän oli

käynyt kauppakoulun ja kerran Englannissa. Kuinkas hän nyt taas
sanoikaan? »Kuut pai.»

— Good bye! Sen sinäkin opit ja tässä nyt. Ja silloin sinä olet yhtä
hyvä kuin kauppiaan poikakin.

Matias Niiles lausuili good bye'ta, kunnes Iida vakuutti sen

menevän ihan oikein. Opettajaispalkaksi suuteli Matias Niiles häntä.

Eipäs siinä sitten muuta. Asiahan oli taas aivan selvä. Torppa
seisoi tunturin kyljessä kamareineen. Iidan kirjat mahtuisivat sinne.
Vaateaitta rakennettaisiin ja oppinsa puolesta hän, Matias Niiles,
vältti. Mitäs siinä sitten, kunhan rakkaus kesti.

— Se kestää aina ja iankaikkisesti, kuiskasi tyttö hiljaa.

IV

Matias Niiles tervailee ahkion pohjaa torpan pihalla. On tullut kevät,

kirkas Lapin kevät. Hanget heloittavat. Niiden loiste ihan pistää
silmään. On kuin tanssisi niillä lukemattomia hohtavia pisteitä.
Matias Niiles varjostaa kädellä silmiään, tarkastellen alempana
olevaa nimismiehen taloa. Puutarha-aidan takana liikkuu joku.
Matias Niiles tietää kyllä, kuka se on. Siellä Iida pudistaa mattoja.
 Matias Niiles tarttuu suttiin ja kastaa sen tervapönttöön. Terva on
hiukan kohmehtunutta, mutta ahkion pohjalla se notkenee. Siksi
kuumasti paistaa jo Lapin kevätaurinko.

Olipa siitä aikaa, kun hän oli Iidaa viimeksi oikein kunnollisesti
puhutellut. Hän ei osannut äkkiä sanoa, kuinka monta viikkoa. Hän
oli tavannut häntä kirkossa sunnuntaisin ja kerran pari kauppiaan
puodissa, mutta monta sanaa ei silloin tavallisesti ehditty kuiskata.
Kerran oli Iida pujottanut paperilipun hänen käteensä. »Minua
vartioidaan ankarasti», oli siinä seisonut. Hm! Se oli ankara herra se
nimismies. Piti vankina omaa tytärtäänkin.

Hän oli kerran käynyt tarjoutumassa rajamieheksikin. Viimeiselle

rajamatkalle kolme, neljä viikkoa sitten. Isä oli kyllä kiellellyt, mutta
hän oli mennyt. »Mitäpä sinä sinne… ei hän meikäläisiä ota…» Hän
oli kuullut, että poliisi oli sairastunut, — poliisi, nimismiehen
kengänheinittäjä. Päästäpä nimismiehen keittiöön herra lensmannin
kenkiä heinittämään. Oh, hän kyllä olisi osannut sen perusteellisesti.
Olisihan hän silloin saanut nähdä Iidan, ehkä kuiskatakin hänelle
jonkun hellän sanan.

Mutta — Mäkitalon Aapo oli ollutkin jo siinä toimessa parhaillaan,

kun hän oli astunut nimismiehen keittiöön. Niin oli työntänyt heinää
kallokkaaseen kuin säkkiin ihan. Häntä oli harmittanut.

Ei tietysti oltu huolittu. Poliisin sijalle oli jo mies otettu.

Se hyöty siitä käynnistä sentään oli ollut, että hän oli saanut nähdä
Iidan ylimääräisen kerran. Tämä oli pysähtynyt keittiön ovelle ja
katsahtanut hiukan hätääntyneenä Matias Niilekseen, jonka otsaa
sillä kertaa oli varjostanut pilvi.
 Olipa Iida ollut kaunis, oli, oli!

Matias Niiles huokasi pitkään ja veteli ahkion pohjaan tervaa.

Taipuisipa lensmannikin, niinkuin tuo terva… yhtä notkeasti. Mutta ei
taipunut. »Vai niilesläiset pyrkivät rajoille… Joko on ruvennut
käymään ikäväksi siellä ylhäällä?»

Siinä oli nimismies kerrankin oikeassa. Ikäväksi, ikäväksi oli

ruvennut käymään, kun ei saanut viikkokausiin sydämensä valittua
nähdä.

Siellä heilui Iida puutarhassa, mutta menepäs lähelle. Heti seisoisi

nimismies salin ikkunassa. »Eikö puutarhan aita kelpaa?» Niin hän
oli kerran kysynyt, kun hän oli yrittänyt puhutella Iidaa aidan yli.

Mutta olipa vielä keinot. Matias Niiles vihelsi ja oikaisi varttaan.

Oliko Iida vielä paikoillaan? Oli… siellä pudisti mattoa niin, että lumi
pölisi.

Hän muisti muutaman laulun, jonka Iida oli hänelle opettanut. Sen
avullahan sopi lähettää tervehdyksensä.

— Jo vieri viikko toinen, armasta nähnyt en. Oi, kerro

aurinkoinen, kuin jaksaa kultanen,

lauloi Matias Niiles, niin että tunturin rinne raikui. Joku poromies,
joka parastaikaa vedätti puukuormaa torpan sivu, pysähtyi
töllöttelemään ylös torppaan päin. Mutta Matias Niiles lauloi entistä
voimakkaammin:

— On päivä pitkä mulle ja syöntä kaihertaa. Lie eihän

kaivatulle vain tullut kuolemaa —?
 Kaiku vastasi tunturiseinämästä. Laulun viimeinen sana kiiri
laaksoon, kajahtaen takaisin nimismiehen puustellin seinästä.

Matias Niiles pysähtyi kuuntelemaan.

— Ei syytä siihen huoleen. Ma kerron, kuinka voi sun

kultas: aamupuoleen hän itki, vaikeroi.

— Iida! huusi Matias Niiles. — Onko jotakin tapahtunut?

Suuri tuska valtasi hänet. Tyttö oli laulanut säkeistön aivan toisin
kuin miten se laulussa kuului. Siinähän kerrottiin kesäyöstä ja
sulhasvyön neulomisesta.

— Mut siit' on huoli hällä: Sa tokko lemmitkään, kun kirkon

käytävällä pois äsken käänsit pään?

koetti Matias Niiles ohjata laulajaa. Mutta surullinen tytön ääni

jatkoi itsepintaisesti:

— Mut siit' on murhe hällä: Kun Mittumaari jää, ei kirkon

käytävällä hän kohtaa ystävää.

Nyt ei Matias Niiles enää jaksanut itseään hillitä. Jotakin oli

ilmeisesti tapahtunut. Hän huusi tytölle ja viittasi Riihiautiolle päin.
Nyt käyköön kuinka hyvänsä, hänen täytyi saada tavata Iidaa.

Tyttö heilautti kättänsä ja vilkaisten ikkunoihin hävisi rakennuksen

taa.

Suuri tuska velloi Matias Niileksen povessa. Jotakin oli

tapahtunut… jotakin aivan varmaan. Mutta mitä —? Sen hän kuulisi
kohta.
 Hän tempasi suksensa ja lasketti laaksoon. Maa oli jo paikotellen
pälvessä, jotenka sukset töksähtelivät pahasti. Pari kertaa hän lensi
silmälleen, mutta hyppäsi jälleen pystyyn. Häntä ajoi eteenpäin
epätoivoinen kiire.

Tiellä, tunturin juurella, saattoi jotenkuten hiihtää. Se oli

korkeammalla oleva, talvituulten ylistämä tie, joten kevätaurinko ei
ollut ehtinyt sitä vielä kokonaan lopettaa. Huohottaen poikkesi hän
vuoman rannassa tieltä, lähtien oijustamaan vanhaa, ränsistynyttä
taloa kohti. Sehän oli heidän rakas kohtauspaikkansa.

Matias Niiles silmäili ympärilleen, näkyisikö ketään. Ei näkynyt. Oli

keskipäivän aika, mutta pappilan olivat luultavasti jo heinänsä
vedättäneet. Tie vuomalla pudotti jo pahasti.

Hän saapui aution rakennuksen luo, hyppäsi suksiltaan ja

istahtaen vanhoille portaille jäi odottelemaan Iidaa. Sydän löi
kiivaasti. Jotakin oli auttamattomasti tapahtunut.

Hetken päästä saapui Iida. Mutta — kuinka hän olikaan muuttunut!

Posket olivat kuopalla ja silmänalukset mustat. Hän oli ilmeisesti
valvonut koko edellisen yön ja itkenyt. Matias Niiles näki, että hän oli
itkenyt.

— Iida, mitä on tapahtunut?

Tyttö nojasi itkien päänsä pojan povea vasten. Hänen surunsa oli
suuri ja väkevä. Matias Niileksen täytyi tukea häntä.

— Iida, mitä on tapahtunut? Kerro, kerro pian! Minä en voi

kestää…
 — Matias Niiles, me muutamme pois. Isä on hakenut ja päässyt.
Juhannuksen jälkeen me lähdemme.

Matias Niiles tuijotti vanhan ränsistyneen navetan seinään pihan

toisella puolen. Hänestä näytti, kuin olisi vinoon vääntynyt ikkuna
nauranut. Hän ei voinut käsittää mitään. Hän pusersi tyttöä kiihkeästi
kädestä.

— Muutatte pois —? Onko siinä ainakin perää? Isä oli kyllä kuullut
kauppiaassa kerran… mutta sehän oli jo tammikuulla.

— Niin… silloin isä haki ja nyt saapui tieto… eilen illalla.

Matias Niiles seisoi kuin salaman iskemänä. Hänestä näytti, ettei

auringon kimmellys leikkinyt enää hangella yhtä kirkkaana kuin
äsken. Vuomalla kuulsi suuria mustia lautumia, — aivan kuin olisivat
jotkut suuret kalpeat kasvot olleet kuolleella verellä paikoittain. Oliko
hanki romahtanut alas, vai hämärsikö hänen silmiään?

Iida painoi päänsä pojan olkapäätä vasten ja nyyhkytti sydäntä

särkevästi.

— Kuule… mennään sisään… Saamme rauhassa keskustella.

Matias Niiles talutti itkevän tytön vanhaan, autioon pirttiin.

Oli vielä vähän heiniä jäljellä pirtin lattialla, ruko, toista arviolta.
»Kirkkoherra moittii aina, että Nilsa jättää periä», vilahti Matias
Niileksen päässä. Ja… oikeassapa näkyi olevankin… kirkkoherra.
Mutta että nimismies muutti pois paikkakunnalta… se oli tavaton
isku, jonka vastaanottaminen kysyi voimia enemmän kuin mitä
Matias Niileksellä tänä hetkenä tuntui olevan.
 He istuivat hetken hiljaa. Matias Niiles katseli puoleksi sortunutta
takkaa. Sen ääressä oli kerran häärinyt nuori, kukkea vaimo
kohennellen tulta. Hänen miehensä oli istunut penkillä, katsellen
vaimonsa puuhia, sydämessä sykähtelevä onnen tunne.

Nyt oli takka raunioina ja kukkea vaimo miehineen haudassa. Niin

katosi elämä…

Hänen sydäntänsä puristi raju tuska. Teki niin kipeätä, kuin olisi
veitsellä vihlottu sydänalaa. Hän räpytteli silmiään, jotka täyttyivät
kyynelistä sitä mukaa kuin hän räpytteli. Oliko tämä totta?…
Muuttivat pois… Kutka? Nimismiehen, joiden tytär oli tämä tässä…
tämä Iida, joka itki hänen vieressään.

Aurinko heloitti ruuduttomasta ikkunasta sisään. Sen tehtävänä oli

kullata kyyneliä, jotka vuolaina valuivat molempien poskia pitkin.
»Yhtä kauniit, yhtä kauniit kummallakin», sanoi se vain.

Jossakin lähellä viserteli lintu. Sen laulu soi raikkaana,

onnentäyteisenä ja kirkkaana. Matias Niiles tunsi sen: peipponen!
Aikaiseenpa se oli nyt tullut.

— Iida, kuule, ensimmäinen peipponen! Hänen äänensä värisi. —

Ehkäpä se ennustaa onnea.

Mutta tyttö itki vain. Hänen kyyneleensä vuotivat yhä vuolaammin.

Hän kuuli peipposen laulussa onnen sävelen, jota hän ei uskaltanut
itsellensä omistaa.

Mutta — hetken päästä hän tyyntyi. Kyyneliään kuivaten hän

katseli poikaa hellästi ja koetti hymyillä.
 — Tiedätkö, Matias Niiles, minä tulen vuoden päästä takaisin.
Minä en jää alas. Minä haluan ylös tunturin rinteelle… sinne, missä
teidän torppanne on. Sinne minä haluan. Ja minä tulen, Matias
Niiles, kuule, minä tulen!

Hän painautui poikaa vasten, kietoi käsivarret tämän kaulaan ja

hymyili kyyneltensä lomasta.

Mutta miksi ei Matias Niiles nyt saattanut tarttua noihin sanoihin

kiinni? Äsken hän oli riemastunut peipposen laulusta; hän oli pitänyt
sitä toivon merkkinä. Mutta — miksi häipyi toivo nyt pois, vaikka tyttö
tuossa vakuutteli palaavansa?

Ei hän osannut sitä sanoa. Hän puolestaan kuuli nyt peipon

laulussa onnen sävelen, jota hän ei uskaltanut itselleen omistaa.
Hän oli vain torpanpoika.

Älä puhu, Ida, minä tunnen, ettet sinä koskaan palaa. Älä puhu!
Sinä et itsekään tiedä, mitä sanot.

Tyttö painoi huulensa pojan huulia vasten.

Matias Niiles, minä juon epäuskon pois sinun huuliltasi!

— Niin — juot sen itseesi.

— Matias Niiles, minä juon sen niinkuin käärmeen myrkyn ja

sylkäisen sitten pois.

Hän sylkäisi. Hän oli herttainen sitä tehdessään.

Nyt valtasi pojankin riemu. Käärmeen myrkky — niin se oli

tappavaa niinkuin epäuskokin. Ei saanut vaipua toivottomuuteen.
Ehkäpä Iida palaisikin. Kuinka hän saattaisikaan ystäväänsä
unohtaa, — häntä, joka rakasti niin, että aurinkokin taivaalla
toisinaan näytti pysähtyvän paljaasta ihmettelystä.

— Iida, rakastathan minua?

Tyttö puristi häntä kiihkeästi kaulasta. Hänen kasvoillaan häivähteli

lapsen ilme, — lapsen, joka on tarrautunut isäänsä kaulaan.

— Matias Niiles, kuinka voit epäillä! Minä rakastan sinua

äärettömästi!

Uskoihan Matias Niiles sen… Hänen täytyi se uskoa tänä hetkenä,

jolloin hän ehkä viimeistä kertaa istui yhdessä Iidan kanssa. Ilman
sitä uskoa hän olisi sortunut.

— Uskon minä. Ja minä rakastan sinua viimeiseen hengenvetooni

asti, nimismiehen Iida!

— Miksi sanot niin? »Nimismiehen Iida». Miksi et sano vain

»Iida»?

— En tiedä, kuinka se nyt sattui.

He keskustelivat tulevaisuudesta. Iida kertoi, mihin he

muuttaisivat. Se oli kaunis paikka jossakin Keski-Suomessa. Isä oli
asunut siellä nuorena ylioppilaana. Siellä hän oli tutustunut äitiin.

— Mutta minä olen tutustunut sinuun täällä, Matias Niiles.

Ymmärrätkö?

Kyllähän Matias Niiles sen ymmärsi. Tietysti tulisi Iida muistamaan

entistä kotipaikkaansa… ehkä useinkin. Mutta — olisiko hänellä
rohkeutta palata, — sitä mahdollisuutta täytyi Matias Niileksen yhä
uudelleen epäillä.

— Ja tiedätkö, mitä me teemme? Minä ajattelin sen valmiiksi viime

yönä valvoessani… Me menemme juhannusyönä yhdessä
hautuumaalle ja istutamme kumpikin koivun. Ne ovat vertauskuvia
meidän rakkaudestamme. Ne kasvavat rinnakkain ja kerran niiden
oksat koskettavat toisiaan.

Niin… siihen kuluisi aikaa. Jos Iida vasta silloin palaisi, olisi hän jo
vanha mies. Hän ei jaksaisi odottaa niin kauvan.

Tyttö näytti hämmästyneeltä. Puna kohosi hänen poskilleen.

Tuntui, kuin olisi hänkin ajatellut samaa. Hetken kuluttua hän jatkoi
entistä lämpimämmin:

— Ja tietysti minä kirjoitan.

— Tietysti.

— On vain niin ikävä, ettet sinä voi kirjoittaa minulle.

Niin — ikävähän se oli. Matias Niiles tunsi sen kyllä sanomattakin.

— Mutta minähän tulen takaisin.

Miksi hän sitä yhä uudelleen vakuutti? Eikö hän ollut itsekään
varma?

Tyttö katseli ovensuuseinää, jossa oli vielä paikoillaan pitkä

puutappi.

— Eikö tuossa ollut sinun verkkojesi paikka, Matias Niiles?

Muistatko?
 Kyllähän Matias Niiles sen muisti. Se oli sanottu sinä iltana, jolloin
hän oli ehdottanut pakoa. Silloin paistoi kuu ja nyt aurinko; silloin oli
talvi ja nyt kevät. Mutta Matias Niiles olisi halunnut saada takaisin
sen illan, sen talven. Sehän oli viime talvi.

— Ja tuonne sinä aioit panna reenjaluspuusi. Muistatko, Matias

Niiles?

Kyllähän Matias Niiles senkin muisti. Tuntui vain kovin surulliselta,

kun Iida nyt siitä puhui. Hän silmäsi mustuneita orsia. Pirtin poikki
juokseva oli hiukan vääntynyt kallelleen, niin että pitkittäin kulkevan
päitä kannatti vain poikittain juoksevan alareuna.

— He voivat pudota minä hetkenä hyvänsä, sanoi hän.

He siirtyivät vaistomaisesti toiseen paikkaan.

— Mutta kuule, mistä otamme ne koivut, joista äsken mainitsin?

Teidän rinteellänne, siellä navetan takana, on kaksi oikein kaunista.
Otetaan ne, Matias Niiles.

Poika tiesi paremman paikan.

— Otetaan joen rannalta, hautuumaan kohdalta, niin on helpompi

kuljettaa.

Tyttö nauroi ja pudisti päätään.

— Kas… sinä lasket jo vaivoja.

— En, sanoi Matias Niiles. — Minä ajattelin vain, että ne ovat

parempaa lajia. Ne ovat solkikoivuja jotavastoin nuo meidän
rinteellämme kasvavat ovat vain hieskoivuja. Solkikoivu on
kauniimpi.

Se täytyi Iidankin myöntää. He sopivat siis siitä, että otettaisiin

Matias Niileksen ehdottamasta paikasta.

He keskustelivat vielä pitkän aikaa ja tulevaisuus rupesi

kirkastumaan. Eron katkeruus ei tuntunut enää niin pistävältä.
Istuivathan he vanhassa, rakkaaksi käyneessä paikassa, jossa olivat
lukemattomia kertoja toisensa kohdanneet ja kuiskineet toisilleen
helliä sanoja. Kaikki nämä monet hellät sanat heräsivät taas eloon.
Se oli heidän ääntensä sointu, tuo nuori ja riemuitseva, joka herätti
ne henkiin, ja entisten suudelmien kanssa ne karkeloivat nyt heidän
ympärillään. »Armas! armas! rakas! rakas!» Eivätkö he olleet
sanoneet niin? Olivat kyllä. Nämä tänä hetkenä lausutut tuntuivat
jollakin tavoin väsähtäneiltä. Niissä ei ollut entistä välittömyyttä, tuota
purkautuvan sydämen kuohuvaa voimaa. Siltä ainakin Iidasta tuntui.
Ne muuttuivat karstaksi, jota tuulen henkäys silloin tällöin pudotteli
heidän päälleen, — tai heinänhelpeiksi, joita oli sikin soitin lattialla.
— Täällä oli käynyt pappilan Nilsa, se pahkaposkinen, ruma mies,
joka aina mulkoili ympärilleen pahaenteisesti, ja jota kyläläiset pitivät
noitana. Täällä olivat hypelleet papin lapset, nuo iloiset velikullat,
jotka eivät surreet huomispäivästä. Ne olivat huhtoneet täällä,
syytäen sekaisin kaikki heidän hellät ja rakkaat muistonsa. Täällä oli
loikonut pappilan maisteri tyynen ja kylmän näköisenä ja tuijottanut
naurettaviksi heidän entiset elämyksensä. Kyllähän koko kylä tiesi,
että nimismiehentyttärellä ja Näköala-Niileksen pojanpojalla oli
vispilän kauppaa keskenään. Täällä oli joskus istuskellut kauppiaan
poika pappilan kotiopettajattaren kanssa ja sanonut: »Goodbye!»
Eikö se merkinnyt samaa kuin että kyllä tunnetaan se tavara. Sitä on
maailmassa eniten ja se on sangen helppohintaista, vaikka sitä
kehutaankin.

— Pappilan Nilsa on taas jättänyt suuren joukon periä, lausui

Matias
Niiles yht'äkkiä, katkaisten Iidan mietteet.

Se tuntui pahalta. Oli aivan, kuin olisi Matias Niiles ajatellut, että
heinää kasvoi joka kesä. Ei väliä siis, vaikka sitä hiukan
haaskattiinkin…

Mutta ei, ei! Hajuheinä tuoksui yhtä väkevänä kuin ennenkin. Niin
kauvan kuin hän, Iida, eläisi, muistaisi hän aina tämän tuoksun. Se
toisi hänelle mieleen tämän hetken, jonka hän nyt istui tässä Matias
Niileksen vieressä, puhellen paluustaan. Tuo tuoksu ei antaisi
hänelle rauhaa, ennenkuin hän palaisi. Ja hän palaisi, siitä hän nyt
taas oli varma.

Hän sitoi heinistä seppeleen ja laski sen Matias Niileksen päähän.

Kas, näin minä kruunaan sinut, Matias Niiles! lausui hän.

Mutta pojan otsaa pistivät kuivat korrenpäät. Hän otti seppeleen

käteensä ja pyöritteli sitä syviin mietteisiin vaipuneena.

— Mikset antanut sen olla, Matias Niiles? Se sopi sinulle hyvin.

Tiedätkö, ketä sinä muistutit? Erästä kuuluisaa italialaista runoilijaa,
Dantea, josta luimme koulussa. Sinulla on samanlainen otsa kuin
hänellä. Ja leuka. Niin… leuka etenkin…

Ei Matias Niiles ollut sellaisesta miehestä ennen kuullut. Iida oli

lukenut kaikki… italialaiset runoilijat ja muut… Tantte? Niinkö se Iida
sanoi?