The Scars of the Erasure_web

Erasure_4a 10.1.11 20:29 Page 115THE ERASURE AS A VIOLATION OF LEGALLY PROTECTED HUMAN RIGHTS115also specified in Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR, which states that every natu -ral or legal person has the right to respect for his property and that no one shallbe deprived of his property except in the public interest and in accordance withthe conditions provided by law and the principles of international law. However,this Article also entitles the state to enforce laws which it deems necessary tocontrol the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to ensurethe payment of taxes, other contributions or penalties.These provisions are relevant to this discussion in several ways. First, theerased people could not exercise their right to own property, with the right to ownershipthrough inheritance being particularly important, given that even peoplewho were not citizens of the Republic of Slovenia were entitled to ownershipthrough inheritance (or the principle of reciprocity). During the period when theywere without documents, the erased people could not register an inherited propertyin the land register in their name, meaning that their right to own propertywas violated. However, when a purchase contract was in question, the answer isnot so unequivocal. It is necessary to make a distinction between the two situations.The first one involves those erased people who did not intend to apply forcitizenship but wanted to maintain the status of aliens with permanent residence.By taking such a decision, they automatically renounced the right to own propertyexcept property gained through inheritance or the principle of reciprocity. The otherinvolves people who applied for citizenship but were refused it; those who expectedto acquire citizenship automatically; those who wanted to apply for citizenship butwhose applications were refused by the employees at administrative offices asdescribed above or who were diverted from applying by incorrect information. Insuch cases, it is not possible to say that these people consciously gave up theirright to own property, or that they should have known that not having citizenshipentailed restrictions on property ownership. An illustrative example is Tomislav’sstory. He wanted to apply for citizenship but was instructed that it was not necessaryto do it immediately as he could apply in 1992. This information was incorrectand also incomplete, because he was not informed that after 26 December 1991he would not be able to apply for citizenship in accordance with Article 40 of theCitizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act, which set conditions that were muchmore favorable than those required when applying for citizenship through naturali -zation. Nevertheless, thanks to fortunate circumstance Tomislav found his wayround, but he is still uncertain regarding the issue of property protection:A: How did you buy the apartment in accordance with Jazbinšek’s law?T: It was quite simple, my grandfather was still alive, he had Slovenian citizenship,he had the right to reside and he bought it, 31 but I gave the money and later inheritedit. …31 In the former Yugoslavia, most apartments were owned by the community. People living in these apartments hadthe “right to reside.” After the independence, the residence right holders who were Slovenian citizens had the right tobuy off these apartments at a very low price in accordance with the privatization scheme.