Miris document ID: 1005489637757
Adam vs. Czech Republic
Author: UN Human Rights Committee
Language: English
Source: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Country: Czech Republic
Category: quasi-judicial decision
Government level: International
Guiding principle: The Committee reiterates its jurisprudence that not all differentiation in treatment can be deemed to be discriminatory under article 26 of the Covenant. A differentiation which is compatible with the provisions of the Covenant and is based on reasonable grounds does not amount to prohibited discrimination within the meaning of article 26.In examining whether the conditions for restitution or compensation are compatible with the Covenant, the Committee must consider all relevant factors, including the original entitlement of the author's father to the property in question and the nature of the confiscation. The State party itself has acknowledged that the confiscations under the Communist governments were injurious and that is why specific legislation was enacted to provide for a form of restitution. The Committee observes that such legislation must not discriminate among the victims of the prior confiscations, since all victims are entitled to redress without arbitrary distinctions. Bearing in mind that the author's original entitlement to his property by virtue of inheritance was not predicated on citizenship, the Committee finds that the condition of citizenship in Act 87/1991 is unreasonable.
Date of judgement: 1996-7-25
Document number: CCPR/C/57/D/586/1994
Official version: yes
Edition number: CCPR/C/57/D/586/1994
Legally binding: no
Subject areas: non-discrimination
Minority groups: all
Related laws: 87/1991

open external link