Lietuvos Respublikos geros valios kompensacijos už žydų religinių bendruomenių nekilnojamąjį turtą įstatymas tarptautinės ir Europos Sąjungos teisės kontekste

LTStraipsnyje analizuojami tarptautinės teisės, Europos Sąjungos (toliau - ES) teisės ir užsienio nacionalinės teisės šaltiniai, žydų nevyriausybinių organizacijų ir užsienio valstybės institucijų veiksmai, paskatinę Lietuvos Respublikos geros valios kompensacijos už žydų religinių bendruomenių nekilnojamąjį turtą įstatymo (toliau - Įstatymas) priėmimą. Taip pat Įstatymo nuostatų analizė pateikiama remiantis tarptautinės ir ES teisės šaltiniais, ypatingą dėmesį skiriant Jungtinių Tautų Žmogaus teisių komiteto (toliau - JTŽTK), Europos žmogaus teisių teismo (toliau - EŽTT) ir ES Teisingumo Teismo (toliau - ES TT) praktikai.

ENThe adoption of the Law resulted from lengthy legal and political debates. The enactment of the Law was influenced by different sources: the national legal acts and inducement of foreign countries, settlements between states, acts (resolutions, declarations, reports) of international organizations and Jewish nongovernmental organizations. Invoking the practice of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the EU it can be stated that the Republic of Lithuania could not be obliged to compensate the Jewish religious communities of Lithuania for their existing immovable property which was unlawfully expropriated by the totalitarian regimes during the occupation. Adopting this Law, the Republic of Lithuania undertook positive obligations to give such compensation. Accordingly the nonfulfillment or undue fulfillment of the aforementioned undertakings can be challenged in the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the EU in some aspects. It should be noted that adopting the Law some doubts concerning the discrimination of other (not Jewish) religious communities which have no successors were raised, since under the Law the compensation is awarded only to Jewish religious communities. It seems that with this regard the Law does not contravene the practice of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the ECtHR. It is deemed that the amount of compensation is "reasonably related" to its value and does not violate Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.The provisions of the Law which set a cap on compensation awards (LTL 128 million) and provide for payment in instalments should be evaluated positively, since the ECtHR is of the same view and such a national regulation was recommended during the Round Table "Property Restitution/ Compensation: General measures to comply with the European Court's Judgments" which was held on 17 February 2011. However, the fact that the concrete parts of compensation awards are not enshrined in the Law raises some doubts, since it can contravene the principles of legal security and legal certainty which were emphasized both in the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and the practice of the ECtHR.