Property restitution denied – Well-sounding Lithuanian propaganda lies and dire reality

December 17, 2013
By HRL

HOW EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS ARE BEING MISLEAD AS REGARDS ALLEGED PROPERTY RESTITUTION

The influence agents of the Lithuanian regime (Moscow-trained law-professors and soviet formed “experts”), a regime, which, by the way, consists of former collaborators of the unlawful occupational regime and their offspring or disciples, have, ever since the accession of Lithuania to the European Union in 1994, and even long before that date, been very busy and active spreading the official propaganda lie, namely that Lithuania was complying with the postulations of “ius cogens” and international law as regards the simple restitution of real estate to the lawful owners respectively their heirs.

It is well known that Lithuania was unlawfully occupied by the Soviet Union in June, 1940, with various organs of the unlawful occupational regime exercising their power, supported by the Red Army and the NKVD, until June 22, 1941, when most of the country was liberated by a general uprising, in which approximately 100000 Lithuanians took part. With that the first unlawful occupational Soviet regime ended and none of its illegal acts could have had any after-effects or consequences throughout the period of the German occupation “emanating” into the era of the second unlawful Soviet occupation of Lithuania (as is the propaganda lie of Soviet influence agents, travelling throughout the Western World even years before the downfall of the Soviet empire). In addition to this it must be mentioned that immediately after the destruction of the unlawful Soviet occupational regime by Lithuanian freedom fighters a Provisional Government was formed, which declared all acts of organs of the unlawful occupation regime in Lithuania as being null and void from the beginning.

During this first unlawful Soviet occupation of Lithuanian an organ of the unlawful occupational regime, the so-called “People’s diet”, declared a general land reform on July 22, 1940, leaving 30 hectares of land for agricultural purposes to each farmer’s family, qualifying any attempts against this “personal property” of the farmers as being against the interest of the people. Only banks and big enterprises were “nationalized”. This “declaration” remained a resolution of the so-called “People’s diet”, a corresponding law was never passed, that is why this “declared” land reform was never put into practice.
Apart from these facts all acts, declarations and measures of organs of an unlawful occupational regime are null and void from the beginning according to a peremptory norm of international law.

During the second unlawful Soviet occupation no organ of the unlawful occupational regime ever passed a law nationalizing the plots of land (with houses) of the lawful owners of real estate in the cities and towns, although organs of the unlawful occupational regime, the so-called “executive committees” (comparable to the former town councils) treated this real estate as “belonging to the state” (i.e. as property of the unlawful Soviet occupational regime, although, according to a peremptory norm of international law, the property rights of the lawful owners continued to exist).

After the downfall of the Soviet empire delegates of a self-constituted “Supreme Council” of communist collaborators, including even the KGB boss of the unlawful regime (Eduardas Eismuntas), took steps to ensure that this real estate was not returned to the lawful owners, if they did no longer live in their own houses. Here it must be stressed that the lawful owners had either been forced to flee abroad in order to evade their imminent execution, or they were killed taking part in the partisan warfare against the unlawful Soviet occupational regime, or they were “liquidated, including being tortured to death”, or they were deported to Siberian death camps, where most of them perished. It can clearly be seen that the name of this law cannot have been more cynical, reflecting the Soviet attitude to property rights and lawful owners, which is little wonder, as the “law-givers” of the so-called “Supreme Council” were the same collaborators, who had taken possession of the real property of the lawful owners.

These steps of the communist “Supreme Council” included a so-called law (only a parliament elected in free elections could adopt laws), which had the telling name “Law regarding the restoration of property rights (the author: Nota bene, not the property itself) of Lithuanian land-owners to the still existing real estate”. As has been outlined before, the property rights of the lawful owners had continued to exist throughout the whole period of the unlawful Soviet occupation (interestingly enough, the preambula of this law is explicitly confirming this fact), which is why no property rights still existing can be “restored” by a law. This makes it perfectly clear, what the collaborators of the former unlawful occupational regime had in mind, they were driven by the strong desire to dispose of the lawful property of the lawful landowners as they wished (which is the same intention, by which a “normal” thief, who wishes to steal the property of someone else, is driven).
That way the most fertile agricultural land was stolen by clever bosses of the Kolkhoses, only the less fertile land was returned to the lawful owners of farmland. As concerns the real estate in the cities and towns, the above mentioned “law” gave the governments and also the administrations of the counties every possible means of arbitrarily withholding plots of land from the lawful owners or their heirs with every thinkable excuses and pretexts. Many plots of lands were given to trusthworthy fellow collaborators of the unlawful Soviet regime and crafty speculators, whereas the lawful owners were offered (but often not paid until now) a sham “compensation” amounting to approximately 0.1 to 0.5% of the market value or they were offered plots somewhere on the outskirts of the cities and towns, having little or almost no value at all.

As soon as representatives of European institutions started questioning this “procedure”, the former collaborators of the unlawful occupational regime, now, as turncoats, “Leaders of democratic parties”, appeased these requests by the above mentioned propaganda lie that article 16 of the corresponding law guaranteed the obligation of the state to compensate the lawful owners of this real estate (in case their lawful property “could not be returned” to them – which was practically never the case) taking into account the “real value of the property in the moment of paying compensation for it” and also “being guided by the principle of equivalence”.
The according representatives of the European Institutions informed their leaders that the return of real estate of the lawful owners was taking place in accordance with international law and accepted UN resolutions and human rights values. To them it seemed that either the real estate was returned “in natura” or else a financial compensation according to the “real value” was paid, which to them sounded like “the market value”.

However, the regime, still consisting of the former collaborators of the unlawful Soviet occupational regime, including the KGB and militia personnel, the former “People’s judges” and “People’s prosecutors”, had very different interpretations of “real value of a real estate” and “equivalence in value” (of a plot of land given in compensation). The organs of the regime were free and are still free to decide, what they think is the “real value”, namely by far not the market value. The “real value” is being arbitrarily fixed by the regime, amounting to about 0.1 to 0.5% of the market value. The same is happening with an “equivalent plot of land in the same place”. No lawful owner has been offered a plot of land of the same value in the same place, because the successors of the Soviet “executive committees” (now town councils) have earmarked such valuable plots for their own purposes, instead the lawful owners of real estate in the cities and towns are urged to look themselves for plots somewhere in the county or even in villages, having practically only 0.1% of the market value of the plot illegally not returned, or at the most they are (after 20 years or when pigs fly) offered a newly “developed” plot in the vicinity of major arterial roads or near polluting factories, even not having the same size, but only 400 square metres (minimum size for plots for building purposes). This is the reality – in stark contrast to the usual propaganda lies of the regime. An according letter by the chancery of the Lithuanian president of October 2009 repeating this propaganda lie prayer-wheel style is annexed to this article as evidence (“The state is under an obligation to compensate the owner for this real estate with regard to the real value of this property in the moment of paying compensation and also being guided by the principle of equal value“)

Up to now the European Commission as well as the European Court of Human Rights, having been influenced in accordance with the Soviet “interpretation” of history and international law ever since 1994 by the corresponding Lithuanian influence agents (Moscow-trained “jurists” in the Courts of the European Union and judges elected for Lithuania in the European Court of Human Rights), turn a blind eye to reality, but have ever since kept on trusting the official propaganda lies of the Lithuanian regime of former collaborators and their disciples, which reflects discredit upon these institutions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Fondation Princesses de Croÿ et Massimo Lancellotti - 10 Rue Faider - 1060 Bruxelles - Belgique - Droit de réponse: postmaster@droitfondamental.eu

Free counter and web stats