Property Restitution After 1990
Property restitution is the process in which property expropriated by communist regime was returned to the previous owners or their descendants. This chapter seeks to explain the differences between the housing restitution strategies adopted by post-socialist countries, to present in-depth case studies in four countries, and to discuss the impact of property restitution on the development of the private rental sector in these countries. Explanations for differences between approaches to housing property restitution included fiscal considerations, diverse historical roots, and diverse public housing privatisation strategies. There also seems to be a link between the scale of housing property restitution and its form, and the recent size of the private rental sector and the level of its professionalisation.
- Eesti Konjunktuuriinstituut. (1998). Omanikele tagastatud majades elavate üürnike probleemid ja nende lahendusteed [The problems of tenants living in restituted housing and solutions to these problems]. Unpublished research report, Eesti Konjunktuuriinstituut, Tallinn.Google Scholar
- Filer, R. K., Rychetský, P., & Strapec, M. (1995, October 26). Liberalizace trhu s byty v České republice [The liberalization of housing market in the Czech Republic] Conference proceedings: Prague; Liberální institut. Prague: Aleko, Centrum liberálních studií.Google Scholar
- Hussar, A., Kull, I., & Kährik, A. (2014). National report for ESTONIA. TENLAW: Tenancy law and housing policy in multi-level Europe. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
- Kährik, A., Kõre, J., Hendrikson, M., & Allsaar, I. (2003). From a state controlled to a laissez faire housing system. In M. Lux (Ed.), Housing policy: An end or a new beginning? (pp. 183–242). Budapest: Open Society Institute.Google Scholar
- Kein, A. and Tali, V. 1995. The process of ownership reform and privatization. In: O. Lugus, G. Hachey Jr (Eds) Transforming the estonian economy. Tallinn: Institute of Economics, Estonian Academy of Sciences & International Center for Economic Growth. pp. 140–168Google Scholar
- Lazarević-Ule, K. 2013. Denationalisation claimants in slovenian transition. Master thesis, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana.Google Scholar
- Leppik, H. (1996, February 22). Kelle huvides toimub omandireform [In whose interests the ownership reform does occur], Eesti Päevaleht, http://www.epl.ee.
- Lux, M., & Puzanov, A. (2013). Rent regulation and housing allowances. In J. Hegedüs, M. Lux, & N. Teller (Eds.), Social housing in transition countries (pp. 65–80). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lux, M., & Sunega, P. (2010). The private rental housing in the Czech Republic: Growth and …? Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 46, 349–373.Google Scholar
- Mikelėnaitė, A. 2014. National report for LITHUANIA. TENLAW: Tenancy law and housing policy in multi-level Europe. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/.
- Õmblus, J. (2009). Kaotatud kodud [Lost homes]. Tallinn: Eesti Üürnike Liit.Google Scholar
- Projuris: Denacionalizacija-Bosna i Herzegovina. (2014). Retrieved November 25, 2014, from http://projuris.org/denacionalizacija.html.
- Sendi, R. (2014). The role of the state in the operation of the private rental sector in Slovenia. Paper presented at the international conference of the European Network for Housing Research. 19–22, Tarragona, Spain.Google Scholar
- Statistical Office of Republic of Slovenia. (2014). Retrieved January 15, 2017, from http://pxweb.stat.si/.
- UN/ECE. (2000). Country profiles on the housing sector: Lithuania. New York: UN/ECE.Google Scholar