Advertisement

Property Restitution After 1990

  • Martin Lux
  • Andreja Cirman
  • Anneli Kährik
  • Katarzyna Miaskowska-Daszkiewicz
Chapter

Abstract

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.

References

  1. 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 Unpublished research report, Eesti Konjunktuuriinstituut, Tallinn.Google Scholar
  2. Feldman, M. (1999). Justice in space? The restitution of property rights in Tallinn, Estonia. Ecumene, 6(2), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Górczyńska, M. (2016). The property restitution in Warsaw: Renaissance or decline of pre-war buildings? Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(2), 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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/.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Lazarević-Ule, K. 2013. Denationalisation claimants in slovenian transition. Master thesis, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana.Google Scholar
  9. Leppik, H. (1996, February 22). Kelle huvides toimub omandireform [In whose interests the ownership reform does occur], Eesti Päevaleht, http://www.epl.ee.
  10. Lux, M., & Mikeszová, M. (2012). Property restitution and private rental housing in transition: the case of the Czech Republic. Housing Studies, 27(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Lux, M., Kährik, A., & Sunega, P. (2012). Housing restitution and privatization: Both catalysts and obstacles to the formation of private rental housing in the Czech Republic and Estonia. International journal of Housing Policy, 12(2), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mandič, S. (1994). Housing tenures in times of change: Conversion debates in Slovenia. Housing Studies, 9(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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/.
  16. Õmblus, J. (2009). Kaotatud kodud [Lost homes]. Tallinn: Eesti Üürnike Liit.Google Scholar
  17. Projuris: Denacionalizacija-Bosna i Herzegovina. (2014). Retrieved November 25, 2014, from http://projuris.org/denacionalizacija.html.
  18. Sendi, R. (1994). Housing reform and housing conflict: The privatization and denationalization of public housing in the Republic of Slovenia in practice. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 19(3), 435–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sendi, R. (1999). Private rented sector in Slovenia: A non-existent housing sector. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 14(3), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Statistical Office of Republic of Slovenia. (2014). Retrieved January 15, 2017, from http://pxweb.stat.si/.
  22. Steinführer, A. (2004). Wohnstandortentscheidungen und Städtische Transformation. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. UN/ECE. (2000). Country profiles on the housing sector: Lithuania. New York: UN/ECE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Lux
    • 1
  • Andreja Cirman
    • 2
  • Anneli Kährik
    • 3
  • Katarzyna Miaskowska-Daszkiewicz
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Institute for Housing and Urban Research (IBF)Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Department of European Union Law of the John Paul II Catholic University of LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations