No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The return of confiscated land and property in the new länder: The process and its regional differentiation
Abstract
The unification of Germany has led to claims for the restitution of more than 2.47 million separate pieces of property confiscated under the auspices of either the Third Reich or the government of the East Germany. The legal and administrative task is a huge challenge to the new Germany with far-reaching implications for the social and economic fabric of the country. This paper examines the nature and scale of the restitution claims and how they are being settled across the five new German states (Bundesländer) and Berlin. It reveals a picture of considerable progress overall, but with substantial regional variations between the different states.
... From a sectoral point of view (Giessen & Krott 2009), there is a scholarly debate about restitution, decollectivisation and related land fragmentation rather in CEE agricultural (rural areas) sector (Kopeva et al. 1994;Yarnal 1994;Born 1997;Lerman 2001;Blacksell & Born 2002;Johannsen 2003;Pašakarnis et al. 2013;Roose et al. 2013;Bański 2017), including some qualitative studies (Di Falco 2010;Grubbström 2011;Grubbström & Sooväli-Sepping 2012), or in forestry as a part of the agricultural sector (Hedin 2005;Premrl et al. 2015). ...
Restitution of private land ownership has been a major undertaking influencing the forest sector in many post-communist countries. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are typical representatives of the countries where major societal changes have taken place since the fall of communism in 1989, including the restitution process of the nationalized property. The aim of this article is to analyse the process of the forest land restitution with the emphasis on common and different features between the two countries. Based on a critical evaluation of published reports, articles and valid legislation, the course of the restitution process and its current state and situation in the Czech Republic and Slovakia are described. The restitution of the property collectivized by the communist regime, including forest property, was enabled by the federal law in both countries. Even after their split in 1993 the restitution process unfolded in a similar way in both states, with the notable exception of church property in the Czech Republic. Unlike Slovakia, a country with high religious predominance, where the church property restitution was resolved almost immediately, in the Czech Republic the legislation governing the church property restitution was not issued till 2012. In both countries the restitution process resulted in the differentiation of forest land ownership, now presenting challenges for the formulation of forestry policies. In terms of forest management and protection, the most problematic are small-scale forest owners who have lost ties to their restituted forest property and cannot or do not want to manage it.
... The differences in the procedures of returning property were described in detail in the chapter "Return of property". The geographic implications of the return of property were addressed by Born (1997), who examined the implications in the former East germany. The study by reiMann (1997) is also interesting, as it examined the consequences of the return of property on urban development and reconstruction in the area of the former East Berlin. ...
The unification of Germany on 3 October 1990 marked the beginning of an unique process of social, political and economic transformation in the New Bundesländer. From a geographical point of view, the settling of the over one million property restitution claims, made possible by the governmental decision to provide for the restitution of property in situ, rather than paying damages to the former owners, has played an important role in the post-socialist development in east-German towns and cities. As the impact of this policy on the whole process of urban development is controversial and the subject of ongoing debate amongst geographers, sociologists and urban planners, the impact on the inner city area of Gotha has been examined as a case study. This has revealed three key factors affecting the redevelopment of restitution-affected buildings and vacant sites in Gotha. First, the length of time it takes to make decisions within the responsible agencies affects the physical condition of buildings, because of the delays in putting in place measure to preserve them. Second, the location and physical condition of the building influences the use, marketing and investment strategy of any future owner, irrespective of whether it is the occupier or the restituted pre-GDR owner who is confirmed as the legal owner. Thirdly, once ownership has been confirmed, the owner can decide by keeping or selling, not only the future fate of the land or building itself, but to a very significant extent the social fabric of the urban area as whole, since in the process of selling on the open market ownership often switches from private individuals or public ownership, to ownership by large private investment trusts.
Ownership represents a key relation between people and places. Eastern European transformations since the late 1980s confront western norms of private property rights within a capitalist system with the legacies of an alternative ownership system and with attempts to establish property markets from first principles. The developments in the former GDR and in eastern Germany after German reunification offer an opportunity to question assumptions of use and value which underlie western models of property tenure. While common themes of privatisation and commodification link eastern and western experiences, the particular manifestations of transformations in eastern Germany challenge the claims of the primacy of ownership and the legitimacy of claims for control over the built environment.