WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Expulsions, homelessness and furthering of ethnic differences as a result of outside interference in the two entities of Bosnia-Herzegovina

1. Can the Council confirm that in 2002 in both the Serbian and the Muslim-Croat entities of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina an active expulsion policy has been initiated whereby people have to leave their houses at short notice if they cannot prove legal ownership and that this policy particularly affects those who, after losing or being forced to leave their old house in areas where their ethnic group was in a minority, have found safety in empty housing in areas where their ethnic group forms a majority?

2. Can the Council also confirm that these expulsions take place even if as a result the house which has been evacuated then remains empty as the original residents, provided they survived the war, now prefer to live in areas where they feel safer because their ethnic group is not in a minority?

3. How many people would be added to the current 450 000 internal refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina if this expulsion policy were implemented consistently for every house to which it could be applied?

4. To what extent do the bodies which interfere from outside in the affairs of this country, including the European Union, bear some of the responsibility for this policy of forced reverse ethnic cleansing, which is hated by those affected of all ethnic groups and which is once again causing misery for people because of their ethnic background and providing fertile ground for bitterness against people of other ethnic groups?

5. Does the Council see any means of encouraging property rights to be settled, in a manner which is acceptable to all, through discussion, voluntary sale and exchange of properties so that as many people as possible can continue living peacefully in the place for which they now have a preference?

6. What additional initiatives does the Council plan to help prevent future problems of homelessness, movements of refugees and ethnic conflicts?

Source: TV Nederland 3, Nova news programme, 5.4.2002.

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council does not have information that an active expulsion policy took place in both entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nevertheless, the Council welcomes the interest shown by the Honourable Parliamentarian in the issues of refugee return.

Annex 7 of the Dayton/Paris General Framework Agreement deals with the refugees and displaced person. The signatories, which were the conflicting parties, agreed therein that all refugees and displaced persons had the right to return freely to their homes of origin and that they had the right to have their property, of which they had been deprived in the course of hostilities since 1991, restored or to be compensated for any property that could not cannot be restored to them. The Parties stipulated that the return of refugees and displaced persons was an important objective of the settlement of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This evaluation is shared by the EU, which has repeatedly stated the importance it attached to the right of return, last at its 15 April meeting. All other policy would in effect only consolidate the results achieved by the ethnic cleansing launched during the war. If those who are obliged to leave properties, which is not theirs, might feel resentful, those who are still denied access to their property of which they cleansed during the war certainly feel far bitterer.

The international community deals with those issues within the OHR-led Reconstruction and Return Task Force (RRTF), an inter-agency body that was established in 1997. It brings together the OHR, the United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the European Commission, the European Commission's Humanitarian Office (ECHO), the governments of Germany, the United States and the Netherlands, the World Bank, the United Nations Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) and its IPTF, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the International Management Group (IMG), the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), the Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees (CRPC) and SFOR. It is to be cleared that the Council is not a member of this body.

While not being a member of this body, the Council will try to answer the questions of the Honourable Parliamentarian to its best abilities.

Since the introduction of the property laws in 1998, all people living in properties belonging to and claimed by displaced persons and refugees have been obliged to vacate them within set deadlines. Those deadlines depended on the status of the occupant of the property, and vary from 90 days (combined sometimes with the right to alternative accommodation by the municipalities depending on the social situation of the occupant) to 15 days (for those who were using the property illegally and/or are able to accommodate themselves). According to OHR, the overwhelming majority of people asked to vacant foreign property are able to provide for themselves (being either in possession of their own property, or family property, or having sufficient incomes to rent).

The legislation was not always applied correctly by the local authorities, which were not necessarily eager to actively reverse the results of the war. The High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovine, W. Petritsch, amended in December 2001 the property laws by tightening the criteria in order to ensure that the authorities are less able to manipulate or obstruct the administrative process.

The aim of the property laws is to enable all claimants to repossess their properties by ending the huge-scale dispossession pushed through during the war. If the claimant does not choose to return to his/her property, he or she may sell or rent it. No evidence has, since, been brought to the Council that this legislation led to the situation described that the Honourable Parliamentarian in his question.

The process of property legislation implementation has gained momentum over the past years as local acceptance and support increased. The EU welcomes this. This policy will however not result in an increase of the number of 450 000 internal refugees, as affirmed by the Honourable Parliamentarian, as that number already includes those who are occupying properties that are claimed by others.

The Reconstruction and Return Task Force, in addition to working for the repossession of property, focuses on enabling returnees to access all benefits and services necessary for normal reintegration into the community healthcare, pensions, acceptable education, gainful employment opportunities, etc. The Honourable Parliamentarian should revert his question directly to this entity for more detailed information.