Polskie lasy za "fatamorganę żydowskich kamienic"

Red.Michalkiewicz: Oto na Facebooku pan Tomasz Nowak, powołując się na poranną audycję radia Tok FM z 5 października br., cytuje wypowiedź ministra spraw zagranicznych Grzegorza Schetyny, który wyraża gotowość ostatecznego rozwiązania kwestii majątku żydowskiego.

"Polska jest finansowo przygotowana na zwrot nawet 60 mld dolarów w 2015 roku. Umiejętna polityka finansowa sprawi, że wyjdziemy z twarzą wśród narodów świata, a Polacy tego nie odczują„

Jeśli minister Schetyna rzeczywiście tak powiedział, to lepiej można zrozumieć przyczyny jego powrotu na stanowisko ministra spraw zagranicznych w rządzie pani premierzycy, które chyba traktuje jako trampolinę do wyższych grządek. - Czy Polacy tego nie odczują?

No pewnie, że nie; (widać na lasach. / Nichcik) , już tam „Gazeta Wyborcza” wszystkim wytłumaczy, że tak trzeba, dzięki czemu pan Rafał Betlejewski, co to zainicjował kampanię wypisywania na murach „Tęsknię za tobą, Żydzie”, będzie miał to, czego chciał.

Przed tym co prawda przestrzegał dawno temu grecki filozof Platon:  "Nieszęsny! Będziesz miał to, czegoś chciałeś!"  -   ale - jak zauważył Franciszek ks. De La Rochefoucauld  -  tylko dlatego Pan Bóg nie zesłał na ziemię drugiego potopu, że przekonał się o bezskuteczności pierwszego  -  pisze red.Michalkiewicz, najwidoczniej zapominając o Holokauście.DALEJ >>> http://nichcik.neon24.pl/post/114035,polskie-lasy-za-fatamorgane-zydowskich-kamienic

Wiosną 2005 r., w Warszawie, w Ambasadzie USA pojawili się Żydzi z pretensjami w sprawie restytucji mienia żydowskiego / Zobacz tajną depeszę ambasady amerykańskiej w tej sprawie z 04.03.2005, jest niżej. / Warto aby odpowiednie służby, media, dziennikarze, politycy i prokuratura przetłumaczyła sobie depesze Ambasady USA. 

FOREIGN JEWISH NGOS PROTEST LACK OF CONSULTATIONS

Reference ID: 05WARSAW1225
Created: 2005-03-04 14:09
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL
Origin: Embassy Warsaw
Źródło:http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05WARSAW1225.html

Classified By: Political Counselor Mary Curtin, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

1. (SBU) W warszawie  16-17 Lutego delegacja delegacja World Jewish Restitution Organization dyskutowała problem restytucji własności prywatnej, z Ambasadorem, liderem SLD Józefem Oleksym, liderem opozycji Janem Marią Rokitą, ministrem Skarbu Jackiem Sochą, i marszałkiem Sejmu Włodzimierzem Cimoszewiczem. Delegacja wyraziła swoje niezadowolenie z GOP (parti rządzącej. Niechcik) dotyczące niewywiązania się z przyżeczeń konsultowania projektów ustaw dotyczących reprywatyzacji z Amerykańskimi Organizacjami Pozarządowymi (NGOs). Delegacja nazwała obecny projekt ustawy przyjęty warunkowo przez Radę Ministrów 15 lutego, za nie do zaakceptowania, ponieważ nie daje ona możliwości restytucji mienia w naturze, gwarantując jedynie rekompensaty finansowe na poziomie 15 procent obecnej wartości. delegacja wniosła także pomysł, aby rozważyć oddzielne rozwiązanie tylko dla Żydów.

GOP TO PUT FORWARD DRAFT PRIVATE PROPERTY

Reference ID: 08WARSAW1138
Created: 2008-09-29 11:09
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL
Origin: Embassy Warsaw
Źródło:http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/09/08WARSAW1138.html

COMMENT

12. (C) The 1944 date mentioned by Laszkiewicz has caused concerns among potential American claimants, many of whom were dispossessed in 1939 under Nazi Aryanization actions. >>> Although Laszkiewicz's explanation provides a legal rationale for the government draft bill using 1944 as a start date,

we should press the Poles for at least a strong, political-level statement that the confiscations of 1939 and the rest of WWII are covered.This kind of lobbying will be necessary on other issues too, such as ease of filing, amount of the compensation to be paid out, and the period over which payouts will be made.

However, further lobbying should probably await actual introduction of the draft law in the Sejm; until then, the main official to engage would be Laszkiewicz, who has been consistent in his views over the last six years about what is and is not possible under Polish law. As drafter of the earlier bill vetoed by former President Kwasniewksi, he has more expertise on this subject than any other political-level figure in the current government. The Treasury Ministry released the text of the draft bill in a press release September 23.

13. (SBU) This message has been cleared by Ambassador Kennedy.

Ciąg dalszy komentarza do "afery większej niż afera hazardowa i afera Rywina" nastąpi.

• red. Nichcik 17:38:14
  .
  Oooo wiem ..
  8-)))
  Ja jestem jak pastor pacyfista austryjacki Gaston von Glock 22C , przychodze z swietymi sakramentami i wietrze natłok myśli w czaszce .
  Z przodu dziura w czole a z tylu wywietrznik .
  Max von Stirlitz 22.10.2014 17:49:35
• @Max von Stirlitz 17:49:35
  Ja jestem jak pastor pacyfista austryjacki Gaston von Glock 22C , przychodze z swietymi sakramentami i wietrze natłok myśli w czaszce .
  Z przodu dziura w czole a z tylu wywietrznik .
  
  - Pamiętasz? Kiedyś powiedziałem Ci brzydkie słowo. Teraz powtórzę:
  
  Jebaj się ze swoimi sakramentami "dziurą w czole i wywietrznikiem". Samobójcy mają subtelniejsze metody ekspresji niż dupki z Glockiem 22C.>>>  http://nichcik.neon24.pl/post/114212,z-bolszewicka-szczeroscia-michnikowi-cos-sie-nie-klei

FOREIGN JEWISH NGOS PROTEST LACK OF CONSULTATIONS

Reference ID: 05WARSAW1225
Created: 2005-03-04 14:09
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL
Origin: Embassy Warsaw
Źródło:http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05WARSAW1225.html

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L WARSAW 001225

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/04/2015
TAGS: EFIN PHUM KNAR PL
SUBJECT: FOREIGN JEWISH NGOS PROTEST LACK OF CONSULTATIONS ON POLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY LEGISLATION

REF:A. 2004 WARSAW 1368
REF:B. 2003 WARSAW 4074

Classified By: Political Counselor Mary Curtin, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

1. (SBU) In Warsaw on February 16-17, a World Jewish Restitution Organization delegation discussed private property restitution with the Ambassador, SLD party leader Jozef Oleksy, opposition leader Jan Maria Rokita, Treasury Minister Jacek Socha and Sejm Speaker Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz. The delegation expressed its dissatisfaction with the GOP,s failure to carry out promises to consult on private property legislation with NGOs. The delegation called the current draft legislation conditionally adopted by the Polish Council of Ministers on February 15 unacceptable as it contains no possibility for in rem restitution and provides for cash compensation at the rate of only 15 percent of current value. They also floated the idea of a separate settlement for Jewish owners.

2. (SBU) In response to the group's request, the Ambassador promised to raise again the issue of consultations with the GOP and advised that public pressure on the Poles may be counterproductive at this time. Oleksy expressed his support for consultations, but rejected in rem restitution and a separate law only for Jewish owners as impractical. Rokita supported consultations and in rem restitution, but also saw a separate law for Jews as unrealistic. Socha apologized for the lack of consultations and unsuccessfully tried to sell the delegation on the merits of the draft law. Cimoszewicz offered consultations once the law reached the Sejm. The delegation, however, could not come to a common position on his offer. End summary.

3. (SBU)On February 16, a World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) delegation consisting of World Federation of Polish Jews (U.S. Branch) representative Kalman Sultanik, Holocaust Restitution Committee Chairman Yehuda Evron, Association of Polish Jews in Israel Chairman Arye Edelist and WJRO advisor Monika Krawczyk met with the Ambassador. The delegation complained that Poland remained one of the few countries in Central Europe that had yet to deal with private property restitution. The delegation pointed out that despite promises by PM Miller in 2002, FM Cimoszewicz in 2003, and Deputy Minister of Treasury Andrzej Szarawarski in 2004 (Ref A), the GOP had yet to begin consultations with NGOs on private property legislation. The delegation called draft legislation on private property compensation that the Polish Council of Ministers approved conditionally on February 15 unacceptable because it made no provision for in rem restitution and provided for cash compensation at the rate of only 15 percent of current value.

4. (C) The Ambassador responded that the U.S. had repeatedly urged the GOP to engage in consultations on the private property legislation. He stated that he would send a letter to Treasury Minister Socha again urging consultations with the WJRO and other U.S. NGOs (note: This letter was delivered on February 18). He noted that the draft approved by the Council of Ministers did not have a citizenship requirement, which was an improvement over the legislation approved by the Sejm in 2001 (later vetoed by President Kwasniewski). He suggested that public pressure would likely result in the GOP becoming even more uncooperative. (Note: At a February 15 dinner, the Israeli Ambassador delivered a similar but stronger message. He told the delegation to avoid a public campaign as he believed that this would scuttle any private property solution and result in increased anti-Semitism in Poland. The delegation reportedly agreed to hold off on public pressure for the time being. End note).

SLD Leader Oleksy for Consultations, Against Separate Law
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. (SBU) On February 16, the delegation met with SLD party chief Jozef Olesky. Sultanik expressed the WJRO,s deep disappointment over the lack of consultations, no possibility for in rem restitution in the GOP bill and the proposed 15 percent cash compensation. In a surprise move, Sultanik suggested that as &Jewish suffering had been greater and unique,8 a separate law to deal with Jewish private property should be considered.

6. (SBU)Oleksy agreed that consultations should take place, but urged the WJRO to be favorable toward the GOP,s legislative proposal as he believed that "once the nationalist government takes power no law on this issue will be likely." (Note: Oleksy,s reference was to the center-right government expected after elections later this year. End note.) Oleksy said the return of actual properties was not possible given changes in ownership in the past 60 years. He called a separate law for Jewish owners a non-starter as this would cause an anti-Jewish backlash and would never pass the Sejm. He added that when he was Prime Minister in the mid-1990s, WJRO leader Israel Singer had agreed to one law dealing with all owners. He asked the delegation what percentage compensation would be satisfactory, but the delegation declined to give a figure.

Opposition's Rokita Backs in rem Restitution
--------------------------------------------------------------

7. (SBU) Meeting with Civic Platform (PO) leader Jan Maria Rokita (likely to be Poland's next PM)on February 16, the delegation emphasized that now is the time to do justice for all who lost property, especially Holocaust survivors. Evron was particularly adamant on this point and cited the fact that the descendants of Holocaust survivors "cannot understand why democratic Poland has done nothing, they ask me if Poland is still communist." Sultanik added that further delay could "hurt Polish-Jewish and Polish-Israeli relations." The delegation urged Rokita to weigh in with the GOP in favor of consultations with the WJRO, in rem restitution and a compensation rate higher than 15 percent. Sultanik raised the idea of a separate law on former Jewish properties.

8. (SBU)Rokita agreed that the private property issue needed to be settled as soon as possible. He declared "the maximum of good will" in this regard and added that PO was considering adopting a position supporting in rem restitution where possible. He noted his personal support for in rem restitution, provided that a legal mechanism that the courts would not overturn could be found. He agreed that 15 percent was symbolic compensation, but added that no more than this was possible give Polish budgetary limits. While declaring his support for consultations, Rokita urged the delegation to approach the GOP directly on this issue. He rejected the idea of a separate law for Jewish owners as this would be contrary to the principle of equality before the law and would likely be found unconstitutional in Polish courts.

Treasury Minister Apologizes for Lack of Consultations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. (SBU) On February 17, the delegation met with Treasury Minister Jacek Socha, Treasury's Reprivatization Department Director Krzysztof Pawlak, and Reprivatization Expert Magdalena Falkowska. Sultanik stated he "was shocked" the GOP had "broken its promises to consult with the WJRO," citing in particular then Deputy Treasury Minister Szarawarski,s April 22, 2004 promise to consult (Ref A). Edelist seconded Sultanik, calling the lack of consultations "contrary to the rules of a democratic system." He repeated his objections, adding that the bill left out much Jewish property as it covered nationalization acts in 1944-1962 with the exception of one from March 1946 dealing with former German and Jewish property.

10. (SBU) Socha, taken aback by the delegation,s statements, turned to Pawlak in Polish and demanded, "why did you not tell me that we should carry out consultations on this before sending it to the parliament?" Pawlak responded that Szarawarski had agreed to consultations, but only after the law had been accepted by the Council of Ministers. Socha shot back, "it would be senseless to consult then." Socha apologized for the lack of consultations and said his staff had not informed him of Szarawarski,s promise. The delegation interjected that WJRO Chairman Singer had sent a letter to PM Belka in November 2004 regarding consultations and that although Belka,s office had tasked Treasury with drafting a response, no response had yet been received. Socha again apologized and requested that the WJRO present its position on specific issues in writing as soon as possible and that he would attempt to have these views taken into consideration.

11. (SBU) Socha added he had great sympathy for former owners, as his own family had lost properties in Buchacz, now in Ukraine. He stated that in rem restitution was already possible via Polish courts. (Note: This is true, but only in cases of gross violation of the stipulations and procedures of nationalization decrees. End note.) He regretted the percentage of compensation was not higher, but 15 percent was the maximum Poland could afford. He added that the GOP had to be fair to all former owners and that 15 percent was the same rate that would be in new GOP draft legislation providing compensation to so called "Easterners," who had lost property in what is now Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine

(Ref B). He added that 15 percent should come as no surprise, as for several years public discussions of reprivatization mentioned approximately this rate. He noted that this compared favorably with Hungary, which had only paid 10 percent. Pawlak explained that in the final draft a clause had been added to include property confiscated by Nazi Germany after September 1, 1939, and later taken over by the Polish state; this clause included former Jewish property.

12. (SBU)Responding to Socha, the delegation stated that the WJRO had no prior knowledge of the 15 percent figure (Note: We understand that the WJRO was, in fact, familiar with GOP guidelines announced in March 2004 that foresaw a compensation rate of 10-15 percent. End note.) Edelist objected to the use of Hungary as a measure for comparison, as "the Czech Republic and Romania are returning actual properties, Poland should be compared with them."

Speaker Cimoszewicz Offers Consultations in Parliament
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. (SBU) On February 17 the delegation met with Sejm Speaker Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Sejm International Relations Office Director Krzysztof Szumski, and Cimoszewicz,s assistant Mariusz Edgaro. Sultanik expressed the delegation,s shock over the lack of consultations, saying that such behavior was "unacceptable in the civilized world," and repeated his objections to the draft law.

14. (SBU) Cimoszewicz stated that it was "shameful" that the private property issue had still not been solved, and expressed his regrets that no consultations had taken place. Citing his own family,s loss of property in Ukraine, he said he understood the deep emotional attachment to ancestral property, however, "history cannot be reversed" and in rem restitution was just not possible. He rejected the idea of a separate law on Jewish property as unrealistic. He said that while it appeared to be too late for consultations with the GOP, he was willing to offer consultations in the Sejm. He said that there were two possibilities: rapid consultations with a good chance of a law being passed or more detailed consultations with a significant risk that the bill would not be passed before parliamentary elections (which would require it to be reintroduced). He pledged to contact interested Polish and Jewish organizations and send them a copy of the GOP bill once it reached the Sejm.

15. (SBU) The delegation presented a divided response to Cimoszewicz,s proposal. Evron, emphasizing that Holocaust survivors were rapidly passing away, said that the shorter consultations with a good chance of passage of the law were the best option. Sultanik disagreed, saying that the Jewish community needs more time to come up with a common position on specific proposals. Edelist took a position between the two, emphasizing that short consultations could be a solution if in rem restitution would be added to the bill.

Comment
--------------

16. (SBU) The lack of detailed consultations with the WJRO, despite repeated U.S. requests and GOP promises, is disappointing. At this point, it appears unlikely that any consultations will take place before the Council of Ministers sends the draft compensation law to the Sejm. This, and indications that the GOP will push for passage of the bill this term, gives added importance to Cimoszewicz,s offer of Sejm consultations. To avoid missing this opportunity, the WJRO will need to better define its interests and prepare to respond rapidly to the Polish draft law.

ASHE NNNN 2005WARSAW01225 - Classification: CONFIDENTIAL

GOP TO PUT FORWARD DRAFT PRIVATE PROPERTY

Reference ID: 08WARSAW1138
Created: 2008-09-29 11:09
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL
Origin: Embassy Warsaw
Źródło:http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/09/08WARSAW1138.html

VZCZCXRO3786
PP RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHWR #1138/01 2731109
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 291109Z SEP 08

FM AMEMBASSY WARSAW / TO RUEHC / SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7076
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 WARSAW 001138

SIPDIS

EUR/OHI FOR KENNEDY AND BECKER
EUR/CE FOR PIERANGELO AND MORRIS
DRL/SEAS FOR RICKMAN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/28/2018
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL PL
SUBJECT: GOP TO PUT FORWARD DRAFT PRIVATE PROPERTY
RESTITUTION LAW; PROSPECTS IN SEJM UNCLEAR / REF: 07 WARSAW 498

Classified By: DCM QUANRUD FOR REASON 1.4 (D)

1. (C) SUMMARY: Polish Treasury Vice Minister Krzysztof Laszkiewicz told visiting Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues Ambassador J. Christian Kennedy September 12 that draft legislation on compensation for WWII and Communist-era confiscations is ready to be introduced to the Sejm (the lower house of parliament) once it is approved by the Council of Ministers, perhaps in October.

>>> Ewa Ziomecka, State Secretary for Social Issues in the Presidential Chancellery, indicated that President Kaczynski would like to resolve the issue, but that he and Law and Justice (PiS) party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski expect the Government to request their cooperation. >>>Both Ziomecka and Laszkiewicz confirmed that Sejm Speaker Bronislaw Komorowski has pledged to move the bill through parliament as quickly as possible once it is introduced. >>> Other PiS and Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) insiders offered a different take, saying they were not sure that their parties would be able to support the draft legislation though individual members might.

All interlocutors agreed that the legislation's success will likely depend on its cost to the national budget and Government-opposition dynamics. Several also emphasized the need to launch a major PR campaign to overcome widespread misinformation and skepticism about the nature and purpose of the legislation. END SUMMARY.

TREASURY PREVIEWS DRAFT LEGISLATION

2. (SBU) Treasury Vice Minister Laszkiewicz previewed a draft bill currently under interministerial review (paras 7-11 contain more detailed information). Pending completion of this review, the bill will be forwarded to the permanent committee of the Council of Ministers and, if accepted, on to the Council of Ministers itself in October. Laszkiewicz said that the Sejm Speaker Bronislaw Komorowski (Civic Platform, PO) had offered assurances that he would work to move the bill through the required legislative procedure as quickly as possible. (COMMENT: Komorowski expressed similar intentions in a January 2008 meeting with Ambassador Kennedy. END COMMENT.) Laszkiewicz noted that parliamentary amendments had led then-President Kwasniewski to veto similar legislation in 2001, and amendments could be attached this time around as well. Laszkiewicz reiterated that the GoP is determined to get the legislation passed this time.

FILING PROCEDURES FOR CLAIMS

3. (SBU)Laszkiewicz said claimants will have twelve months from the date of the legislation's passage to file an initial claim (only the application) and will be permitted subsequently to submit supporting documents up to two years afterwards. Claimants would have the option of mailing their application directly to the appropriate provincial (Wojewodztwo) authority or submitting applications through a Polish consulate abroad. Laszkiewicz said the GoP would begin to make payments two years after the law goes into effect and would strive to complete the payment process as quickly as possible. Asked about the possibility of front-loading payments to elderly claimants (or to original owners vice heirs), Laszkiewicz said such a provision could prompt legal challenges on the grounds that it violates Polish guarantees of equal treatment under the law.

PROJECTED COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

4. (SBU) In terms of cost to the national budget, Laszkiewicz said it is impossible to predict what the value of total claims will be. Given this lack of information, the GoP shifted tack from previous formulations that based compensation on a specific percentage of total claims. Instead, under the draft law, Poland will allocate no less than 20 billion PLN (approx. 8.7 billion USD) to a fund. (NOTE: Laszkiewicz confided that the Treasury Ministry had earlier predicted a total of 100 billion PLN in claims. The 20 billion PLN fund represents 20 percent of this amount. END NOTE.) Laszkiewicz said the payments would be stretched over a period of at least ten years. If the total amount of claims in any given year exceeds the amount of funds available, the legislation calls for the national budget to make up ) or write off - the difference. The funds to be set aside would come from the sale of Treasury Ministry assets, including confiscated properties. "This must be done smartly," Laszkiewicz said, in order to maximize the amount of money that can be allocated to the fund.

WARSAW 00001138 002 OF 003

PRESIDENTIAL CHANCELLERY SUPPORTIVE, BUT WANTS GOVERNMENT TO TAKE FIRST STEP

5. (C)Presidential aide Ewa Ziomecka told Kennedy that President Lech Kaczynski would like to resolve the issue. However, she argued that passage of the legislation would require better relations between the Government and the President's opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party. >>> "PiS and the Government should be natural allies" on this and many other issues, "but we are not." <<< She said the Government would likely need to launch a comprehensive public relations campaign before the legislation is introduced in the Sejm in order to address widespread skepticism and misinformation, including the perception that restitution is primarily a "Jewish issue." To date, Ziomecka said, the Government does not seem to have developed such a strategy. >>> In a similar vein, Ziomecka said, both the Government and the President's office would prefer that any U.S. lobbying be done quietly. If Poland is perceived as acting under foreign pressure, she explained, it will be more difficult to get the legislation passed. She speculated that the Catholic Church could play a key role in drumming up political and public support for the bill.

6. (C) Ziomecka agreed that Speaker Komorowski has expressed his intent to support the legislation and move it through the
legislative procedure as quickly as possible, but added that it was not clear whether Komorowski understands the full scope of pressure abroad. Ziomecka also insisted that PiS party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski ) "a lawyer with a sense of justice" ) could also play a key role, but will likely insist that PO ask PiS to cooperate on the issue. Although there has been Polish press and commentariat speculation that President Kaczynski might veto property compensation legislation, Ziomecka did not mention this possibility, despite several opportunities to do so. (NOTE: In a discussion September 19 with DCM, MFA State Secretary Witold Waszczykowski said President Kaczynski would have to support the law, since it is embarrassing that Poland is one of the few countries in Central/Eastern Europe not to pass such legislation. END NOTE.)

OPPOSITION VIEWS

7. (SBU) Reaction from other PiS parliamentarians was more circumspect. Jacek Kurski, Deputy Chair of the Sejm's Finance Committee, said that PiS support would primarily depend on its impact on the budget. Kurski did not deny that there might be an electoral advantage for individual deputies who support the legislation, but implied that PiS may seek unspecified concessions from the Government on unrelated issues. He noted that PiS votes would be essential to make the legislation veto-proof. Pawel Poncyljusz, a party insider with close ties to Jaroslaw Kaczynski, said that the issue is something that Poland needs to solve and thought that approximately 50 of PiS' 166 deputies might support the legislation. Ryszard Kalisz, an SLD deputy and Chairman of the Sejm's Justice and Human Rights Committee, took a similar position, stating that he supports the project but thought it would have a mixed reception among other SLD deputies.

TREASURY: WWII ERA CONFISCATIONS WILL BE COVERED

8. (SBU) Previewing the bill for Kennedy, Treasury Vice Minister Laszkiewicz said the bill covers property that had been confiscated by decree between 1944 and 1962. He noted that many NGOs had pressed for the legislation to include property seized by the Nazi occupation as early as 1939. Although the legislation in effect covers all such property, Laszkiewicz said, it was not possible to make the legislation retroactive to 1939 because the Polish Government-in-Exile issued a decree in November 1939 declaring invalid all acts by occupying forces, including seizures of property held by Polish citizens. The newly constituted Polish communist government issued a similar decree in 1944. Because both decrees are still recognized by the Republic of Poland, using 1939 as a starting date for private property restitution would make legislation vulnerable to a legal challenge in the Constitutional Tribunal and "would not change any legal fact," given that all property seized by the Nazis was nationalized by decree of the communist authorities in 1944.

DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

9. (SBU) On the issue of documentation, Laszkiewicz said Article 75 of the Polish Administrative Procedure Code did not make it possible to accept only a claimant's written declaration of ownership. "Such a provision would be sent to the Constitutional Tribunal and the law would be immediately struck down." Laszkiewicz did say that Polish authorities would facilitate claimants' access to deed and mortgage registers. For that purpose a claimant's written declaration will suffice when requesting extracts from the registers. Claimants may request extracts by sending a letter to or appearing in person at the administrative court that oversees the registers. Laszkiewicz explained that the administrative court plays a dual role, i.e., both administering the registers and resolving title disputes and bookkeeping errors.

PROVISIONS FOR RECOGNITION OF INHERITANCE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY

10. (SBU) On the issue of inheritance, Laszkiewicz said it would not be necessary to conduct court hearings for acquisition of the property if a claimant inherited the property in question in another country. Under the principle of international comity, it is only required that a Polish court recognize the inheritance. Laszkiewicz insisted this is a fairly routine procedure under Article 1145 of the Polish Administrative Code. Laszkiewicz said recognition of foreign powers of attorney would also not be a problem in cases where Poland has a bilateral treaty with the claimant's country of residence that acknowledges power of attorney. He noted that this includes all signatories to the Hague Convention, which provides for mutual recognition of power of attorney. In other cases, Laszkiewicz said, a Polish consulate abroad is empowered to recognize power of attorney, as Polish consular officers have notary authority.

11. (SBU)A more difficult question, Laszkiewicz said, would be to conclude a legal determination that an individual is deceased in cases where there was no death certificate or inheritance procedure, whether in Poland or abroad. In such cases, claimants would be required to present a court's recognition that the original owner is deceased and would then have to petition a Polish court to recognize the inheritance. In cases where the claimant possesses a death certificate but no inheritance procedure has been conducted, the foreign death certificate would need to be recognized by a Polish administrative court.

COMMENT

12. (C) The 1944 date mentioned by Laszkiewicz has caused concerns among potential American claimants, many of whom were dispossessed in 1939 under Nazi Aryanization actions. >>> Although Laszkiewicz's explanation provides a legal rationale for the government draft bill using 1944 as a start date,

we should press the Poles for at least a strong, political-level statement that the confiscations of 1939 and the rest of WWII are covered.This kind of lobbying will be necessary on other issues too, such as ease of filing, amount of the compensation to be paid out, and the period over which payouts will be made.

However, further lobbying should probably await actual introduction of the draft law in the Sejm; until then, the main official to engage would be Laszkiewicz, who has been consistent in his views over the last six years about what is and is not possible under Polish law. As drafter of the earlier bill vetoed by former President Kwasniewksi, he has more expertise on this subject than any other political-level figure in the current government. The Treasury Ministry released the text of the draft bill in a press release September 23.

13. (SBU) This message has been cleared by Ambassador Kennedy.