Restitution Policy in Georgia is discriminatory. Since 90ies till now religious minorities cannot recover and protect historic property confiscated during the Soviet period. The process was settled only for the Orthodox Church. The state created all legal and practical guarantees for restitution and use of the property. Moreover, the restitution process in relation to the Orthodox Church became preferential and reflected excessive loyalty, which caused an accumulation of large amounts of property and financial resources. In these circumstances, religious groups cannot even register property rights on historic, operational buildings, not to mention disused and disputed historic places of worship, which face high risks of damage and destruction. Certainly, this is discriminatory and points to weak recognition of the history and interests of religious minorities. This reality raises the need for fair and equal restitution policy and its legislative regulation.

The present research aims to study relevant international standards, also experience of countries with a similar background, and analyze local practice and legislation in that light. Despite dissimilar resolution of restitution issues in domestically, the present document draws attention to common basic principles and approaches, that restitution legislation of different countries is based on.

The following methodological instruments were used for the study: analysis of the legislation of different countries, international standards, and secondary sources; assessment of practice on restitution in different countries and analysis of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in this regard. As for the secondary sources, relevant analytic and policy documents were studied, which on the one hand describe the political environment and background of restitution legislation and on the other hand, discuss arguments on the expediency of adopting restitution legislation.

The first part of the document will critically assess Georgian legislation related to restitution and challenges due to the inexistence of the legislative framework. The second part of the document will analyze the basic characteristics of legislation on the restitution of property confiscated during the Soviet period as well as will try to identify best practices.

For identifying best practices, several countries were selected, which portray different models of state-church relations and accordingly, provide the opportunity for identifying best practices with regard to different contexts of adopting restitution legislation. Romania and Poland are those countries, in which the public and social role of religion is most recognized. Czech Republic at the end of the other spectrum, is an example of strict separation of the church and the state. Hungary takes a middle position in terms of recognizing public role of religion.[1] The scope of the research is limited, and it does not cover restitution of property confiscated during Nazi Germany and narrowly relates to those restitution legislations, which aim to return property of religious groups and places of worship confiscated during Soviet period. The document does not discuss individual claims on property confiscated during Soviet period either.

Share