DIO IZLAGANJA ZELJKE ANTUNOVIC (SDP) U
ZASTUPNICKOM DOMU SABORA 29.I.1999.
(fonogram: str. 83 / 1 / SG --- ZD)

U ranijim razdobljima vlasnici tih stanova koji imaju, u kojima su stanari s kojima oni mozda nisu zadovoljni, a mozda i jesu zadovoljni, ali u svakom slucaju nisu mogli utjecati na to tko ce im biti stanar, sutke su podnosili svoj status jer su se pomirili sa sustavom koji vlasnickim pravima nije bio sklon, a stanari su pak sutjeli jer su u pravilu mirno zivjeli i jer se za takvu situaciju nisu osjecali krivima.

Kad nam se konacno pruzila prilika da taj tinjajuci konflikt definitivno razrijesimo, mi smo se opredijelili za najlosije rjesenje, betonirali smo postojece stanje. Na taj nacin ustvari uveli smo diskriminaciju nad nekim nositeljima stanarskog prava kojima je osporeno pravo privatizacije stana na kojem su imali stanarsko pravo potpuno jednako kao i mnogi drugi kojima je pruzena prilika da pod znacajno povoljnijim uvjetima svoj stan otkupe.

Istovremeno licemjerno se postupilo i prema vlasnicima kojima je toboze sacuvano pravo vlasnistva, ali im je ustvari to vlasnistvo osporeno u njegovom bitnom dijelu i to tako sto im je znacajno osporeno pravo raspolaganja.

Rjesenje opisanog konflikta koje smo duzni zakonom osigurati biti ce dobro tek kad prihvatimo nacelo da ni stanari ni vlasnici ne smiju biti zrtve tudjih pogresaka, pogresaka nekih drugih ljudi ili nekih drugih sistema, znaci kako onih iz proslosti, ali tako i onih koji danas zastupaju princip, ja bih rekla, sto gore to bolje, ili jednostavno princip: sto me briga za tudje probleme, glavno da nisu moji.

SDP se oduvijek izjasnjavao kao zagovornik rjesenja po kojima svim stanarima treba pod istim uvjetima omoguciti otkup stana, a vlasnicima osigurati trzisnu naknadu. Naglasavam trzisnu naknadu, kako poslije ne bi bilo nekih krivih interpretacija nasih prijedloga.

Uporiste za takav stav nalazi se i u hrvatskom Ustavu u clanku 50. gdje je propisano da se vlasnistvo moze ograniciti i oduzeti kada je to u interesu Republike Hrvatske. Istovremeno ocjenjujemo na temelju nasih informacija i razgovora sa zainteresiranim stranama da bi takvo rjesenje prihvatila i velika vecina vlasnika, jer i oni u tom prijedlogu vide izlaz iz svog nezadovoljavajuceg stanja.

Istovremeno ocjenjujemo da bi provodjenjem takvog prijedloga troskovi koji svakako postoje - i to je jos jedna od obmana u ovom zakonu, da provedba nista ne kosta kao i prije u slicnim zakonima, - troskovi bi bili svedeni na minimum; i jos jedna vazna stvar, u podmirenju tih troskova participirali bi i sami stanari jer bi se sredstva od otkupa ovih stanova, ali i onih ranije prodanih stanova mogli usmjeriti za trzisno obestecenje vlasnika.

(.....) _ Predlozena odredba izmjene clanka 40. ne prihvacamo, jer osim sto dodatno pogorsava status zasticenog najmoprimca ne nudi realno provediva sustavna rjesenja _ (.....)

ZELJKA ANTUNOVIC' (SDP-Party) - (Sabor, January 29, 1999):
(Abbreviated:)
---- In the previous period the owners of these flats (....) silently endured their status (....), and the tenants were likewise silent, because they lived in peace and new that they were not to blame for that situation. When, at last, the opportunity occurred to definitively solve this smouldering conflict, the worst solution was chosen, the existing state has been cemented. Thus, in fact, some tenantship-right holders have been discriminated against, who were denied the right to privatization of flats on which they had quite equal tenantship rights as many others, who were granted the opportunity to buy their flats on very favourable terms.
---- At the same time the owners were also treated hypocritically; ostensibly they kept the ownership, but in fact that ownership has been abnegated in its essence, because they were denied the right of free use.
---- The solution of this conflict, that we have to effectuate, will only be good enough if we accept the principle, that neither the tenants nor the owners should be victims of other-people's mistakes, or mistakes of other systems, which means: those from the past, but also those who today adhere to the principle - I would say - "if it be worse, so much the better", or simply the principle: "I don't care for other-people's problems, as long as they are not mine".
---- SDP (the Social-Democratic Party) has always pleaded for the solution by which all (tenants) should be allowed to buy the flats on equal terms, and the owners should be awarded the compensation of the market value (of flats). I emphasize THE MARKET VALUE, in order that our proposals should not be misinterpreted later on.
----The point of support for such a position is found tn the Croatian Constitution, in Article 50., which provides that ownership can be restricted or seized in the interest of the Republic of Croatia. At the same time, our informations and talks with the parties concerned show that such a solution would be accepted by a great majority of owners too, because they also see that this proposal is a way to get out of their unsatisfacoty state.
---- We also think that, by realizing such a proposal, the expenses would be made minimal - the expenses wich do exist; and there is one more deceit in this law that the realization will cost nothing, like in other laws before (....).
---- We do not agree with the proposed changes of article 40., because it further aggravates the status of the protected lessees without offering any feasible systematic solutons (......)


****** ****** ******

Dio Rezolucije 1096 sa stavkom 10. _ (podcrtao B.S.):

COUNCIL OF EUROPE - Parliamentary Assembly

RESOLUTION 1096 (1996)1 on measures to dismantle
the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems

1. The heritage of former communist totalitarian systems is not an easy one to handle. On an institutional level this heritage includes (over)centralisation, the militarisation of civilian institutions, bureaucratisation, monopolisation, and over-regulation; ...... ( itd., __ ovdje izostavljam sve do stavka 10. ).

10. Furthermore, the Assembly advises that property, including that of the churches, which was illegally or unjustly SEIZED by the state, NATIONALIZED, confiscated OR OTHERWISE expropriated during the reign of communist totalitarian systems in principle be RESTITUTED to its original owners IN INTEGRUM, IF THIS IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT VIOLATING the rights of current owners who acquired the property in good faith or THE RIGHTS OF TENANTS WHO RENTED THE PROPERTY IN GOOD FAITH, and without harming the progress of democratic reforms. In cases WHERE THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE, JUST MATERIAL COMPENSATION SHOULD BE AWARDED. Claims and conflicts relating to individual cases of property restitution should be decided by the courts.

11. Concerning the treatment . ( itd.; _ izostavljam stavke 11. do 16.)

1. Assembly debate on 27 June 1996 (22nd Sitting) (see Doc. 7568, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Severin). Text adopted by the Assembly on 27 June 1996 (23rd Sitting).
2. See Doc. 7568.
(KRAJ kopije dijela Rezolucije 1096)

Prijevod stavka 10: "Nadalje, Skupstina savjetuje da imovina, ukljucujuci i crkvenu, koja je bila nezakonito ili nepravedno ODUZETA od strane drzave, nacionalizirana, konfiscirana ili na drugi nacin ekspropriirana za vrijeme vladavine komunistickih totalitarnih sistema, u principu treba biti restituirana izvornim vlasnicima in integrum, AKO je to moguce uciniti BEZ KRSENJA prava sadasnjih (novih) vlasnika koji su stekli tu imovinu u dobroj vjeri ili PRAVA STANARA koji su unajmili tu imovinu u dobroj vjeri, te bez stete za napredak demokratskih reformi. U slucajevima KADA TO NIJE MOGUCE, TREBA SE DODIJELITI PRAVEDNA MATERIJALNA NAKNADA. O zahtjevima i sukobima koji se odnose na pojedinacne slucajeve restitucije imovine trebaju odluciti sudovi."

NAPOMENA (B. Soric): Za vrijeme SFRJ imovina je bila oduzeta na razne nacine, na pr. konfiskacijom, nacionalizacijom, davanjem trajnog i zauvijek nasljedivog stanarskog prava stanaru i to zakonom (u mnogim slucajevima protiv volje izvonog vlasnika, bez obzira na zemljisne knjige koje su time derogirane), pa je time izvorni vlasnik zauvijek izgubio gotovo sva vlasnicka ovlastenja (prava) nad stanom. _ (Jasno, ako je vlasnik sam dao stanarsko pravo stanaru, onda imovina nije oduzeta od vlasnika, pa se niti ne vraca).
****** ****** ******