<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

Reconstruction and Repair of Property

Reconstruction of Houses Destroyed in the War – A Qualified Success

In the context of refugee return in Croatia, the reconstruction of houses damaged or destroyed during the war has been a relative success story in recent years. Although reconstruction assistance to returning Serbs began only at the end of 2002, there has been real progress since that date. Between January 2004 and January 2006, the government reconstructed 4,139 houses,¹²⁰ most of them owned by ethnic Serbs.

Reconstruction has not been an unqualified success, however. As of February 2006, more than three thousand applications for reconstruction were still awaiting first-instance decisions by the local offices of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Traffic, Tourism, and Development, although the deadline for the submission of the applications had expired on September 30, 2004.¹²¹ The appeals process for those whose applications have been refused is also “painfully slow,” in the words of an international official.¹²² Between January 2004 and January 2006, offices of the ministry issued negative decisions concerning 22,528 requests, compared to 12,830 positive ones.¹²³ The main office of the ministry, in Zagreb, is deciding on the appeals, and this has created a huge bottleneck. Fewer than five ministry officers are handling the appeals.¹²⁴ In practical terms, a prospective returnee may have to wait for years to receive the final decision approving the reconstruction of his or her house.

Slow and Incomplete Repair of Post-war Damage

After the war and the departure of Serbs, up to twenty thousand Serb houses were occupied by Croat refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro, Croats displaced from other parts of Croatia during the war, and Croats who had housing elsewhere in Croatia but were given abandoned Serb property for temporary use. Almost all of the properties have now been formally repossessed by their Serb owners.

Temporary occupants who vacated the houses frequently looted or damaged them prior to their departure.¹²⁵ Where there is significant damage, owners are unable to inhabit the house before it is repaired. Although state prosecutors were mandated under the law to sue temporary occupants who intentionally damaged or looted the property allocated to them, few prosecutions have taken place.¹²⁶

In 2005 the government announced that it would repair the damage and adopted a written “conclusion” to that effect.¹²⁷ The implementation of the new policy has had a characteristically slow start. Regional offices of the Directorate for Expellees, Returnees, and Refugees have compiled lists of the beneficiaries of the program, and technical teams have most recently started damage assessment. Based on their evaluations, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Traffic, Tourism, and Development will provide the fixtures and other material.

The Directorate for Expellees, Returnees and Refugees has compiled a list of 395 beneficiaries.¹²⁸ It has been unclear whether the government considers this to be a final list.¹²⁹ The government has indicated that it intends only to repair damage that was registered at the time of repossession, in the so-called “PP-11” forms completed by state officials and signed by the owner.¹³⁰ If adhered to in practice, this limitation would prevent numerous individuals whose houses had been damaged from receiving the assistance. The forms often underestimated the actual extent of destruction, and in some cases the officials failed to fill out the form at all.¹³¹ In other cases, returnees signed the form despite the fact that it underestimated the extent of the damage, because, as one has put it, “we had waited for the repossession for years, and we were eager to get in. I had to sign or otherwise I wouldn’t have gotten the keys.”¹³² In some instances, the returnees photographed the premises in the house upon reinstatement. ¹³³ In those cases, they should be allowed to seek the corresponding compensation based on this evidence of destruction.

The OSCE estimates that between one thousand and fifteen hundred house owners should be entitled to compensation, because in many instances PP-11 forms did not adequately depict the damage or were not even issued.¹³⁴

In addition, the government list of 395 beneficiaries apparently omitted a significant number of individuals who have PP-11 forms describing substantial damage to the property. Human Rights Watch talked to one married couple in Knin, who are not on the list, although the PP-11 form for their home registered significant damage.¹³⁵ Three persons with a similar problem have approached the Committee for Human Rights, a nongovernmental group in Karlovac.¹³⁶ The OSCE field office in Sisak has also registered such cases in its area of responsibility.¹³⁷

These omissions speak in favor of establishing a procedure which would enable the house owners to apply directly for the new (2005) repair program, rather than waiting to be assessed for eligibility. They should also be allowed to prove that the damage differed from that indicated in the PP-11 forms. No such procedure existed as of June 2006.¹³⁸ One housing official told Human Rights Watch that “people don’t have to apply. We make the list of beneficiaries and let them know that they will receive the assistance.”¹³⁹ Given the problems identified above, however, it is necessary to create an additional mechanism to ensure that intended beneficiaries of the program are able to access it.

In those instances in which the returnees themselves made some or all repairs in order to make the house habitable after repossession, the government should provide financial compensation if the returnees have receipts proving the purchase of fixtures or materials used for the repair.