Los decretos Beneš [a] [b] fueron una serie de leyes redactadas por el gobierno checoslovaco en el exilio en ausencia del parlamento checoslovaco durante la ocupación alemana de Checoslovaquia en la Segunda Guerra Mundial . Fueron promulgadas por el presidente Edvard Beneš del 21 de julio de 1940 al 27 de octubre de 1945 y ratificadas retroactivamente por la Asamblea Nacional Provisional de Checoslovaquia el 6 de marzo de 1946.
Los decretos abordaban diversos aspectos de la restauración de Checoslovaquia y su sistema legal, la desnazificación y la reconstrucción del país. En el periodismo y la historia política, el término "decretos Beneš" se refiere a los decretos del presidente y las ordenanzas del Consejo Nacional Eslovaco (SNR) sobre el estatus de los alemanes étnicos , húngaros y otros en la Checoslovaquia de posguerra y representaban el marco legal de Checoslovaquia para la expulsión de los alemanes de Checoslovaquia . Se basaba en el Acuerdo de Potsdam.
Trata a los ciudadanos alemanes y húngaros como criminales colectivos, imponiendo la segregación racial y la privación de derechos. Como resultado, casi todos los alemanes y húngaros étnicos, algunos de los cuales tenían antepasados que habían vivido en Checoslovaquia durante siglos antes de la Segunda Guerra Mundial , o aquellos que se habían establecido allí durante la ocupación alemana de Checoslovaquia, perdieron su ciudadanía checoslovaca y sus propiedades y fueron expulsados de sus hogares , entre otros. Algunos de ellos murieron durante el proceso de expulsión que tuvo lugar a fines de la década de 1940. Los decretos Beneš se aplicaron de manera diferente en diferentes partes del país; algunos decretos fueron válidos solo en Bohemia y Moravia , mientras que las ordenanzas de la SNR se aplicaron en Eslovaquia .
El 5 de abril de 1945, el Estado declaró que las minorías eran las culpables de la ocupación alemana. Históricamente, esto ha dado lugar a múltiples violaciones de los derechos humanos y ha estado seguido de crímenes de odio e internamientos .
Los alemanes y húngaros que se habían quedado sin hogar debido a las leyes fueron sometidos a trabajos forzados. [1] Se hizo posible expropiar sus empresas sin compensación y un nuevo decreto constitucional permitió la detención de personas consideradas "poco fiables" por las autoridades.
Los decretos también permitían despedir a funcionarios húngaros, retirar la asistencia sanitaria, prohibir el uso de la lengua húngara en las oficinas públicas y los servicios religiosos , excluir a los estudiantes húngaros de las universidades , disolver las asociaciones culturales y sociales húngaras, prohibir la publicación de libros y periódicos en húngaro y prohibir a los húngaros étnicos iniciar procedimientos civiles . Cualquiera que tuviera documentos que probaran su nacionalidad eslava fue recompensado con la opción de mudarse a las casas confiscadas. [2]
El Estado pretendía crear una nación étnicamente eslava en el territorio de las actuales Chequia y Eslovaquia mediante la eslavización . El proceso de eslovaquización en curso no ha recibido atención de los medios internacionales. Los decretos siguen siendo políticamente controvertidos tanto en la República Checa y Eslovaquia como en la Alemania moderna . Nunca fueron derogados y todavía se utilizan para confiscar propiedades de los húngaros en Eslovaquia con el argumento de que sus antepasados deberían haber perdido sus propiedades. [3]
Beneš, que fue elegido presidente de Checoslovaquia en 1935, dimitió tras el Acuerdo de Múnich en 1938. Tras la ocupación de Checoslovaquia, Beneš y otros políticos y funcionarios checoslovacos emigraron a Francia, estableciendo el Comité Nacional Checoslovaco, en noviembre de 1939, para restaurar Checoslovaquia. La principal tarea del comité era establecer un ejército checoslovaco en Francia. Tras la caída de Francia, el comité se trasladó a Londres , donde se convirtió en el Gobierno provisional checoslovaco . El gobierno fue reconocido como gobierno provisional checoslovaco por Gran Bretaña el 21 de julio de 1940 y en 1941 fue plenamente reconocido por los EE. UU. y la URSS como el gobierno del estado aliado. Desde su reconocimiento en 1940, el gobierno emitió decretos para gobernar a los ciudadanos checoslovacos en el extranjero. [4]
Beneš y otros políticos checoslovacos culparon a las minorías nacionales (húngaros y alemanes) por el colapso de Checoslovaquia, razón por la cual querían crear un estado-nación étnicamente homogéneo. [5]
Según la Constitución checoslovaca de 1920, el único órgano con poder legislativo era la Asamblea Nacional (Parlamento), y cada ley debía ser contrarrestada por el presidente. Como no era posible convocar al Parlamento en el exilio, el único órgano con poderes legislativos limitados era el presidente. La legalidad de todo el gobierno en el exilio dependía, por tanto, de la persona de Edvard Beneš, que, no obstante, dimitió de su cargo en octubre de 1938.
Beneš volvió a su puesto de presidente con la premisa de que su dimisión bajo coacción en 1938 no era válida. Luego nombró a los miembros del gobierno en el exilio y del Consejo de Estado. Como su mandato presidencial debía haber terminado en 1942, el gobierno adoptó una resolución por la que Beneš seguiría siendo presidente hasta que se pudieran celebrar nuevas elecciones. [4]
Aunque Beneš fue el único que emitió el Decreto Nº 1/1940 (sobre el establecimiento del gobierno), todos los decretos posteriores fueron propuestos por el gobierno en el exilio de acuerdo con la constitución checoslovaca de 1920 y firmados por el primer ministro o un ministro delegado. La validez de los decretos estaba sujeta a la ratificación posterior de la Asamblea Nacional. [4] A partir del 1 de septiembre de 1944 (después del Levantamiento Nacional Eslovaco ), el Consejo Nacional Eslovaco (SNR) tenía el poder legislativo y ejecutivo en Eslovaquia, diferenciando posteriormente entre leyes estatales y otras regulaciones; los decretos presidenciales eran válidos en Eslovaquia solo si mencionaban explícitamente el acuerdo del SNR.
El 4 de abril de 1945 se creó un nuevo gobierno en Košice , Eslovaquia (recientemente liberada por el Ejército Rojo ), formado por partidos unidos en el Frente Nacional y fuertemente influenciado por el Partido Comunista de Checoslovaquia . El poder del presidente para promulgar decretos (según las propuestas del gobierno) se mantuvo en vigor hasta el 27 de octubre de 1945, cuando se reunió la Asamblea Nacional Provisional. [4]
Los decretos pueden dividirse de la siguiente manera:
Aunque los decretos no estaban contemplados en la Constitución de 1920, las autoridades checoslovacas de la época de la guerra y de la posguerra los consideraron necesarios. Tras su ratificación por la Asamblea Nacional Provisional, se convirtieron en leyes vinculantes con validez retroactiva y pretendían preservar el orden jurídico checoslovaco durante la ocupación. [4] La mayoría de los decretos fueron abolidos por leyes posteriores (véase la lista a continuación) o quedaron obsoletos por haber cumplido su propósito. [4]
Nota: Esta lista incluye únicamente los decretos publicados en la Colección oficial de leyes de Checoslovaquia después de la liberación en 1945. Otros decretos (no reeditados) ya no tenían vigencia en la Checoslovaquia liberada en 1945.
El color amarillo marca los decretos constitucionales. El color rojo marca los decretos que luego fueron abolidos formalmente.
The Beneš decrees are associated with the 1945–47 deportation of about 3 million ethnic Germans and Hungarians from Czechoslovakia.[citation needed] The deportation, based on Article 12 of the Potsdam Agreement, was the outcome of negotiations between the Allied Control Council and the Czechoslovak government.[4] The expulsion is considered ethnic cleansing (a term in widespread use since the early 1990s)[8][9] by a number of historians and legal scholars.[9][10][11][12][13] The relevant decrees omit any reference to the deportation.[14]
Of the allies, the Soviet Union urged the United Kingdom and the U.S. to agree to the transfer[citation needed] of ethnic Germans and German-speaking Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Yugoslavs and Romanians into their zones of occupation. France, which was not a party to the Potsdam Agreement, did not accept exiles in its zone of occupation after July 1945. Most ethnic-German Czechoslovak citizens had supported the Nazis through the Sudeten German Party (led by Konrad Henlein) and the 1938 German annexation of the Sudetenland.[15] Most ethnic Germans of the Sudetenland, many of whom had wished their region to stay as part of Austria in 1919, failed to follow the mobilization order when Czechoslovakia was threatened with war by Hitler in 1938, crippling the army's defensive capabilities [citation needed].
In general, the decrees dealt with loss of citizenship and confiscation of the property of:
The defining character in definition of the entities affected was their hostility to the Czechoslovak Republic and to the Czech and Slovak nations. The hostility presumption was irrebuttable in case of entities in the Art.1(1), while it is rebuttable under Art.1(2) in case of physical persons of German or Hungarian ethnicity, i.e. that they were exempted under Decrees 33 (loss of citizenship), 100 (nationalization of large enterprises without remuneration) and 108 (expropriation) where they proved that they remained loyal to the Czechoslovak Republic, they had not committed an offense against the Czech and Slovak nation, and that they had either actively participated in the liberation of Czechoslovakia or were subjected to Nazi or fascist terror. At the same time, Art 1(3) covered any persons notwithstanding ethnicity, including Czechs and Slovaks.
Some 250,000 Germans, some anti-fascists exempted under the Decrees and others considered crucial to industry [citation needed], remained in Czechoslovakia. Many ethnic German anti-fascists emigrated under an agreement drawn up by Alois Ullmann.
Some of those affected held land settled by their ancestors since their invitation by the Bohemian king Otokar II during the 13th century or the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin at the turn of the ninth and tenth centuries.[citation needed]
Loss of Czechoslovak citizenship was addressed in Decree 33 (see description above). Under article three of the decree, those who lost their citizenship could request its restoration within six months of the decree's promulgation and requests would be assessed by the Interior Ministry.
On 13 April 1948 the Czechoslovak government issued Regulation 76/1948 Coll., lengthening the window for requesting reinstatement of Czechoslovak citizenship under Decree 33 to three years. Under this regulation, the Interior Ministry was bound to restore an applicant's citizenship unless it could determine that they had breached the "duties of a Czechoslovak citizen"; the applicant may have been requested also to prove "adequate" knowledge of Czech or Slovak language.[16]
On 25 October 1948 Act 245/1948 Coll. was adopted, in which ethnic Hungarians who were Czechoslovak citizens on 1 November 1938 and lived in Czechoslovakia at the time of the act's promulgation could regain Czechoslovak citizenship if they pledged allegiance to the Republic within 90 days. Taking the oath would, according to German laws valid at the time in 1948, automatically lead to loss of German citizenship.[17]
On 13 July 1949, Act 194/1949 Coll. was adopted. Under article three of the act, the Interior Ministry could bestow citizenship on applicants who had not committed an offence against Czechoslovakia or the people's democracy, had lived in the country for at least five years, and who would lose their other citizenship by receiving the Czechoslovak one.
On 24 April 1953, Act 34/1953 Coll. was adopted. Under this act, ethnic Germans who lost Czechoslovak citizenship under Decree 33 and were living in Czechoslovakia on the day of the act's promulgation automatically regained their citizenship. This also applied to spouses and children living in Czechoslovakia with no other citizenship.
For comparison, any person may currently be granted Czech citizenship if they:[18]
After the Velvet Revolution Act 243/1992 Coll. was adopted, arranging restitution of real estate taken by the decrees or lost during the occupation. The act applied to:
In 2010 the United Nations Human Rights Committee, under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reviewed a communication submitted by Josef Bergauer et al. The committee held that the covenant became effective in 1975 and its protocol in 1991. Since the covenant could not be applied retroactively, the committee held that the communication was inadmissible.[19]
After the Velvet Revolution Czechoslovakia also adopted Act 87/1991 Coll., providing restitution or compensation to victims of confiscation for political reasons during the Communist regime (25 February 1948 – 1 January 1990). The law also provided for restitution or compensation to victims of racial persecution during World War II who are entitled by Decree 5/1945.
In 2002 the UN Human Rights Committee stated its views in Brokova v. The Czech Republic, in which the applicant was refused restitution of property nationalized under Decree 100 (nationalization of large enterprises). Brokova was excluded from restitution, although the Czech nationalization in 1946–47 could be implemented only because the author's property had been confiscated during the German occupation. In the committee's view, this was discriminatory treatment of the plaintiff compared to those whose property was confiscated by Nazi authorities and not nationalized immediately after the war (and who, therefore, could benefit from the laws of 1991 and 1994). The committee found that Brokova was denied her right to equal protection under the law, in violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[20]
In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights refused the application of Josef Bergauer and 89 others against the Czech Republic. According to the applicants, "after the Second World War, they were expelled from their homeland in genocidal circumstances", their property was confiscated by Czechoslovak authorities, the Czech Republic failed to suspend the Beneš Decrees and had not compensated them. The court held that the expropriation took place long before the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights with respect to the Czech Republic. Since Article 1 of Protocol 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire property, although the Beneš Decrees remained part of Czech law the applicants had no claim under the convention against the Czech Republic to recover the confiscated property. According to the court, "it should be further noted that the case-law of the Czech courts made the restitution of property available even to persons expropriated contrary to the Presidential Decrees, thus providing for the reparation of acts which contravened the law then in force. The Czech judiciary thus provides protection extending beyond the standards of the Convention."[21]
The validity of the Beneš decrees was first reviewed at the plenary session of the Czech Constitutional Court in its decisions of 8 March 1995, published as Decisions No. 5/1995 Coll. and 14/1995 Coll. The court addressed the following issues concerning the decrees' validity: The conformity of the decree process with the Czechoslovak law and the 1920 Constitution;[c] Beneš' right to issue the decrees, despite the existence of a formal protectorate government and German occupation[d] decrees appropriate for the time of their issuance, in accordance with international consensus;[e] decrees using the principle of responsibility, rather than guilt;[f] decrees targeting those hostile to the republic, not an ethnic group in general;[g] decrees meeting the proportionality test;[h] In Decision 14/1995 Coll. the court held that the decree at issue was legitimate. It found that since the decree has fulfilled its purpose and has not produced legal effects for more than four decades, it may not be reviewed by the court for its adherence to the 1992 Czech constitution. In the court's view, such a review would lack legal purpose and cast doubt on the principle of legal certainty (an essential principle of democracies adhering to the rule of law).[22]
Although under Decrees 12 and 108 confiscations were automatic on the basis of the decrees themselves,[23] Decree 100 (nationalization of large enterprises) required a formal decision by the Minister of Industry. According to the Constitutional Court, if a Decree 100 nationalization decision was made by someone other than the minister the nationalization was invalid and subject to legal challenge.[24]
While hearing appeals of court decisions dealing with Decree 12 confiscations, the Constitutional Court held that courts must decide whether a confiscation decision was motivated by persecution and a decree used as a pretext. This applied to cases of those who remained in the Sudetenland after the Munich Agreement (gaining German citizenship while remaining loyal to Czechoslovakia)[23] and those convicted as traitors whose convictions were later overturned (with their property confiscated in the meantime).[25]
Slovakia, as a legal successor of Czechoslovakia, adopted its legal order by Article 152 of the Slovak constitution. This includes the Beneš decrees and Czechoslovak Constitutional Act 23/1991 (the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms). This act made all acts or regulations not compliant with the charter inoperable. Although the Beneš decrees are a valid historical part of Slovak law, they can no longer create legal relationships and have been ineffective since 31 December 1991.
On 20 September 2007, the Slovak parliament adopted a resolution concerning the untouchability of postwar documents relating to conditions in Slovakia after World War II. The resolution was originally proposed by the ultra-nationalist[26][27][28] Slovak National Party in response to the activities of Hungarian members of parliament and organizations in Hungary.[29] The Beneš decrees were a significant talking point of the Hungarian extremist groups Magyar Gárda and Nemzeti Őrsereg, which became active in August 2007. The approved text differed from the proposal in several important respects. The resolution commemorated the victims of World War II, refused the principle of collective guilt, expressed a desire to stop the reopening of topics related to World War II in the context of European integration and declared a wish to build good relationships with Slovakia's neighbors. It also rejected all attempts at revision and questioning of laws, decrees, agreements or other postwar decisions of Slovak and Czechoslovak bodies which could lead to changes in the postwar order, declaring that postwar decisions are not the basis of current discrimination and cannot establish legal relationships.[30] The resolution was adopted by an absolute parliamentary majority and approved by the coalition government and opposition parties, except for the Party of the Hungarian Coalition.[31] It prompted a strong negative reaction in Hungary, and Hungarian President László Sólyom said that it would strain Hungarian-Slovak relations.[32]
Politicians and journalists have frequently ignored differences in conditions between Slovakia and the Czech Republic during the postwar era.[33] In Slovakia, some measures incorrectly called "Beneš decrees" were not presidential decrees but ordinances by the Slovak National Council (SNR). The confiscation of the agricultural property of Germans, Hungarians, traitors and enemies of the Slovak nation was not enforced by the Beneš decrees, but by the Ordinance of the SNR 104/1945; punishment of fascist criminals, occupiers, traitors and collaborators was based on the Ordinance of the SNR 33/1945. The Beneš decrees and SNR ordinances sometimes contained different solutions.
The list of decrees which have never been valid in Slovakia contains several with a significant impact on German and Hungarian minorities in the Czech lands:[34]
In 1990 the speakers of the Slovak and Hungarian parliaments, František Mikloško and György Szabad, agreed on the reassessment of their common relationship by a commission of Slovak and Hungarian historians. Although the initiative was hoped to lead to a common memorandum about the limitation of mutual injustices, it did not have the expected result.[35] On February 12, 1991, the Slovak National Council formally apologized for postwar persecution of innocent Germans, rejecting the principle of collective guilt.[36] In 2003, speaker of the Slovak parliament Pavol Hrušovský said that Slovakia was ready to apologize for postwar injustices if Hungary would do likewise. Although Hungarian National Assembly Speaker Katalin Szili approved his initiative, further steps were not taken.[37] In 2005 Mikloško apologized for injustices on his own,[38] and similar unofficial apologies were made by representatives of both sides.[citation needed]
According to Radio Prague, since the decrees which dealt with the status and property of Germans, Hungarians and traitors have not been repealed they still affect political relations between the Czech Republic and Slovakia and Austria, Germany and Hungary.[39] Expellees in the Sudetendeutsche Landsmannschaft (part of the Federation of Expellees) and associated political groups call for the abolition of the Beneš decrees based on the principle of collective guilt.
On 28 December 1989 future Czechoslovak president Václav Havel, at that time a candidate, suggested that former inhabitants of the Sudetenland might apply for Czech nationality to reclaim their lost property. The governments of Germany and the Czech Republic signed a declaration of mutual apology for wartime misdeeds in 1997.
During the early 2000s, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel and Bavarian Premier Edmund Stoiber demanded that the Beneš decrees be repealed as a precondition for both countries' entrance to the European Union. Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Medgyessy eventually decided not to press the issue.[40]
In 2003 Liechtenstein, supported by Norway and Iceland, blocked an agreement about extending the European Economic Area because of the Beneš decrees and property disputes with the Czech Republic and (to a lesser extent) Slovakia. However, since the two countries were expected to become members of the European Union the issue was moot. Liechtenstein did not recognize Slovakia until 9 December 2009.[41]
Prime Minister Miloš Zeman said that the Czechs would not consider repealing the decrees because of an underlying fear that doing so would open the door to demands for restitution. According to Time, former Czech foreign minister Jan Kavan said: "Why should we single out the Beneš Decrees? ... They belong to the past and should stay in the past. Many current members of the E.U. had similar laws."[42] In 2009 eurosceptic Czech president Václav Klaus demanded an opt-out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, feeling that the charter would render the Beneš decrees illegal.[43] In 2010, when Masaryk University erected a statue to Edvard Beneš, local journalist Michael Kašparek criticized the move because of what he dubbed "Expel Them All, Let God Sort Them Out!" decrees.[44] In January 2013 conservative Czech presidential candidate Karel Schwarzenberg said, "What we committed in 1945 would today be considered a grave violation of human rights, and the Czechoslovak government, along with President Beneš, would have found themselves in The Hague."[45] His opponent, Miloš Zeman, seized on the statement to discredit Schwarzenberg, accusing him of being supported by Sudeten Germans.[45]
In 2012 Prime minister Robert Fico defended the decrees and stated that they are unchangeable. He also stated that it is not Slovakia's job to take care of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia, and that it is not his job to discuss the law. [46]
In June 2018, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said there had been "no moral or political justification" for the post-war expulsion of ethnic Germans.[47]
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), Section 3I just cannot understand how can the author of Beneš decrees have a statue in front of the Faculty of Law. Beneš decrees was series of laws enacted by Beneš between 1940 and 1945. The most controversial laws were declared shortly after the end of war – and they were filled with principles of collective guilt, national chauvinism and central planned economy... Beneš lived in an era that had nothing to do with law as we understand it today and his 'Expell Them All, Let God Sort Them Out!' decrees prove it quite well." Suppan comments: "There is no reason not to agree with this journalist's harsh criticism.
