Less than a half-year after promulgation and publication in the Official Gazette, the Lupu Law is up for amendment. The initiative came, of all people, from a PN?CD representative, Environment minister Romica Tomescu. It did not come from some leader in the coalition – where battles were often fought savagely for every acre of land or forest to be returned – or from some opposition politician.
The Environment minister, who clashed a few weeks ago with deputy Vasile Lupu over the forest issue (a clash that resulted in Lupu demanding his dismissal), says some provisions are “not consonant with reality.”
A reality that could have been studied very well during the almost full year while the Lupu Law was negotiated and voted. It would not be the first time when a law is amended soon after promulgation by one or more emergency ordinances, which later go to Parliament and are amended, although they had already become effective in the Government-adopted formula.
But the Lupu Law has been trumpeted as the document that, after 50 years of communism, would eventually bring justice to those who, for fault of owning a stretch of land, suffered the harshness of communist repression. Since the beginning of the year to this day, not one acre of land or forest has been returned. In fact, the Government teleconference two weeks ago pointed out that the law is encountering numerous organisational and political problems in its application.
It was said that local authorities had been warned by opposition representatives that when they arrive in power, they would change the law or, worse, void it. Then, why bother reading applications and signing paperwork? Everything will be “solved” much more simply. To boot, forest areas are decreasing by the day because of abusive deforestation and silent agreement with the National Forests Regie, according to a report by a sub-commission in the Lower Chamber that investigated the situation.
On the other hand, the “success” of the Lupu Law perhaps accounts for no more than 20% of the entire ownership issue, whereas other reparation laws are unable to make their way into the Official Gazette. These laws were themselves praised, negotiated, amended and discussed in specialised commissions of the Lower Chamber and Senate, but have been lying around in Senate for almost half a year.
After so much “dolce far niente,” when the Parliament roll call was made two or three times each morning, coalition parties decided these papers had to be passed in this legislature. Which is not to say the MPs will actually comply. Yesterday, minister Muresan or one of his replacements were missing; tomorrow, there will be no quorum, and so on. Privatisation in former state enterprises is also regulated by an emergency ordinance, so apparently this problem has been half-solved.
As to the nationalised houses, chances are even slimmer, because the stakes are much higher.
Therefore, the ownership issue remains open after four years of government by “democratic forces,” with all parties declaring themselves for European integration. An integration that cannot be conceived without a regulation of the property issue.