Archived Articles

Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.

He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.

In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.

Global Real Estate Project
News Index

Directories
  Int'l Realty
  US Realty

The Kelo v. New London case was food for thought for many Americans, making some of them reconsider some of their previous views on some fundamental social institutions such as their property rights. But this case is also interesting because it leads to the necessity of reviewing how these rights are protected in other parts of the world. It isn't a secret that many Americans, Canadians and Europeans would like to pass their retirement years abroad and probably buy some properties there. What should they expect in terms of property rights protection? Should they fear "eminent domain" ending their foreign adventures? This article won't deal with cases of property seizure due to criminal activity of their owners. In this field the state abuses are frequent and no society seems immune against them, as indicate for example some fearful statistics from the United States.

The term "eminent domain" that already looks like nightmare is in fact a product of the English common law system, meaning it exists under one or another form in many countries that still stick to this legal system, e.g. many countries that form the British Commonwealth. According to Wikipedia encyclopedia the term has different names in different countries, e.g. "compulsory purchase" in England and Wales, "compulsory acquisition" in Australia. In Canada some even claim that there is no such thing as private property protection on a federal level, and that in many cases even compensations or legal remedies aren't available for the owners. So if even in these countries reputed for their good human rights records there is no absolute protection of state abuses, what should be the situation in countries with not so perfect reputations?

There is a group of countries where until very recently there was no private property rights at all. We're talking about the former communist states of Eastern Europe and the former USSR. The art.35 of the current Russian constitution gives anyone the right to have private property. It can be alienated for state needs only on condition of compensation. There isn't a clue what the properties may be used for, leaving this on constitutional level to the full discretion of the state. In another former communist country Bulgaria the current constitution gives a little more guarantees for the owners, saying that the expropriation may be done only when the state and municipal needs cannot be met otherwise. The Polish constitutional text in this respect is something in between the Russian and the Bulgarian fundamental laws. The expropriation is allowed for public purposes, but no word what happens if they can be met with other measures.

Another region of high interest for small investors is Central and South America. In Brazil the art.22-26 of the constitution regulate the private property matters. The expropriation is allowed for the public need and use, and also for social interest with just compensation with exception of cases of national emergency when this compensation may be postponed. Similar texts can be found in the constitution of Argentina.

Enumerated examples show several things and suggest several conclusions. First, many countries using different words proclaim respect for the institution of private property, but at the same time, usually in the next article or the next sentence of the same article, all of these countries without exception reserve the right to confiscate these properties by the public authorities under certain sometimes vaguely described circumstances. Second, the compensation the former owners should expect is usually described as "just", but this term is so vague it could be applied indiscriminately from anything as high as the current market prices compensation to as low as finding similar housing space in much cheaper area.

Third, the reasons for expropriation are usually described as "public good", and "public use". The term "use" is narrower and implies that property and land are to be used for public purposes only. The term "good" is broader. To take land from one private owner who pays low property taxes and to give it to another who will pay more and thus finance the social programs with the difference may be considered to be in accord with the "public good". Forth, although not obvious from the texts mentioned above, the states often are the sole guarantors for the private property, and that's the reason why they so often decide to abuse their rights of expropriation. Many countries are made up by have-nots majorities. Most of them at least pretend to be democratic, i.e. representing the interests of these have-nots. Most of the countries have some social responsibilities toward its citizens, thus making the expropriation perfectly legitimate in the eyes of the general public.

Which leads us to the conclusion that even if sometimes the state may appear as an enemy to the private owners, in many countries around the world and in many circumstances it may be the only legal resort they may use to protect their property rights. The state may be enemy for some owners, but when it proclaim to respect the private property the state is companion for the owners in general.