František Kolomazník is angry.

He and his wife, Anna, are forced to be rent-paying tenants in a house they have lived in for more than 40 years, after losing a 10-year court battle with the descendants of the family that had owned the building before the communist government seized it in the early 1960s.

In November 2004, Justice Jindřich Kužel of the Rychnov nad Kněžnou district court ruled in favor of the descendants. An ombudsman, or citizens' rights defender, upheld the decision Jan. 29.

The Kolomazníks — both in their 70s, with a monthly income from pensions totaling 13,000 Kč ($550) — will not get any financial compensation. They pay 3,000 Kč in rent each month to the new owners, and have been crippled by legal fees. They fear they may be permanently evicted any day now, and are looking, so far in vain, for available senior accommodation in their village, Potštejn, northeast Bohemia.

"It wasn't fair that the house was seized, but what has happened now isn't fair either," Kolomazník says. He talks of the time, money and memories he has invested in the house, which he bought from a state company in 1963.

Sometimes justice can be cruel — especially when it comes to the restitution of buildings the state seized during the communist era in Czechoslovakia.

Trumped up charges

The communist government took the house in 1961 when the original owners, the Janoušek family, were thrown in jail after being charged with possessing convertible currency.

Kužel says the charge leveled against the Janoušeks in 1961 was bogus, used only as a pretext to get rid of people who didn't sit well with the communist regime.

Justice Věnceslava Hotařová, chairwoman of the regional court in Hradec Králové, confirms this.

"They probably hid away some family silver from the authorities," she says. "Somebody saw them do it and told the police." Part of their penalty was that they had to give up their property.

The charge against the Janoušeks, along with other similar false charges made against innocent people under the communist regime, was canceled after the 1989 revolution.

Battles and appeals

In 1996 Kužel ruled in favor of the Kolomazníks, but only because the heirs of the original owners filed their restitution claim too late, he says.

Descendent Jiří Janoušek appealed to the regional court in Hradec Králové, which canceled the ruling and sent it back to the district court.

This time, two years ago, the heirs won.

The deciding factor in the ruling, says Kužel, was that the Kolomazníks obtained the house from the state for a price that was "far too favorable."

It cost Kolomazník some 6,000 Kč, a ridiculously low price for a house, even in the 1960s.

Kolomazník says, however, that when he bought the house it was falling apart and nearly half of it was scheduled for demolition.

Over the years, Kolomazník says, he and his family invested a significant amount of money into the house, though he could not say how much exactly. He said they repaired the roof and put in electrical wiring.

People on their side

Potštejn's mayor, Petr Dostál, says he is dismayed by the Kolomazníks' fate.

"I don't understand it," he says. "There should have been some sort of a compromise. They could have given the family of the original owners some other property in place of the house."

Dostál says it isn't fair. "Mr. Kolomazník wasn't the one who seized the house. It isn't his fault. And yet he has to pay for it."

The Kolomazníks not only lost their house but they also had to pay 113,000 Kč in court fees. To do this, they had to take out all of their savings and borrow money from friends and relatives.

"It's unfortunate," said Hotařová. "I remember that the Kolomazníks saw the fees as an injustice, but this is the way it works. Whoever loses the case has to pay the fees."

According to Hotařová, it's most likely too late for the Kolomazníks to appeal the ruling further. And even if they could appeal, Kolomazník says they cannot afford another trial.

Hotařová says that this was a very clear-cut restitution case and that the heirs of the original owners had the law on their side.

Lawyers representing the family are not commenting, citing secrecy agreements.

Kolomazník says he and his wife would like to move by the summer, but so far they have no place to go.

"Who knows, maybe we'll end up under a bridge," says Kolomazník with evident rancor in his voice.

It would be something entirely different if the Kolomazníks were still working, Dostál says. "But they're pensioners, so how are they supposed to make ends meet?"