CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 3 octobre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2C87FA81 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-5.65pt } .s2278F906 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .s6917BA3E { width:5.25pt; display:inline-block } .sC169E318 { width:32.39pt; display:inline-block } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s2168BDE6 { width:5.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s34CCDDBE { width:42.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA2100AF { width:7.26pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE4DBC211 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.25pt } .sA88BAF39 { width:1.87pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s63B06C77 { width:35.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8CE0427 { width:0pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sED4DE593 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-7.1pt } .s5BA9744E { width:0.16pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s839FD8E9 { width:236.4pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE40E08CE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .sF49C01E2 { width:214.62pt; display:inline-block } .s3CC41C58 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-14.15pt } .sB8FC5CFB { width:221.71pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s39353047 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.15pt } .s2E6FF2DE { width:45.88pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s74863E12 { width:7.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB383FBB1 { width:104.57pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9E8EA467 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s678958C8 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE6FB50BD { margin-top:17pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s51193921 { margin-top:17pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDF6039F1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-24.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s274DB856 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-24.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC273AADF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s70FA3FAD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-33.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s605A187D { font-family:Arial; color:#00ffff } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7C7CF5 { width:6.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s552F3011 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1B0D0B53 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7D2D15E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE5D6D15C { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8F34B6F2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#000000 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s20AFED81 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s54FAB3C5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:11pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s141AE1FC { margin-top:11pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:23pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADD03781 { margin-top:23pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDF389E35 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC0D95D9C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC07BCC2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E35EC97 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:11pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD90EC4A7 { margin-top:11pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s58D2382A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s162AB3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2593B6F5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFE821FB2 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s8DD3F840 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7FAB69C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0000ff } .sA2F1D17B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:11pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA0F00E15 { margin-top:11pt; margin-bottom:11pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s1D4E86C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s4EEFA931 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s92275EC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s136DAA9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1857CB37 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF57D80C { width:26.61pt; display:inline-block } .sA76EC2DC { width:179.3pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block } .s858D713D { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     GRAND CHAMBER             CASE OF KOVAČIĆ AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA   (Applications nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99)                     JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   3 October 2008     This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. the case of Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Jean-Paul Costa, President,   Nicolas Bratza ,   Peer Lorenzen,   Françoise Tulkens,   Georg Ress,   Giovanni Bonello,   Karel Jungwiert,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Rait Maruste,   Snejana Botoucharova,   Antonella Mularoni,   Stanislav Pavlovschi,   Lech Garlicki,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Dragoljub Popović,   Mark Villiger , judges , and Erik Fribergh, Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 14   November   2007 and on 3   September   2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The cases originated in three applications against the Republic of Slovenia lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) (applications nos. 44574/98 and 45133/98) and under Article 34 with the European Court of Human Rights (application no. 48316/99) by three Croatian nationals, Mr Ivo Kovačić, Mr Marjan Mrkonjić and Mrs Dolores Golubović (“the applicants”), on 17 July 1998, 2   June   1997 and 24   December   1998 respectively. 2.     The applicants were represented as follows: Mr   Kovačić and Mr   Mrkonjić by Mr   M.   Žugić and Mrs   Golubović by Mr   Z.   Nogolica. Mr   Žugić and Mr Nogolica are both members of the Croatian Bar. 3.     On 17 July 2004 the applicant Mr Kovačić died. Mr   Kovačić's next of kin, his widow Mrs   Miroslava Kovačić, his daughter Mrs Marina Mušić and his son Mr   Zlatko Kovačić, have elected to pursue his application before the Court. They continue to be represented by Mr Žugić. On 15   October 2004 the applicant Mrs Golubović died. Her nephew, Mr   Ivo Steinfl, has elected to pursue her application before the Court. He continues to be represented by Mr Nogolica. For reasons of convenience, the present judgment will continue to refer to Mr Kovačić and to Mrs Golubović as applicants where appropriate. 4.     The Slovenian Government (“the respondent Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General, assisted by Messrs   Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton, a law firm practising in Paris. 5.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their “possessions” in that legislation enacted by the respondent State had prevented them from withdrawing foreign currency which they had deposited with the Zagreb office of a Slovenian bank, the Ljubljana Bank. 6.     Mr Kovačić also complained that he had been discriminated against on the ground of nationality, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. He alleged that Slovenian account holders of the Zagreb branch had been allowed to withdraw their savings. 7.     The applications lodged with the Commission by Mr Kovačić and Mr   Mrkonjić were transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 8.     They were allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26, paragraph 1. 9.     On 13 March 2001 the Chamber decided to join the proceedings in the applications (Rule 42, paragraph 1) and to give notice of them to the respondent Government (Rule 54 § 3 (b)). 10.     The applicants and the respondent Government each filed written observations (Rule 54 § 2 (b)). The parties replied in writing to each other's observations. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Croatian Government, which had exercised its right to intervene (Article 36   §   1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (b)). The applicants and the respondent Government replied to those comments. 11.     By a decision of 1 April 2004, following a hearing on the admissibility and merits (Rule 54 § 3) held on 9 October 2003, the applications were declared admissible by a Chamber of the then Third Section. 12.     The applicants, the respondent and the intervening Government each filed further written submissions (Rule 59 § 1). The parties replied in writing to each other's submissions. 13.     On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1), but this case remained with the Chamber as previously constituted. 14.     On 21 February 2005 the President of the Chamber requested further information from the applicants and the respondent and intervening Governments (Rule 59 § 1). The parties replied and filed comments in response to each other's replies. 15.     On 25 July 2005 the respondent Government submitted additional information. The applicants and the intervening Government filed comments. 16.     On 6 November 2006 a Chamber of the former Third Section composed of the following judges: Georg Ress, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Lucius Caflisch, Boštjan M. Zupančič, John Hedigan, Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska and Kristaq Traja, judges, and also of Vincent Berger, Section Registrar , delivered a judgment striking the applications out of the list of cases under Article 37 §   1   (b) and (c) of the Convention. 17.     On 5 February 2007 Mr   Kovačić's legal successors and Mr Mrkonjić requested the referral of their cases to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention. On 23   May 2007 a panel of the Grand Chamber granted their requests. On 22   February 2007 Mrs   Golubović's heir also requested the referral of her case to the Grand Chamber. The Court's decision on this request is set out in paragraph 200 below. 18.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. 19.     The Slovenian Government, Mr Kovačić's successors and Mr   Mrkonjić, but not Mrs Golubović's heir, each filed written observations on the admissibility and merits. In addition, third-party submissions were received from the intervening Government. 20.     A hearing before the Grand Chamber took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 14 November 2007 (Rule 59 § 3).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the respondent Government Mr   L. Bembič , Attorney General of the Republic of Slovenia,    Agent, Ms   C. Annacker, Rechtsanwältin , member of the Vienna Bar, Mr   G. Bertrou, avocat , member of the Paris Bar, Ms   M. Ménard , avocat , member of the Paris Bar,     Counsel, Ms   A. Kert, Director of the Succession Fund   of the Republic of Slovenia, Mr   A. Rant, Vice Governor of the Bank of Slovenia, Mr   B. Ožura , President of the Ljubljana Bank ( Ljubljanska Banka d.d. ),           Advisers ; (b)     for Mr Kovačić's heirs and Mr Mrkonjić Mr   M. Žugić,   Counsel, Mrs   D. Kuecking,   Adviser; (c)     for Mrs Golubović's heir Mr   Z. Nogolica ,   Counsel; (d)     for the Croatian Government Ms   Š. Stažnik, Assistant to the Minister of Justice,   Agent, Mr   D. Maričić, Head of the Department for   Representation before the ECHR, Ms   V. Jelić , Croatian National Bank,   Advisers.   21.     The Court heard addresses by Mr Žugić, Mr Nogolica, Ms Annacker and by Ms Stažnik. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 22.     The applicants are Croatian nationals. 23.     Mr Ivo Kovačić was born in 1922 and lived in Zagreb. He died on 17   July 2004, in the course of the proceedings. His relatives have elected to pursue the application before the Court (see paragraph 3 above). 24.     Mr Marjan Mrkonjić was born in 1941 and lives in Zurich (see paragraph 2 above). 25.     Mrs Dolores Golubović was born in 1922 and lived in Karlovac. She died on 15 October 2004. Her nephew has elected to pursue her application before the Court (see paragraph 3 above). A.     The circumstances of the individual cases 26.     Before the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”), the applicants or their relatives all deposited hard foreign currencies in savings accounts with the office of a Slovenian bank – the Ljubljana Bank (in Slovenian: Ljubljanska banka ) – in Zagreb (Croatia). Some of them also held term accounts which matured in the late 1980s or early 1990s. At the time the Ljubljana Bank was one of the major commercial banks of the SFRY with offices in other Republics. B.     Background to the cases 1.     The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (a)     The Ljubljana Bank and its Zagreb Office 27.     The bank now called the Ljubljana Bank was founded in 1955 and subsequently underwent several changes of status and name. 28.     In 1969 its legal predecessor opened an office in Zagreb in the then Socialist Republic of Croatia. It was re-registered in 1974 and in 1977. 29.     From 1978 until 1 January 1990 the Ljubljana Bank Head Office ( Ljubljanska banka – združena banka ), a company existing under the laws of the then Socialist Republic of Slovenia, operated as an “associated bank”. It was made up of Ljubljana Bank Basic Banks and carried on business in accordance with the principles of the socialist self-management system then in operation. 30.     Over much the same period, from 1977 until 1990, the Ljubljana Bank's Zagreb office operated as a “basic bank”, being neither a branch nor a subsidiary of the Ljubljana Bank Head Office. 31.     The Ljubljana Bank - Basic Bank Zagreb (in Croatian: Ljubljanska banka - Osnovna Banka Zagreb ) had separate legal personality under the law of the then Socialist Republic of Croatia and was financially and economically independent. It was, however, integrated into the organisational structure of the Ljubljana Bank. 32.     On 19 December 1989 the Ljubljana Bank Head Office was re-registered as a joint stock company ( delniška družba, “d.d.” ) with effect from 1 January 1990. 33.     On 29 December 1989 the Ljubljana Bank Basic Bank Zagreb was re-registered as the Zagreb Main Branch ( Glavna filijala Zagreb ) with effect from 1 January 1990. (b)     The system of redepositing foreign-currency savings 34.     Individuals were allowed to open foreign-currency savings accounts in the SFRY from 1965 onwards. Annual interest on savings accounts was comparatively high, reaching levels of 10% and more. From 25   December   1969 until the dates on which each successor State declared its independence, all foreign-currency deposits were covered by the Federation's (“the SFRY's”) statutory guarantee (see section 76 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, Official Gazette of the SFRY, no.   10/89, paragraph 166 below). 35.     In 1977 a system by which commercial banks redeposited foreign-currency savings with the National Bank of Yugoslavia (“the NBY”) in Belgrade was introduced by the Foreign Exchange Operations and International Credit Relations Act (Official Gazette of the SFRY, no.   15/77). Pursuant to section 51(2) of that Act, the NBY was under an obligation to accept foreign-currency savings deposited with authorised banks and to grant interest-free loans in Yugoslav dinars (YUD) to the bank depositing the foreign currency. The dinar loans were credited to local companies in the Republic where the banks were located. Although the SFRY banks were not required by law to transfer the foreign-currency deposits to the NBY, it is generally agreed that, in practice, they had no other option. This system freed commercial banks from the risk of loss due to exchange rate differences. 36.     From 1978 to 1988 further legislation regulating the redeposit transactions was passed. One of the decisions adopted in 1978 introduced the so-called “pro-forma” or “accounting” method of redepositing foreign exchange in order to save considerable sums that would otherwise have gone towards fees for neutral transactions. In the following years, only approximately 14% of foreign-currency deposits were actually transferred by the commercial banks to the NBY. 37.     From 1985 onwards redepositing banks were required to pay interest on the previously interest-free loans in YUD granted in exchange for the foreign currency redeposited with the NBY. 38.     On 15   October   1988 the system of redeposits was brought to an end by amendments to the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (Official Gazette of the SFRY no. 59/88, see paragraph 165 below). The amended section 14(4) provided that “[t]he conditions and procedure applicable to the obligations arising under the guarantee [should] be regulated by a separate federal law”. As no such law was enacted, the remedies employed by the SFRY were based on ad hoc decrees. Only banks, not individual depositors, were entitled to demand payment of foreign-currency deposits. A bank had to be insolvent or bankrupt before any payment could be made under the guarantee. 39.     In 1991 the foreign-currency claims of commercial banks against the NBY amounted to approximately 12,000,000,000 US dollars (USD) and remained frozen. (c)     The monetary crisis and the Marković reforms 40.     The problems resulting from the foreign and domestic debt of the SFRY caused a monetary crisis in the 1980s, with the SFRY economy suffering hyperinflation. The banking and monetary systems were on the verge of collapse and the SFRY resorted to emergency measures. Among other developments, legislation imposing restrictions on the repayment of foreign-currency deposits to individuals was introduced (see section 71 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, paragraph 165 below). 41.     1989 was a year of reforms for the SFRY in which many legislative, institutional and structural adjustments were made to prepare the transition from the socialist planned economy into a market-oriented one (the so-called Marković reforms, named after the then Prime Minister Mr Ante Marković). According to the respondent Government, these reforms, which also included rehabilitation measures, should have been implemented in full within two years but the dissolution of the SFRY prevented this. 42.     The reform of the banking system under the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (Official Gazette of the SFRY no. 10/89) provided for the conversion of associated and basic banks into joint stock companies. 43.     In 1988, 1989 and 1990 the SFRY assumed liability for the foreign-currency related losses and payment of the foreign-currency deposits with the NBY by converting the foreign exchange-rate differences into public debt. Since in 1991 the servicing of public debt was not regulated, the NBY passed a resolution granting banks special liquidity loans in order to enable withdrawals of foreign-currency deposits. In addition, the amount of foreign currency that could be withdrawn was further restricted. 44.     This general situation lasted until June 1991, when the process of disintegration of the SFRY started. The whole process took place over several months as four of the six Republics proclaimed their independence. (d)     The Ljubljana Bank and the Zagreb Main Branch (i)     Background 45.     In 1988 the Ljubljana Bank's foreign-currency accounts were frozen. 46.     On 19 December 1989 the Ljubljana Bank joint stock company was established in Ljubljana, in the then Socialist Republic of Slovenia. The change was entered in the Register of Companies the same day and became effective on 1 January 1990. 47.     Article 60 of the Ljubljana Bank's memorandum and articles of association of 19   December 1989 provided that the Ljubljana Bank would take over the rights, assets and obligations of the Ljubljana Bank Head Office and, among others, the Basic Bank of Zagreb as a legal successor on the day of its formation or registration in the Register of Companies. 48.     On 29 December 1989 the Ljubljana Bank Basic Bank Zagreb was reregistered in the Zagreb Commercial Court ( Trgovački sud ) as the Zagreb Main Branch ( Glavna filijala Zagreb ) with effect from 1 January 1990. (ii)     Matters in dispute concerning the legal position and banking liabilities of the Zagreb office of the Ljubljana Bank at the material time (α)     Events as related by the respondent Government 49.     The respondent Government maintained that the dissolution of the SFRY had prevented the full conversion of the Ljubljana Bank Basic Bank Zagreb into the Zagreb Main Branch. Thus, the status, operations, assets and liability for deposits of the Zagreb Main Branch had become a State succession issue. 50.     During the two-year interim period of the Marković reforms, the so-called “main branches” which had operated previously as basic banks had had a sui generis status fundamentally different from that of a “branch” as known to Western European legal systems. In particular, such main branches could be rehabilitated under section 25 of the Rehabilitation, Liquidation and Solvency of Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (see paragraph 168 below). In 1990 the rehabilitation of the Zagreb Main Branch was initiated but the dissolution of the SFRY prevented its completion. (β)     Events as related by the intervening Government 51.     As far as the status of the Zagreb office was concerned, the intervening Government stated that at the material time the Zagreb Main Branch had existed as an integral part of the Ljubljana Bank, that there had been an institutional relationship of dependency, and that the Ljubljana Bank was liable with all its assets and with no restrictions for the Zagreb Main Branch's obligations. This state of affairs arose from the decision on the organisational structure of the Ljubljana Bank joint stock company adopted by its assembly on 19 December 1989, as confirmed by the extract from the Register of Companies of the Ljubljana Basic Court of 29   December 1989. Moreover, even before that decision , when the Zagreb office had functioned as a “basic bank” with its own legal status, it had not enjoyed financial independence in foreign-currency operations. 2.     Republic of Slovenia 52.     On 25 June 1991 the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia enacted the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia and the Constitutional Law relating to the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia (Official Gazette of the RS no.   1/91). (a)     The Constitutional Law relating to the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia 53.     By virtue of section 19(3) of the Constitutional Law, the Republic of Slovenia became guarantor of all foreign-currency savings deposited with banks on Slovenian territory at that date (see paragraph 170 below). (b)     Developments after independence 54.     In October 1991 a new Slovenian currency was introduced, the Slovenian tolar (SIT). 55.     In October 1991 a Bank Rehabilitation Agency was established with the principal task of conducting a rehabilitation programme. 56.     On 4 February 1993 the constitutional-law guarantee was implemented by the Discharge of Liability for Unpaid Foreign-Currency Deposits Act (Official Gazette of the RS no.   7/93, see paragraph 172 below). Under section 2 of that Act, liabilities arising out of foreign-currency deposits became part of the Slovenian public debt. Further implementing legislation was passed in 1995. 57.     Thus, foreign currency deposited with banks on Slovenian territory became part of the public debt in the form of bonds totalling approximately 1,500,000,000 German marks (DEM) and the account holders were able to make withdrawals, regardless of the location of the head office of their bank or of their nationality. 58.     On 11 March 1993 the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund Act (Official Gazette of the RS no.   10/93, see paragraph 173 below) came into force. Under that Act, a number of claims and obligations of the Republic of Slovenia and its official bodies vis-à-vis the SFRY and its subordinate bodies, including the NBY, were assigned to the Succession Fund. 59.     On 28 June 1994 the Convention and Protocol No. 1 came into force in respect of Slovenia. (c)     The 1994 amendments to the 1991 Constitutional Law (i)     Background 60.     According to the Slovenian Government, in 1991 the Ljubljana Bank represented 42.4% of the Slovenian banking market. However, both before and after the dissolution of the SFRY the Ljubljana Bank accumulated substantial negative capital. For this reason, the Government decided that rehabilitation measures were urgently required to prevent the collapse of the Slovenian financial system and such measures were taken in 1993. In that year, the Republic of Slovenia became the Ljubljana Bank's sole shareholder. 61.     The Ljubljana Bank's financial position was further jeopardised by two kinds of succession risks in the absence of any agreement between the Successor States: firstly, a claim by foreign creditors for USD   4,200,000,000 under an agreement known as the New Finance Agreement (NFA); and, secondly, the continued exposure to the SFRY's liability for redeposited foreign exchange outside Slovenian territory. 62.     The authorities decided in 1994, as part of the rehabilitation measures, to amend the 1991 Constitutional Law in order to protect the public interest, as is reflected in the preamble to the 1994 Act (see paragraph 171 below). (ii)     The legislation 63.     On 27 July 1994 the National Assembly amended the 1991   Constitutional Law (Official Gazette of the RS no.   45/94, see paragraph 171 below) so as to restructure the Ljubljana Bank by creating a new and separate legal entity (section   22(č)), the New Ljubljana Bank. It was formed as a joint stock company which took over all of the former bank's assets and liabilities on Slovenian territory. The former bank, the Ljubljana Bank, retained its rights against and obligations towards the SFRY (section 22(b)) and its former constituent republics: in particular, full obligations in respect of the foreign-currency ordinary and deposit accounts that were not guaranteed under section 19 of the 1991 Constitutional Law, that is to say, those contracted outside Slovenian territory (see paragraph 170 below). 64.     That law also laid down that the Ljubljana Bank would continue to deal with branches and subsidiaries whose head offices were situated in other republics of the territory of the SFRY and retain the rights to the corresponding portion of the debt owed by the NBY in respect of the foreign-currency savings accounts. 65.     The Bank Rehabilitation Agency remained the owner of the Ljubljana Bank. (d)     The decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court 66.     On 11 April 1996 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavno sodišče ) dismissed a constitutional initiative ( ustavna pobuda ) brought by a Croatian savings-account holder, Mr   Vukasinović, challenging the constitutionality of the 1994 Constitutional Law, holding that it had no jurisdiction to hear it (see paragraphs 176 and 177 below). (e)     Developments subsequent to the decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court 67.     On 5 July 1997 an amendment to the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund Act (Official Gazette of the RS no.   40/97, see paragraph 174 below) came into force. It provided for a stay of any proceedings directly or indirectly affecting legal relations with the SFRY involving the so-called “succession-related claims”, pending resolution of the succession arrangements. The proceedings were to be reinstated ex officio once the succession arrangements had been resolved. By virtue of section   15(č) of the Act, the statutory provisions were binding on the Slovenian courts. 68.     On 29 June 2001 the Agreement on Succession Issues was signed in Vienna by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro), the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Slovenia. It entered into force on 2 June 2004 (see paragraphs 186 and 187 below). 69.     On 15 July 2004 the Transformation of the Succession Fund of the Republic of Slovenia and the Establishment of the Succession Agency of the Republic of Slovenia Act was passed , which repealed the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund Act. 70.     On 21 February 2005 the Court requested information from the respondent Government regarding implementation of the aforementioned Act (see paragraphs 14 above and 105 below). 71.     The respondent Government replied that that Act was in the process of being implemented. They added that, in any event, further to the ratification of the Agreement on Succession Issues and in conformity with Article 7 of Annex   G to that Agreement and with Article 8 of the Constitution (see paragraphs 186 and 169 below), the proceedings relating to succession issues had resumed in the Slovenian courts, since ratified and published international treaties took precedence over statutory provisions and, in particular, section 15(č) of the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund Act. They produced a number of decisions by the Slovenian courts ordering the resumption of such proceedings. 72.     On 17 March 2005 the Constitutional Court ruled that the Transformation of the Succession Fund of the Republic of Slovenia and the Establishment of the Succession Agency of the Republic of Slovenia Act was unconstitutional since it did not provide for the resumption of the proceedings that had been stayed under the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund Act until the establishment of the Succession Agency. 73.     On 21 March 2006 further legislation – the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund and the Republic of Slovenia Senior Representative for Succession Act (Official Gazette of the RS no. 29/06, see paragraph 175 below) – was passed. Section 23 of that Act provided that any stay of proceedings in the Slovenian courts relating to foreign currency deposited in a commercial bank or a branch office of a commercial bank in any successor State of the SFRY was to remain in force. Proceedings that had since been resumed were to be stayed again until a solution was found to the question of the guarantees to be provided by the SFRY or the NBY under Article 7 of Annex C of the Agreement on Succession Issues (see paragraph 186 below). 3.     Republic of Croatia 74.     On 25 June 1991 the Croatian Parliament adopted the Declaration on the Sovereignty and Independence of Croatia and enacted the Constitutional Act on the Sovereignty and Independence of Croatia. On 8 October 1991 Croatia became independent. 75.     In December 1991 a Croatian currency was introduced, the Croatian dinar, which was replaced in 1994 by the Croatian kuna (HRK). (a)     Adoption of the SFRY's finance regulations and assumption of the guarantee for savings in Croatia 76.     On 26 June 1991 the Act on the Applicability to Croatia of the SFRY's Finance Regulations was passed. By virtue of that Act, which entered into force on 8 October 1991 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia no.   71/91, see paragraph 182 below),   forty-two   federal statutes and five decisions of the Federal Executive Council concerning foreign-currency savings were incorporated into Croatian law. 77.     On 23 December 1991 the Government issued the Decree on the Conversion of Nationals' Foreign-Currency Bank Deposits into the Croatian Public Debt (Official Gazette of the RC no.   71/91, see paragraph   183 below). Under the Decree, savings that had been deposited before 27   April   1991 with banks whose head office was situated in Croatia (“Croatian banks”) or that were transferred by Croatian nationals into Croatian banks from other banks within 30 days from the entry into force of the Decree became, subject to compliance with Articles 15 and 16 of the Decree, part of the Croatian public debt. Only Croatian citizens were entitled to the conversion of their foreign-currency savings into public debt. None of the applicants made use of this possibility. 78.     The 1991 Decree provided for payment of the foreign-currency deposits in national currency in twenty half-yearly instalments starting on 30   June 1995 and bearing interest at an annual rate of 5%. Further legislation was subsequently passed on this subject. 79.     According to the respondent Government's submissions before the Chamber, about two-thirds of the account-holders at the Zagreb Main Branch transferred their former savings accounts to Croatian banks, which in turn transferred their claims to Croatia. Thus, approximately DEM   450,000,000 became Croatian public debt. 140,000 Croatian depositors allegedly kept their accounts at the Zagreb Main Branch. The amount of their deposits came to approximately DEM   300,000,000 at that time. Of the remaining depositors, 96,000 had less than the equivalent of 30   euros (EUR) in foreign-currency savings standing to their credit. 80.     In 1991 a Decree was adopted which prohibited the disposal or encumbering of real property on Croatian territory owned by legal entities whose head office was outside Croatia. (b)     Other developments 81.     On 24 February 1996 the Croatian Payment Transaction Institute froze the Zagreb Main Branch's company account. On 14 July 2000 the Croatian authorities closed the Zagreb Main Branch's giro account. 4.     Financial documents and information 82.     On 25 October 2002 the Court invited Slovenia and Croatia to submit any documents that might serve as evidence of the existence or absence of an institutional and financial relationship of dependence between the Ljubljana Bank and the Zagreb Main Branch. 83.     On 5 December 2002 the Court additionally requested both Governments to provide further information on whether or not the funds on deposit with the Zagreb Main Branch had been effectively transferred to the Ljubljana Bank following the Marković reforms, and if so, the amounts transferred in Yugoslav dinars and in hard currencies. (a)     The Ljubljana Bank's Annual Reports 84.     The Slovenian Government submitted the Ljubljana Bank's Annual Reports for the years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. They stated that no annual reports for the Zagreb Main Branch existed, only balance sheets (see paragraphs 88 and 89 below). 85.     In the Ljubljana Bank's 1990 Annual Report, the assets and liabilities of the Zagreb Main Branch were included for the first and only time. 86.     On page 23 of the Ljubljana Bank's 1991 Annual Report, it is stated that the balance sheets of the Ljubljana Bank and the Zagreb Main Branch could not be consolidated because of the political situation in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Ljubljana Bank had little or no control over the activities of its operations in those two countries and had little prospect of being able to transfer any funds to Slovenia in the foreseeable future. The same situation was noted in the 1992 and 1993 Annual Reports. 87.     The respondent Government submitted before the Grand Chamber that following the implementation of the 1994 Constitutional Law, approximately USD 612,000,000 remained with the Ljubljana Bank. (b)     The Zagreb Main Branch's accounts (i)     The fact as submitted by the respondent Government 88.     The respondent Government submitted the Ljubljana Bank Basic Bank Zagreb's balance sheet for 1989 and the Zagreb Main Branch's balance sheets for 1990, 1991, 1994 and 2001. 89.     In 1991 the amount of foreign-currency redeposited by the Zagreb office with the NBY came to 13,600,000,000 Croatian dinars (USD   619,000,000), whereas foreign-currency deposits with the Zagreb office came to 10,700,000,000 Croatian dinars (USD 490,000,000), which according to the respondent Government confirmed that 100% of the foreign-currency deposits with the Zagreb office were subsequently redeposited. 90.     The amount of foreign currency deposited by the Zagreb office with the NBY exceeded its liabilities towards foreign-currency depositors. This was due to the fact that some foreign-currency deposits had been paid out in Yugoslav dinars or from the current inflow of foreign currency. No transfer of foreign-currency deposit funds from Croatia to Slovenia had ever occurred. 91.     Before the Grand Chamber, the respondent Government submitted that the current assets of the Zagreb Main Branch amounted to approximately EUR 525,000,000, including immovable and movable property, and far exceeded the sum of all foreign-currency deposits with the Zagreb Main Branch, estimated at EUR 172,000,000. (ii)   The facts as submitted by the intervening Government 92.     The intervening Government stated that further to the Marković reforms, the National Bank of Slovenia had become the regulatory authority for the Ljubljana Bank; on that date the Zagreb Main Branch's claims to foreign-currency deposits redeposited with the NBY were transferred to the National Bank of Slovenia and the funds on deposit at the National Bank of Croatia were transferred from Zagreb to new accounts in Ljubljana. 93.     However, the intervening Government stressed that the correct answer to the question concerning the actual foreign-currency movements could be given only after comprehensive and independent financial examination by an expert of the Ljubljana Bank's activities. 94.     Before the Grand Chamber the intervening Government stated that they were not aware of any real estate in Croatia owned by the Ljubljana Bank which would allow a large number of savers to settle their claims. 5.     The succession negotiations between the successor States of the SFRY 95.     After the dissolution of the SFRY, the successor States were unable to negotiate a succession treaty owing in particular to the ongoing violence in the region. 96.     The succession talks were first conducted within the framework of the International Conference on Former Yugoslavia. 97.     As no tangible results were achieved, the succession issues were included in the tasks of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was appointed pursuant to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 98.     In March 1996 Sir Arthur Watts was appointed Special Negotiator to assist the Successor States in reaching an agree