CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 16 juillet 2014

.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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4667C756 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s2A50FE6D { width:2.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC11A25D7 { width:217.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70D6F968 { width:1.36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB377D377 { width:179.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s106EED90 { width:198.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9BA5263 { width:240.13pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8725ED41 { width:227.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s34838508 { width:251.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC58F164C { width:195.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6BB4899B { width:215.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7D84B32C { width:232.82pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s555D9821 { width:225.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9AB0EF3C { width:205.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s13907D4E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s703BD16F { width:7.94pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .sABC4C207 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BA1EF0B { width:185.95pt; display:inline-block } .s40964402 { width:201.63pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }     GRAND CHAMBER             CASE OF ALIŠIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, CROATIA, SERBIA, SLOVENIA AND THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA   (Application no. 60642/08)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   16 July 2014       In the case of Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Dean Spielmann, President ,   Josep Casadevall,   Guido Raimondi,   Ineta Ziemele,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro,   Davíd Thór Björgvinsson,   Danutė Jočienė,   Dragoljub Popović,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Angelika Nußberger,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   André Potocki,   Faris Vehabović,   Ksenija Turković, judges , and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 10 July 2013 and 28 May 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 60642/08) against Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (“the Governments”) lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ms Emina Ališić, Mr Aziz Sadžak and Mr Sakib Šahdanović (“the applicants”), on 30 July 2005. The first applicant is also a German citizen. 2.     The applicants alleged that they had not been able to withdraw their “old” foreign-currency savings from their accounts at the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana and the Tuzla branch of Investbanka since the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. They relied on Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 3.     The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 17 October 2011 a Chamber of that Section, composed of Nicolas Bratza, Lech Garlicki, Nina Vajić, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ljiljana Mijović, Dragoljub Popović and Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, joined to the merits the issue of the exhaustion of domestic remedies and declared the application admissible. 4.     In its judgment of 6 November 2012, the Chamber dismissed by six votes to one the Governments’ objections as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and held: –     unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 by Serbia with regard to Mr Šahdanović; –     by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by Slovenia with regard to Ms Ališić and Mr Sadžak; –     unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by the other respondent States; –     unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention by Serbia with regard to Mr Šahdanović; –     by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention by Slovenia with regard to Ms Ališić and Mr Sadžak; –     unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention by the other respondent States; and –     unanimously, that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to Serbia and Slovenia and that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the other respondent States. The dissenting opinion of Judge Zupančič was appended to the judgment. 5.     On 18 March 2013, pursuant to requests by the Serbian and Slovenian Governments, a panel of the Grand Chamber decided to refer the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention. 6.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. Boštjan M. Zupančič, the judge elected in respect of Slovenia, decided to withdraw from the Grand Chamber (Rule 28). The Slovenian Government accordingly appointed Angelika Nußberger, the judge elected in respect of Germany, to sit in his place (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29). Davíd Thór Björgvinsson and Danutė Jočienė, whose term of office expired on 31 October 2013, continued to sit in the case (Article 23 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 § 4). 7.     The parties filed further observations (Rule 59 § 1). 8.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 10 July 2013 (Rule 59 § 3).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the applicants Mr   B. Mujčin , Mr   E. Eser ,   Counsel , Mr   A. Mustafić ,   Assistant ; (b)     for the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina Ms   M. Mijić ,   Agent , Ms   B. Skalonjić ,   Assistant Agent , Ms   E. Veledar Arifagić , Mr   Z. Kelić , Mr   T. Ćurak , Mr   S. Bakić , Mr   E. Kubat , Ms   V. Tufek , Ms   N. Trossat , Mr   M. Mahmutović ,   Advisers ; (c)     for the Croatian Government Ms   Š. Stažnik ,   Agent , Ms   N. Katić , Ms   A. Metelko-Zgombić , Ms   M. Bašić , Ms   J. Vlašić , Ms   B. Grabovac , Ms   V. Zvonar ,   Advisers ; (d)     for the Serbian Government Mr   S. Carić ,   Agent , Ms   V. Rodić , Ms   D. Dobrković , Mr   N. Petković , Mr   B. Milisavljević , Mr   B. Kurbalija , Ms   S. Đurđević ,   Advisers ; (e)     for the Slovenian Government Ms   N. Pintar-Gosenca ,   Agent , Ms   C. Annacker ,   Counsel , Ms   A. Nee , Ms   M. Prevc , Mr   R. Gabrovec , Ms   A. Polak-Petrič , Mr   A. Kulick ,   Advisers ; (f)     for the Macedonian Government Mr   K. Bogdanov ,   Agent , Ms   V. Stanojevska ,   Adviser .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Mujčin, Ms Mijić, Ms Stažnik, Mr   Carić, Ms Annacker and Mr Bogdanov. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Introduction 9.     The applicants were born in 1976, 1949 and 1952 respectively and live in Germany. 10 .     Prior to the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), two of the present applicants, Ms Ališić and Mr   Sadžak, had deposited foreign currency in Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo [1] . In 1990, within the context of the economic reforms carried out in 1989-90 (see paragraph 21 below), Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo became a branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, a Slovenian bank. Also prior to the dissolution of the SFRY, the third applicant, Mr Šahdanović, had deposited foreign currency in the Tuzla branch, located in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of Investbanka, a Serbian bank. According to the material in the Court’s possession, on 31 December 1991 the balance in Ms Ališić’s and Mr   Sadžak’s accounts at the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana was 4,715 Deutschmarks (DEM) and DEM 129,874 respectively; on 3 January 2002 the balance in Mr Šahdanović’s accounts at the Tuzla branch of Investbanka was DEM 63,880, 4 Austrian schillings and 73   United States dollars (USD). 11.     The applicants’ complaints under the Convention concern their inability to withdraw their foreign-currency savings from the bank accounts described above. In their submission, this constituted a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention by all of the respondent States. They also alleged a violation of Article   13 of the Convention. B.     Factual background 1.     Commercial banking in the SFRY before the reforms carried out in 1989-90 (a)     Basic banks, associated banks and national banks 12.     Before the economic reforms that were carried out in the SFRY in 1989-90, its commercial banking system consisted of basic and associated banks. Basic banks had separate legal personality, but were integrated into the organisational structure of one of the nine associated banks. As a rule, basic banks were founded and controlled by socially owned companies based in the same territorial unit (that is, in one of the Republics – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia – or Autonomous Provinces – Kosovo and Vojvodina – of the SFRY). Socially owned companies were the flagship of the Yugoslav model of self-management: neither private nor State-owned, they were a collective property controlled by their employees, based on a communist vision of industrial relations (the phenomenon and the current status of such companies in Serbia, where they continue to exist, has been described in R.   Kačapor and Others v. Serbia , nos. 2269/06, 3041/06, 3042/06, 3043/06, 3045/06 and 3046/06, §§ 71-76 and 97, 15 January 2008). Two or more basic banks could form an associated bank. Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, one of the associated banks of the SFRY, was composed of Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo, at which two of the present applicants had opened accounts, Ljubljanska Banka Zagreb [2] , Ljubljanska Banka Skopje [3] and a number of other basic banks. Similarly, Investbanka, at which one of the present applicants had opened accounts, had, together with some other basic banks, formed an associated bank called Beogradska udružena Banka. 13.     In the SFRY there were also nine national banks, the National Bank of Yugoslavia (“the NBY”) and a national bank in each of the six Republics and two Autonomous Provinces. (b)     Foreign-currency deposits 14 .     Being hard-pressed for hard currency, the SFRY made it attractive for its expatriates and other citizens to deposit foreign currency with its banks. Such deposits earned high interest, the annual rate often exceeding   10%, and were guaranteed by the State (section 14(3) of the Foreign-Currency Transactions Act 1985 [4] and section 76(1) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act 1989 [5] ). 15.     The State guarantee was to be activated in case of a bank’s bankruptcy or “manifest insolvency” at the request of the bank (section   18 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Insolvency Act 1989 [6] and the relevant secondary legislation [7] ). None of the banks under consideration in the present case made such a request. 16.     Savers could not request the activation of the guarantee of their own volition, but were entitled, in accordance with the Civil Obligations Act 1978 [8] , to collect their deposits at any time, together with accrued interest. Section 1035 of that Act provided as follows: “(1)     A contract for a monetary deposit shall be formed when the bank agrees to accept and the depositor agrees to deposit a certain sum of money in the bank. (2)     Under such a contract, the bank shall have the right to use the deposited money and the obligation to return it in accordance with the terms set out in the agreement.” Section 1043(1) of the Act read as follows: “If a savings account is opened, the bank or financial institution shall issue the saver with a savings book.” Section 1044 of the Act provided: “(1)     All deposits and withdrawals shall be recorded in a savings book. (2)     Signed and stamped entries in savings books shall constitute proof of deposits and withdrawals. (3)     Any agreement to the contrary shall be null and void.” Furthermore, section 1045 of the Act read as follows: “Interest shall be paid on savings deposits.” (c)     Redepositing scheme 17 .     Beginning in the mid-1970s, the banks incurred foreign ‑ exchange losses because of depreciation of the dinar exchange rate. In response, the SFRY introduced a system for “redepositing” foreign currency, allowing banks to transfer citizens’ foreign-currency deposits to the NBY, which assumed the currency risk (section 51 of the Foreign-Currency Transactions Act 1977 [9] ). Although the system was legally optional, in practice the banks did not have another option as they were not allowed to maintain foreign-currency accounts with foreign banks, which were necessary to make payments abroad, nor were they allowed to grant foreign-currency loans. Virtually all foreign currency was therefore redeposited with the NBY according to one of the following two methods: either the “accounting” or “pro forma” method, or the method of actual transfer of foreign currency to foreign accounts of the NBY. The accounting method was used far more often, as it enabled commercial banks to shift currency risks to the NBY without having to pay fees to foreign banks (see Kovačić and Others v.   Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, § 36, 3 October 2008; see also decision AP 164/04 of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 1 April 2006, § 53). According to an internal report of the NBY of September 1988 [10] , by 30 June 1988 an equivalent of approximately USD   9 billion had been redeposited with the NBY, of which only around USD   1.4 billion (that is, slightly above 15%) had been physically transferred to the NBY’s many foreign accounts. It would appear that the funds in the NBY’s foreign accounts have recently been divided among the successor States (see paragraph 65 below). 18 .     With regard to Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo [11] , where the first two applicants held their accounts, the redepositing scheme operated as follows. Pursuant to a series of agreements (between Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo and Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, the National Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the National Bank of Slovenia), Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo was to transfer every month to the National Bank of Slovenia, for the account of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, any difference between the foreign currency deposited and the foreign currency withdrawn. Some of those funds were transferred back to Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo at the request of that bank in order to meet its liquidity needs (during periods when more foreign currency was withdrawn than deposited). Indeed, in the period from 1984 to 1991, DEM 244,665,082 was transferred to Ljubljana and DEM 41,469,528 (that is, less than 17%) back to Sarajevo. The funds which had not been transferred back to Sarajevo were redeposited with the NBY according to one of the two methods described in paragraph 17 above: the “accounting” or “pro forma” method (in which case there is no proof that the funds actually left Ljubljana), or the method of actual transfer of foreign currency to foreign accounts of the NBY. Regardless of the redepositing method used, all those funds were recorded as a claim of Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo against the NBY. 19 .     Under the agreements mentioned in paragraph 18 above, Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo was granted dinar loans (initially interest-free) by the NBY, via the National Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in return for the value of the redeposited foreign currency. The dinars received by Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo were used by that basic bank to offer loans, at interest rates below the rate of inflation, to companies based, as a rule, in the same territorial unit. 20.     In late 1988 the redepositing system was stopped (by an amendment to section 103 of the Foreign-Currency Transactions Act 1985). Banks were given permission to open accounts with foreign banks. Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo, like other banks, seized that opportunity and deposited around USD   13.5 million with foreign banks in the period from October 1988 to December 1989. There is no information in the file as to what has happened to those funds. 2.     The reform of commercial banking in the SFRY (1989-90) 21 .     Within the framework of the reforms carried out in 1989-90, the SFRY abolished the system of basic and associated banks described above. This shift in the banking regulations allowed some basic banks to opt for an independent status, while other basic banks became branches (without legal personality) of the former associated banks to which they had formerly belonged. On 1 January 1990 Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo, mentioned above, thus became a branch (without legal personality) of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana; the latter assumed the former’s rights, assets and liabilities. Investbanka, mentioned above, became an independent bank with its seat in Serbia and a number of branches in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 22 .     Moreover, the convertibility of the dinar was declared, which led to a massive withdrawal of foreign currency. The SFRY therefore resorted to emergency measures restricting to a large extent withdrawals of foreign-currency deposits. For example, as of December 1990, when the amendment to section 71 of the Foreign-Currency Transactions Act 1985 came into force, savers could withdraw their savings only to pay for imported goods or services for their own or their close relatives’ needs, to purchase foreign-currency bonds, to make testamentary gifts for scientific or humanitarian purposes, or to pay for life insurance with a local insurance company. In addition, section 3 of the SFRY government’s decision of April 1991 [12] , which was in force until February 1992, and section 17(c) of the NBY’s decision of January 1991 [13] , which the Constitutional Court of the SFRY declared unconstitutional in April 1992, limited the amount that savers could withdraw or use for the above purposes to DEM 500 per transaction, but not more than DEM 1,000 per month (see paragraph 53 below). 3.     The dissolution of the SFRY in 1991-92 23.     The dissolution of the SFRY occurred in 1991-92. In the successor States of the SFRY, foreign-currency savings deposited prior to the dissolution were placed under a special regime and are commonly referred to as “old” or “frozen” foreign-currency savings. An overview of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning such savings in each of the five successor States is provided below. The successor States, which are also the respondent parties to the present case, are presented below in alphabetical order. C.     Circumstances pertaining in the respondent States 1.     Bosnia and Herzegovina (a)     Measures concerning “old” foreign-currency savings 24 .     In 1992 Bosnia and Herzegovina took over the statutory guarantee for “old” foreign-currency savings from the SFRY (see section 6 of the SFRY Legislation Application Act 1992 [14] ). Although the relevant statutory provisions were not clear in that regard, the National Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina held the view that the guarantee covered such savings in domestic banks only (see report 63/94 of the National Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 8 August 1994 [15] ). 25 .     Although all “old” foreign-currency savings remained frozen during the war, withdrawals were exceptionally allowed on humanitarian grounds and in some other special cases (see the relevant secondary legislation [16] ). 26 .     After the 1992-95 war, each of the Entities (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the FBH”) and the Republika Srpska) enacted its own legislation on “old” foreign-currency savings. Only the FBH legislation is relevant in the present case, given that the branches in issue are situated in that Entity. In 1997 the FBH assumed liability for “old” foreign-currency savings in banks and branches situated in its territory (see section 3(1) of the Claims Settlement Act 1997 [17] and the Non-Residents’ Claims Settlement Decree 1999 [18] ). Although such savings remained frozen, that Act provided that they could be used to purchase State-owned flats and companies (see section 18 of the Claims Settlement Act 1997, as amended in 2004). 27.     In 2004 the FBH enacted new legislation. It undertook to repay “old” foreign-currency savings in domestic banks in that Entity, regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned. Its liability for such savings in the branches of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, Investbanka or other foreign banks, in which the applicants had their accounts, was expressly excluded pursuant to section 9(2) of the Settlement of Domestic Debt Act 2004 [19] . 28 .     In 2006, liability for “old” foreign-currency savings in domestic banks passed from the Entities to the State. Liability for such savings at the local branches of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana and Investbanka was again expressly excluded, but the State was to help the clients of those branches to obtain payment of their savings from Slovenia and Serbia respectively (see section 2 of the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act 2006 [20] ). In addition, all proceedings concerning “old” foreign-currency savings ceased by virtue of the same Act (see section 28 of that Act; that provision was declared constitutional by decision U 13/06 of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 28 March 2008, § 35). (b)     Status of the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana and Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo (set up in 1993) 29.     As stated in paragraph 21 above, in January 1990 Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo became a branch, without legal personality, of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana; the latter assumed the former’s rights, assets and liabilities. Pursuant to the companies register, the branch acted on behalf of and for the account of the parent bank. At the end of 1991, the foreign-currency savings at that branch amounted to around DEM 250 million, but less than DEM   350,000 had been placed in its vault (the flow of foreign currency between Sarajevo and Ljubljana is described in paragraph 18 above). 30 .     A new bank, with the same name as the predecessor of the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana – Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo – was incorporated under the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993. It assumed unilateral liability for “old” foreign-currency savings at the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, a Slovenian bank. 31.     In 1994 the National Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina carried out an inspection of the new Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo and noted many shortcomings. First of all, the management of the new Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo had not been properly appointed and it was not clear who its shareholders were. The National Bank, for that reason, appointed a director of that bank. Secondly, as a domestic bank, Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo could not have assumed a foreign bank’s liability for “old” foreign-currency savings, as this would impose new financial obligations on the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina (as the State was the statutory guarantor for “old” foreign-currency savings in all domestic banks). The National Bank ordered that a closing balance sheet for the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana as at 31 March 1992 be drawn up urgently and that its relations with the parent bank be defined. 32 .     However, according to the companies register, the newly founded Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo remained liable for “old” foreign-currency savings at Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana’s Sarajevo branch until late 2004 (see paragraph 35 below). Consequently, it continued to administer “old” foreign-currency savings at Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana’s Sarajevo branch; around 3% of those savings were used in the privatisation process in the FBH (see paragraph 26 above). In one case, a civil court ordered Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo to repay a client of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana’s Sarajevo branch (see Višnjevac v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 2333/04, 24 October 2006). 33.     The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina described the pre-2004 situation as “chaotic” (decision AP 164/04 of 1 April 2006, § 55). The Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina, a domestic human rights body, held that the legal uncertainty surrounding the issue of “old” foreign-currency savings in, inter alia , domestic branches of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana and Investbanka during that period amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see decision CH/98/377 and others of 7 November 2003, § 270). 34.     In 2003 the FBH Banking Agency placed the domestic Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo under its provisional administration on the ground that it had undefined relations with Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, a foreign bank located in Slovenia. 35 .     By virtue of an amendment to the Companies Register Act 2000 [21] , in 2003 the FBH Parliament extended the statutory time-limit for the deletion of wartime entries in the companies register until 2004. Shortly thereafter, in November 2004, the Sarajevo Municipal Court decided that the domestic Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo was not the successor of the Sarajevo branch of the Slovenian Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana; that it was not liable for “old” foreign-currency savings in that branch; and that, as a result, the 1993 entry in the companies register stating otherwise ought to be deleted. 36.     In 2006 the domestic Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo sold its assets to a Croatian company which, in return, undertook to pay the debts of that bank. At the same time, the premises of the Sarajevo branch of the Slovenian Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, under the administration of the FBH government pending the final determination of the status of that branch, were let out to the same Croatian company on behalf and for the account of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana. 37.     In 2010 the competent court opened bankruptcy proceedings against Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The proceedings are still pending. (c)     Status of the Tuzla branch of Investbanka 38 .     The Tuzla branch of Investbanka has always had the status of a branch without legal personality. The balance of the “old” foreign-currency savings at that branch was approximately USD 67 million (approximately DEM 100 million) as at 31 December 1991. The branch closed in June 1992 and has never resumed its activities. It is not clear what happened to its funds. 39.     In 2002 the competent court in Serbia made a bankruptcy order against Investbanka. The Serbian authorities then sold the premises of the FBH branches of Investbanka (those in the Republika Srpska had been sold in 1999). For example, for the sale of the premises in Džafer Mahala Street in Tuzla the Serbian authorities obtained 2,140,650 euros. The bankruptcy proceedings against Investbanka are apparently still pending. 40.     In 2010 the FBH government decided to place the premises and archives of the FBH branches of Investbanka under its administration. However, it would appear that Investbanka no longer had any premises or archives in the FBH. 41.     In 2011, at the request of the FBH authorities, the Serbian authorities opened a criminal investigation into the manner in which the archives of the Tuzla branch had been transferred to the Serbian territory in 2008. 2.     Croatia (a)     Measures concerning “old” foreign-currency savings 42.     The Croatian Government stated that they had repaid “old” foreign-currency savings in domestic banks and their foreign branches, regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned. Indeed, it is clear that they repaid such savings of Bosnian-Herzegovinian citizens deposited in Bosnian-Herzegovinian branches of Croatian banks. However, the Slovenian Government provided the Court with decisions of the Supreme Court of Croatia (Rev 3015/1993-2 of 1994, Rev 3172/1995-2 of 1996 and Rev   1747/1995-2 of 1996) holding that the term used in the relevant legislation ( građanin ) meant a Croatian citizen (compare Kovačić and Others , cited above, § 77). (b)     Status of the Zagreb branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana 43 .     Croatia allowed its citizens to transfer their “old” foreign-currency savings from the Zagreb branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana to Croatian banks (see section 14 of the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act 1993 [22] and the relevant secondary legislation [23] ). Apparently, about two-thirds of all clients of that branch availed themselves of that possibility. In March 2013 Croatia and Slovenia signed a memorandum of understanding, urging further succession negotiations regarding those transferred savings. As to the clients who did not transfer their savings from the Zagreb branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana to Croatian banks, which savings amounted to approximately DEM   300 million, some of them pursued civil proceedings in the Croatian courts: sixty-three of them obtained their “old” foreign-currency savings from a forced sale of assets of that branch located in Croatia (decisions of the Osijek Municipal Court of 8 April 2005 and 15   June 2010 [24] ; see also Kovačić and Others , cited above, §§ 122-33); while others have pursued or are currently pursuing civil proceedings in the Slovenian courts (see paragraph 51 below). According to official papers provided by the Croatian Government, Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana and its Zagreb branch no longer have any assets in Croatia. 3.     Serbia (a)     Measures concerning “old” foreign-currency savings 44.     After the dissolution of the SFRY, “old” foreign ‑ currency savings in Serbian banks remained frozen. However, withdrawals were exceptionally allowed on humanitarian grounds regardless of the citizenship of the saver concerned and the location of the branch in issue (see the relevant secondary legislation [25] ). Furthermore, the Serbian courts ruled on at least one occasion that the banks based in Serbia were liable for “old” foreign-currency savings at their branches located in Bosnia and Herzegovina (see Šekerović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 32472/03, 4 January 2007). 45 .     In 1998, and then again in 2002, Serbia agreed to repay, partly in cash and partly in government bonds, “old” foreign-currency savings in domestic branches of domestic banks of its citizens and of citizens of all States other than the successor States of the SFRY together with “old” foreign-currency savings in foreign branches of domestic banks (such as the Tuzla branch of Investbanka) of citizens of all States other than the successor States of the SFRY. Those government bonds were to be amortised by 2016 in twelve annual instalments and earned interest at an annual rate of 2% (section 4 of the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act 2002 [26] ). As regards the amount to be repaid, Serbia undertook to reimburse original deposits with interest accrued by 31 December 1997 at the original rate and interest accrued after that date at an annual rate of 2% (section 2 of the same Act). 46 .     However, other “old” foreign-currency savings (that is, the savings of citizens of the SFRY successor States other than Serbia deposited in all branches of Serbian banks, both domestic and foreign, as well as the savings of Serbian citizens in Serbian banks’ branches located outside Serbia) were to remain frozen pending succession negotiations, as was the case for example of the third applicant’s deposits. Furthermore, all proceedings concerning “old” foreign-currency savings ceased by virtue of sections 21 and 22 of the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act 1998 [27] and sections 21 and   36 of the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act 2002. (b)     Status of Investbanka and its branches 47 .     According to the companies register, Investbanka is State-owned. It is controlled by the Deposit Insurance Agency of Serbia. As a State-owned entity, it had to write off its large claims against State- and socially-owned companies in order to enable their privatisation pursuant to the Privatisation Act 2001 [28] . In January 2002 the competent court made a bankruptcy order against Investbanka. The bankruptcy proceedings are pending. Hundreds of savers at Bosnian-Herzegovinian branches of Investbanka unsuccessfully applied to be paid back within the context of the bankruptcy proceedings. Twenty of them then pursued civil proceedings against Investbanka, but to no avail. 4.     Slovenia (a)     Measures concerning “old” foreign-currency savings 48 .     In 1991 Slovenia assumed the statutory guarantee from the SFRY for “old” foreign-currency savings in domestic branches of all banks (including Investbanka and other foreign banks), regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned (see section 19(3) of the 1991 Constitutional Act on the Implementation of the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia – “the 1991 Constitutional Act” [29] ), and converted the banks’ liabilities towards depositors into public debt (see the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act   1993 [30] ). Slovenia thus undertook to repay original deposits and interest accrued by 31 December 1990 at the original rate, as well as interest accrued from 1 January 1991 until 31 December 1992 at an annual rate of   6% (section 2 of the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act 1993). As regards the period thereafter, the interest rate depended on whether a depositor had opted for government bonds or cash. The depositors were entitled to obtain either government bonds, which were to be amortised by 2003 in twenty biannual instalments and earned interest at an annual rate of   5%, or cash from the banks in which they had money, together with interest at the market rate plus 0.25% in ten biannual instalments. In the latter case, the banks were to be issued with government bonds. Some depositors opted for government bonds as they could use them to purchase State-owned flats and companies and to pay taxes and pension contributions. (b)     Status of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana and its branches 49 .     Shortly after its declaration of independence, Slovenia nationalised and then, in 1994, restructured Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana by virtue of an amendment to the 1991 Constitutional Act. Most of its assets and a part of its liabilities were transferred to a new bank – Nova Ljubljanska Banka (see section 22(b) of that Act, cited in paragraph 54 below). The old bank retained liability for “old” foreign-currency savings in its branches in the other successor States and the related claims against the NBY (ibid.). On the basis of that Act, domestic courts rendered a number of decisions ordering the old Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana to pay “old” foreign-currency savings to clients at its Sarajevo branch; at the same time, domestic courts considered that the Slovenian State itself had no liabilities in this regard (see the Supreme Court judgments II Ips 415/95 of 27 February 1997; II   Ips   613/96 of 1 April 1998; and II Ips 490/97 of 21 January 1999). The old Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana was initially administered by the Bank Rehabilitation Agency. It is now controlled by a Slovenian government agency – the Succession Fund. 50.     In 1997 all proceedings concerning “old” foreign-currency savings in the old Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana’s branches in the other successor States (with the exception of third-instance proceedings before the Supreme Court) were stayed pending the succession negotiations (see the Succession Fund of the Republic of Slovenia Act 1993 [31] , as amended in 1997, and the Succession Fund and the Senior Representative for Succession of the Republic of Slovenia Act 2006 [32] ). In December 2009 the Constitutional Court of Slovenia, upon a petition of two Croatian savers, declared that measure unconstitutional. [33] 51 .     The Ljubljana District Court has since given many judgments ordering the old Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana to pay “old” foreign-currency savings in its Sarajevo branch together with interest (see, for example, judgment P 119/1995-I of 16 November 2010, which became final and binding on 4 January 2012 when it was upheld by the Ljubljana Higher Court; judgment P 9/2007-II of 7 December 2010; and judgment P   1013/2012-II of 10 January 2013). The court explained that, according to the SFRY law, branches had acted on behalf and for the account of parent banks. Moreover, according to the Slovenian law, the old Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana retained liability for “old” foreign-currency savings in its Sarajevo branch. The court considered it irrelevant that a homonymous bank, Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo, had assumed liability of the old Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana for savings at the Sarajevo branch in 1993 (see paragraph 30 above) as that had been done without the approval of the parent bank or the depositors. In any event, the competent court in Bosnia and Herzegovina had deleted the 1993 entry in the companies register to that effect in 2004 (see paragraph 35 above). The Ljubljana District Court also considered it irrelevant that some foreign currency had been transferred to the NBY’s foreign accounts in accordance with the redepositing scheme set out above. 5.     The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 52 .     The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia paid back “old” foreign-currency savings in domestic banks and local branches of foreign banks, such as the Skopje branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned. [34] II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 53 .     As noted in paragraph 22 above, certain restrictions on withdrawals of foreign-currency savings already existed before the dissolution of the SFRY. For example, section 17(c) of the NBY’s decision of January 1991 [35] , which the Constitutional Court of the SFRY declared unconstitutional in April 1992, read as follows. “Authorised banks shall execute orders to pay domestic nationals foreign currency deposited in their foreign-currency accounts ... on receipt from such persons of prior notice of their intention to use the foreign currency as follows: (i)     amounts not exceeding DEM 500: fifteen days for the first withdrawal and thirty days for subsequent withdrawals; (ii)     amounts not exceeding DEM 1,000: thirty days for the first withdrawal and forty-five days for subsequent withdrawals; (iii)     amounts not exceeding DEM 3,000: ninety days; and (iv)     amounts not exceeding DEM 8,000: 180 days.” That provision, however, did not apply to Yugoslav expatriates who worked and lived abroad, such as the applicants in the present case (see sections 8(6) and 17 of that decision). The present applicants’ inability to withdraw their savings from their respective accounts resulted from the application of the following provisions of domestic law, presented below in chronological order. 54 .     The relevant part of the 1991 Constitutional Act of Slovenia, as amended in 1994, reads as follows. Preamble “Considering the reluctance of certain States that have emerged on the territory of the former [SFRY] and the banks based in those States; Considering the current impossibility of reaching a succession agreement in respect of the financial assets and liabilities of the former SFRY and the legal persons on its territory, because of the practical and legal consequences of the war in the territory of the former SFRY, international sanctions imposed on the so-called FRY (Serbia and Montenegro), the breakdown of the financial and economic systems in some successor States, and the use of the financial assets of the former SFRY by the so-called FRY to finance the war of aggression; ... And with the purpose of finding, through negotiations with foreign creditors, a fair solution to the assumption of an adequate share of the State debts of the former SFRY in cases where the final beneficiary may not be established ...” Section 22(b) “Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana and Kreditna Banka Maribor shall transfer their respective businesses and assets to the new banks created hereunder. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana and Kreditna Banka Maribor shall retain: ... (iii)     full liability for foreign-currency ordinary and savings accounts not guaranteed by the Republic of Slovenia; ... (v)     the claims related thereto. Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana shall maintain its links with its existing branches and subsidiaries based in the other Republics on the territory of the former SFRY, and shall retain the corresponding share of claims against the National Bank of Yugoslavia in respect of foreign-currency savings accounts.” 55.     The relevant parts of the Succession Fund of the Republic of Slovenia Act 1993, as amended in 1997, provide as follows. Section 1 “In order to realise claims and discharge liabilities of the Republic of Slovenia and natural and legal persons on the territory of the Republic of Slovenia in the process of division of the rights, assets and liabilities of the [SFRY], the Succession Fund of the Republic of Slovenia is hereby created.” Section 15(č)(1) “If court proceedings or enforcement proceedings are pending against persons based or domiciled in Slovenia, the claimant or the creditor is based or domiciled in ... one of the Republics of the former SFRY ... and the claim concerns a legal transaction or enforceable judicial decision, the court shall stay the proceedings of its own motion.” 56.     The relevant parts of the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act 2002 of Serbia read as follows. Section 21(1) “Citizens of [Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] who have old foreign-currency savings at banks with the seat in Serbia and Montenegro [36] , as well as citizens of Serbia and Montenegro who have old foreign-currency savings at branch offices of such banks located in the territory of [Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] shall realise their old foreign-currency claims in a manner to be agreed upon among the successor States of the SFRY.” Section 36 “All proceedings, including enforcement proceedings, concerning foreign-currency savings covered by this Act shall cease by virtue of this Act.” 57.     Section 2 of the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act 2006 of Bosnia and Herzegovina reads as follows. “(1)     Under this Act, ‘old foreign-currency savings’ are foreign-currency savings in banks located in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina as at 31 December 1991, including interest earned until that date, less any payment after that date and any funds transferred to special privatisation accounts. (2)     Old foreign-currency savings defined in paragraph 1 above shall not include foreign-currency savings in branch offices located in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina of the Ljubljanska Banka, Investbanka or other foreign banks. (3)     In accordance with the 2001 Agreement on Succession Issues, foreign-currency savings defined in paragraph 2 above shall be the liability of the successor States in which the banks in issue had their seats. Bosnia and Herzegovina shall provide assistance, within the scope of its international activities, to the holders of such foreign-currency accounts ...” 58 .     Section 23 of the Succession Fund and the Senior Representative for Succession of the Republic of Slovenia Act 2006 provided as follows. “(1)     Any and all decisions of the courts in Slovenia to stay proceedings concerning foreign-currency savings in a commercial bank or any of its branches in any successor State of the former SFRY rendered pursuant to the Succession Fund of the Republic of Slovenia Act 1993 shall remain in force. Any and all proceedings referred to in the previous sentence that have already resumed shall be further stayed or suspended. (2)     Proceedings referred to in the previous paragraph shall resume automatically upon the settlement of the issue of the guarantees of the SFRY or its NBY for foreign-currency savings pursuant to Article 7 of Annex C to the Agreement on Succession Issues.” On 3 December 2009 the Constitutional Court of Slovenia declared that provision unconstitutional. III.     RELEVANT IN