CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 3 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sB9F7F539 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s829C9466 { width:149.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sDA8195B9 { width:108.04%; border-collapse:collapse } .s5856D96A { width:8.94%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s26AB0F52 { width:25.02%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s217C1804 { width:17.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBF41EDB3 { width:23.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFF225D3B { width:25%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4528A24 { width:8.94%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6F861082 { width:25.02%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B2A6ABB { width:17.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s66E43B5D { width:23.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2898C413 { width:25%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } THIRD SECTION CASE OF LANDIKA v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 45987/22)     JUDGMENT   Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Respondent State not responsible for the applicants’ inability to recover “old” foreign-currency savings deposited in Ljubljana Bank (Sarajevo branch) converted into privatisation certificates administered by the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities after the SFRY’s dissolution • Repayment scheme under new legislation enacted after Ališić and Others v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   [GC], excluded recovery of “old” foreign-currency savings subject to the transfer of claims • Distinct factual and legal circumstances from Ališić and Others in which the relevant claims had not been transferred • Relevant domestic decisions based on sound grounds   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 3 March 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Landika v. Slovenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Erik Wennerström,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   45987/22) against the Republic of Slovenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ms Kata Landika, Mr Damjan Jugo Landika and Mr Vjekoslav Landika (“the applicants”), on 29 September 2022; the decision to give notice to the Slovenian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments and information submitted by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Article 36   §   1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 of the Rules of Court, and the comments submitted by the Association for the Protection of Foreign-Currency Depositors in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section under Rule   44   § 3 (a) of the Rules of Court; Having deliberated in private on 10 February 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns the applicants’ inability to recover, under legislation enacted in Slovenia following the Court’s judgment in Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ([GC], no. 60642/08, ECHR 2014), their predecessor’s “old” foreign-currency savings deposited in the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljana Bank Ljubljana, the claim relating to those savings having been transferred in 1998 to a privatisation account administered by the authorities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were born in 1941, 1964 and 1971 respectively. All are residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Mr Damjan Jugo Landika living in Mostar and the remaining two applicants in Bugojno. The applicants were represented by Čeferin and Partners, a law firm based in Grosuplje, Slovenia. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms N. P. Gosenca, Senior State Attorney. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND CONCERNING THE SITUATION IN THE SFRY 5.     Details concerning the commercial banking situation in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) and the related reforms are set out in Ali šić and Others (cited above, §§ 12-22). A summary, with additional information where appropriate, is provided below.   Dissolution of the SFRY, its banking system and related reforms 6 .     Prior to the breakdown of the SFRY and the economic reforms carried out in 1989-90, the commercial banking system in the SFRY consisted of basic and associated banks. Basic banks had their own 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 of the SFRY, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia, or autonomous provinces, Kosovo and Vojvodina). 7 .     Ljubljana Bank ( Ljubljanska banka ) was founded in 1955 and subsequently underwent   several changes in status and name. From 1978 until 1   January 1990 Ljubljana Bank Ljubljana (“LBL”) operated as an “associated bank” ( Ljubljanska banka – združena banka ) and was composed of Ljubljana Basic Bank Sarajevo and a number of other basic banks. On 19 December 1989 LBL was re-registered as a joint-stock company ( Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana – hereinafter likewise referred to as “LBL”) in the then Socialist Republic of Slovenia. The change was entered in the register of commercial companies on the same date and became effective on 1   January 1990 (see Slovenia v. Croatia (dec.) [GC], no. 54155/16, §§ 8 and 10, 18 November 2020). 8 .     Within the framework of the reforms carried out in 1989-90, the SFRY abolished the system of basic and associated banks. This shift in the banking regulations allowed some basic banks to opt for independent status, while other basic banks became branches (without legal personality) of the former associated banks to which they had formerly belonged. In January 1990 Ljubljana Basic Bank Sarajevo became a branch of LBL, namely the Sarajevo Main Branch ( Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana – Glavna filijala Sarjevo – hereinafter “the Sarajevo branch of LBL”). The latter assumed the former’s rights, assets and liabilities. 9 .     The dissolution of the SFRY took place between 1991 and 1992, with its constituent republics declaring independence during this period. Slovenia declared independence from the SFRY on 25 June 1991. Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter also “BiH”) declared its independence on 3 March 1992, triggering an armed conflict starting in April 1992 and ending with the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Dayton Peace Agreement”), which entered into force on 14 December 1995. It confirmed the continuation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s legal existence as a State, while changing its internal structure, which now consist of two Entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter also “the FBH”) and Republika Srpska. An additional self-governing unit, the Brčko District, was established in 2000 (see Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 27912/02, § 15, 3 November 2009). 10.     Following the entry into force of the post-Dayton constitutional framework, which allocated primary responsibility for economic restructuring and the transformation of socially owned capital to the Entities, the process of privatisation in Bosnia and Herzegovina began. In the FBH, it was formally initiated by means of a series of privatisation laws in 1996 to 1998, establishing the legal basis for transferring State and socially owned assets into private ownership (see paragraphs 15 and 46-48 below). “Old” foreign-currency savings 11 .     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% or more. From 25   December   1969 until the dates on which each successor State declared its independence, all foreign-currency deposits were covered by the SFRY’s statutory guarantee (see Kova čić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98 and 2 others, § 34, 3 October 2008). This guarantee was to be activated in the event of a bank’s bankruptcy or “manifest insolvency”, at the bank’s request. 12.     In the 1970s the global economic crisis hit the SFRY particularly hard. The SFRY turned to international capital markets and soon became one of the most indebted countries in the world. When the international community backed away from the loose lending practices of the 1970s, the SFRY resorted to the foreign-currency savings of its citizens to pay foreign debts and finance imports. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has established that, as a result, a significant portion of the original deposits ceased to exist before the dissolution of the SFRY (see Suljagić , cited above, § 51, with further references). From the mid-1970s onwards, virtually all foreign currency was redeposited with the   National Bank of Yugoslavia, most often through an “accounting” or “pro forma” method. In late 1988 the redepositing system was stopped, and the banks were given permission to open accounts with foreign banks. 13.     In 1990 the dinar was declared convertible, which led to a massive withdrawal of foreign currency. The SFRY therefore resorted to emergency measures, further restricting the withdrawal of foreign-currency deposits. Following the dissolution of the SFRY (see paragraph 9 above), foreign ‑ currency savings deposited in the successor States of the SFRY prior to the dissolution were governed by 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 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and North Macedonia is provided in Ališić and Others ( cited above , §§ 24-52). Information specifically relevant to the circumstances of the present case is provided below. MEASURES RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE TAKEN BY BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND SLOVENIA FOLLOWING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SFRY Bosnia and Herzegovina Relevant legislative changes and implementing measures concerning “old” foreign-currency savings 14 .     In 1992 Bosnia and Herzegovina took over the statutory guarantee for “old” foreign-currency savings from the SFRY (see paragraph 11 above), which remained frozen during the war, with only limited withdrawals allowed on humanitarian or other exceptional grounds. The guarantee appears to have covered such savings in domestic banks only ( see Ališić and Others , cited above , §§ 24 and 25). Furthermore, the concept of “social ownership” was abandoned with the introduction of the Transfer of Assets from Social to State Ownership Act ( Zakon o prenosu sredstava društvene u državnu svojinu ) in 1993 and the Social Ownership Transformation Act ( Zakon o pretvorbi društvene svojine ) in 1994 (see Suljagić , cited above, § 14). 15 .     Following the enactment of the Privatisation Agency Act ( Zakon o Agenciji za privatizaciju ) in 1996, on 28 November 1997 the FBH enacted the Privatisation of Companies Act (see paragraph 46 below). On the same date the Law on the Settlement of Claims in the Privatisation Process (see paragraph 48 below – hereinafter “1997 Claims Settlement Act”) was enacted, under which the FBH assumed liability for “old” foreign-currency savings deposited in banks and branches situated within its territory in order to prepare them for privatisation (see Suljagić , cited above, § 16). Pursuant to the Act, an individual acquired a claim against the FBH for the balance of his or her foreign-currency savings as of 31 March 1992, provided that three cumulative conditions were met: (i) the person held more than 100   convertible marks in foreign-currency savings on deposit in a bank or branch located within the territory of what became the FBH; (ii) he or she was a citizen of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and (iii) on 31 March 1991 the person was permanently residing in the territory which, following the dissolution of the SFRY, formed part of the FBH. Such claims were registered in special accounts ( Jedinstveni račun – hereinafter “special privatisation account” or “privatisation account”), which were opened ex officio by the authorities on the basis of each citizen’s personal identification number. Upon the transfer of a claim to the privatisation account, the individual was entitled to a certificate corresponding to the claim registered therein. While cash withdrawal remained practically impossible, residents of the FBH could use their “old” foreign-currency savings to purchase the State-owned flats in which they lived (where this was the case) or shares in certain State-owned companies during privatisation (see Suljagić , cited above, § 16, and paragraph 46 below). Until 23 August 2004 it was possible to pay the full price of a State-owned company during privatisation with “old” foreign-currency savings. After 23   August 2004 it was possible to use such savings to purchase certain (mainly smaller) State-owned companies, on condition that at least 90% of the price was paid in cash (see Suljagić , cited above). This option remained available until 30 June 2006. The relevant provisions of the 1997 Claims Settlement Act (and its subsequent amendments) are summarised in paragraphs 47 and 50-53 below. 16 .     On 29 December 1997 the Director of the Privatisation Agency for the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter “the FBH Privatisation Agency”) issued instructions concerning the registration and realisation of citizens’ claims in special privatisation accounts. These instructions were later amended to extend the deadline for banks to submit information. The most relevant parts provided as follows: Section 12 “1. The records of the persons referred to in section 3(1) of the [1997 Claims Settlement Act] ... are determined on the basis of data from the banks ... 2. The banks referred to in subsection 1 of this section are obliged to submit to the [Federal Payment] Bureau ( Zavod za platni promet ) [1] , no later than 7 August 1998, by electronic means, information on the foreign-currency savings of the persons referred to in subsection 1 of this section, including the amount of interest accrued as of 31   March 1992, calculated in [German marks] and reduced by payments made until 31   December 1997. 3. The information ... shall include (i) the surname, name of one parent and first name; (ii) the [personal identification number]; and (iii) the amount of foreign-currency savings on 31 December 1997, expressed in [convertible marks]. ... “ Section 52 “1. The banks referred to in section 12 of these instructions are obliged, within 15   days from the date of entry into force of these instructions, to publicly invite depositors to submit to banks information on their [personal identification number] and to verify the amounts of foreign-currency savings in their accounts, within 90 days of the date of the first announcement of the invitation. ... 3. The bank will mark the verified foreign-currency savings amounts, expressed in [convertible marks], in the passbook as the amount of the claim to be transferred to the special privatisation account of the depositor. 4. Savings account holders who do not verify the amount of their foreign-currency savings account in accordance with subsection 1 of this section and subsection 2 of section 12 may do so within an additional period of 30 days from receipt of the [statement from the special privatisation account] ....” 17 .     On 4 August 1998 Bosnia and Herzegovina authorised its constituent entities to privatise State-owned banks in their respective territories and to manage the proceeds acquired through such privatisation (sections 2 and 4 of the Privatisation of Companies and Banks Framework Act ( Okvirni zakon o privatizaciji preduzeća i banaka u Bosni i Hercegovini ) Official Gazette of BiH no. 14/98 of 27 July 1998, with subsequent amendments). Furthermore, liability for claims against State-owned banks, including those arising from “old” foreign-currency accounts, was transferred to the entity carrying out privatisation (section 4). 18.     Legislation providing for the use of “old” foreign-currency savings in the privatisation process had limited appeal and, moreover, led to abuses: an unofficial market emerged on which such savings were sometimes sold for no more than 3% of their nominal value (see Suljagić , cited above, § 19). In 2004, in an attempt to remedy the situation, the Entities and the Brčko District agreed to recompense holders of “old” foreign-currency savings in cash and government bonds and set up repayment schemes to this effect. However, in 2006, pursuant to decision no. U-14/05 of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 2 December 2005 (see paragraph 66 below), the three repayment schemes were replaced by one for the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the State’s liability for such savings at the local branches of LBL and Investbanka was expressly excluded (ibid., and see paragraph 54 below). 19.     At the end of 1991 foreign-currency savings at the Sarajevo branch of LBL amounted to around 250 million German marks (DEM) (see Ališić and Others , cited above, § 29). In the present proceedings, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted a document from the FBH Ministry of Finance dated 16 April 2013 providing additional information concerning the registration of these savings in the privatisation accounts administered by the FBH authorities. Claims based on “old” foreign-currency savings in LBL were registered in 6,476 special privatisation accounts (one for each saver), with a total value of 36,614,621.19 convertible marks. [2] Of the aforementioned individuals, 967 used some or all of their LBL   foreign ‑ currency savings in the FBH privatisation process, amounting to 8,369,035.75 convertible marks. Incorporation of Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo and related subsequent events 20 .     On 2 July 1993 Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo ( Ljubljanska banka d.d. Sarajevo ), located in Sarajevo, was incorporated under the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the basis of a ruling by the Higher Court in Sarajevo. According to the order for the entry of that bank in the court register of companies, issued by the same court on the same date, Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo assumed, inter alia , unilateral liability for “old” foreign-currency savings at the Sarajevo branch of LBL. These changes had previously been agreed in decisions by the government and the National Bank of BiH, issued on 22 and 24 June 1993 respectively. 21 .     In 1994 the National Bank of BiH carried out an inspection of the new Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo, which revealed many shortcomings. First, the management of the new Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo had not been properly appointed and it was not clear who its shareholders were. The National Bank, for that reason, appointed a director to take control. Secondly, the National Bank noted that, as a domestic bank, Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo could not assume a foreign bank’s liability for “old” foreign-currency savings, as this would impose new financial obligations on BiH as the statutory guarantor for “old” foreign-currency savings in all domestic banks. The National Bank of BiH ordered that a closing balance sheet for the Sarajevo branch of LBL as of 31 March 1992 be drawn up urgently and that its relations with the “parent bank” be defined.   However, according to the companies register, the newly founded Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo administrated and remained liable for “old” foreign-currency savings deposited at the Sarajevo branch of LBL until late 2004 (see paragraph 22 below). In the meantime, on 30 January 1998, pursuant to section 52(1) of the Director of the FBH Privatisation Agency’s instructions (see paragraph 16 above), Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo published a notice in the Bosnian-Herzegovinian newspaper Dnevni Avaz stating that savers were obliged to provide the necessary information for the transfer of their claims relating to savings to privatisation accounts under the 1997 Claims Settlement Act (see paragraphs 15, 47 and 50-53). In one case, a civil court ordered Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo to repay a client of the Sarajevo branch of LBL (see Ališić and Others , cited above , §§ 31 and 32, and Višnjevac v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 2333/04, 24 October 2006). 22 .     On 11 November 2004 the Sarajevo Municipal Court, in judgment no.   Ps-595/03-III, ruled that Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo was not liable for “old” foreign-currency savings deposited at the Sarajevo branch of LBL and was not its legal successor. It was also established that the FBH Ministry of Finance was obliged, pursuant to that judgment, to arrange for the amendment of the 1993 entry in the companies register (see paragraph 20 above) by removing the parts concerning the change in status of the Sarajevo branch of LBL and the transfer of “assets, rights, and obligations of [the Sarajevo branch of LBL] as the legal predecessor ... to Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo as the legal successor”. The court explained that the Sarajevo branch of LBL, in its legal transactions with third parties, acted in the name of and for the account of LBL and had therefore never been responsible for “old” foreign-currency savings. The court further noted that Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo could not, through its change in status and registration, assume greater rights and liabilities than the previous Sarajevo branch of LBL. The proceedings leading to the judgment of 11 November 2004 were instituted against the FBH (Ministry of Finance) by Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo. In those proceedings, the FBH did not dispute the claim and did not propose any evidence. 23 .     In 2003 the FBH Banking Agency placed the Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo under provisional administration on the grounds that it had undefined relations with LBL, a foreign bank located in Slovenia. 24 .     As stated in Ališić and Others ( cited above , §§ 36 and 37), in 2006 Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo sold its assets to a Croatian company which, in return, undertook to pay the bank’s debts. At the same time, the premises that originally belonged to the Sarajevo branch of LBL, under the administration of the FBH government pending the final determination of the status of that branch, were leased to the same Croatian company on behalf of and for the account of LBL.   In 2010 the appropriate court opened bankruptcy proceedings against Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the basis of publicly available information, the Sarajevo Municipal Court issued a decision in 2016 concluding the bankruptcy proceedings and ordering that the bankruptcy debtor, Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo, be deleted from the court register. Slovenia 25.     Following its declaration of independence (see paragraph 9 above) Slovenia assumed the statutory guarantee from the SFRY for “old” foreign ‑ currency savings in domestic branches of all banks, regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned, and converted the banks’ liabilities towards depositors into public debt. Depositors were entitled to obtain either government bonds or cash from the banks in which their money was held, under conditions set out in the domestic legislation. Prior to the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Ališić and Others 26.     During this period, Slovenia nationalised and then, in 1994, restructured LBL. Most of its assets and part of its liabilities were transferred to a new bank, New Ljubljana Bank ( Nova Ljubljanska Banka ). The old bank retained liability for “old” foreign-currency savings in its branches in the other successor States and related claims against the National Bank of Yugoslavia. The (old) LBL was initially administered by the Bank Rehabilitation Agency. It was subsequently controlled by the Succession Fund, a Slovenian government agency. 27 .     By 2013   the Slovenian courts had issued a number of decisions ordering LBL to pay “old” foreign-currency savings to customers of its Sarajevo branch, while at the same time holding that the State itself had no liabilities in this regard. According to the Government, these decisions did not concern claims that had been transferred to special privatisation accounts under the 1997 Claims Settlement Act. 28.     For further details, see Ališić and Others (cited above, §§ 48-51). The Grand Chamber’s judgment in Ališić and Others and subsequent developments in Slovenia 29.     On 16 July 2014 the Grand Chamber adopted a pilot judgment in Ališić and Others (cited above) regarding “old” foreign-currency savings held, inter alia , in the Sarajevo branch of LBL. It found, with respect to Slovenia, a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention, and held that Slovenia was required to make all necessary arrangements, including legislative amendments, to allow two of the applicants and all others in their position to recover their “old” foreign ‑ currency savings under the same conditions as those who had such savings in domestic branches of Slovenian banks (ibid., points 3, 6 and 11 of the operative part). The Court further indicated that no claim should be rejected simply because of a lack of original contracts or passbooks, and that any and all verification decisions had to be subject to judicial review. Lastly, the Court held that all those concerned had to comply with the requirements of any verification procedure, as long as it met the above criteria (ibid., §   148). 30.     On 4   July 2015 the Act on the Implementation of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 60642/08 (see paragraph 46 below – hereinafter “the Ališić Implementation Act”) entered into force. It introduced a repayment scheme for the deposits held in the Sarajevo and Zagreb branches of LBL. Entitled beneficiaries were the original holders of “old” foreign-currency savings and, inter alia , their heirs. The Ališić Implementation Act set up a procedure to verify entitlements and the balance of unpaid savings.   The filing period was open from 1 December 2015 to 31   December 2017. The verification process was carried out by the Succession Fund. A beneficiary could challenge the decision of the Succession Fund in proceedings before the Administrative Court and, if unsuccessful, in further appeals available in court proceedings. The relevant provisions of the Ališić Implementation Act are set out in paragraph 45 below. 31.     According to the Government’s submissions, requests for the verification of funds were in principle determined by reference to an individual saver’s passbook and information provided by the FBH   Privatisation Agency and other authorities of the FBH. According to these submissions, which were made on 16 June 2023, Slovenia had paid more than 34,000 beneficiaries a total of 302.4 million euros since March   2016. 32 .     On 15 March 2018, at the 1310th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)111, finding that all the measures required of Slovenia by Article 46 § 1 of the Convention had been adopted, declaring that it had exercised its functions under Article 46 § 2 in the Ališić case as far as Slovenia was concerned, and deciding to close the examination thereof in respect of Slovenia. The Committee of Ministers also made the following observation: “... in its inadmissibility decision in the Zeljković case (33805/17, 5 September 2017) the European Court held that the depositors whose deposits were transferred to privatisation accounts and whose requests for repayment were rejected on the basis of Slovenian law, were in principle required to exhaust remedies before the Slovenian courts and ultimately to lodge a constitutional claim; ... the Committee of Ministers’ final resolution in this case is entirely without prejudice to the European Court’s conclusions in other cases brought before it, including those addressing the issue of responsibility for repayment of deposits held in [the Sarajevo branch of LBL] which were transferred to restricted privatisation accounts in accordance with the legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; ...” CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICANTS Mr Vladimir Landika’s foreign-currency deposit and the transfer of related claims 33 .     The applicants are the legal successors of the late Vladimir (Franjo) Landika (“Mr Vladimir Landika”), who died on 21 April 2019. Prior to the dissolution of the SFRY, Mr Vladimir Landika deposited foreign-currency savings at what was, at the time, Ljubljana Basic Bank Sarajevo (see paragraph 7 above). His passbook appears to have been issued on 27 March 1981, with the first deposit made on that date. 34.     On 24 April 1998 Mr Vladimir Landika’s entitlement to 6,626.92   Swiss francs (CHF), the entire amount of savings in his “old” foreign-currency account at that time, was transferred to a special privatisation account in his name by the competent FBH authorities (see paragraphs 15 and 17 above and 47 below – a process hereinafter referred to as the “transfer of claims”). 35 .     The transfer of claims regarding Mr Vladimir Landika is evidenced by a photocopy of his passbook, which records the amount of CHF 6,626.92 as having been transferred out of his account on 24 April 1998, with the transfer bearing the stamp: “Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo transferred to the [individual account at the Federal Payment Bureau] ( jedinstveni RN   Z.P.P ‑ a )”. The last row on that page records a zero balance next to the same date. 36.     A statement dated 5 May 1999 from the FBH Privatisation Agency, which subsequently administered privatisation accounts, [3] shows that Mr   Vladimir Landika held a claim in his privatisation account in the amount of CHF 6,626.92. Relevant decisions by the Slovenian authorities 37 .     On 1 December 2015 Mr Vladimir Landika applied to the Succession Fund, requesting verification of his “old” foreign-currency savings in accordance with the Ališić Implementation Act. 38 .     On 12 January 2017 the Succession Fund issued a decision rejecting Mr Vladimir Landika’s request, providing the following explanation: “The client attached foreign-currency [passbook] no. 5363918, which shows that [he] transferred all funds from [his] foreign-currency [passbook], in the amount of CHF   6,626.92 on 24 April 1998, to a special privatisation account and that the foreign ‑ currency deposit was settled ( da je bila devizna vloga saldirana ), as its balance on the same date was CHF [zero]. Also enclosed is a poor-quality photocopy of a certificate from the [Federal Payment Bureau] of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, dated 5 May 1999, showing a balance of 7,391.22 [convertible marks] resulting from the transfer of the client’s funds from Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo to a special privatisation account in the client’s name and under personal identification number ... On the basis of the information and documents obtained by the [Succession] Fund in accordance with section 9(4) of the [Ališić Implementation Act], it was established that [Mr Vladimir Landika] transferred the foreign-currency savings in question to a special privatisation account with the Privatisation Agency in the FBH, which confirms the accuracy of the supporting documents attached to the request. In accordance with section 2(1) of the [Ališić Implementation Act], the unpaid old foreign-currency savings reflect the claim of a natural person against [the Sarajevo branch of LBL] in respect of foreign-currency accounts and on the basis of foreign ‑ currency savings on 31 December 1991, including contractual interest calculated up to that date, reduced by payments of an individual branch, [LBL] or any other branch after that date, by the saver’s outstanding liabilities to the branch or [LBL] and by amounts paid or settled after 31 December 1991 on any other basis. Under section 2(2) of the [Ališić Implementation Act] unpaid old foreign-currency savings are not old foreign-currency savings or parts thereof that have been transferred to special privatisation accounts for the purpose of special use under the regulations of the country of operation of the branch. These savings are, inter alia , old foreign-currency savings transferred by savers of [the Sarajevo branch of LBL] to special privatisation accounts for use in the privatisation process, in accordance with the regulations of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ... Since it is already evident from [Mr Vladimir Landika’s] application that he had fully transferred the savings in old foreign-currency [account] no. 5363918 to his special privatisation account, which is also confirmed by the data from the FBH Privatisation Agency, obtained by the [Succession] Fund in accordance with [section 9(4)] of the [Ališić Implementation Act], it was established that the present request for verification does not relate to old unpaid foreign-currency savings and should therefore be rejected.” 39 .     Mr Vladimir Landika challenged the Succession Fund’s decision before the Administrative Court of Slovenia, seeking an order that the amount of his “old” foreign-currency savings be paid to him. On 2   December 2019 the court dismissed his action, finding as follows: “Where, prior to the entry into force of the [Ališić Implementation Act], there has been a transfer of funds from [LBL] accounts to accounts of other legal entities ... [old] foreign-currency savings with [LBL] or its Sarajevo branch are no longer old foreign ‑ currency savings, that is, the creditor no longer has a claim against [LBL], and [LBL] has no obligation to pay it. The [Ališić Implementation Act] explicitly excludes the obligations of [Slovenia] to repay those foreign-currency savings of holders with [LBL] or its Sarajevo (and Zagreb) branch[es] that have been transferred to other entities or accounts under the regulations of the countries in which those branches operated. ... The only relevant fact for resolving the present dispute is the balance on the bank’s foreign-currency account (passbook) at the time the claim was lodged. If the balance on the foreign-currency [passbook] is [zero] ... as in the present case, then there is no debt owed by [LBL] (and no liability on the part of [Slovenia] to pay such a debt). Accordingly, [Mr Vladimir Landika] does not seek verification of unpaid old foreign ‑ currency savings, as they were transferred to a special privatisation account for use in the privatisation process in accordance with the regulations of the FBH. This means that, in the present case, the situation is precisely that referred to in section 2(2) of the [Ališić Implementation Act]. Since the old foreign-currency savings from the claimant’s old foreign-currency [passbook] were validly transferred to his special privatisation account for use in the privatisation process and, therefore, on the date of the decision the claimant did not have a claim against the bank referred to in section 2(1) of the [Ališić Implementation Act], [Slovenia], in accordance with section 5 of the [Ališić Implementation Act], is not in a position to assume the obligation to pay the claimant’s non-existent claim.” 40 .     On 27 January 2020 the applicants, as Mr Vladimir Landika’s successors (see paragraph 33 above), requested leave to appeal on points of law with respect to the Administrative Court’s decision. On 1 July 2020 the Supreme Court denied that request. 41 .     On 11 September 2020 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Slovenian Constitutional Court. They alleged that the Administrative Court had arbitrarily interpreted section 2 of the Ališić Implementation Act, which, in their opinion, should have been understood as concerning only transfers resulting from depositors’ active conduct and free choice. They further complained that the Administrative Court’s interpretation of the Ališić Implementation Act had breached their rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, arguing that the question of choice in transferring savings from their savings account or lack thereof should have been decisive for the assessment of proportionality of the interference with their property rights. 42 .     On 5 May 2022 the Constitutional Court, in decision no. Up-960/20, ruled that the constitutional complaint was unfounded and upheld the Administrative Court’s judgment. The Constitutional Court adopted its decision by six votes to two. The court first considered that the semantic and systemic interpretation of section 2 of the Ališić Implementation Act allowed for the conclusion that a claim did not fall within the repayment scheme if the assets in question had been transferred from a foreign-currency account to a special privatisation account under the legislation of the FBH. It further held as follows: “31. Undoubtedly, with the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act, the FBH assumed responsibility for resolving the issue of old foreign-currency deposits in banks and branches based in the territory of the FBH, including foreign-currency deposits in the [Sarajevo branch of LBL], for a certain period of time. Section 2 of the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act provided that claims settled on the basis of that Act also included claims arising from old foreign-currency deposits ... The 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act did not ... regulate the position of savers who did not have their residence in the territory of the FBH. Since the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act did not regulate the position of the applicants in the case of Ališić and Others , the [Court] did not take it into account when assessing the existence of a claim between the applicants and [LBL]. ... 33. At the time of the entry into force of the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act, Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo was responsible for old foreign-currency deposits. For savers at this bank who were citizens of BiH on 31 March 1991 and had their residence in BiH on 28   November 1997, their foreign-currency deposits were transferred to [special privatisation accounts] ex officio within 60 days of the [Act’s] entry into force (see section 5, section 7(1) and section 11 of the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act). The saver’s foreign-currency deposit was converted into a certificate, that is, into another type of asset ... 34. The question at issue is therefore whether the aforementioned transfer terminated the creditor-debtor relationship between the complainants’ predecessor and [LBL]. Until the end of 2004, Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo managed old foreign-currency deposits, meaning that at that time it was still managing old foreign-currency deposits that had not been transferred to special privatisation accounts under the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act. Upon the transfer of funds from the foreign-currency account to the special privatisation account, Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo ceased managing these foreign ‑ currency deposits, and the Federal Payment Bureau took over the management of these assets. A certificate of the balance on the special privatisation account was issued by the Federal Payment Bureau (section 12(1) of the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act). The Federal Payment Bureau was required to issue a new copy of the certificate after each change in the account balance (section 12(3) of the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act). In accordance with section 16 of the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act, the transfer of the claim registered in the special privatisation account was carried out on the basis of an order from the Federal Payment Bureau. In accordance with section 17 of the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act, payment of the purchase price in the privatisation process was executed at the moment the claim was transferred from the special privatisation account to the seller’s account. It is clear from these provisions that, after the transfer of foreign ‑ currency deposits to the special privatisation account, these accounts were managed by the Federal Payment Bureau and later by the [FBH Privatisation] Agency, and not by Ljubljana Bank Sarajevo or [LBL]. 35. ... In its judgment in the case of Propat and Others (CH/97/48 and Others) of 9   June 2000, the Human Rights Chamber took the view that, following the privatisation of banks, savers no longer had any claims against banks. It held that the relationship between the bank and the depositor did not remain unchanged with the entry into force of the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act. It found that banks no longer had any obligations towards depositors. The 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act also obliged them not to pay out these deposits for an undetermined period of time. The Constitutional Court sees no reason not to agree with the views of the Human Rights Chamber on the interpretation and effects of the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act. 36. In its assessment, the Constitutional Court must take into account that the Constitutional Court of the FBH, in judgment no. U-I-10/00 of 8 January 2001, found that sections 3, 7, 11 and 18 of the 1997 [Claims Settlement] Act were inconsistent with Article 1 of Protocol [No. 1 to the Convention] and the Constitution of the FBH. The Constitutional Court of the FBH thus declared unconstitutional the provisions establishing the FBH’s responsibility for resolving the issue of old foreign-currency deposits, the transfer of claims from foreign-currency accounts to special privatisation accounts, the opening of special privatisation accounts ex officio , the conversion of assets into certificates, and the possibility of using claims from special privatisation accounts in the privatisation process. However, the judgment did not provide any reasons for this decision, and, above all, the Constitutional Court of the FBH did not spec