CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } Published on 28 February 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 34450/19 BEOPUBLIKUM AD, BEOGRAD against Slovenia and 13 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications listed in the appended table concern the Bank of Slovenia’s extraordinary measures taken in 2013 or 2014 and leading to the cancellation of the shares held by the applicants or the applicant companies (hereinafter “the applicants”) in different banks (see the appended table) without any compensation. In 2016, the Constitutional Court found that the legal framework did not provide for effective proceedings in which the holders of the cancelled subordinated bonds or shares could challenge the Bank of Slovenia’s measures and seek compensation. On 22 November 2019 the National Assembly adopted the Act on Judicial Protection Procedure for Former Holders of Eligible Liabilities of Banks (“the 2020 Remedy Act”). Following a motion to review its compliance with the Constitution, the 2020 Remedy Act’s implementation was stayed by the Constitutional Court. On 28 January 2021, the Constitutional Court referred several questions with regard to the interpretation of the European Union law to the Court of Justice of the European Union and suspended the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. To date no decision has been taken by the Constitutional Court regarding the 2020 Remedy Act. The applicants consequently remain without a remedy that would allow them to challenge the Bank of Slovenia’s measures and seek compensation. In its judgment in Pintar and Others v. Slovenia (nos. 49969/14 and   4   others, 14 September 2021), which concerned the same issue as in the present applications, the Court found that the interference with the applicants’ possessions had not been accompanied by sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness and had thus not been lawful within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court furthermore found it unnecessary to ascertain whether the other requirements of that provision had been complied with and thus refrained from expressing any opinion as to whether the Bank of Slovenia’s measures had been in the general interest and, if so, whether a fair balance had been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community, and the protection of the applicants’ right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants in the present cases raise similar complaints as those in Pintar and Others . They complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the Bank of Slovenia’s measures divesting them of their shares, without compensation, had been disproportionate and arbitrary. They furthermore complain under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lack of an effective remedy or procedure to challenge the measures in question and to seek compensation. They point out that the legislation that would provide for an effective remedy for the protection of their property rights remains non-operational. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the interference with the applicants’ possessions been accompanied by sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pintar and Others v. Slovenia , nos. 49969/14 and 4 others, §§ 109-10, 14 September 2021)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth / Registration date Place of residence/seat Nationality   Representative’s name and location Shares affected by the Bank of Slovenia’s measure The Bank of Slovenia’s measure 1. 34450/19 Beopublikum AD, Beograd v. Slovenia 21/06/2019 BEOPUBLIKUM AD, BEOGRAD 1997 Beograd Serbian   No representative 5,705 shares in Bank NLB (NLB); 2,650 shares in Bank Celje (BCER) Bank NLB: 17/12/2013   Bank Celje: 16/12/2014 2. 35594/19 Lukša v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 Nikola LUKŠA 1973 Kamnik Slovenian   No representative 23 shares in Bank NKBM (KBMR) 17/12/2013 3. 35631/19 Zulich v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 Zinka ZULICH 1981 Kamnik Slovenian   No representative 23 shares in Bank NKBM (KBMR) 17/12/2013 4. 35635/19 Lucrator d.o.o. v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 LUCRATOR D.O.O. 2007 Ljubljana Slovenian   No representative 28 shares in Bank NLB (NLB) 17/12/2013 5. 35640/19 Taljat v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 Zvone TALJAT 1950 Dubai Slovenian   Non-legal representative: Sonja ZVER GABRIJELČIČ Vrhnika 75 shares in Bank NLB (NLB); 31,100 shares in Bank NKBM (KBMR) Bank NLB: 17/12/2013   Bank NKBM: 17/12/2013   6. 35795/19 Zver Gabrijelčič v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 Sonja ZVER GABRIJELČIČ 1969 Vrhnika Slovenian   No representative 68 shares in Bank NKBM (KBMR) 17/12/2013   7. 35881/19 Čendak v. Slovenia 05/07/2019 Dean ČENDAK 1968 Dubai Slovenian   Non-legal representative: Sonja ZVER GABRIJELČIČ Vrhnika 6 shares in Bank NLB (NLB); 9,627 shares in Bank NKBM (KBMR) Bank NLB: 17/12/2013   Bank NKBM: 17/12/2013   8. 36187/19 Gabrijelčič v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 Boštjan GABRIJELČIČ 1970 Vrhnika Slovenian   No representative 418 shares in Bank NKBM (KBMR) 17/12/2013   9. 36426/19 Publikum d.d. v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 PUBLIKUM D.D. 1991 Ljubljana Slovenian       No representative 1,968 shares in Bank NLB (NLB); 44,367 shares in Bank NKBM (KBMR); 21 shares in Bank Abanka Vita (ABKN) Bank NLB: 17/12/2013   Bank NKBM: 17/12/2013   Bank Abanka Vita: 17/12/2013 10. 36434/19 Publikum Holding, d.o.o. v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 PUBLIKUM HOLDING, D.O.O. 2001 Ljubljana Slovenian   No representative 16,063 shares in Bank NLB (NLB) 17/12/2013 11. 36602/19 Publikum Trezor, d.o.o. v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 PUBLIKUM TREZOR, D.O.O. 1997 Ljubljana Slovenian   No representative   21,938 shares in Bank NLB (NLB); 29,967 shares in Bank NKBM (KBMR) Bank NLB: 17/12/2013   Bank NKBM: 17/12/2013     12. 36609/19 Publikum Korpfin, d.o.o. v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 PUBLIKUM KORPFIN, D.O.O. 2008 Ljubljana Slovenian   No representative 10,000 shares in Bank NLB (NLB) 17/12/2013 13. 36613/19 Publikum Fin, d.o.o. v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 PUBLIKUM FIN, D.O.O. 1994 Ljubljana Slovenian   No representative 8,411 shares in Bank NLB (NLB) 17/12/2013 14. 36621/19 Mavko v. Slovenia 03/06/2019 Aleksander MAVKO 1979 Ljubljana Slovenian   No representative 22 shares in Bank NKBM (KBMR) 17/12/2013