CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2023

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s63CB6D7 { width:18.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA92D6C5B { width:27.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBF28E724 { width:28.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBB07DB2D { width:17.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7ECC7F1 { width:18.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB8412798 { width:27.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s58ED0476 { width:28.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s452EA0AD { width:17.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 6 February 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 45987/22 Kata LANDIKA and Others against Slovenia lodged on 23 September 2022 communicated on 20 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application concerns “old” foreign-currency savings in the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka (for the relevant background see Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   [GC], no.   60642/08, §§   12   -   52, ECHR 2014), which were, following the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the enactment of the 1997 Claims Settlement Act in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the FBH”), transferred to a privatisation account administered by the relevant authorities of the FBH. The transfer appeared to have taken place ex lege for the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina who resided there on 28   November 1997. Following the amendments of the 1997 Claims Settlement Act in 2003, the savers with unused claims on the privatisation account had had, under section 20a of the amended 1997 Claims Settlement Act, a right to request their transfer back to their bank account, but that option was cancelled the following year. Subsequent legislative changes in Bosnia and Hercegovina expressly excluded its liability for savings in, inter alia , the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska   Banka. The applicants’ predecessor (husband and father), L., had “old” foreign ‑ currency savings in the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka, which at the relevant time amounted to over 6,000 Swiss franc. Neither he nor the applicants have recovered any of these savings or used them in the privatisation process. On 16 July 2014 the Grand Chamber adopted a pilot judgment regarding “old” foreign-currency savings in, inter alia , the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka ( Ališić and Others , cited above). It found, in respect of Slovenia, a breach of Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and held that Slovenia should make all necessary arrangements in order to allow the respective 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., § 146). The Grand Chamber held that Slovenia might exclude from its repayment scheme those who had already been paid their entire “old” foreign-currency savings, such as those who used them in the privatisation process in the FBH (ibid., §147). On 4 July 2015 the Act on the Implementation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case no. 60642/08 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ališić Implementation Act”) entered into force. Relying on its provisions, L. made a request for verification with a view to recover his “old” foreign-currency savings. The Succession Fund of Slovenia rejected his request relying on section 2(2) of the Ališić Implementation Act (see Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08 , § 4, 4 April 2017). It found that the savings which had been transferred to the privatisation account were excluded from the repayment scheme. L. and, after his passing, the applicants challenged that decision before the domestic courts including, ultimately, the Constitutional Court. On 5 May 2022 the latter delivered decision Up-960/20, finding, with six votes against two, that the applicants’ constitutional complaint should not be accepted for consideration. The majority opined that in Ališić and Others (cited above) the Grand Chamber had not addressed the situation such as the one in the present case because the savings of the applicants in that case had not been transferred to a privatisation account. It further found that the exclusion of the savers whose savings in the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka had been transferred to the privation account was irreproachable from the perspective of the right to property. It stressed that the debtor-creditor relationship between L. and the bank had ceased to exist on the basis of the FBH’s action – that is the transfer of the savings to the privatisation account – and not the actions of the Ljubljanska Banka or Slovenia. Relying on Ališić and Others (cited above) the applicants complain that they have been unable to recover L.s’ “old” foreign-currency savings, alleging a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. About fifty similar applications are currently pending before the Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the applicants’ inability to recover L.’s “old” foreign-currency savings deposited with the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka?   2.     In particular, does section 2(2) of the   Ališić Implementation Act and its interpretation by the domestic courts in the present case comply with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, having regard to the Court’s findings in Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   [GC], no.   60642/08, §§ 109-125, and 146-147 ECHR 2014?   3.     Have the applicants been made to bear a disproportionate burden in view of the fact that L. had not consented to the transfer of the “old” foreign ‑ currency savings to the privatisation account and did not use those savings in the privatisation process or got them repaid in any other way?     Application no. 45987/22 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Kata LANDIKA 1941 of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bugojno 2. Demian Jugo LANDIKA 1964 of Bosnia and Herzegovina Mostar 3. Vjekoslav LANDIKA 1971 of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bugojno