CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mai 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4E54192F { width:299.17pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   14 May 2009     SECOND SECTION Application no. 43040/06 by Smiljka MALEŠEVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 23 October 2006   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Smiljka Malešević, is a Serbian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Paris. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. By the late 1990s the applicant had deposited a total of 42,000 French Francs for a fixed period of time with the Privredna Bank Beograd AD, the interest rate having initially been stipulated at 12.5% annually. On an unspecified date thereafter the bank in question refused to release the applicant’s funds or even to apply the interest rate stipulated. Following the financial collapse of numerous banks in Serbia, in 1998 and 2002 the respondent State adopted specific legislation accepting to convert the foreign currency deposits in these banks, including the bank here at issue, into a public debt and then went on to set the time-frame (2016) and the amounts, including interest, to be paid back to their former clients. This legislation, inter alia , also explicitly provided that any foreign currency-related judicial proceedings were to be discontinued and noted that Serbian citizens living abroad, i.e. those living outside of the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, were also entitled to benefit from it (for details concerning the relevant domestic law see Šekerović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 32472/03, 4 January 2006, at sections B.1 and B.2). COMPLAINT The applicant complains about the continuing refusal of the respondent State to release all of her foreign currency deposits together with the interest originally stipulated. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Is the applicant’s complaint compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione temporis , in view of the fact that it concerns the content of domestic legislation adopted prior to the ratification of the Convention and Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the respondent Government? 2.     Has there been a violation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of this provision in that the applicant cannot access and/or otherwise freely use (effectively enjoy) her foreign currency savings together with the interest originally stipulated (see, mutatis mutandis , Trajkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ IV)?