CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 mars 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 206 April 2017 Muratović v. Serbia (dec.) - 41698/06 Decision 21.3.2017 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Requirement to use remedy introduced by Ališić Implementation Acts in Serbia and Slovenia: inadmissible [This summary also covers the decision in the case of Hodžić v. Slovenia , 3461/08, 4   April 2017.] Facts – Prior to the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“SFRY”), Mr   Muratović had deposited foreign currency in the Tuzla branch of Investbanka and Mr   Hodžić in the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana. Before the European Court they complained that they had been unable to withdraw their savings. On 16 July 2014 the Grand Chamber adopted a pilot judgment* regarding “old” foreign-currency savings in the foreign branches of Investbanka and Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana. It found a breach of Article   13 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 in respect of Serbia and Slovenia and held that both States should make all necessary arrangements, including legislative amendments, to allow relevant persons to recover their savings. Both Serbia and Slovenia subsequently introduced legislation intended to implement the requirements of the Ališić judgment.** Under the legislation they each undertook to pay all unpaid “old” foreign-currency savings of citizens of other SFRY successor States deposited in their banks, as well as all such savings of their own citizens in foreign branches of their banks, together with accrued interest up until a cut-off date. In order that the actual amounts due could be assessed, those concerned had to lodge a request for verification by a set date (23   February 2018 for Serbia, 31   December 2017 for Slovenia). Law – Article 35: An assessment of whether domestic remedies had been exhausted was normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court. However, that rule was subject to exceptions. Among such exceptions were situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State had made available a specific remedy to redress at the domestic level grievances of persons in a similar situation. The implementing legislation in both States met the criteria set out in the pilot judgment. Consequently, and as it was justified to apply the exception to the principle on exhaustion of domestic remedies, the present applicants and all others in their position had to use the remedy introduced by that legislation, namely, a request for verification. Should they do so within the specified time-limits and ultimately be unsuccessful, it would be open to them to lodge a fresh application with the Court within a period of six months from the date on which the final domestic decision was taken. The Court pointed out that it was ready to change its approach as to the potential effectiveness of the remedy in question, should the practice of the domestic authorities show, in the long run, that savers were being refused on formalistic grounds, that verification proceedings were excessively long or that domestic case-law was not in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. Any such future review would involve determining whether the national authorities had applied the implementing legislation in a manner that was in conformity with the pilot judgment and the Convention standards in general. Conclusion : inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies). *     Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], 60642/08, 16   July 2014, Information Note   176 . **     In Serbia, the Ališić Implementation Act (“ Zakon o regulisanju javnog duga Republike Srbije po osnovu neisplaćene devizne štednje građana položene kod banaka čije je sedište na teritoriji Republike Srbije i njihovim filijalama na teritorijama bivših republika SFRJ ”), which entered into force on 30   December 2016; and in Slovenia, the Act on the Implementation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case no.   60642/08 (“ Zakon o načinu izvršitve sodbe evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice v zadevi številka 60642/08 ”), which entered into force on 4   July 2015.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes