CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 octobre 2008

.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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 112 October 2008 Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC] - 45133/98, 44574/98 and 48316/99 Judgment 3.10.2008 [GC] Article 37 Article 37-1 Striking out applications Claims either satisfied or still pending at national level: struck out Facts : The applicants were three Croatian nationals, who had previously deposited foreign currencies in savings accounts with the Ljubljana Bank’s Zagreb office in Croatia. The system in operation at the time was that foreign-currency deposits at former Yugoslav commercial banks were transferred to the National Bank of Yugoslavia in Belgrade. Foreign-currency accounts earned interest at rates of 10% or even higher and were guaranteed by the former Yugoslav State (“SFRY”). However, as an emergency response to the hyper-inflation suffered by the SFRY in the 1980s, the withdrawal of foreign currency was progressively restricted by legislation and in 1988 the Ljubljana Bank froze all its foreign-currency accounts. Almost all the applicants’ attempts to withdraw the money from their accounts failed. The applicants and the Croatian Government considered that since 1991, the year Slovenia and Croatia became independent, liability for the debts owed to the customers of the Croatian branch of the Ljubljana Bank should have been assumed by that bank or by the Slovenian State. Conversely, the Slovenian Government took the view that they should be divided among the successor States to the SFRY under the State succession arrangements. In 2003, 42 account holders, including the first and second applicants, lodged applications in Croatia for the seizure and sale of real estate owned by the Ljubljana Bank on Croatian territory. This resulted in the Zagreb Main Branch’s assets being liquidated. In July 2005 the first and second applicants received full payment of their savings deposits together with their legal costs. The third applicant did not bring proceedings in Croatia to recoup her foreign currency savings. However, in 2007 her heir brought an action in the Croatian courts for the recovery of her foreign-currency savings accounts plus interest. At the time of the Court’s judgment, those proceedings were still pending in the Zagreb Municipal Court. Law : It was noted as a preliminary point that the applicants, the respondent Government and the intervening Government had in effect requested the Court to go into a number of issues pertaining to the circumstances of the break-up of the SFRY, its banking system and those of the successor States and the redistribution of liability for old foreign-currency savings among the successor States of the SFRY. The Court observed at the outset that it had received applications from individuals who had been affected by those matters and that several thousand such applications were currently pending against all of the SFRY successor States Parties to the Convention. Even though such issues fell within the Court’s jurisdiction as defined in Article 32 of the Convention, the Court could only subscribe to the view of the Parliamentary Assembly in Resolution 1410 (2004) that the matter of compensation for so many thousands of individuals had to be solved by agreement between the successor States. In that respect, the Court noted that several rounds of negotiations had already been held between the successor States, at different levels, with a view to reaching an agreement on the solution of the issues which remained unsettled. It called on the States concerned to proceed with these negotiations as a matter of urgency, with a view to reaching an early resolution of the problem. The Court noted that it was common ground that Mr Kovačić’s heirs and Mr Mrkonjić had received the full amount of their foreign-currency deposits plus accrued interest. As regards them, the matter had therefore been resolved. The Court further noted the special circumstances of Mrs Golubović’s case, which were the consequence of the break-up of the SFRY, its banking system and, ultimately, the redistribution of liability for old foreign-currency savings among the successor States of the SFRY. In such a context, the Court considered that claimants could reasonably be expected to seek redress in fora of one of the successor States where other claimants had been successful. It noted in that respect that Mrs Golubović’s heir had recently brought proceedings in Croatia with a view to recovering his late aunt’s foreign-currency savings with interest. These proceedings were still pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court. Furthermore, the Court found no justification for continuing with the examination of a case where proceedings were simultaneously pending in a court of a Contracting Party to recover foreign-currency deposits which were the very subject-matter of the application. Being satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols did not require it to continue the examination of the applications, it decided to strike the cases out of its list. Conclusion : strike out (unanimously).   © 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