CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 novembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s1E59FF54 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s35F1F2CB { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s995BFA6B { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE24C0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   667 6.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KOVACIC and OTHERS v. SLOVENIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1]   in the case of Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia (application no. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99), which concerned the freezing of foreign currency savings accounts in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY).   The Court unanimously decided to strike out the case on the grounds that two of the applicants had received payment in full of their foreign currency deposits and that it was still open to the third applicant to bring proceedings in Croatia.   (The judgment is available in English and in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are three Croatian nationals. Ivo Kovačić (now deceased) was born in 1922 and lived in Zagreb. Marjan Mrkonjić was born in 1941 and lives in Zurich. Dolores Golubović (now deceased) was born in 1922 and lived in Karlovac (Croatia). The Court accepted that the applications of Mr Kovačić and Ms Golubović could be pursued by their heirs. Before the dissolution of the SFRY in 1991, the applicants or their relatives all deposited hard foreign currencies in savings accounts with the office of a Slovenian bank – the Ljubljana Bank ( Ljubljanska banka ) – in Zagreb (Croatia). Funds in hard foreign currencies deposited with commercial banks in the SFRY were in general transferred to the National Bank of Yugoslavia in Belgrade in accordance with the legislation applicable at the time. Accounts in hard foreign currency were guaranteed by the SFRY. Owing to the monetary crisis, withdrawal of hard foreign currency from such so-called “old savings accounts” was progressively restricted by legislation enacted during the 1980s and the early 1990s. Since then the applicants or their relatives had generally been unable to gain access to the money in their accounts. Since Slovenia and Croatia became independent in 1991, Croatia has taken the view that it is either the Ljubljana Bank or the Slovenian State which should meet the liabilities owed to customers of the Croatian branch. However, Slovenia considers that those liabilities should be divided under the succession arrangements among the five States formed from the dissolved SFRY. The total amount of savings in strong foreign currencies deposited with the Croatian branch of the Slovenian bank has been estimated at approximately 150,000,000 euros (EUR) with accrued interest, and 140,000 investors appear to be involved. On 29 June 2001 in Vienna the successor States signed the Agreement on Succession Issues; it entered into force on 2 June 2004. In 2003, after a change of legislation in Croatia, 42 individuals, including Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić, lodged requests for the seizure and sale of real estate owned by the Ljubljana Bank in Croatia. In the course of those proceedings, the Zagreb Main Branch’s assets were liquidated. As a result, Mr Kovačić was awarded DEM 49,794.30 (EUR 25,459.42) plus interest and Mr Mrkonjić was awarded 180,515.72 Croatian kunas (EUR 24,728). Both were awarded costs for the enforcement proceedings. They lodged an appeal against that decision in respect of the court fees. On 8 April 2005 Osijek Court of First Instance issued a new decision on the division of the proceeds of sale. Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić lodged an appeal against that decision. On 7 July 2005 Osijek Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On 20 July 2005 Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić received payment of their foreign-currency deposits in full.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged on 17 July 1998, 2 June 1998 and 24 December 1998, respectively. On 21   May 2001 the Court granted the Croatian Government leave to take part in the proceedings, in accordance with Article 36 § 2 (third party intervention) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Rule 61 § 3 of the Rules of Court. A Chamber hearing on the admissibility and merits of the cases was held on 9   October 2003. After the deliberations, which were held in private, the Court unanimously declared the applications admissible. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Georg Ress (German), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss [2] ), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), John Hedigan (Irish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints The applicants complained that they had not been able to withdraw foreign currency, which they had deposited before the dissolution of the SFRY, from the Ljubljana Bank – Zagreb   Main Branch. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property). They claimed that the Ljubljana Bank or Slovenia, as a successor State which had assumed the SFRY’s guarantee obligations for foreign-currency savings on the break-up of Yugoslavia, should repay them the money deposited with accrued interest.   Mr Kovačić also complained that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of nationality, in that Slovenian account holders of the Zagreb branch had been allowed to withdraw their savings. He relied on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14   The Court observed that it was clear that Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić had received payment in full of their foreign currency deposits; in their cases, therefore, the matter in question had been resolved.   Concerning the matter of costs and expenses, neither Mr   Kovačić (nor his heirs) nor Mr Mrkonjić had specified their claims within the time allowed. Consequently, the court made no such award.   As to Ms Golubović, the Court considered that in cases in which liability for a former State’s debt was disputed by the successor States, a claimant could reasonably be expected to seek redress where other claimants had been successful. For reasons which remained unexplained, Ms Golubović (and her heir) had taken no action in Croatia, although she would have been likely to have been successful had she done so. In any event, it was still open to her heir to bring proceedings in Croatia.   As to the matter of just satisfaction, Ms Golubović did not specify her claims within the prescribed time-limit.   In view of those circumstances and of its conclusion concerning the applicants Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of Ms Golubović’s application.   Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols did not require it at present to continue the examination of the applications.     Consequently, the Court decided to strike out all three cases.   ***   The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).       Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.