CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 octobre 2008

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   675 30.9.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT   3 October 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on Friday 3 October 2008 at 9.30 a.m. (local time) to deliver its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia (application nos.   44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99)   The press release and the text of the judgment will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia   The applicants are three Croatian nationals: Ivo Kovačić (now deceased), who was born in 1922 and lived in Zagreb; Marjan Mrkonjić, who was born in 1941 and lives in Zurich; and Dolores Golubović (now deceased), who was born in 1922 and lived in Karlovac (Croatia). Mr Kovačić’s and Ms Golubović’s applications have been taken up by their heirs.   The applications concern the freezing of the applicants’ hard-currency savings accounts at the Zagreb office of a Slovenian bank, the Ljubljana Bank ( Ljubljanska banka ), prior to the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) in 1991.   The applicants and their relatives had previously deposited foreign currencies in savings accounts with the Ljubljana Bank’s Zagreb office (in Croatia). Some of them also held term accounts which matured in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The system in operation at the time was that foreign-currency deposits at SFRY commercial banks were transferred to the National Bank of Yugoslavia in Belgrade (“NBY”). Foreign-currency accounts earned interest at rates of 10% or even higher and were guaranteed by the 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.   In 1991 foreign-currency claims of commercial banks against the NBY amounting to approximately 12,000,000,000 US dollars (USD) were frozen. Almost all the applicants’ attempts to withdraw the money from their accounts failed.   Since 1991, the year Slovenia and Croatia became independent, Croatia considers that liability for the debts owed to the customers of the Croatian branch of the Ljubljana Bank should be assumed by that bank or by the Slovenian State, whereas Slovenia has taken 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 Mr Kovačić and Mr   Mrkonjić, lodged requests for the seizure and sale of real estate owned by the Ljubljana Bank in Croatia. This resulted in the Zagreb main branch’s assets being liquidated. Mr Kovačić was awarded EUR   39,905 out of the proceeds and Mr   Mrkonjić EUR   24,728.   On 20 July 2005 Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić received payment of their foreign-currency deposits in full together with their legal costs.   Ms Golubović did not bring proceedings in Croatia to recoup her foreign currency savings. She said that she had been advised by a bank official that, although the Croatian courts had jurisdiction, judgments were not being enforced owing to a lack of funds. In 2007 her heir issued proceedings in Croatia which are still pending.   The applicants or their heirs complain that they were not able to withdraw their foreign currency savings from the Zagreb   main branch of the Ljubljana Bank. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (right to property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Mr Kovačić also complains that he has been discriminated against on the grounds of nationality, in that Slovenian account holders of the Zagreb branch were allowed to withdraw their savings. He relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   The case has been referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 [1] of the Convention.     *** Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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 Convention, 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.