CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 8 avril 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE702EAAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sA5F3A8BC { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sACC1C168 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:12pt } .sF503AF03 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8BDEFEBE { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6608A856 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s50C1E4BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:center } .sFA69E7E8 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt; font-size:12pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 183 8.4.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   ADMISSIBILITY DECISION IN THE CASE OF KOVAČIĆ AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA   A Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has declared admissible the case of Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia (application no. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99). The Court’s admissibility decision, which has been made public today, is available only in English. The press release and copy of the decision are available on the Court’s Internet site: http://www.echr.coe.int   The applicants The case concerns three applications brought by Croatian nationals, in particular Ivo Kovačić. Summary of the facts Before the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“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 (“the NBY”) 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 have 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 these 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 with accrued interest, and 140,000 investors appear to be involved. Procedure 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 Convention and Rule 61 § 3 of the Rules of Court. A Chamber hearing on the admissibility and merits in the present cases was held on 9   October 2004. After the deliberations, which were held in private, the Court unanimously declared the applications admissible. Complaints The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights that the fact that they have not been able to withdraw their foreign-currency savings plus accrued interest from the Ljubljana Bank – Zagreb Main Branch amounts to a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Mr Kovačić also complains that he has been discriminated against on grounds of nationality, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, as he maintains that Slovenian customers of the Zagreb branch have been allowed to withdraw their savings.   The admissibility issues [1] The Slovenian Government disputed the admissibility of the present case on several grounds. - Firstly, the Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints did not come within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis, as they related to events which took place before 28 June 1994, the date on which the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia. The Court observed that the Republic of Slovenia continued to legislate on the matter after 28 June 1994, when the Convention and Protocol No. 1 entered into force in respect of Slovenia, notably by introducing amendments to the 1991 Constitutional Law on 27 July 1994. The 1994 Constitutional Law restructured the Ljubljana Bank into two separate legal entities, the Ljubljana Bank and the New Ljubljana Bank. The latter took over the Ljubljana Bank’s assets and liabilities on Slovenian territory. The original Ljubljana Bank retained, among other things, full liability in respect of the foreign-currency accounts that were not guaranteed by the Republic of Slovenia. Moreover, when ruling on a constitutional initiative challenging the 1994 Constitutional Law, the Constitutional Court gave a decision leaving that law intact. - Secondly, the Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic legal remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The Court noted that the Constitutional Court had ruled on 11   April 1996 that it had had no jurisdiction to review the provisions of that Act. It therefore appeared that the 1994 Constitutional Law could not be challenged as such in the Slovenian courts, owing to its constitutional nature. - Thirdly, the Government alleged non-compliance with the six-month rule. In the Court’s view, the question as to whether or not the applicants had lodged their application within the six-month time-limit set by Article 35 could not be separated from issues relating to the merits of their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Hence, to avoid prejudging the latter issue, both questions should be examined together. Accordingly, the Court joined the question of compliance with the six-month rule to the merits and reserved it for later consideration. - Fourthly, the Government argued that the Court had no jurisdiction ratione loci to hear the complaints in so far as the matters complained of occurred outside its territory. The Court found that the 1994 Constitutional Law provided that the Ljubljana Bank should retain, among other things, liability in respect of the foreign-currency accounts that were not guaranteed by the Republic of Slovenia, that is, those not held with the banks on Slovenian territory and that the Ljubljana Bank was to maintain its links with its branches and subsidiaries based in the other Republics of the SFRY, while retaining the corresponding share of claims against the NBY. The law related therefore to foreign-currency accounts opened with the Ljubljana Bank’s branches situated outside Slovenian territory, such as those held by the three applicants. Therefore, without prejudice to its ultimate findings on the merits, the Court found that this plea of inadmissibility must be dismissed. - Fifthly, the Government argued that the complaints were inadmissible, its authorities not being responsible for possible violations in the present cases, and that the applicants could not claim to be victims of the alleged violations. The Court found that the 1994 Constitutional Law affected the applicants and continued to do so. - Sixthly, the Government claimed that the applications were substantially the same as the matter submitted to the International Monetary Fund (“the IMF”) for arbitration and the Bank for International Settlement (“the BIS”) for mediation. The Court held that even assuming that arbitration proceedings before the IMF and mediation proceedings under the auspices of the BIS in the framework of succession negotiations were pending and that their subject-matter were the same as that in the present cases, the parties to the IMF and BIS proceedings were not the same as those to the proceedings before the Court. - Finally, as to the matter of compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 raised by all three applicants and with Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1 raised solely by Mr Kovačić, the Court found that the applications could not be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.     *** Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92) Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91 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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.