CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Published on 30 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16750/22 Igor TALJAT against Slovenia lodged on 23 March 2022 communicated on 10 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Bank of Slovenia’s extraordinary measures taken in 2013 and leading to the cancellation of 209 shares (“NLB” shares) held by the applicant in the Nova Ljubljanska Bank, without any compensation. In 2016, the Constitutional Court found that the legal framework did not provide for effective proceedings in which the holders of the cancelled shares could challenge the Bank of Slovenia’s measures and seek compensation. It instructed the legislator to remedy the deficiencies in the existing procedure (see Pintar and Others v. Slovenia , nos. 49969/14 and 4   others, §§ 38-44, 14   September 2021). In its judgment in Pintar and Others (cited above), which concerned the same issue as the present application, the Court noted that the Constitutional Court’s 2016 decision remained unimplemented in practice, leaving the former holders of cancelled shares without a remedy that would allow them to challenge the Bank of Slovenia’s measures. The applicant in the present case raises similar complaints as those in Pintar and Others . Invoking Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains about the Bank of Slovenia’s measures which led to the cancellation of his shares and the continuous absence of any effective means to challenge these measures and seek compensation. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the interference with the applicant’s possessions been accompanied by sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Pintar and Others v.   Slovenia , nos. 49969/14 and 4 others, §§ 109-10, 14 September 2021)?