CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 28 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 35144/24 Maria Teresa CECCHETTI against San Marino and 9 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 11 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ inability to recover their assets (consisting of sums ranging from around 3,000 to 700,000 euros) originally held in Banca CIS after the latter’s compulsory liquidation in 2019. As a result of a series of measures, including legislative ones, taken by the authorities and the progressive taking over of Banca CIS by various entities, after an initial freezing of the account holders’ assets for six months to avoid further disruption to the banking system, the applicants’ funds became unavailable for a number of years. In particular, according to a specific resolution adopted in 2019, account holders were to receive back their funds if they amounted to less than 100,000 euros (EUR) without any loss of value. For funds in excess of that sum, they would be converted to bank obligations retrievable according to a certain schedule, namely, for assets between EUR   100,000 and 300,000, within three years, and for those assets in excess of EUR 300,000 (up to 1 million), within five years, during which time a yield rate of 0.15% and 0.25% respectively would apply. By means of Law no. 168 of 2022, on 22 July 2024 when the applicants should have recovered their assets which were redeemable in 2024 (namely those in excess of EUR 300,000 which were to be redeemed within five years running from 2019) were transformed into State bonds (at a yield rate of 1.5%) which would be redeemable only in 2037. The applicants were informed of this indirectly. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicants complained about Law no. 168 of 2022 and their consequent inability to retrieve or transfer their assets for a further thirteen years (until 2037) after the initial wait until 2024. In particular they considered that they had had a legitimate expectation to recover their funds (in excess of EUR 300,000) in 2024. Instead, they were faced with a measure which had not been in accordance with a law of sufficient quality and had imposed a disproportionate burden on them, not only because of its duration (following the initial five years) but also because the value of those assets had diminished by 36   %. The applicants noted that such a course of action had not occurred in similar situations with other banks, where assets had been refunded to the account holders without similar complications. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the interference with the applicants’ possessions, as of 22 July 2024, pursuant to Law no. 168 of 2022, in accordance with a law of sufficient quality, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for example, Suljagić v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina , no.   27912/02, § 56, 3 November 2009; Project ‑ Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia , no.   1920/14, § 80-88, 19 November 2020; and Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, § 139, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts))?   2.     If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? Did it strike a fair balance between any general interest of the community and the right of property of the applicants, or did it impose an excessive individual burden on them (see for example, Trajkovski v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no.   53320/99, 7 March 2002 , and Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 124, ECHR 2014)?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 35144/24 Cecchetti v. San Marino 21/11/2024 Maria Teresa CECCHETTI 1953 Domagnano San Marinese 2. 35408/24 Apicella v. San Marino 21/11/2024 Vincenzo APICELLA 1958 Fiorentino San Marinese 3. 35409/24 Bonini v. San Marino 21/11/2024 Ermes BONINI 1956 Borgo Maggiore Italian 4. 35410/24 Cecchetti v. San Marino 21/11/2024 Giovanna CECCHETTI 1968 Borgo Maggiore San Marinese 5. 35411/24 Fabbri v. San Marino 21/11/2024 Nensi FABBRI 1956 Falciano Italian 6. 35412/24 Forcellini v. San Marino 21/11/2024 Danilo FORCELLINI 1964 Serravalle San Marinese 7. 35413/24 Forcellini v. San Marino 21/11/2024 Giuseppe FORCELLINI 1941 Serravalle San Marinese 8. 35414/24 Giavolucci v. San Marino 21/11/2024 Fabio GIAVOLUCCI 1956 RICCIONE Italian 9. 35415/24 Giovannini v. San Marino 21/11/2024 Loredana GIOVANNINI 1951 Borgo Maggiore San Marinese 10. 35416/24 Guidi v. San Marino 21/11/2024 Mary GUIDI 1964 Dogana San Marinese