CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 octobre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 145 October 2011 Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (dec.) - 60642/08 Decision 17.10.2011 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Inability to recover “old” foreign-currency savings following dissolution of former SFRY: admissible   Facts – The applicants deposited their foreign-currency savings with two banks in what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina: the Ljubljanska banka Sarajevo and the Tuzla branch of the Investbanka. Following the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), they have been unable to recover their deposits. This is one of a large number of applications concerning matters of “old” foreign-currency savings following the dissolution of the former SFRY. Law – Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, alone and in conjunction with Articles   13 and   14 of the Convention: The Slovenian and Serbian Governments firstly argued that the applicants had no “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. However, the Court held that the applicants’ claims subsisted since they had not been extinguished by the legislation of the respective successor States. Moreover, the States had accepted that the “old” foreign-currency savings formed part of the financial liabilities of the former SFRY which they should divide, as they had done with its other liabilities and assets. Finally, the States had clearly demonstrated their unequivocal commitment to ensuring that persons in the situation of the applicants obtained payment of their “old” foreign-currency savings in one way or another. The Court therefore dismissed the Governments’ objections concerning incompatibility ratione materiae . The case was further declared admissible ratione personae , loci and temporis , whereas the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies was joined to the merits. Conclusion : admissible (majority).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes