Skip to main content

The content of this website has been moved to www.gov.si, the state administration's main website published on 1 July 2019.
For more recent information visit www.gov.si.

NEWS

The Final Judgement of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia Concerning the Implementation of the Act on the Method of Execution of the Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (the Act)

The Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter: the Administrative Court) issued a judgement in case no. I U 805 / 2017-27 of 24th April 2018, in which the action which was brought by the plaintiff, a former saver at Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana, Sarajevo Main Branch, in the administrative dispute against the Succession Fund of the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter: the Fund) was rejected. The Administrative Court found the Fund’s decision, whereby the plaintiff’s request for verification was rejected, to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act on the Method of Execution of the Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in case no. 60642/08 on 17th March 2017 (hereinafter: the Act). The plaintiff had transferred all funds from his foreign-currency savings account, held with the Ljubljanska banka Sarajevo, to his special privatization account at the Agency of Privatization of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The judgement is final.

 

In the judgement in question, the Administrative Court took the stand that the contested decision of the Fund was correct and justified in accordance with the provisions of the Act, on which it was based. The Administrative Court also agreed with its reasoning. In this regard, the Administrative Court undisputedly confirmed that the fact that the plaintiff’s foreign-currency savings were transferred to a special account for the purposes of special use on the basis of the relevant legislation, adopted by the state, in which the Sarajevo Main Branch operated, does not imply that such a transfer would lead only to a subsidiary liability of Bosnia and Herzegovina as regards the payment of the disputed claim. In accordance with the above, due to this transfer, the claim of the plaintiff towards the Sarajevo Main Branch, regarding his old foreign-currency savings, ceased, which also excludes the obligation of repayment of Ljubljanska banka dd. Ljubljana, and consequently the obligation of the Republic of Slovenia, who for the purpose of executing the ECHR judgement in the Ališić case, had undertaken to assume this obligation of repayment.

 

Futhermore, as regards the Ališić judgement, the Administrative Court concluded that the position of the complainants Ališić and Sadžak differs essentially from the position of the plaintiff in the present case, since, unlike the plaintiff, the complainants did not use their old foreign-currency savings in the privatization process.

 

Regarding the content of Article 2 of the ECtHR, on which the contested decision of the Fund is based, the Administrative Court also found that the legal provision in question is not inconsistent with the judgement in the Ališić case, since after the transfer of the plaintiff’s foreign-currency savings to the special privatization account, the claims of the plaintiff towards the Sarajevo Main Branch ceased in this respect.

 

 

Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia on the Implementation of  the Act

 

In March 2018, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter: the Constitutional Court) ruled in four cases relating to the assessment of the Act on the Method of Execution of the Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in case no. 60642/08 (the Act).

 

In case no. UI-44 / 17-10, the Constitutional Court rejected on procedural grounds the petition to initiate the review of the constitutionality of the second paragraph of Article 2, Article 3 and the third paragraph of Article 6 of the Act, because they were allegedly inconsistent with Articles 14, 23, 33 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. In cases no. UI-10 / 18-6, UI-7 / 18-9 and UI-32 / 18-7, the Constitutional Court also rejected the constitutional appeals of the plaintiffs, as well as their petitions to initiate the review of the constitutionality of the second paragraph of Article 2 and Article 3 of the Act on procedural grounds. In all of the above-stated cases, there was no legal interest according to Article 24 of the Constitutional Court Act for lodging such a legal remedy.