Přehled
Rozhodnutí
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications nos. 34479/06, 43036/06 and 43040/06
by Žarko SIMIĆ, Vid MALEŠEVIĆ and Smiljka MALEŠEVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 December 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
András Sajó, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Žarko Simić (“the first applicant”), Mr Vid Malešević (“the second applicant”) and Ms Smiljka Malešević (“the third applicant”) are all Serbian citizens who were born in 1958, 1935 and 1938, respectively. The first applicant lives in Kragujevac and was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ribarić, a lawyer practising in the same town. The other two applicants live in Paris and were represented before the Court by Mr W. Bourdon, a lawyer practising in the same town. The Government of Serbia (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background of the cases
Following the financial collapse of numerous banks in Serbia, in 1998 and 2002 the respondent State adopted specific legislation accepting to convert the foreign currency deposits in these banks, including the banks here at issue, into a public debt and then went on to set the time-frame (2016) and the amounts, including interest, to be paid back to their former clients. This legislation, inter alia, also explicitly provided that Serbian citizens living abroad, i.e. those living outside of the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, were also entitled to benefit from it.
2. As regards the first applicant
On 1 March 1987 the applicant’s father deposited an unspecified amount of German Marks for a fixed period of time with the Jugobanka - Kragujevac, the interest rate having been stipulated at 7.25% annually.
It would appear that by 1 April 1992 the applicant’s father had a total of 41,900 German Marks on the account in question.
After the expiration of the fixed-period deposit contract, in 1993 the bank appears to have refused to release his funds or even to apply the interest rate initially stipulated.
On an unspecified date thereafter, the applicant’s father died and the applicant became his sole successor.
Just like his father, however, the applicant was unable to withdraw or otherwise freely use his foreign currency savings.
On 16 June 2003 the applicant had 26,887.49 Euros converted into Government bonds, having in the meantime been paid back a total of 3,978 Euros in accordance with the said legislation.
There is no information that the applicant had received any payments thereafter.
3. As regards the second and third applicants
By the late 1990s the second applicant had a total of 143,000 Swiss Francs, 53,000 German Marks, and 39,000 French Francs deposited for a fixed period of time with the Privredna Bank Beograd AD, the interest rate having initially been stipulated at 11% annually. By the same time, the third applicant had deposited a total of 42,000 French Francs for a fixed period of time with the Privredna Bank Beograd AD, the interest rate having initially been stipulated at 12.5% annually.
On an unspecified date thereafter the bank in question refused to release the applicants’ funds or even to apply the interest rate stipulated.
It would appear that, following the adoption of the relevant legislation, the first applicant converted his foreign currency savings deposited in two other banks into public debt in August 2003. However, none of the applicants requested the conversion of the foreign currency savings deposited with the Privredna Bank Beograd AD.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law is set out in the Court’s decision of Šekerović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 32472/03, 4 January 2006, at sections B.1 and B.2.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.
Without invoking a specific Article of the Convention or Protocols thereto, all applicants complain about the continuing refusal of the respondent State to release all of their foreign currency deposits instantaneously, together with the interest originally stipulated.
The Court considers that the applicants’ complaints fall to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints were incompatible ratione temporis or ratione personae, as well as that they had not exhausted all effective domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Alternatively, they contended that there had been no violation of Convention or of the Protocols thereto. The applicants disagreed with the Government’s admissibility objections and reaffirmed their complaints.
In view of its conclusion below, the Court considers that it is neither necessary to examine the compatibility of the complaints ratione temporis and ratione personae, nor the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicants.
The Court has already considered identical legal issues in Molnar Gabor v. Serbia (no. 22762/05, §§ 43-51, 8 December 2009), in which it found, inter alia, no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It has held that, given the dire reality of the Serbian economy at the relevant time and the wide margin of appreciation afforded to State in respect of matters involving economic policy, the impugned legislation, providing for the gradual reimbursement of the funds at issue, struck a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the applicant’s persisting legitimate claims to the original savings, as well as the property rights of all others in the same situation as him. The Court finds no reason to depart from its previous case-law in the present cases.
In the light of the above, it follows that the applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-Passos András Sajó Deputy Registrar President