TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR5 (Government): They were intact by war.
GR5 (Government): So we had our own big financial, political, and social issues to solve after the war.
GR5 (Government): So we also had a huge problem with savings deposited in our domestic bank.
GR5 (Government): As I just said in privatization process, the state assumed liability from the banks for all foreign currency savings.
GR5 (Government): So the debt arising from all foreign currency savings deposited in Bosnia and Herzegovina and domestic bank was $2 billion.
GR5 (Government): And that was a huge problem for Bosnia-Herzegovina.
GR5 (Government): But at the end, we have succeeded.
GR5 (Government): And we repaid this all foreign currency savings.
GR5 (Government): And the court in the case Soljegic versus Bosnia-Herzegovina established that this law was in accordance with the convention.
GR5 (Government): So for years, we have been resolving the issue of domestic banks and all foreign currency savings in domestic.
GR5 (Government): So there was no possibility in Bosnia-Herzegovina that we could have assumed a debt of a foreign bank financed by the deposit of our people.
GR5 (Government): No logic, no legal ground, and no factual possibility.
GR5 (Government): When it comes to the third question, yes, it is true that main branch was transferred during the war in 1993 in Ljubljana's bank, the DD Sarajevo.
GR5 (Government): But this court registration was without no legal effect.
GR5 (Government): And this was confirmed by Slovenian courts.
GR5 (Government): I mean, this bank was erased from the register in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the decision of municipal court of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2004 when Bosnian court established that this bank was not a legal successor of main branch of Ljubljana's bank in Sarajevo.
GR5 (Government): But the Slovenian court, by its final judgment, explained it very well.
GR5 (Government): That's why I will answer your question by the position of Slovenian court.
GR5 (Government): With regard to this question, the Slovenian court said a branch office of a bank is not an independent legal entity and cannot decide on its destiny alone without the main bank, nor it can transfer any assets which are essentially the property of the bank.
GR5 (Government): So this transformation which took place during the war was without any legal effect.
GR5 (Government): So there is no legal successor of Ljubljana's bank in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
GR5 (Government): And when it comes to the fourth question, so the subject of annexe of succession agreement in general is financial liabilities and assets of former Yugoslavia.
GR5 (Government): Unfortunately, the Article 7 of Annexe does not contain financial liability of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
GR5 (Government): Article 7 of Annexe prescribes that guarantees of former Yugoslavia for all foreign currency savings will be negotiated without delay, especially taking into account protection of private savers.
GR5 (Government): So this article makes a distinction between guarantees of former Yugoslavia for all currency savings and individual savings.
GR5 (Government): These guarantees of former Yugoslavia were never activated before the solution of Yugoslavia because neither Ljubljana's bank or Inres Bank were insolvent.
GR5 (Government): So they never requested the activation of these guarantees.
GR5 (Government): So the subject of Article 7 of Annexe is non-existing, not activated financial liability of former Yugoslavia.
GR5 (Government): But on the other hand, we have the savings of the applicants, which is private property protected additionally by Annexe G of the agreement of the succession.
GR5 (Government): So I hope I have answered your questions.
GR5 (Government): And now I would like to use the rest of the time to reply to, of course, Slovenian and Serbian government.
GR5 (Government): I fully support the Croatian position and Macedonian position.
GR5 (Government): So among five successor states, there are three states which have the same reasonings and the same arguments.
GR5 (Government): I would like also to emphasize that under the same, we have proven to the court that all deposits collected in Bosnia-Herzegovina was regularly shipped to Slovenia.
GR5 (Government): The same situation was with Inres Bank.
GR5 (Government): Inres Bank was basic bank.
GR5 (Government): And Tuzla branch was always branch office in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
GR5 (Government): So under the same legislation of former Yugoslavia, the deposits from Tuzla branch were regularly shipped to National Bank of Yugoslavia, to Serbia.
GR5 (Government): But unfortunately, all documentation concerning this transfer of the money is kept in Serbia in deposit insurance agency, which is bankruptcy manager of Inres Bank.
GR5 (Government): Also, the documentation that was situated in Bosnia-Herzegovina in this branch office of Inres Bank was stolen when Serbia sold premises in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ms. Mijić, may I draw your attention that your time has just expired, so concentrate on the most important issues you want to raise.
GR5 (Government): on the most important issues you want to raise.
GR5 (Government): I — when it comes to Slovenian arguments, I would just like to remind the Court that all arguments of Republic of Slovenia presented before this Court were rejected as ill-founded by Slovenian courts, by numerous judgments of final Slovenian courts.
GR5 (Government): So I have nothing further to add to this.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Miss Mijić.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Miss Stažnik, please.
GR2 (Government): As regards a question of Judge Angelika Nussberger, if I pronounced correctly, decisions of ex-Yugoslavia in 1990 and 1991 only suspended rights of applicant to freely and fully enjoy their deposits.
GR2 (Government): The interference in their right to peacefully enjoy their possessions happened in 1994, when the Republic of Slovenia enacted constitutional law, leaving the only one liable for payment of applicant's deposits, Elbede de Ljubljana, without any assets.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, from 1994, the applicants had no legal way to get their deposits back.
GR2 (Government): The mentioned decision of SFRAJ, legal act decision of SFRAJ, stipulated that households could freely and immediately dispose of any those funds in their foreign exchange accounts that had been deposited after 27th April of 1991.
GR2 (Government): All funds, so those deposited in foreign exchange accounts with banks prior to 27th April of 1991, could be withdrawn and used only if advance notice was given from 27 to 180 days before execution order.
GR2 (Government): Then, we saw that legal remedies existed for this decision to be challenged, and it is important that Constitutional Court of ex-Yugoslavia in 1992 declared unconstitutional this legal decision because it restricted savers in free disposal of their deposit.
GR2 (Government): I mention it restricted, not prevented them to dispose of their foreign currency savings.
GR2 (Government): As to the question of Judge Zimel, I would like to say that Croatia resolved the question of all foreign currency savings with regard to banks having headquarters in Croatia without any discrimination.
GR2 (Government): In addition, as an interim measure aimed at protecting interest of savers, Croatia also enabled the transfer of all foreign currency deposits from the branches of foreign banks in Croatia to Croatia's banks.
GR2 (Government): Croatia had resolved the question of the all foreign currency savings of banks having headquarters in Croatia, so-called Croatian banks, by its own legislation in 1991.
GR2 (Government): We enabled Croatian banks to pay out all its savers for their foreign currency deposits regardless of their citizenship or the place where the savings were deposited.
GR2 (Government): This was enabled by conversation of all foreign currency savings into the public debt.
GR2 (Government): The savers in Croatian bank could withdraw their savings within 10 years in 20 semi-annual installments with 5% of interest.
GR2 (Government): In addition, Croatia enabled transfer of all foreign currency savings from the branches of banks headquartered outside the Croatian territory, such as Ljubljanska Bank, meaning from the branch of Ljubljanska Bank in Zagreb.
GR2 (Government): And we enabled those savers to transfer their savings to any of Croatian banks.
GR2 (Government): These transferred savings became also part of the Croatian public debt.
GR2 (Government): After transferring their deposits, savers could withdraw their savings with Croatian banks in the same way and in the same manner as the savers of Croatian banks.
GR2 (Government): The transfer was made on the basis of saving account book with a foreign bank, meaning Ljubljanska Bank, and the statement of the saver that he wished to make that transfer.
GR2 (Government): Additionally, the savers would make a statement assigning his or her claim towards the foreign-based bank to the Croatian bank.
GR2 (Government): Croatian bank to which the deposit was assigned would then inform the foreign bank in which deposit was originally made.
GR2 (Government): So Ljubljanska Bank actively participated in the transfer of foreign currency savings into Croatian bank.
GR2 (Government): The director of the main branch Zagreb, who was appointed from Ljubljana, signed records confirming that the transferred amount was in line with records of Ljubljanska Bank.
GR2 (Government): So Ljubljanska Bank and the saver and Croatian banks, they all knew exactly what amount was transferred, and it was transferred with full knowledge of Ljubljanska Bank.
GR2 (Government): Later, the Croatian banks assigned their claims towards foreign-based banks to the Republic of Croatia since it was assumed into its public debt.
GR2 (Government): By virtue of this assignment, the Republic of Croatia became creditor of Ljubljanska Bank with regard to this portion of transferred foreign currency savings.
GR2 (Government): So Croatia became basically the creditor of Ljubljanska Bank for those transferred currency savings.
GR2 (Government): At that point, I would stop and give the floor to my colleague to answer other questions.
GR4 (Government): Respected President of the Court and the judges of the Green Chamber, I would address here the question related to the alleged succession issue.
GR4 (Government): I would like to confirm that the case before you has nothing to do with the succession of the former Yugoslavia and that the negotiations that have been dealt and done among the successor states on the basis of the succession agreement do not have any relevance in the case before us.
GR4 (Government): Namely, neither international law as such on succession of states, as formulated in the customary international law or as more or less codified in the two conventions on the succession of states, as well as 2001 agreement on the succession of former Yugoslavia, do not offer any legal basis to consider that the old foreign currency savings deposited in the commercial banks as such should be part of the financial liabilities of the former state and in any way be addressed within the succession issue.
GR4 (Government): It is the truth that the agreement on succession provides in Article 7 of Annex C for negotiations, and those are negotiations with regards to the guarantees of the former state, and the article itself does not provide what should be the result of those negotiations.
GR4 (Government): Should those negotiations be divided?
GR4 (Government): Should each successor state simply assume the guarantees or provide protection for its banks?
GR4 (Government): No, we will not find any solution in this agreement.
GR4 (Government): Therefore, the successor states entered in the multilateral negotiations under the auspices of BIS.
GR4 (Government): But those negotiations never ended with any success.
GR4 (Government): Namely, we believe that Slovenia and Serbia impartially did not negotiate in good faith during those negotiations, and what they did, they actually insisted on the principle of territoriality, which they continue to claim here before this court in order to exclude themselves for the liability of their banks for the branches and the deposits they collected through those branches in other republics of the former Yugoslavia.
GR4 (Government): What should be the end result of these negotiations?
GR4 (Government): Well, the end result should be that the foreign currency deposits get protected, and that individuals should get protection they deserve.
GR4 (Government): And we believe that no negotiations among the successor states can offer that kind of result, and that it is the court in this case which is the right place where those individuals and their foreign currency deposit should be protected.
GR4 (Government): And this would be the aim which would then satisfy them.
GR4 (Government): Let me just draw the attention to the Memorandum of Understanding which Croatia and Slovenia have recently signed.
GR4 (Government): This memorandum cannot be and should not be regarded as some kind of proof that Croatia regards the issue of foreign currency deposits as a matter of succession.
GR4 (Government): I would say on the contrary, this Memorandum of Understanding is a living proof that Croatia and Slovenia are ready to further negotiate on the transferred foreign currency savings, and that is the currency savings which Croatia as an interim measure repaid for the foreign currency deposits of Ljubljana's bank in Croatia.
GR4 (Government): And this memorandum clearly states that this is exclusively the issue which will be discussed, and we used the Agreement on Succession of Yugoslavia and its mode of settlement which provides for negotiations within the BIS as a good tool for our bilateral negotiations as well.
GR4 (Government): And this is why Croatia and Slovenia jointly sent a letter inviting BIS to involve and to act in one and somehow as a facilitator in our bilateral talks, which exclusively on the transferred foreign currency savings.
GR4 (Government): And we believe that this is the right way because MOU as is, is a living proof that Slovenia is also aware the fact that Croatia paid out foreign currency deposits, deposited in the Croatian branch of Ljubljana's bank is not sustainable, and that this is something which both states should negotiate further in order to settle this issue in the right way.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much. I call Mr. Carić.
GR6 (Government): Thank you Mr. President, Honorable Judges.
GR6 (Government): Let me start by answering to the question of Honorable Judge Sicilianos.
GR6 (Government): By the 1998 Act, Serbia recognized foreign currency savings as public debt regardless whatever savings were deposited with the bank or with its branch offices.
GR6 (Government): Citizens with residence in former republics could have claimed their rights under the conditions of reciprocity.
GR6 (Government): Later by the Act on Public Debt adopted in 2002, citizens of former Yugoslav republics were prevented to withdraw their savings deposited with the branch offices in the territories of the former republics.
GR6 (Government): These limitations contained in the Act of 2002 concerning the citizens of former Yugoslav republics were in accordance with the already ratified Agreement on Succession before the adoption of the above-mentioned Act from 2002.
GR6 (Government): With full respect of Ms. Mijic, I have to say that what she said recently is not true.
GR6 (Government): The law explicitly referred also to 1997 business units with a seat in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
GR6 (Government): The Investbanka and Ljubljanska Banka have not been excluded from this law.
GR6 (Government): It is well known that the government bonds issued on this ground were used in purchasing apartments or in process of privatization.
GR6 (Government): With regard to the question of Honorable Judge Zimele, I would like to say that in this agreement signed in 2001, in Article 7 of Annex C, foreign currency savings are explicitly included as a part of public debt and they should be settled through negotiations.
GR6 (Government): That was the reason for the adoption of territorial principle in the 2002 Act, as the territorial principle is the main principle governing succession.
GR6 (Government): If all the states would apply it, all the savers would recover their savings.
GR6 (Government): Unwillingness of some states to apply this principle created the situation such as of the applicants.
GR6 (Government): With regard to the question of Honorable Judge Nussberger, I would like to say in regard to the freezing of funds, it started in the end of 1990 by banks.
GR6 (Government): Afterwards, the federal government made limitations in payment of savings.
GR6 (Government): Subsequently, the payment of savings were not affected due to lack of funds.
GR6 (Government): Also I would like to say that the continuation of the negotiation depend on the willingness of the parties to do so.
GR6 (Government): As we explained earlier, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia obstructed constantly the negotiation process.
GR6 (Government): With regard to the question of Honorable Judge Turkovic, I would like to say that under Article 2 Annex C, Agreement of Succession, the states are responsible to negotiate about protection of foreign currency savings.
GR6 (Government): Further, Article 7 of Annex C prescribed that the guarantees shall be subject to negotiation to be held under the auspices of the Bank of International Settlements for the sake of the protection of the foreign currency savings deposits.
GR6 (Government): With regard to the allegation of Ms. Meech, concerning the activation of guarantees of
GR6 (Government): former Yugoslavia, I would like to say that the savings became public debt.
GR6 (Government): The guarantees of the SFRY were included in the Annex C, even though they were never activated, even though they could have later been activated as SFRY no longer existed.
GR6 (Government): But they nevertheless were included in Annex C, bringing thus foreign currency savings within its scope.
GR6 (Government): I would like to say something and to elaborate something concerning already mentioned bankruptcy proceedings.
GR6 (Government): Bankruptcy proceedings of Invasbanka were initiated by the decision of the commercial court in Belgrade on 3 January 2002.
GR6 (Government): The decisions of the commercial court in Belgrade adopted later in the course of bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the sale of Invasbanka property were recognized by the decision of cantonal court in Sarajevo of 13 December 2006.
GR6 (Government): This fact shows that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina were fully aware of it and agreed with the sale.
GR6 (Government): Besides, the very sale of property has nothing to do with the foreign currency deposits spent before 1990s.
GR6 (Government): Even more, all foreign currency deposits were recognized as public debt in all successor states.
GR6 (Government): Consequently, this issue should be further negotiated between the successor states.
GR6 (Government): However, the negotiations were blocked by Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
GR6 (Government): Concerning the alleged obligation of Serbia to initiate cross-border bankruptcy proceedings, such an obligation for Serbia had not existed at the relevant time.
GR6 (Government): It was mentioned in the observation of the Bosnia and Herzegovina.
GR6 (Government): It was up to creditors in Bosnia and Herzegovina to request opening of the cross-border bankruptcy.
GR6 (Government): However, after the above-mentioned Bosnian court decision, it was not possible.
GR6 (Government): It was decision of the cantonal court in Sarajevo of 13 December 2006.
GR6 (Government): At the end, it should be noted that the European Convention on Certain International Aspects of Bankruptcy, Istanbul Convention, has not been ratified by Serbia.
GR6 (Government): With regard to the question of discrimination, in respect of this issue, it should be reiterated that Serbian regulation on all foreign currency savings are known to the court, as in the case Molnar-Gabor v. Serbia, wherein prescribed limitations were declared legitimate.
GR6 (Government): On the other hand, by its internal regulation, Bosnia and Herzegovina enabled the savers to have legitimate expectation until 2006.
GR6 (Government): Firstly, under the 2002 Act, the rights of savers from other former republics were limited, as well as the rights of Serbian savers to the deposit with the banks in other former Yugoslav republics.
GR6 (Government): This limitation was legitimate because of the succession negotiation in progress.
GR6 (Government): Accordingly, the citizens of Serbia, foreign currency savers, could not recover their savings in the course of bankruptcy proceedings on the invest bank as well.
GR6 (Government): With regard to the mention of the decision in the Shekerovich case, I would like to say that it was a decision adopted before the legislation of 1999 and 2002.
GR6 (Government): So Mr. Shekerovich can also use the opportunity to withdraw some of his savings in 1994
GR6 (Government): or 1995, as it was done by Mr. Shekerovich in this decision.
GR6 (Government): He was not denied the right to do so.
GR6 (Government): On the contrary, the courts in Serbia ruled in the favor of Mr. Shekerovich.
GR6 (Government): But this case, there is no connection with this case and the legislation of 1999 and 2002.
GR6 (Government): With regard to the Slovenian allegation concerning the transfer of deposits of the foreign currency savings to the accounts of National Bank of Yugoslavia abroad, it is important to say that it concerned only 14% of the total amounts of deposits.
GR6 (Government): The rest was the pro forma deposition.
GR6 (Government): I would like to explain this very complicated process of pro forma deposition.
GR6 (Government): In case of pro forma deposition, a bank shall receive a dinner loan from the National Bank of Yugoslavia in the amount of counter value of foreign currency to be deposited.
GR6 (Government): However, the major portion of foreign currency has never actually been deposited.
GR6 (Government): Under the accounting procedure, the bank shall owe dinner loan to the National Bank in claim foreign currency.
GR6 (Government): Due to inflation, the dinner loan shall be devaluated, but foreign currency claim shall remain.
GR6 (Government): Practically, the bank shall have a foreign currency claim from the National Bank of Yugoslavia, although it had not deposited any funds with the National Bank of Yugoslavia.
GR6 (Government): Finally, let me notice that any simplification of this case will not contribute to the just solution of all foreign currency savings issue, but quite contrary.
GR6 (Government): As some governments notice, this is one kind of peace agreement between the states at stake.
GR6 (Government): It was born of contention, as Macedonian governments said in this case.
GR6 (Government): So any simplification of this issue will not contribute to resolution of this matter.
GR6 (Government): Thank you very much.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Carić.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Ms. Annacker.
GR3 (Government): I would first like to respond to Judge Siciliano's question on the Slovenian court proceedings.
GR3 (Government): I would first like to emphasize that if the applicants had brought a claim against Slovenianska Banka in the Slovenian courts, their claim would have been dismissed.
GR3 (Government): This is so because under Article 1044, paragraph 2 of the applicable SFRY 1978 Civil Obligations Act, the applicants must prove to a domestic court that they have a savings book, they must present a savings book with principal and interest that they claim established through entries authenticated with a bank stamp and a signature of an authorized person.
GR3 (Government): The applicants have not presented anything of the like in the present proceedings.
GR3 (Government): I draw, for example, the court's attention to Slovenia's Annex 64, which is a Slovenian court judgment that dismissed a claim that was not authenticated with a bank stamp and a signature.