TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR3 (Government): These cash transportation records show that between 1983 and 1991, the National Bank of Slovenia transported foreign currency cash of 4 billion deutschmarks.
GR3 (Government): This was cash from all parts of Yugoslavia to foreign banks abroad.
GR3 (Government): Upon the transfer to NBY accounts abroad, the Associated Bank in Ljubljana would confirm the transfer by talax to the basic bank.
GR3 (Government): I refer the court to a series of confirming talaxes in Slovenia's Annexes 12, 13, and 19.
GR3 (Government): As confirmed on pages 23 and 24 of the Deloitte report, the extensive financial documents in this record can be searched in vain for any claim against Slovenian banks as a result of the cash transportation and vault services they rendered.
GR3 (Government): No such claim has ever been made outside this court.
GR3 (Government): LBD Zagajevo was audited by the Bosnian State Institute for Accounting and Auditing in 1998.
GR3 (Government): The audit report shows claims against the NBY.
GR3 (Government): Against the NBY for foreign currency deposited by the Zagajevo bank, 296 million deutschmarks.
GR3 (Government): Slovenia's Annex 100, pages 31 and 54.
GR3 (Government): In stark contrast, this audit report shows claims against the bank in Ljubljana of only 27,000 deutschmarks on page 16.
GR3 (Government): This document also entirely refutes the allegations that when Slovenia restructured Ljubljanska Banka in 1994, it transferred all assets from the Zagajevo main branch to NLBDD.
GR3 (Government): The audit report shows assets of LBD Zagajevo of 334 million deutschmarks.
GR3 (Government): Of this amount, 296 million are the Zagajevo basic banks' claims against the NBY.
GR3 (Government): It must be kept in mind that the Zagajevo main branch was effectively nationalized in 1993.
GR3 (Government): So its assets were transferred with Bosnia's authorization to LBD Zagajevo, not NLBDD.
GR3 (Government): Equally false are Bosnia's ungracious allegations that no rehabilitation was required and that Slovenia somehow introduced fake banking rehabilitation measures in 1993.
GR3 (Government): It suffices to look at the 1991 and 1992 annual reports.
GR3 (Government): Slovenia's chamber annexes 9 and 76 to completely destroy such absurd allegations.
GR3 (Government): And contrary to what we heard before, Ljubljanska Banka was certainly not an extremely successful bank, it was on the verge of bankruptcy.
GR3 (Government): Indeed, if one looks at the 1992 annual report, it had incurred a net loss of more than 1 billion deutschmarks.
GR3 (Government): Now to put this in relation to its capital, it succeeded by 10 times LBDD's capital.
GR3 (Government): So the allegation that Ljubljanska Banka and its Croatian and Bosnian operations were extremely successful is obviously entirely belied by the financial statements.
GR3 (Government): To conclude, the applications against Slovenia are inadmissible and lack merit.
GR3 (Government): They should be dismissed if they were nonetheless used to resolve what is essentially an interstate dispute.
GR3 (Government): Its resolution must accord with the rules of state succession.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Ms. Annacker.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Bogdanov on behalf of Macedonia.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, distinguished members of the Court, ladies and gentlemen,
GR1 (Government): taking into account the time the last speaker and the respected Court has already heard numerous arguments regarding the applicants' complaints today, I will attempt to deliver the pleading of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia as short as possible by focusing on two crucial points.
GR1 (Government): The first one being the characterization in law of the relationship between the applicants and their respective banks.
GR1 (Government): And the second one, the inadmissibility of the application with respect to the Republic of Macedonia on the grounds of ratione loci and ratione personae.
GR1 (Government): As to the first point, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia argues that the present case is one concerning a private legal relationship between the applicants on the one hand and their banks in which they deposited their foreign currency savings on the other.
GR1 (Government): Therefore it follows that the distinguished Court has the competence to examine in full the specific facts of the case and to determine whether a fair balance has been struck between the individual interest on one hand and the public interest on the other, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the present case.
GR1 (Government): In contrast, it would seem that this Court has no jurisdiction to examine the slow pace of mutual settlements of the respondent states regarding the already taken guarantees towards the savers converted into their public debt, which of course is not the applicant's case.
GR1 (Government): This line of reasoning is further substantiated by the Chamber's judgment of November 2012, where it was rightfully concluded that the applicant's position differs from the position of the persons who benefited from the repayment schemes established by the successor states.
GR1 (Government): The Chamber ruling on Article 46 of the Convention excluded from payment the persons who have already been paid their savings by the respondent states.
GR1 (Government): At the same time, the Chamber in its judgment did not empower the successor states to claim reimbursement for the funds paid to the savers, for example in Ljubljana Skopje and Zagreb branches, thus preserving this question in the public law field and the succession process.
GR1 (Government): In the case of Kovacic and others v. Slovenia, the Grand Chamber of this Court decided to
GR1 (Government): strike the applications out of its list of cases, relying on Article 37 of the Convention, paragraph 1b and c, and not on ratione materia reason.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, and relating to the third applicant in that case, the Grand Chamber did not find it justified to continue with the examination of her case because proceedings were simultaneously pending in Croatia, in fora where other claimants in the same situation have already been successful in redressing their grievances.
GR1 (Government): Thus the reasoning behind the judgment leads to the conclusion that the Grand Chamber acknowledged the private law relationship between the banks and the groups of savers in the former Yugoslavia who did not manage to convert their private claims into a public debt of one of the successor states.
GR1 (Government): Further supporting arguments of the Government's position that the case at issue concerns private legal relationship between the applicants and the banks may be found in the written observations of all respondent states submitted to this Court.
GR1 (Government): Namely, the Government of Serbia argues that one way or another, the applicant could have and should have initiated a civil proceedings against Investbank as a defendant, thus accepting that this private law remedy would have been successful in resolving the applicant's grievances before the courts in Serbia.
GR1 (Government): The same position was undertaken by the Government of Slovenia, which argued that the applicant had a possibility and should have initiated proceedings against Ljubljana or Republic of Slovenia in respect of their claims as an effective remedy before the courts in Slovenia.
GR1 (Government): In addition, the Slovenian Government supported this argument by relying on judgments in that direction brought by the domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): Today's arguments of the Croatian and Bosnian Governments confirm the same line of reasoning.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, establishing its stance that the relationship at dispute in this case is
GR1 (Government): one of an inherently private law character between the banks and the applicants, the Government argues that the applications are inadmissible concerning the Republic of Macedonia both on Racione LOKI and on Racione Personae grounds.
GR1 (Government): Compatibility Racione Personae requires the alleged violation of the Convention to have been committed by a contracting state or to be in some way attributable to it.
GR1 (Government): From the facts of the case, it arises that the applicants deposited a foreign currency in the then Ljubljanska Bank Sarajevo and an Investbank Tuzla branch office, both situated in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
GR1 (Government): As it is clear from the facts of the case and according to the Government of Slovenia, the liability for Ljubljanska Bank Sarajevo is retained by the so-called Old Ljubljanska Banka, in which Republic of Slovenia appears to be the sole owner.
GR1 (Government): Also, in view of Investbank, it is undoubtedly determined that it remained liable for the savings deposited in its branch offices until 2002, when it went into bankruptcy, after which the guarantee of the Republic of Serbia was activated in view of the old savings deposited in the bank.
GR1 (Government): Hence it is undisputed that the Republic of Macedonia or any institution or body for which the Republic of Macedonia is to be held accountable or to which it transferred public mandates has any connection with the application, the applicants, the banks, their headquarters or branches or the applicants' allegations in question.
GR1 (Government): Nor are the applicants in a position to be able to claim the status of a victim of a violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, which would imply that they may claim to be directly affected by a certain measure or an event caused by a body exercising authority in the name of the Government of Macedonia.
GR1 (Government): Since it is uncontested that the applicants' deposits have been made on Bosnian territory, the Government considers that this application is inadmissible ratione loci with regard to the Republic of Macedonia as well.
GR1 (Government): Finally the Government would like to point out that the Macedonian Government took responsibility for the old foreign currency debt deposited in all Macedonian banks and their branches, as well as branches of foreign banks operating on Macedonian territory, regardless of nationality of the depositor.
GR1 (Government): This far-reaching law was enacted in 2000 and successfully ceased to exist in 2012, when all the savers were reimbursed in total with the accumulated interest.
GR1 (Government): It is clear that the applicants did not fulfill the conditions prescribed by this law, since they had deposited their savings in banks outside the territory of the Republic of Macedonia.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, distinguished members of the Court, we believe that we have demonstrated
GR1 (Government): that the application in front of us today is to be declared inadmissible in respect of the Republic of Macedonia on ratione loci and ratione persona grounds, due to the inherently private law character between the banks and the applicants.
GR1 (Government): In addition, we believe that the present case is suitable for the adoption of a pilot judgment in respect of those applicants who had so-called old foreign currency savings deposits in Ljubljana's Habank Sarajevo or Investbank Tuzla, and whose savings deposits thereby were not taken on as public debt by any of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you Mr Bogdanov, thank you for your interventions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Judge Sicilianos.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): President, I have three questions, the first of them to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): According to Serbia, Serbia and Slovenia referred to the 1997 act by which Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I quote, effectively acknowledged its liability for the contested savings, thereby creating a reasonable expectation on the part of the savers that they would recover their savings.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Could you please comment on this legislation?
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): To the Serbian government, Bosnia and Herzegovina referred to the 1998 Foreign Currency Savings Act and to the 2002 Public Debt Act, supporting, according to Bosnia, the position that by those two acts, you interfered with the savings of the applicants.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Could you please elaborate on those acts?
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): And finally, my third question goes to Slovenia.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia referred to a series of judgments by Slovenian courts, including the Supreme Court of Slovenia, ruling in substance in favor of the applicants' legal positions.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Could you please comment on those judgments?
Ineta Ziemele (Judge): I have a general question to all of the respondent states, with the exception of Macedonia.
Ineta Ziemele (Judge): I note in our file and also as just explained by the Macedonian agent, that there was a possibility to acknowledge the liability over the deposits made in the territory of, in this case, Macedonia with the Macedonian banks.
Ineta Ziemele (Judge): So the point of departure to my question to the other respondents is, given the example of one of the respondent states, would you sum up in a nutshell why in relation to the others, probably to a lesser degree, I would say, Croatia, why in relation to the other respondent states this was not considered and was not a possibility?
Ineta Ziemele (Judge): And there I go back to Judge Sicilianos question in relation to Bosnia-Herzegovina, why there was a retraction of what seemed to be the earlier position similar to that to Republic of Macedonia.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Nußberger.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Yes, thank you.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I would have three questions, two questions to all the governments and one question to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): So the question to Bosnia-Herzegovina would be, is it true that in 1993 LB Sarajevo was registered in the company registry and that it was mentioned that the assets, rights and obligations of the LB main branch Sarajevo as the legal predecessor passed over to Ljubljana's Banka Sarajevo as the legal successor?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Was it true and what was the meaning of this registration?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And then to all the governments, for me it's still unclear when, by whom and with which explanation the decision was taken to freeze the accounts and what was exactly meant legally speaking by freezing.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And the last question to all the governments, what were the necessary and at the same time the sufficient conditions respectively for your governments to restart negotiations and to bring them to a result acceptable by all?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, judge Turković.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): One is going to the government of Slovenia, but if others know, they might help.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): We heard about the Constitutional Act of 1994 and that the assets were transferred from the old Ljubljanska Banka to new Ljubljanska Banka.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): I assume it must be known how much of the assets were transferred.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): So this is one question.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): And the other question is related as well to the negotiations and NXC.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Could you explain how do you understand what is the matter of negotiations according to the NXC?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much for the questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So the court will now rise for 20 minutes, following which the parties will return for a second round of short pleadings to respond to the submissions in the first round and to the judges' questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The hearing is now suspended.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The hearing is now resumed.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Mujčin, you have the possibility, if you wish to do so, to reply or to respond.
AP1 (Applicant): Yes, thank you.
AP1 (Applicant): Я сам пажливо заслушал отговоры всех представников противника Африканата и желаю сказать следующее.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы потеряли вид, что люди, которые были уничтожены, уничтожены с самым тяжелым проблемой, в самом деле люди, которые сейчас находятся в пенсии, перед пенсией и на границе страдания, которые не могут доходить до своих денег через 20 лет.
AP1 (Applicant): Все мои африканцы живут и работают на территории Немецкой.
AP1 (Applicant): Я прошу суда, чтобы в данный момент, в случае принятия решения, вводил в свои деньги.
AP1 (Applicant): Противники Африканцы, однако, и их представители, больше всего занимаются, в большинстве случаев, работают на транзакции денег между банками, создание банковских статусов, изменение статусов и так далее.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы считаем, что, хотя суд на этом уровне очень много труда вложил, но это не от большой правильной важности для решения этого вопроса и следующих вопросов.
AP1 (Applicant): Когда счетчик принесет деньги в банк, передает их на шальтер, принимает печать и подписку о владении и передает банку деньги на дальнейшую работу с деньгами.
AP1 (Applicant): Ему не известно, что дальше происходит с его деньгами.
AP1 (Applicant): Сколько из них остается в банке, в которой он передал деньги, сколько из них уходит в его материальную банку, или какой деньги он завершает в Народной банке Югославии, в ответ на кредиты, которые она дала в динарии.
AP1 (Applicant): За счетчиком в ответственности стоит банка, в которой деньги положены, и ее материальная банка, то есть гарантия всех девизных и счетчатых улогов, была страна Югославии.
AP1 (Applicant): Второе. Никто из противников аппликации не задумывался о вопросах с поразомом о сукцесе владения Югославии,
AP1 (Applicant): заключенных между государственными наследницами в Бече 29 июня 2001 года.
AP1 (Applicant): Представитель Сербии занимается тем, что это ли приватные права и владения, или это вопрос финансовых долгов и поисковых работ в Югославии.
AP1 (Applicant): Для нас, от правооценного значения следующее, из поразома о сукцесе, можно сказать, что государственные наследницы гарантии бывшей Югославии признали как дух бывшей Югославии.
AP1 (Applicant): И второе. Из того же пораза о сукцесе видно, что после распада бывшей Югославии
AP1 (Applicant): владельцы власти, которые находятся в неоткрытках дипломатического консуларного имузиа, золота, девизов, других премиум металлов, артиодредности, поисковых работ и так далее, и что государственные наследницы поделили и перенесли в поселок и свободное располагание, и работали этим имуществом.
AP1 (Applicant): И что здесь происходит, значит, о вкладах в странную валюту. Не проходит это в домашнюю валюту, которая временно потеряла власть на власть в инфляции.
AP1 (Applicant): После диссолюции бывшей Югославии и заключения с поразом о сукцесе, государственные наследницы различно приступают к решению этого проблемы и осваивают различные критерии при власти.
AP1 (Applicant): Это может быть государственные граждане, территория государства, на которой находится валюта, без взгляда на филиалы, или материальная филиалка, так называемая матер-банк, филиалы, на которой находится валюта.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы понимаем, что суд в этот момент, в данном случае, делал то, что было возможно, из всей этой шума правительства и поступков и действий, чтобы принять решение в таком или ином виде. Суд право, релевантно, не имел другой возможности, это мое мнение.
AP1 (Applicant): Поэтому я считаю, что суд в данном случае был бы подобным, чтобы он был пилотом суда.
AP1 (Applicant): Другие заявления, которые я слышал, за которые я здесь объявлял, что они были направлены, я считаю, что они не имеют правильного значения, что они не основаны. Ещё могу, единственное, вернуться к инвестбанку.
AP1 (Applicant): Знакомо, что инвестбанка имела свои филиалы на территории Республики Боснии и Херцеговины.
AP1 (Applicant): Инвестбанка была взята в 2002 году, то есть республика Сербия начала срочность над этой банкой.
AP1 (Applicant): Это единственный случай, где активирована гарантия над банкой, гарантия государства.
AP1 (Applicant): Это единственный случай, в предыдущем случае Штепс не мог активировать гарантию, это уже известно и сказано.
AP1 (Applicant): И суд правильно утвердил, что большинство денег, которые были положены в инвестбанке в Боснии и Херцеговине, завершили в инвестбанке в Сербии. Суд правильно утвердил, что Сербия начала срочность над этой банкой,
AP1 (Applicant): после продажи имузии этой банки, взяла эту имузию. И суд правильно утвердил, что давал один дело денег,
AP1 (Applicant): как кредит Боснии и Херцеговине за эти девизы, которые из инвестбанка ушли в инвестбанку в Сербии, но это были девизы в скаме, динари в скаме, которые в среду, они должны были вернуть инфляцию, эту власть, которую она получила. Просто эта власть умерла.
AP1 (Applicant): В конце, еще раз, я хочу попросить суда, при ображении и обоснованных прошиваниях, великолепно, вводи рачуна, что в междувременном куповная мощь денег изумительно упала, что люди, конечно, обстреляны протоком времени, и если не получат нематериальное обстрелы и кометы, тогда это было бы дополнительное обстрел, которое неудобные терпители, в любом начале, скрывали и довели до такой ситуации.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Mujčin.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Ms. Mijić, please.
GR5 (Government): Thank you very much.
GR5 (Government): And I also would like to thank the judges for these very important and useful questions.
GR5 (Government): And I hope that our answers will also be very useful to you.
GR5 (Government): When it comes to the question of Mr. Siciliano,
GR5 (Government): this is a very interesting question, and I'm thankful to have the opportunity to explain this, because it was in my oral pleading, but I didn't have time.
GR5 (Government): When it comes to the privatizations of the banks in Bosnia-Herzegovina, neither Bosnia-Herzegovina nor her entities ever assumed liability for all foreign currency savings deposited in foreign banks.
GR5 (Government): So framework law on privatizations on banks and enterprises, by this law, Bosnia-Herzegovina authorized its entities to privatize the state-owned banks.
GR5 (Government): So only state-owned banks were the subject of the privatization process.
GR5 (Government): Slovenian Bank, Ljubljana Bank, and Serbian Invest Bank are foreign banks, and these banks were never under jurisdiction of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
GR5 (Government): So neither Bosnia-Herzegovina nor her entities have ever assumed liability for the debts of foreign banks.
GR5 (Government): On the other hand, after these entity laws on ways and methods of payment of all foreign currency savings were declared unconstitutional, in 2006, Bosnia-Herzegovina adopted All Foreign Currency Savings Act and undertook to pay savings to all depositors who had savings in domestic banks, banks of Bosnia-Herzegovina, without any difference on any ground.
GR5 (Government): And I would also like to underline that this law was evaluated by the court and declared to be in accordance with Article 1 or Protocol 1 in the pilot judgment in the case Vujagic versus Bosnia-Herzegovina.
GR5 (Government): So the point is, foreign banks like Ljubljana Bank and Invest Bank were never subject of privatization in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
GR5 (Government): Thus, Bosnia-Herzegovina nor her entities ever assumed liabilities for all foreign currency savings from these banks.
GR5 (Government): That's why applicants never had hoped that Bosnia-Herzegovina would return their savings.
GR5 (Government): And how could Bosnia-Herzegovina assume liability for current currency savings deposited in Ljubljana Bank when constitutional act of Slovenia in 1994 confirmed that Ljubljana Bank is liable for the savings deposited in its branches?
GR5 (Government): I hope I explained this situation.
GR5 (Government): When it comes to the second question, if I rightly understood you, the question is, why other states did not follow the positive example of Croatia and Macedonia?
GR5 (Government): Well, I'll explain these reasons for Bosnia-Herzegovina.
GR5 (Government): Bosnia-Herzegovina had bloody war and was completely destructed in the war, unlike other countries, especially Slovenia and Serbia.