Published on 8 January 2024
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 55261/22
Antonia CECCHETTI against San Marino
and 38 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 6 December 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern the applicants’ inability to recover their assets originally held in Banca CIS after the latter’s compulsory liquidation in 2019.
As a result of a series of measures, including legislative ones, taken by the authorities and the progressive taking over of Banca CIS by various entities, after an initial freezing of the account holders’ assets for six months to avoid further disruption to the banking system, the applicants’ funds became unavailable for a total of thirteen years. In particular, according to a specific resolution adopted in 2019, account holders were to receive back their funds if they amounted to less than 100,000 euros (EUR) without any loss of value. For funds in excess of that sum, they would be converted to bank obligations retrievable according to a certain schedule, namely, for assets between EUR 100,000 and 300,000, within three years, and for those assets in excess of EUR 300,000 (up to 1 million), within five years, during which time a yield rate of 0.15 % and 0.25 % respectively would apply.
Nevertheless, on 22 July 2022, when the applicants should have recovered their assets, according to an announcement on the website of the supervising authority for the banking and financial industry in San Marino (Vigilanza di Banca Centrale della Repubblica di San Marino), in view of further legislative measures, their funds had been transformed into State bonds which would be held for a further ten years (at a yield rate of 1%). The applicants became aware of this announcement shortly after, through the press.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicants complained about the inability to retrieve or transfer their assets for a further ten years. In particular they considered that they had had a legitimate expectation to recover their funds (up to EUR 300,000) in 2022. Instead, they were faced with a measure which had not been in accordance with a law of sufficient quality and had imposed a disproportionate burden on them, not only because of its duration (following the initial three years) but also because the value of those assets had diminished by 36%. Besides being disproportionate, the measure undertaken in 2022 had not made any distinction between individual situations (contrary to the original resolution of 2019) or allowed for partial retrieval of the sums over the years. The applicants noted that such a course of action had not occurred in similar situations with other banks, where assets had been refunded to the account holders without similar complications.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the interference with the applicants’ possessions, as of 22 July 2022, in accordance with a law of sufficient quality, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for example, Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 56, 3 November 2009; Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, § 80-88, 19 November 2020; and Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 139, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts))?
2. If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? Did it strike a fair balance between any general interest of the community and the right of property of the applicants, or did it impose an excessive individual burden on them (see for example, Trajkovski v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, (dec.) no. 53320/99, 7 March 2002, and Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 124, ECHR 2014)?
APPENDIX
List of applications
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
1.
55261/22
Cecchetti Antonia
v. San Marino
21/11/2022
Antonia CECCHETTI
1955
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
San Marinese
2.
55708/22
Cecchetti Gilberto
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Gilberto CECCHETTI
1952
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
San Marinese
3.
55709/22
Cecchetti Giovanna
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Giovanna CECCHETTI
1968
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
San Marinese
4.
55710/22
Bonini
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Ermes BONINI
1956
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
Italian
5.
55711/22
Rovelli
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
William ROVELLI
1965
San Marino
Italian
6.
55712/22
Urbinati
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Massimo URBINATI
1957
Serravalle,
San Marino
San Marinese
7.
55713/22
Bacciocchi Simone
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Simone BACCIOCCHI
1977
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
San Marinese
8.
55714/22
Giovannini
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Loredana GIOVANNINI
1951
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
San Marinese
9.
55715/22
Censoni
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Lea CENSONI
1956
Dogana, San Marino
San Marinese
10.
55716/22
Colombini
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Andrea COLOMBINI
1973
Dogana, San Marino
San Marinese
11.
55717/22
Torsani Marco v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Marco TORSANI
1977
Dogana, San Marino
San Marinese
12.
55718/22
Torsani Valentina
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Valentina TORSANI
1974
Dogana, San Marino
San Marinese
13.
55719/22
Scarpellini
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Antonello SCARPELLINI
1973
Serravalle, San Marino
Italian
14.
55720/22
Forcellini Danilo
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Danilo FORCELLINI
1964
Serravalle, San Marino
San Marinese
15.
55721/22
Corbelli v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Francesca CORBELLI
1989
Serravalle,
San Marino
San Marinese
16.
55722/22
Boschi
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Costantino BOSCHI
1952
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
San Marinese
17.
55723/22
Biagi
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Thomas BIAGI
1976
Serravalle, San Marino
Italian
18.
55724/22
Muratori
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Giovanni MURATORI
1952
San Marino
San Marinese
19.
55725/22
Ercolani Giuseppe
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Giuseppe ERCOLANI
1943
Serravalle, San Marino
San Marinese
20.
55726/22
Ercolani Angelo
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Angelo ERCOLANI
1966
Serravalle, San Marino
San Marinese
21.
55727/22
Cardelli
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Angelo Luca CARDELLI
1965
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
San Marinese
22.
55728/22
Trau’
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Isabella TRAU’
1960
Pesaro, Italy
Italian
23.
55729/22
Lazzari
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Francesca Angelina LAZZARI
1953
Domagnano,
San Marino
San Marinese
24.
55730/22
Cecere
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Antonella CECERE
1966
Serravalle, San Marino
Italian
25.
55731/22
Poggi
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Raffaele POGGI
1953
Faenza, Italy
Italian
26.
55732/22
Cecchetti Maria Teresa v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Maria Teresa CECCHETTI
1953
Domagnano, San Marino
San Marinese
27.
55733/22
Volpinari v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Italo VOLPINARI
1972
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
San Marinese
28.
55734/22
Apicella v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Vincenzo APICELLA
1958
Fiorentino, Italy
San Marinese
29.
55735/22
Forcellini Giuseppe
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Giuseppe FORCELLINI
1941
Serravalle, San Marino
San Marinese
30.
55736/22
Fabbri
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Nensi FABBRI
1956
Falciano,
San Marino
Italian
31.
55737/22
Bacciocchi Davide
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Davide BACCIOCCHI
1981
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
San Marinese
32.
55738/22
Guidi
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Mary GUIDI
1964
Dogana, San Marino
San Marinese
33.
55739/22
Selva
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Fabrizio SELVA
1961
San Marino
San Marinese
34.
55740/22
Giorgetti
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Maria Assunta GIORGETTI
1962
San Marino
San Marinese
35.
55741/22
Catena
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Orazio CATENA
1962
Serravalle,
San Marino
Italian
36.
55742/22
Dondeyne
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Francoise Georgette Henriette DONDEYNE
1949
Borgo Maggiore,
San Marino
French
37.
55743/22
Casali
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Anna Maria CASALI
1929
San Marino
San Marinese
38.
55744/22
Giardi
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Gabriela GIARDI
1954
San Giovanni,
San Marino
San Marinese
39.
55745/22
Troni Lucio
v. San Marino
28/11/2022
Lucio TRONI
1948
Riccione, Italy
Italian
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy