Published on 28 July 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 35144/24
Maria Teresa CECCHETTI against San Marino
and 9 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 11 July 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the applicants’ inability to recover their assets (consisting of sums ranging from around 3,000 to 700,000 euros) 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 number of 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.
By means of Law no. 168 of 2022, on 22 July 2024 when the applicants should have recovered their assets which were redeemable in 2024 (namely those in excess of EUR 300,000 which were to be redeemed within five years running from 2019) were transformed into State bonds (at a yield rate of 1.5%) which would be redeemable only in 2037. The applicants were informed of this indirectly.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicants complained about Law no. 168 of 2022 and their consequent inability to retrieve or transfer their assets for a further thirteen years (until 2037) after the initial wait until 2024. In particular they considered that they had had a legitimate expectation to recover their funds (in excess of EUR 300,000) in 2024. 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 five years) but also because the value of those assets had diminished by 36 %. 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 2024, pursuant to Law no. 168 of 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
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
1.
35144/24
Cecchetti
v. San Marino
21/11/2024
Maria Teresa CECCHETTI
1953
Domagnano
San Marinese
2.
35408/24
Apicella
v. San Marino
21/11/2024
Vincenzo APICELLA
1958
Fiorentino
San Marinese
3.
35409/24
Bonini
v. San Marino
21/11/2024
Ermes BONINI
1956
Borgo Maggiore
Italian
4.
35410/24
Cecchetti
v. San Marino
21/11/2024
Giovanna CECCHETTI
1968
Borgo Maggiore
San Marinese
5.
35411/24
Fabbri
v. San Marino
21/11/2024
Nensi FABBRI
1956
Falciano
Italian
6.
35412/24
Forcellini
v. San Marino
21/11/2024
Danilo FORCELLINI
1964
Serravalle
San Marinese
7.
35413/24
Forcellini
v. San Marino
21/11/2024
Giuseppe FORCELLINI
1941
Serravalle
San Marinese
8.
35414/24
Giavolucci
v. San Marino
21/11/2024
Fabio GIAVOLUCCI
1956
RICCIONE
Italian
9.
35415/24
Giovannini
v. San Marino
21/11/2024
Loredana GIOVANNINI
1951
Borgo Maggiore
San Marinese
10.
35416/24
Guidi
v. San Marino
21/11/2024
Mary GUIDI
1964
Dogana
San Marinese