SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 62795/17 and 62830/17
Igor KARLOVŠEK against Slovenia
and Marija KARLOVŠEK against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 February 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Carlo Ranzoni, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 22 August 2017,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant in the first case, Mr Igor Karlovšek, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Celje. He was represented before the Court by himself as he is a practising lawyer, with an office in Celje.
2. The applicant in the second case, Ms Marija Karlovšek, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Celje. She was represented before the Court by the applicant in the first case.
3. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs J. Morela and Mrs B. Jovin Hrastnik, Senior State Attorneys.
4. The applicants complained about the lack of an effective remedy/procedure to challenge the Bank of Slovenia’s emergency measure by which their subordinated bonds (podrejene obveznice) in Bank Celje had been cancelled on 16 December 2014. In particular, the applicants complained that the legislator had failed to implement the Constitutional Court’s decision of 19 October 2016. The latter established that the law governing the civil proceedings for claiming compensation on account of the alleged unjustified emergency measures had not sufficiently safeguarded the interests of the holders of the cancelled subordinated bonds and shares.
5. On 25 October 2018 the applications, together with another six cases, were communicated to the Government.
6. In their subsequent correspondence with the Court, the parties informed the Court that, on 3 March 2017, the applicants had lodged a civil claim seeking compensation related to the cancelled bonds. In those domestic proceedings the applicants argued that when they had purchased the subordinated bonds their right to be informed of the nature of the investment and the inherent risks had not been respected by Bank Celje (now A Bank). The first instance court upheld their entire claim finding, inter alia, that the applicants had not been informed that their bonds had been subordinated and of the related risks. It found that the contracts by which they had purchased the bonds were null and awarded the applicants the compensation in full, namely each 570,572.50 euros, together with the statutory default interest and costs. A Bank’s appeal and appeal on points of law were dismissed. On 12 July 2019 the applicants received the sums awarded in the aforementioned proceedings.
THE LAW
7. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
9. The Government argued that in view of the compensation received by the applicants they could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation.
10. The applicants disagreed.
11. The Court notes that, according to the information presented by both parties, following the steps the applicants had taken at national level the contracts by which they had purchased the subordinated bonds were declared null. The applicants were fully reimbursed. The Court further observes that the civil proceedings, which the applicants successfully pursued, were independent of the proceedings aimed at challenging the emergency measures. However, given the outcome of the former, the applicants could no longer claim to be affected by the lack of implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 19 October 2016, that is by the alleged lack of an effective legal avenue to challenge the emergency measures leading to the cancellation of the subordinated bounds.
12. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the applicants cannot claim to be victims of the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
13. It follows that the applicants’ aforementioned complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 25 March 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Hasan BakırcıAleš Pejchal
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy