SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35979/04
by Pirjo PERDUV
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 September 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Pirjo Perduv, is a Finnish citizen who was born in 1942 and lives in Stockholm. She is represented before the Court by Mr J. Thörnhammar, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 July 1989 the applicant deposited 400,000 Swedish Kronas (“SEK”) with “Beobanka”, a State-owned bank based in Belgrade (“the Bank”), for a period of 60 months with interest stipulated at 16.95%. The contract between the applicant and the Bank provided, inter alia, that the deposit could be renewed for another 60 months if the depositor failed to withdraw her funds within one month of expiry of the initial period and, also, that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia guaranteed the applicant’s deposit.
However, in 1994 the applicant found that she was unable to withdraw her deposit and the interest on the sum was substantially reduced.
After several exchanges, on 30 September 2003 the applicant sent a letter to the Serbian Central Bank (“Narodna banka Srbije”), requesting the payment of the original interest rate and the transfer of her money to a Monaco bank.
On 23 October 2003 the Serbian Central Bank replied that the applicable law was the “Act on the Settlement of the Public Debt of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Arising from the Citizens’ Foreign Currency Savings”, which entered into force on 4 July 2002. This legislation provided for the conversion of the foreign currency deposits in a number of failed banks, including the applicant’s, into a “public debt”, as well as the time-frame and the amount to be paid back to their former clients. The State’s obligations would thus be fully honoured by 2016 and, in the meantime, the applicant could make use of her deposits converted into Government bonds for a number of different purposes or sell them at the stock exchange. The letter concluded by stating that “there [was] no possibility of transferring the entire amount of [the applicant’s] foreign currency savings to ... her account abroad”.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the refusal of the respondent State to release all of her foreign currency savings, together with the interest due. She also invoked Article 6 of the Convention, as well as Article 13 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, maintaining that, given the relevant domestic law, she had no access to a court and/or an effective domestic remedy in respect of the said breach of her property rights.
THE LAW
On 3 May 2006 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government and the parties exchanged their observations on the admissibility and the merits of the case. On 20 November 2006 the applicant’s counsel informed the Court that the applicant had instructed him to withdraw the application and, on 15 December 2006, the Government proposed that the present case be struck out of the Court’s list of applications.
In view of the above and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue the case. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would require the further examination of the application.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer be applied and the present case should be struck out of the Court’s list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy