Published on 23 May 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 3815/21
Dušanka PIPUŠ
against Slovenia
lodged on 4 January 2021
communicated on 3 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the Bank of Slovenia’s extraordinary measures taken in 2014 and leading to the cancellation of the subordinated bonds held by the applicant in the Bank Celje, without any compensation. The civil proceedings she had initiated with a view to challenging the cancellation of her bonds were suspended pending the implementation of the 2016 Constitutional Court’s decision, which instructed the legislator to improve the protection of the aggrieved parties’ interests in civil proceedings against the Bank of Slovenia (see Pintar and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 49969/14 and 4 others, §§ 38-44, 14 September 2021). The applicant used acceleratory remedies and unsuccessfully lodged an action for compensation for the excessive length of the aforementioned (suspended) civil proceedings. She also lodged an action for compensation for the legislature’s failure to establish an effective remedy as required by the 2016 Constitutional Court’s decision. The latter civil proceedings are still pending.
In its judgment in Pintar and Others (cited above), which concerned the same issue as the present application, the Court noted that the Constitutional Court’s 2016 decision remained unimplemented in practice, leaving the former holders of cancelled shares and subordinated bonds without a remedy that would allow them to challenge the Bank of Slovenia’s measures and seek compensation.
The applicant in the present case raises similar complaints as those in Pintar and Others. While invoking Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, she complains, in substance under the procedural aspect of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the excessive length of the civil proceedings concerning the cancellation of her bonds and the resultant lack of an effective remedy to challenge the Bank of Slovenia’s impugned measure and to seek compensation.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has the interference with the applicant’s possessions been accompanied by sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Pintar and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 49969/14 and 4 others, §§ 109-10, 14 September 2021)?