|
MILOVAN POROPAT, SENIJA POROPAT, MURADIFA ŠEREMET AND MUHAMED HRELJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND THE FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Cases No. CH/97/48, 52, 105 and 108)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The applicants are citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Before the
dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia they
deposited foreign currency with commercial banks in that country.
Because of a growing shortage of such currency and other economic
problems, the withdrawal of money from these “old” foreign
currency savings accounts was progressively restricted by
legislation enacted during the 1980s and the early 1990s. Before,
during and after the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina the applicants
were largely unable to withdraw money from their accounts. They
have initiated court proceedings in this matter but their action
has so far been unsuccessful and the proceedings are still
pending.
According to legislation enacted by the Federation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina in 1997 and 1998, in particular the Law on
Determination and Settlement of Citizen’s Claims in the
Privatisation Process, claims based on the old foreign currency
savings accounts are to be resolved in the process of
privatisation of socially owned property. Like the claims of
pensioners, soldiers and workers in formerly socially owned
companies, the balances of the savings are to be recorded in a
“Unique Citizen’s Account” maintained by the Federal Payment
Bureau. Instead of payment of outstanding pensions, salaries or
savings, the Bureau issues “certificates” in the commensurate
amounts. According to the relevant legal provisions, these
certificates can be used in the privatisation process to purchase
apartments, municipal business premises and shares and assets of
enterprises.
None of the applicants has so far participated in the
privatisation process. Instead, they wish to have cash disbursed
from their bank accounts. Allegedly, using the certificates in the
privatisation process is not an option for them as they already
own private houses and cannot make use of the assets made
available in the privatisation process or do not have the
supplementary cash necessary for purchasing such assets. The
applicants claim that they may be forced to sell their
certificates on the secondary market where, according to
advertisements in daily newspapers in February 2000, such
certificates were being offered for sale at about 5 per cent of
their nominal value.
The Chamber has held public hearings in the cases on 9 March and 7
December 1999. It has heard several experts and witnesses. Also,
the Ombudsmen of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the
Office of the High Representative have made submissions in their
capacity as amici curiae.
The applicants complain that their right to peaceful enjoyment of
their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to
the European Convention on Human Rights, and their right to a fair
hearing within a reasonable time before an independent and
impartial tribunal, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention,
have been violated.
FINDINGS OF THE CHAMBER
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human
Rights.
After having declared the applications admissible, the Chamber
found that Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina violated the applicants’ rights under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It considered, in this respect,
that Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to take adequate action in
regard to the old foreign currency savings to secure the
applicants’ rights and that the Federation took measure in regard
to these savings which placed an individual and excessive burden
on the applicants. In view of these findings, the Chamber decided
that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints
under Article 6 of the Convention.
REMEDIES
The Chamber ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to
amend the privatisation programme so as to achieve a fair balance
between the general interest and the protection of the property
rights of the applicants as holders of old foreign currency
accounts. It did not order any remedy in regard to Bosnia and
Herzegovina’s violation of the applicant’s property rights. Both
respondent Parties were, however, ordered to compensate the
applicants for their legal expenses.
Ms. Picard attached a partly dissenting opinion to the decision;
Messrs. Grasso and Masenko-Mavi attached a partly dissenting
opinion; Mr. Rauschning attached a partly dissenting opinion;
Messrs. Möller, Balić, Juka, Masenko-Mavi and Tadić attached a
partly dissenting opinion on the remedies; Messrs. Pajić and
Popović attached a partly dissenting opinion; and Mr. Grotrian
attached a partly dissenting opinion.
|
