SECRETARIAT GENERAL COUNCIL CONSEIL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF EUROPE DE L'EUROPE Committee of Ministers SECRÉTARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Comité des Ministres
Contact: Simon Palmer Tel: 03.88.41.26.12
Date: 27/04/2010
DH - DD(2010)224
Item reference: Communication from an NGO in the case of Suljagic against Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 27912/02) and response of the Government.
Information made available under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments.
Référence du point Communication : par une ONG dans l'affaire Suljagic contre Bosnie-Herzégovine (Requête n° 27912/02) et observations du gouvernement (anglais uniquement).
Informations mises à disposition en vertu de la Règle 9.3 des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts.
This document will be declassified after the 1086th DH meeting, in accordance with Rule 8 (Access to information) of the rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements.
Ce document sera déclassifié à l’issue de la 1086e réunion DH conformément à la règle 8 (Accès aux informations) des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l'exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables
In the application of Article 21 b of the rules of procedure of the Committee of Ministers, it is understood that distribution of documents at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers (CM/Del/Dec(2001 )772/1.4). / Dans le cadre de (application de l'article 21 b du Règlement intérieur du Comité des Ministres, il est entendu que la distribution de documents à la demande d'un représentant se fait sous la seule responsabilité dudit représentant, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres CM/Del/Dec(2001 )772/1.4). ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF PRE-WAR HARD CURRENCY SAVINGS DEPOSITORS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Council of Europe Committee of Ministres Avenue de l'Europe COMITE DES MINISTRES F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex D G - H L FRANCE 2 9 JAN. 2010
ENREGISTRE N ' ' j - 1 FEV. 2010 Transmis le Sarajevo, January 27,2010 i SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION D E S A R R E T S DE LA C FD H
Re: Execution of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina AP No: 27912/02
The depositors from Bosnia and Herzegovina hereby extend their satisfaction over the fact that European Court oi Human Rights found Bosnia and Herzegovina systematically violating their rights, and declaring the Suljagic Judgment as pilot-judgment to provide for the speediest and most effective resolution of a dysfunction in the national legal order.
Pursuant to the Rule 9 of the “Rules o f the Committee o f Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements“, the Association for protection of hard currency depositors in Bosnia arid Herzegovina - a non-governmental organization involved in the above-mentioned case as a third party, would hereby like to identify the problems the depositors are facing and the ways to resolve them.
The laws of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Srpska and Brco District, disputed the right of the depositors to enjoy their property and the right to court protection! 1 his was also established by the Human Rights Chamber in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the (Chamber's decisions made between 2000 and 2003, Bosnia and Herzegovina was found responsible for failing to take any step whatsoever to protect the depositors.
The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found in 2005 that the responsibility for the violation oi the depositors’ right to their property rests upon the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and annulled the Entities’ and Brcko District’s laws turning the pre-war savings into public debt of aforesaid legal entities and ordered the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina to pass the law to protect the rights of the depositors. (Decision U 14/05 of December 2, 2005) Decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH is binding and failure to execute it implies criminal liability.
Parliamentary Assembly oi BiH passed the Law of settlement of the liabilities related to pre war hard currency savings “Official Journal of BiH 28/06 of April 14. 2006" (hereinafter referred to as State Law). By this State Law, Bosnia and Herzegovina has undertaken the responsibility for the settlement of the liabilities related to pre-war hard currency savings (Article 1, paragraph 1 of the State Law). It offered the depositors to repay their funds on behalf of the banks, as per terms and conditions defined under the State Law, namely 1000 KM (convertible marks) in cash, and the remaining sum in bonds (Article 18 and Article 21 of the State Law).
The funds needed to settle the Habilites of Bosnia and Herzegovina undertaken in such a way, shall be provided by the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Srpska and Brcko District (Article 1, paragraph 2 of the State Law) scheduled according to the seat of the bank, or branch office of the bank the hard currency account was opened at. This solution is not in conformity with Aticle 1, paragraph 4 of the BiH Constitution. The greatest amount of liabilities rests upon the Federation of Bosnia and Herzetovina.
The change of the debtor and liability settlement Bosnia and Herzegovina undertook from the banks, had been preceded by the claim verification procedure (Article 1, paragraph 5 of the State Law).
The claim verification execution by-laws are passed by the Entities and Brcko District instead of the Council of Ministers (CoM BiH) which was going to become, in execution of the State Law, the main instrument of the Ministry of Finance of the BiH Federation Government to eliminate those depositors whose refund depends on the assets to be provided by the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (See Item 14).
The amendments to the State Law extended the claim verification deadline for depositors until September 30, 2007. (Article 17 of the State Law).
The depositors who failed to verify their savings, were supposed to have their rights protected in court. The liabilities related to pre-war hard currency accounts not verified pursuant to the State Law and executive by-laws of the Entities and Brcko District could be established and proved in a judicial procedure only (Article 5 of the State Law). This right is disputed by the courts. (See Item 15).
The claim verification is implemented by the three agencies (Article 7 of the State Law). Verification is done at the seat of the bank or branch office of the bank the hard currency acocunt was initially opened at (Article 11 of the State Law), which created additional problems and inflicted significant travel costs upon depositors. It is a well-known fact that the war caused massive population displacements and the Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement - Return of the displaced has not been implemented as yet. In addition, nearly one million of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina live as refugees abroad. One of the preconditions for the claim verification is for the savings owner to have his/her own active KM account with a bank in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The banking agency does not permit opening of such accounts based on power of attorney.
The payment for the verified savings was supposed to be up to 1,000 KM in cash till the end of 2007, and the remaining amount in bonds due as of December 31, 2016 (Aritcle 21, paragraph a) of the State Law)
The bonds for the verified hard currency savings are to be issued by Bosnia and Herzegovina on behalf of the Entities and Brcko District (Article 23, paragraph 1 of the State Law). The principal and interests are paid out of the portions of the single account of the Treasury of Bosnia and Herzegovina pertaining to the Entities and Brcko District. The bond emission deadline was set at March 31, 2008 (Article 21, paragraph 1(a) of the State Law).
A special escrow account and the debt servicing account related to pre-war hard currency savings bonds were about to be opened with the Central bank. These accounts are run by the Ministry of Finance and Treasury of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Article 23, paragraph 2 of the State Law).
Central bank is in charge of keeping the official register of bond ownership and to issuing hard-copy receipts certifying the ownership of the bonds for each person holding such right (Article 22 of the State Law).
The settlement of the pre-war hard currency savings under Article 23, paragraph 2 of the State Law is guaranteed by Bosnia and Herzegovina, pursuant to the Law of loan taking, debts and guarantees of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Article 23, paragraph 4 of the State Law).
The two Laws of changes and amendments to the State Law have been passed. The first one, "Official Journal of BiH 76/06 of September 25, 2006" revoked the provision stating that the depositor may not file a complaint once he receives 1,000 KM in cash. The second, “Official Journal of BiH 72/07 of September 26, 2007” stipulates that the settlement of the pre-war hard currency savings is of the same priority as the settlement of the foreign debt-related liabilities (Article 23 of the State Law), and the funds to be used to settle those liabilities shall include the funds received in a succession of SFRY and other assets at the disposal of Bosnia and Herzegovina, all pursuant to the decisions of the Council of Ministers (CoM BiH) (amendments to Article 1 of the State Law).
Effective judicial decisions on pre-war hard currency savings shall be submitted by the courts to the Entities' Ministries of Finance and Brcko District Finance Directorate (Article 27 of the State Law).
THE LAW IS NOT IMPLEMENTED NEITHER IS THE LIABILITY SYSTEM FOR THE FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT THE LAW. THE ORGANIZED DESTRUCTION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA IS TAKING PLACE.
The policy of disintegration of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina as conducted by Republika Srpska, is supported and implemented by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers Nikola Spiric, Minister of Finance and Treasury of the Council of Ministers Dragan Vrankic, and a majority of ministers in the Council of Ministers. This policy was shared by the judges of the Constitutional Court of BiH. The Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who received the criminal charge filed by the Association for protection of hard currency depositors in Bosnia and Herzegovina back in 2005, as well as a number of amendments to the criminal charges with the supporting documentation, has failed to instigate the criminal procedure to this date. This is what happened:
1. Republic of Srpska refused to comply with the State Law and submit the information on verified savings to the Council of Ministers for bond emission. Instead of acting in accordance with the State Law, Assembly of the Repulic of Srpska passed the Law on conditions and modes of pre-war hard currency savings in Republic of Srpska on December 12, 2007 (hereinafter Law of the RS).
Council of Minsiters accepted this attitude of the RS and made a Decision on BiH bonds specified by years o f maturity and issued to settle the liabilities for pre-war hard currency savings for the Federation o f BiH and Brcko District o f Bosnia and Herzegovina, "Official Journal of BiH No. 29/08 of April 8, 2008”.
The due date for the first payment amounting to 7.5% of the principal amount was supposed to be September 27, 2008 (*1). (Repayment specification attached).
Council of Ministers failed to implement its own decision.
Council of Ministers failed to issue the bonds on behalf of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bröko District. No central register of bonds has been established with the Central bank. No receipts confirming ownership of the bonds have been issued in the Federation or Brcko District. No single account of the Treasury of Bosnia and Herzegovina hass been established with the Central Bank to pay the due liabilities from. No special escrow account has been established, neither was the Decision of the Council of Ministers made to allocate the succession-related funds for this purpose as specified in the State Law. The succession-related claims and execution of these claims are kept secret. Banks and Council of Ministers refuse to disclose these information to the courts.
The control of the work of Council of Ministers with regard to the liabilities the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina has undertaken, is not carried out neither by the BiH Presidency nor the BiH Parliament. Actually, a joint commission of both chambers of the BiH Parliament has been formed to deal with pre-wart hard currency savings issue, and it is duly informed of the failure to comply with the State Law. The chairman of the Commission, MP Branko Dokic, has never reported to the Parliament on this issue.
Had the European Court of Human Rights not undertaken to deal with the case of Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, the liabilities of Bosnia and Herzegovina related to the verified hard currency savings would have remained unresolved.
2. The Office of the High Representative (OHR) and the US Embassy in Sarajevo hold the key to the solution of pre-war hard currency savings in their hands. The authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina are dealing with this issue under their pressure. This is no secret in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is publically talked about at the parliamentary commissions’ sessions attended by the Association’s representatives too.
3. To illustrate it, OHR presented Sulejman Tihic, Vice-Chairman of the House of Peoples of the BiH Parliament with a request for assessment of the compliance with the Constitution of the specific articles of the Law of the RS. In this request they did not ask the Constitutional Court of BiH to declare the Law of the RS null and void, to protect the legal system of BiH and its sovereignty.
On March 10, 2008 Suleman Tihic forwarded the request received from the OHR to the Constitutional Court of BiH. The requests of similar wording were also submitted to the Constitutional Court of BiH by the members of BiH Presidency Haris Silajdzic and Zeljko Komsic on February 28, 2008, and the member of BiH Presidency Nebojsa Radmanovic requested the assessment of the compliance with the state Constitution of the Articles 22 and 23 of the State Law.
Instead of finding the Law of the RS contradicting the Decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH U-14/05 and the Constitution of BiH, and to declare it null and void, the Constitutional Court of BiH made a Decision U-03/08 of October 4, 2008 to decline the applications lodged by Tihic, Silajzic, Komsic and Radmanovic as ill-founded.
That's how in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the same legal matter is regulated by two effectively opposing laws, one of which, the Law of the RS will gain "precedence” over the State Law passed by the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH, as ordered by the Constitutional Court of BiH (Decision U 14/05).
The High Representative failed to use his Bonn-vested authorizations in this matter. He failed to declare the Law of the RS null and void.
Association for protection of the hard currency savings depositors in BiH filed a criminal charge against the judges of the Constitutional Court of BiH with the BiH Prosecutor's Office. The application filed by the Association in the case of Suljagic, includes the abuses of office committed by the judges of the Constitutional Court of BiH, which the BiH Criminal Code qualifies as criminal offence.
4. BiH Federation only continued the destruction of the legal system in the state. As claimed by the Federal Parliament MPs, this time the pressure was coming from the US Embassy in Sarajevo. At the proposal of the Ministry of Finance in the BiH Federation Government Vjekoslav Bevanda, supported by the Government of the BiH Federation, Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted on September 29, 2009 the Law on settlement of the liabilities related to pre-war hard currency savings in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,“Official Gazette of the BiH Federation No. 62/09 of September 30, 2009 (hereinafter Federal Law) which substantially differs from the State Law.
So, in Bosnia and Herzegovina three effective laws regulate the same legal matter. Most probably even four, the one passed by the Brcko District.
Bosnia and Herzegovina who accepted the savings-related liabilities, does not exercise any control of the implementation of the liabilities undertaken. We see no reaction from the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Council of Ministers or Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina. None of the authorized officials has filed an application with the Constitutional Court of BiH to assess the compliance of the Federal Law with the state Constitution.
The OHR also failed to react. 5. The Judgment of the European Court in the case of Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina was published on November 3, 2009. It was translated and made available at the Council of Ministers web page - Office of the Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina before the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Those responsible in the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina arc not doing anything to implement this Judgment, neither they intend to act with this regard, as far as we know.
6. Federal Minister of Finance Vjekoslav Bevanda did his best to create further havoc before the Suljagic Judgment becomes effective. The payments are being made to the bank accounts of the depositors who made the verification of their savings even beyond the deadline set by the State Law. It is only Minister Vjekoslav Bevanda who knows whom it is paid and what is paid, because it is he who threatens with the financial collapse of the BiH Federation in the media on a daily basis.
Many depositors in Herzegovina got paid the whole amount of the claims because the verification agency seated in Mostar, supported by the Federal Minister of Finance, issued a large number of verification certificates amounting to 1,000 KM, allegedly on the account of multiple gift deeds related to the savings. A great number of certificate holders does not have a personal identity. They are entered under the Perosnal ID No: 1111111111111111. Minister Bevanda paid them all up without informing the Federal Tax Directorate. No one is supervising the work of the Federal Minister in this matter.
It is the outright mockery of the Judgment of the Euroepan Court. The Judgment in the case Suljagic v.. Bosnia and Herzegovina orders Bosnia and Herzegovina to settle the undertaken and due liabilities in line with the Decision of the Council of Ministers. (*1) A default interest of 12% is set for late payments.
We the depositors are intentionally pushed toward endless submission of piles of applications with the European Court of Human Rights as a testimony of the continuing violations of our rights. If this destruction is not stopped, we could expect tens of thoursands of new applications filed by the depositors with the European Court of Human Rights. We cannot get a proper protection in the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (See Item 15). The problems gets ever more serious, because the Judgment of Suljagic orders the state to set the additional 6-month deadline for claims verification.
7. The logical question arises at to whose interest it might be to see the legal system of Bosnia and Flerzegovina collapsing? It is the mere cover for the outright criminal acts? Or is it aimed at showing the Council of Europe that the Dayton’s Bosnia and Herzegovina is the failed state. Bosnia and Herzegovina is dysfunctional exactly because Dayton Agreement is not being adequately implemented. This legal havoc constitute a fertile ground for corruption and crime. Prosecutors’ Offices fail to do their job. Criminals gathered around political oligarchies see the way out only in the change of constitutional regulations and dissolution of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, any change of the Constitution made before the functioning of the state is brought in line with the existing constitutional regulations, would institutionalize the legal havoc, and thereby lead to a long-term political instability of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Region.
How can the issue of pre-war hard currency savings be solved? THE EXECUTION OF THE PILOT JUDGMENT SULJAGIC SHALL BE EXCLUSIVELY ENTRUSTED TO BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND ITS STATE LAW!
8. Pursuant to the Constitution of BiH, the supervision of the execution of the Judgments of the European Court is carried out by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Article 5, paragraph 3c and 3h of the BiH Constitution). It is the competency of the Presidency of BiH to communicate with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
The Presidency shall take the responsibility for execution of the Suljagic Judgment and propose the measures Bosnia and Herzegovina must take to address the issue of the dysfunctional legal system in BiH. It should inform the Committee of Ministers accordingly, pursuant to Item 6, paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Committee.
Presidency of BiH has the required instruments at hand, including the BiH Criminal Code.
9. Presidency of BiH shall file an application with the Constitutional Court of BiH and ask the President of the Court to decide on the application in a prioritized procedure. It shall thereby ask the Constitutional Court of BiH to bring the existing 3(4) laws in line with the Constitution of BiH and to enforce its Decision U-14/05, i.e. to have the issue of pre-war hard currency savings under the jurisdiction of the State Law only.
10. Given the fact that the Council of Ministers and Parliament of BiH composed of the current MPs is under the influence of the policies actively jeopardizing the sovereignty of the state and impeding the functioning of the state, to avoid the possible obstruction in these bodies, we are of the opinion that the Presidency of BiH should adopt the O rdinance on the changes and amendments to the Law of the settlement of liabilities related to pre-war hard currency savings (State Law), to be legally transferred onto the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11. The Presidency’s Ordinance shall impose additional 6-month claims verification deadline. Article 1 o f the State Law, amended as laid down in the Suljagic Judgment. Illegal practice of the Entities to set the verification deadlines at will and in their by laws shall stop immediately.
12. In its Ordinance, Presidency shall set the deadline for the Council of Ministers to set up a register if bond holders with the Central Bank for the liabilities undertaken by the Stale Law and Decision of the bond issuance on behalf of the Federation and Brcko District. This register must include the bonds issued by the Republic of Srpska too. Council of Ministers shall take the responsibility to settle the liabilities due as of the date of coming into force of the Suljagic Judgment (February 3, 2010). In its Ordinance, the Presidency shall also set the deadlines for the Council of Ministers to execute other liabilities as defined by the State Law: establishing of the escrow account and this debt servicing account, reallocation of the succession-related funds onto the escrow account. Council of Ministers shall inform the Presidency of BiH on the amount of banks' claims from the National Bank of Yugoslavia for re-deposited pre-war hard currency savings and current standings with regard to payment of these claims. (Exercising the rights under the Agreement on the succession issues, Annex G and Annex C of the Agreement).
13. The establishment of the register with the Central Bank shall be preceded by the revision of the liabilities undertaken and paid out so far. Presidency of BiH which is responsible for execution of the Suljagic Judgment shall publish a call for proposals to select the auditing house to carry out these tasks. These tasks shall not be delegated to any government be it at the State, Entity or Brcko District level. The funds needed for auditing procedure shall be secured by the Council of Ministers from the 2010 budget reserves.
Acting contrary to this Ordonance of the Presidency includes criminal liability. In case of non-compliance, Prosecutor's Office of BiH shall order SIPA to confiscate the documentation.
14. Violation of the right to property in the implementation of Article 3 of the State Law. The Presidency’s Ordinance should amend Article 3, paragraph 2 and 3 of the State Law.
What's on dispute here is the implementation of Article 3, paragraph 2 and 3 of the State Law in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina that read as follows:
(2) Depositors who sold to third persons their hard currency savings certificates in the Federation o f Bosnia and Herzegovina or pre-war hard currency savings vouchers in Republic o f Srpska have no right to file the verification application in accordance with this Law.
(3) buyers o f the hard currency savings certificates in the Federation o f Bosnia and Herzegovina, or buyers of pre-war hard currency savings vouchers in Republic of Srpska, may use those certificates or vouchers in the privatization process only and are not entitled to file applications for verification in accordance with this Law.
These provisions of the State Law are used in the BiH Federation as an instrument of deterring the depositors in the verification process.
This kind of bans on verifications against the BiH Federation depositors is groundless.
• Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Srpska, passed in 1997 and 1988 the laws turning the pre-war hard currency savings claims into securities that could be used in the process of the fortcoming privatization of the state capital and property. The banks domiciled in the BiH Federation were legally bound (*2) to establish the depositors’ claims as of March 31, 1992 and transfer those claims onto the so- called Single account of Citizens opened with the Payment Bureau (ZPP). The banks domiciled in Republic of Srpska made the calculation of claims as of June 30, 1998 and registered those claims with the Agency for mediation and financial transactions (APIF) Banja Luka. The effective cash originating from the pre-war hard currency savings deposited in the banks and rights to claims with regard to hard currency re-deposited with the National Bank of Yugoslavia were at the disposal of the banks.
• In Republic of Srpska, a depositor could have turned these claims into the privatization coupons and used them to buy off his apartment, state property or state-owned companies' capital. The depositor could have sold these funds receivables to the persons who wanted to buy the state-owned capital. The sale transaction was made under the mediation of APIF (Agency dealing with the claims verification in Republic of Srpka.). The depositor would get the cash from the buyer of privatization coupons, and APIF transferred the claims from the depositor's account onto the buyer's account. The sale value was revolving around 30 - 50% of the nominal value of the hard currency savings sold in this way. The depositors who did not want to sell their claims, or were not interested in purchasing the state-owned property or capital were forced to wait for the new legal solutions to regulate the refund of their property. They did not have a right to protection in court.
• In Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, hard currency savings were legally (*2) turned into the privatization certificates and could have been used for buying off apartments, state-owned properties or capital. At first, the law stipulated the 2-year deadline for these claimed pre-ward hard currency savings to be used, following which, those claims should have been legally abolished. The Law allowed the assignment of the privatization certificates onto other persons with no charge included. No sale-purchase system was established like the one in Republic of Srpska. Being confused on what to do with their certificates and out of fear of breaking the deadline and loosing all their savings, depositors assigned the certificates onto their spouses, children, relatives and friends.
• BiH Federation passed the law on privatization investment funds (PIF) and opened the way to the purchase of the state-owned capital for privatization certificates. Most of the PIFs were established by the Slovenian companies whose capital owners were unknown. PIFs called upon the privatization certificate holders to invest them into funds, concealing their intention to devalue those invested funds to 3% of their nominal value. The PIFs and crooks of all types were paid lip service by the employees of ZPP (presently employed with the AFIP which carry out the savings verification process in the Federation), who transferred the certificates onto the accounts of PIFs and third persons without the privatization certificate holders being aware of it. Although the certificate transfer orders had to be signed by their holders, it turned out it was not complied with in practice. Those orders were mostly signed by the PIF employees and/or ZPP employees. So we come across the cases in which the deceased people issued orders to transfer the certificates onto the accounts of unknown individuals. Many pre-war hard currency savings holders discovered these malversations during the claims verification procedure only. When they filed the criminal charges with the prosecutors' offices, those issues were found obsolete for criminal prosecution. (R e: Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office of the Tuzla Canton No. Kta: 2450/07 at the applciation of Karic Sabit and Karic Amir.) • As early as 2000, much before the announcement of the state capital privatization for privatization certificates, it was clear that the transformation of hard currency savings into privatization certificates in the Bill Federation made the depositors de facto robbed of their property. That’s why a group of BiH Federation MPs filed an application with the Constitutional Court of the BiH Federation to decide on the compliance of the Law with the BiH Constitution (*2). Constitutional Court of the BiH Federation made a decision (*3) whereby the provisions of the law (*2) transforming the hard currency savings into privatization certificates and using of those in the privatization process were declared contrary to the Constitution and Aticle 1 of the Protocol 1 to the European Convention. However, Government of the BiH Federation and Privatization Agency in FBiH failed to comply with this judgment. That’s how the depositors lost the control over their property. Some depositors asked for protection before the Human Right Chamber.
• Human Rights Chamber, established by the Annex 6 of the Dayton Peace Agreement, was a judicial body legally operating in Bosnia and Herzegovina up until December 31, 2004 and was only tasked to protect the human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The decisions of the Chamber between 2000 and the date of its dissolution, found Bosnia and Herzegovina responsible for violation of the depositors' rights to their property (*4). The Decisions of the Human Rights Chamber particularly emphasized the problem of legal insecurity for those depositors having their savings with the banks domiciled in the BiH Federation, caused by the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina on account of its non- compliance with the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the BiH Federation (*3) and continuation of enforcement of the legal provisions that are contrary to the Constitution (*2).
• Under the pressure of the Human Rights Chamber, BiH Federation Parliament made on November 21, 2003 the amendments to the law (*2) that read as follows: “Depositors who made transfers of the pre-war hard currency savings into the privatization investment funds and who wish to re-transfer those onto the Single account, could fd e an application with the privatization investment funds to get the claims refund within 6 months o f the effective date o f this Depositors law". filed the applications to the PIFs who responded by saying they got instructed by the Federal Minister Dragan Vrankic, the present Minister of Treausry and Finance that hard currency savings certificates could not be reclaimed and they could use them in the forthcoming big privatization. (Letter by the Federal Minister Dragan Vrankic sent to MARKET INVESTMENT GROUP No. 04-02-6257/04 of June 8, 2005). Following this, PIFs issued the depositors the securities of the shareholding capital amounting to 3% of the nominal value of the hard currency savings. The amendments to the law of November 21, 2003, included this order: “B iH Federation Privatization agency shall reinstate the non-used pre-war hard currency savings claims previously transferred to the single account, to the holder's account within 30 days o f the day o f the depositor's application receipt". Depositors filed the applications to the Privatization Agency to reinstate their claims onto the bank accounts, but were told that the Federal Minister had never passed the by-laws to execute the above-mentioned legal regulations. (Leiter by the FBIH Privatization Agency M anager ReSad Zutic No. 04-14-3295/06 of October 27, 2006). • On August 21, 2004, a new amendment to the law (*2) was passed stipulating that "the claims related to pre-war hard currency savings are turned into the internal debt o f the Federation o f Bosnia and Herzegovina to be settled according to the separate law, unless the person claiming the refund o f the pre-war hard currency savings make a statement deciding to utilize those claims as envisaged in Article 18 o f the law. (Article" 18 of the law stipulates that the funds entered into the single account could be utilized in the privatization process only). Statement under paragraph 1 o f this article is irrevocable and is fle d with the Federal Ministry of Finance within three months o f the effective date o f the A smalllaw. number of depositors filed their statements with the Federal Ministry of Finance on utilization of their savings in the privatization process. Privatization certificates originated in the pre-war hard currency savings were not deleted from the database available with the Federal Ministry of Finance. We do not know if the Federal Minister passed the by-laws and set up the database to include the depositors' applications to use the certificates in the privatization process.
• In a verification procedure, depositor shall submit the certificate of deletion from the privatization certificate database. This certificate one can obtain at the Post Office counter, charged 2 KM. The depositor not entered into this database cannot file the verification application as a holder of certificates. He is asked to file for a judicial dispute pursuant to Article 5 of the State Law. However, agencies of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina fails to instruct the depositors accordingly, but accept their applications and draw the depositors into the exhausting administrative procedures already doomed to failure also by the Commission for pre-war hard currency savings. (Article 16 of the State Law) and the Cantonal courts (Article 15, paragraph 6 of the State Law). (Example: Judgment of the Cantonal court in Zenica No: 004-0-U-07-000 419 of the applicant Sadeta Hadiimehanovic v. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina).
Federal Ministry of Finance instruct the agencies on whose savings verification to accept and whose to reject. As a rule, those depositors having larger sums claimed are rejected. (As an illustration, Nusret MujiCic verified his small amount of the claimed savings with Jugobanka, but the same agency refused to verify the claims amounting to 77,000 DEM with Privredna banka dd Sarajevo. Mujicic got no judicial protection either. Municipal court in Sarajevo declined jurisdiction).
• Due to non-compliance with the judgment of the Constitutional court of the Federation (*3) and failure to pass the related by-laws, tens of thousands of depositors from the Federation lost their right to property. State Law allows the persons on whose accounts such claims are entered, them not being the holders of the savings, including the PIFs, to use them further in the privatization process.
• Association for protection of had currency savings depositors took the note of the cases in which the branch offices of the banks located in Republic of Srpska (Foca, for instance) turned the hard currency savings into privatization certificates of the BiH Federation and submitted them for ZPP's records. At this moment, we do not know if the holders of those accounts could verify their savings in Republic of Srpska. According to the statements made by the Association of citizens holding pre-war hard currency savings in Bosnia and Herzegovina and abroad seated in Banja Luka, they have found some cases in which the bank or APIF Banja Luka made transfers of the claims onto the unidentified persons, without the holders being informed accordingly. This is why the Association from Banja Luka is advised to propose the amendments to the State Law related to Republic of Srpska.
Amendments to Article 3 of the State Law should read as follows:
Under Article 3, paragraph 2 of the State Law, the wording “who sold to the third persons the certificates originating from the pre-war hard currency savings in the Federation o f Bosnia and Herzegovina should be or" deleted.
Under Article 3, paragraph 3 of the State Law, the wording “buyers o f the certificates originating from the pre-war hard currency savings in the Federation o f Bosnia and Herzegovina should or" be deleted.
Under Article 3, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are added and they read as follows:
(4) Holders of the accounts of pre-war hard currency savings who made statements to the Federal Ministry of Finance within the legally prescribed deadline (22.8-22-11.2004) on their desire to use the privatization certificates o f the pre-war hard currency savings in the privation process, are not entitled to apply for claims verification. Federal Ministry o f Finance shall submit these information to the privatization agencies in the BiH Federation, and the verification agency shall issue the depositors the adequate document thereof.
(5) Holders o f the PIF securities originating from the pre-war hard currency savings shall not dispose o f the same. This right is terminated as o f the date o f the publishing o f the Ordinance. The title over the securities issued by PIFs with regard to the pre-war had currency savings is transferred from the depositor onto the Federal Ministry o f Finance.
(6) Federal Ministry o f Finance shall within 120 days from the date o f this Ordinance, make a revision o f the privatization o f the state-owned capital and apartments that involved the pre-war hard currency savings funds, and provide from the buyers other sources o f payments. Owner o f the apartment who used his own pre-war hard currency savings to buy that apartment may produce a written statement asking for the amount o f verified claims to be reduced by the value paid for the apartment, or to choose another means ofpayment.
15. Inefficiency of the judicial authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention Is Bosnia and Herzegovina capable of resolving this problem at all, since the depositors cannot get adequate protection of the Constitutional Court of BiH? Or, it this problem going to remain under exclusive jurisdiction of the European Court in Strasbourg?
The depositors who, pursuant to the provisions of the State Law, were not entitled to apply for claims verification, as well as the depositors who failed to verify their savings, or those who verified the claims but got neither cash nor bonds, filed a lawsuit against 1) bank they deposited their savings with and 2) against the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The legal grounds for filing such suits, apart from Article 5 of the State Law and the right to complaint even if they verified their savings, were founded in the Agreement on the issues of succession that became effective on June 2, 2004, or prior to the adoption of the State Law.
Pursuant to Annex G of the Agreement on succession, banks shall provide for the refund of hard currency assets re-deposited with the National Bank of Yugoslavia and those funds, together with the funds they kept at the accounts of correspondent banks abroad, shall be used to compensate the despositors. The savings re-deposition contracts signed by and between the banks and the National Bank of Yugoslavia, as well as the information on the assets held at the bank accounts arc available both at the banks and the National Bank of Yugoslavia. What the banks did with these assets, whether they claimed and received these funds from the National Bank of Yugoslavia remains a top secret in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Banks refuse to provide the courts with such information. (Municipal Court in Sarajevo, Case No. 65 0 P 043070 08 P Babic Cobic Branka v. Privredna banka dd Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina). Courts fail to find the banks responsible. (Judgment Alajbcgovic and others v. Union Bank dd Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Municipal Court in Sarajevo in the case No. 065 0 P 043059 08 P).
The National Bank of Yugoslavia is in a possession of the documentation on the amount of assets of the hard currency savings which made up the major part of the foreign currency reserves of Yugoslavia, bought by the banks in Yugoslavia or Military Service in Belgrade in the foreign currency market during 1990 and in early 1991. The banks from Bosnia and Herzegovina did not take part in the plunder of hard currency savings, or purchase of hard currency assets not realistically matched with their dinar counter-value (National bank of Yugoslavia, Report of the measures undertaken to eliminate the attempts to jeopardize the uniform monetary and hard currency system of the state and results of implementation of those measures, Council of Governors, Top Secret, Ja n u a ry 31, 1991) that took place under the supervision of the Governor of the National Bank of Yugoslavia and his deputy. Hence the Report by Mr. Jurgens to the Resolutions 1410 of the Council of Europe is arbitrary and not grounded on professional assessment of the documentation of the National Bank of Yugoslavia which, as the file records of the permanent value, has to be maintained and readily available to all interested parties, Mr. Jurgens included.
Association for protection of hard currency depositors in Bosnia and Herzegovina was prepared to establish in court procedure where the money was gone (Lawsuit of the Association against the banks, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia etc. of N o v e m b e r 11, 2004), namely as a preliminary legal procedure prior to lawsuits instigated before the European Court in Strassbourg (Cases 27734/04, 4644/05 and 3690/05), but the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina rejected to instigate the declaratory complaint. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is of the opinion that Article 28 of the State Law abolished the depositors' rights to court protection, which will be replicated later on as the opinion of most judges in the courts of BiH Federation. Constitutional Court of BiH did not support the Association in its efforts, either. (Decision and Conclusion of the Constitutional Court of BiH in the case AP 531/07).
Pursuant to Annex C of the Agreement on succession, prior to effective date of the Agreement of the succession issues, the successor states were to agree on the savings- rclatcd guarantees previously provided by the SPRY. As stipulated in the Agreement it was aimed at protecting the depositors and providing for savings refund before the Agreement becomes effective, and thereby to implement the Annex G and obligation of the bank to get refunded for their claims from the National Bank of Yugoslavia. The negotiations were supervised by the Bank of International Settlements in Basel (BIS). The negotiations were chaired by Mr. Mayer. According to the information provided by Minister of Finance and Treasury of Bosnia and Herzegovina Mr. Vrankic, the Basel negotiations did not include the guarantees for hard currency savings at the banks domiciled in Bosnia and Herzegovina which remained in the National Bank of Yugoslavia. Mr. Mayer allegedly opened the issue of guarantees for savings deposited with the branch offices of the banks beyond the bank's domicile. The negotiations produced no outcome whatsoever. Mr. Mayer terminated the negotiations on July 5, 2002. We do not know if he informed the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the depository of the Agreement accordingly. This information by M inister V rankic (Letter No. 01-09-16-16-326-1/10 of January 12, 2010), which is for the fist time available to the public now, in January this year, opens up a crucial question for Bosnia and Herzegovina: Does Resolution of the Concil of Europe 1410 includes the hard currency savings deposited with the banks in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
The warning addressed to the depositors through media by the High Representative Christian Scwarz-Schilling, predicting long and exhausting judicial proceedings, proved to be true. As an example, let’s mention the following case:
Lawsuit of Radosava Jezdimirovié v. Tuzlanska banka. Ammount claimed: 94,612.21 DEM. In this case, 13 court decision have been made over the past 9 years: 1. Judgment of the Municipal Court in Tuzla on Oct. 31, 2000 in favor of the plaintiff, 2. Judgment of the Cantonal Court in Tuzla on Dec. 7, 2001 in favor of the plaintiff, 3. Judgment of the Supreme Court of the FBiH Rev 203/02 of Jun. 17, 2004 against the plaintiff, 4. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of BiH on Dec. 15, 2005 in favor of the plaintiff, 5. Judgment of the Supreme Court of the BiH Rev 1435/05 of Jun. 29, 2006 in favor of the plaintiff, 6. Judgment of the Cantonal Court in Tuzla on Nov. 6, 2006 in favor of the plaintiff, 7. Judgment of the Municipal Court in Tuzla on Dec. 28, 2006 in favor of the plaintiff, 8. Judgment of the Municipal Court in Tuzla on Feb. 16, 2007 in favor of the plaintiff, 9. Judgment of the Municipal Court in Tuzla on Apr. 5, 2007 in favor of the appealant, 10. Judgment of the Supreme Court of the BiH Federation on Oct. 25, 2007 against the plaintiff, 11. Judgment of the Municipal Court in Tuzla on Jan. 4, 2008 against the plaintiff, 12. Judgment of the Cantonal Court in Tuzla on Jan. 31, 2008 against the plaintiff, 13. On March 28, 2008 the plaintiff filled the appellation to the Constitutional Court of BiH AP 597/08 for violation of the right to equitable court proceeding within the reasonable deadline and violation of the right to property. Constitutional Court of BiH dismissed the appellations as inadmissible because the Court found it prem ature. The same fate awaits other depositors who were forced to request their savings refund in court. (Case of the Municipal Court in Zenica No. 043-0-P-06-000 197 Cumurija Azema v. Investiciono komercijalna banka Zenica and Bosnia and Herzegovina; Decision and Conclusion AP 1391/06 of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina)
What's the essence of the issue? It is no secret that the aim of such conduct is to put the pre-war hard currency savings amounting to around 2 billion DEM at the disposal of the owners of the privatized banks and/or Serbia, and to place the burden of cash refund onto the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The banks domiciled in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina remained the property of the Federal Ministry of Finances after the war. The business operation and accounting records are supervised by the Banking Agency of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The banks within the Privrcdna banka Sarajevo system were privatized in a way non-complying with the Bank Privatization Law, at the order of the High Representative. That's how three banks who got over 1 billion DEM of the deposited pre-war hard currency savings re-deposited with the National Bank of Yugoslavia, in late 2001, as decided by the Government of the Federation of BiH, became the property of the Sarajevo Privatization Venture"SPV" Cayman Islands, the founders of which are Federal Ministry of Finance, International Financial Corporation - IFC (member of the World Bank group), Washington USA and B.P. Invest Consult GmbH Vienna, Austria, with the equal shares of 1/3 each. This transaction was explained to the public by saying that SPV was incorporated in Cayman Islands to avoid the SPV owners' tax payment to the Federation for the profit made as a result of the sale of the banks. In fact, it is the matter of avoiding the responsibility for unlawful conduct related to the banks. We have to emphasize that the World Bank, as member of the Peace Implementation Council and whose group include IFC too, and which acts within the international advisory group for privatization of the state-owned capital in the BiH Federation, has a great influence in the privatization process in the BiH Federation, the result of which are hundreds of thousands of workers in the street without enjoying any protection, and the state- owned capital given out to the Slovenian PiFs at the minor price. The plan was to force the depositors to sell their bonds issued on the account of pre-war hard currency savings at the minor price to have the PIFs get hold of the capital in the most attractive companies in the Federation: Elektroprivreda, Telecom, Forest Management Companies etc. The modern system of colonization of the countries in transition as orchestrated by the World Bank is clearly visible in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We, the citizens, are powerless, but not fools. That’s why we are so grateful to the European Court of Human Rights for its assistance to the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
On the effective date of the Agreement on succession, the banks were obliged to initiate court proceedings in Serbia and get the claims paid by the National Bank of Yugoslavia. All the information at our disposal tells us that SPV got paid these claims from the Republic of Serbia, had the money concealed at the Cayman accounts and after that detached itself from the whole affair. OHR and the US Embassy in Sarajevo exerted pressures on the executive and judicial authorities in BiH to provide a cover- up for this criminal. Naturally, this solution works for Serbia, both financially and politically. However, the situation in the Region gets complicated.
The ownership rights in Privedna banka dd Sarajevo were sold by SPV to the group of legal persons from Bosnia and Herzegovina on October 19, 2007 and got hold of the sale transaction amount of 22 million KM. It is Minister Bevanda who knows if 1/3 of that money has been received in the BiH Federation budget.
Other banks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly Union banka dd who operated within the Jugobanka Beograd system and who deposited 600 million DEM of the hard currency savings in Serbia, enjoy the protection of the courts. Hard currency savings in these banks are going to be offered to the disposal of local political elite (Minister Bevanda and jwithout whom this theft could not have been possible in the first place.
As organized by the Association for protection of the hard currency depositors in BiH, the Application 27734/04 Cumurija and others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina and other SFRY successor countries, was filed with the European Court in Strasbourg. We hoped for the expert assessment of the documentation at the National Bank of Yugoslavia and to have the money that belongs to the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina recovered by Serbia.
Given the fact that the court protection would not be possible as long as the present judges of the Constitutional Court of BiH remain in their positions, because the depositors would never get the final court decision in this country, we expect the European Court in Strasbourg to take over the unresolved judicial cases and protect the depositors, particularly in view of covering the attorneys’ and court fees.
16. The Ordinance of the Presidency shall set the November 30, 2010 as a deadline for the Council of Ministers to do the following:
1) In collaboration with the banking agencies, to provide for opening of the accounts with the competent banks based on the issued powers of attorney, 2) To provide for execution of the undertaken obligations related to the verified savings until September 30, 2007, including the default interests for the delayed payment (Suljagic Judgment) 3) To provide for cash payments of 1,000 KM for newly arisen expenses - additional verification 4) To issue bonds, 5) To issue the holder of the claims a certificate of the bonds issued, 6) To set out the repayment schedule for the settlement of the obligations undertaken, which should not exceed December 31, 2016. 7) To define and secure steady long-term sources of funds needed to settle the liabilities undertaken.
This Ordinance shall set the default interest of 12% for the late payments, as well as to have the Presidency of BiH supervising the execution of the liabilities undertaken. 17. Presidency of Bil l shall publish the media release providing full information on the liabilities of the state, pertaining rights and modes of savings refund, to prevent further media-aided manipulation of the depositors.
Note: The documentation we refer to in this letter is not attached to the letter due to its volume and translation fees, but we are prepared, if so requested by the Committee of Ministers, to place it at the disposal of the Committee of Ministers, Presidency of BiH and/or other interested parties. Most of these documents were attached to the application 27734/04 with the European Court of Human Rights.
Please feel free to contact us for any further clarifications.
Yours sincerely,
Amila Ômersoftic Chairwoman of the Association Steering Board
1*) Decision of the Council of Minister attached, Suljagic Judgment, item 31. 2*) Law of establishment and execution of the claims of the citizens in the privatization process, "Official Gazette of the FBiH No. 27/97" 3*) Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the BiH Federation U-10/00 of January 8, 2001, "Official Gazette of the F BiH No. 7/9701“ *4) Decision of the Human Rights Chamber on the admissibility and meritum CH/97/47 of 2000 and Decision on additional remedies CH/97/47 of 2003. T_ o xT T- T- m in 13 o o h- CD r - CO O xr oo "c XT M co r - CD s CN CO T— CD 5 2 o o m a> CO (J'J CN V- O) M CN r - 5 xT y— CO CD CO CO h- CD CD xT m m m CD IB h CL 3 a: JC H § 3 CO r-i T™ o N O N O) T_ T-
s
o o o o 2 3 O o o g o O o o o m O o o II m o ^ O)
£ ; •d c m c m c o d d d in o ro œ a> cn d d o o o T- Q) O) o 0 O 0 o o O o o c o o o o <_j o CM CM « CM CMCM CM CM CN CN CM
D G sH L No: Ai -3/09- 3 t£ _ /IQ Sarajevo, 16 April 2010 2 2 AYR. 2010
SERVICE DE L'EXECUTION D E S A R R Ê T S DE LA CEDH Secretariat General Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Monitoring Directorate Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Council of Europe F - 67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX
Ref.: DG-HL/GM/KN/nn
RE: Observations in Reply to the Observations submitted by the Association for Protection of Pre-war Hard Currency Savings Depositors in Bosnia and Herzegovina dated 27 January 2010 concerning the Judgment in Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 • The respondent party received the observations of the Association for Protection of Pre-war Hard Currency Savings Depositors in Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: the Association) of 27 January 2010, and hereby submits its observations in reply pursuant to Rule 9.3 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe as follows:
2. Subject of the observations submitted by the Association as alleged in the observations is to identify problems that the depositors have been encountering and present the manner of resolving the problems. For that purpose, the process of adopting the legislation and amendments of the legislation regulating the manner of settling the obligations arising from old foreign currency savings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been presented in the Association’s observations. In addition to mentioned above, the Association has expressed their criticism on the legislation that currently has been in force.
3. Concerning the above allegations we want to stress out that the European Court for Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) undoubtedly found in the judgment Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina that the current legislation regulating the payment of old foreign currency savings in Bosnia and Herzegovina is in compliance with Article 1 o f Protocol no. 1 to the Convention. However, the Court as well found a violation of the right to property due to deficiencies in implementation of domestic legislation, that is, due to delay in implementation of legislation in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of the constituent parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Sarajevo, Kulovica br. 4/II, Tel/Fax: 033/554 725 e-mail: [email protected] 4. Accordingly, all allegations by the Association presented in the form of negative criticism of the regulations are rather subjective and unfounded, and therefore, not accepted by the Court either. We also note that the Association already presented to the Court the majority of arguments given in their observations of 27 January 2010.
5. Also, the Association in its observations, inier alia, stated that “those responsible in the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina are not doing anything to implement this judgment, neither they intend to act with this regard, as far as we know ”.
6. This statement is unfounded as a whole because the respondent party so far took the following steps to implement the judgment:
- The Government of Republika Srpska on its session held on 4 March 2010 adopted the Decree on Changes and Amendments of the Decree on the Verification Procedure and Cash Payment Arising From Old Foreign Currency Savings in Republika Srpska, thus setting the new deadline for verification process from 5 April 2010 to 31 December 2010. This Decree was published in Official Gazette of RS, no. 21/10 of 15 March 2010 and entered into force on 22 March 2010.
- The Government of Bröko District on its 42nd session held on 16 March 2010 adopted a Rulebook on Amendments and Changes of the Rulebook on Claims Verification Procedure and Cash Payments Arising from Old Foreign Currency Savings in Bröko District, which enabled the depositors who failed to apply earlier, to apply for verification within 15 March 2010 to 15 O ctober 2010.
The Government of the Government of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the Decree on Changes of the Decree on Claims Verification Procedure and Cash Payments Arising From Old Foreign Currency Savings in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette FBIH, no. 4/10), which set a new deadline for applying for verification of old foreign currency savings from 3 February 2010 to 3 August 2010.
- The Government of the BF1 Federation issued a Decision on payment of interest due on 27 March 2009 and 27 September 2009 as per planned issue of bonds for payment of old foreign currency savings in the year 2008, (Official Gazette of FBH, no. 17/10), therefore, the interest shall be paid out in forthcoming period.
- As regards the implementation of the judgment in the part relating to the obligation o f the BH Federation to pay default interest at the statutory rate in the event of late payment of any forthcoming installment, the FBH Government was submitted a proposal of the decision on amendment to the Decision on First Issue of the BH Federation Bonds for Payment of Verified Claims. Pursuant to this decision, in case of non-payment of interest, i.e. the principal within the period longer than 30 days from the date of their maturity, the Federation Ministry of Finance shall pay the default interest at the statutory rate calculated from the due date of interest, i.e., of the principal, until the payment is completed.
Federal Ministry ot Finance issued an order for payment to the applicant the amount of 5.000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the amount of 729 euros in respect of costs and expenses.
- Also, the Government of the BH Federation adopted a Decision on the second issue of BH Federation bonds for payment of obligations arising from verified claims (Official Gazette of the Federation, no. 17/10).
7. In their further observations the Association presents various manners for solving the problem of old foreign currency savings. Those proposals the respondent party considers to be unnecessary and redundant, given that the issue of old foreign currency savings deposited with the banks seated in Bosnia and Herzegovina has already been regulated by relevant legislation. We point out again that this legislation was assessed by the Court to be in compliance with Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, and that the only objection of the Court was delay in implementation of existing legislation regulating this issue in the territory of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 As regards the violation of the right found by the Court in this case due to delay in implementation of the relevant legislation in the BH Federation, the Court ordered the respondent party to ensure that government bonds are issued in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that any outstanding installments are paid within six months from the date when the judgment became final. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina must undertake to pay within the same period the default interest at the statutory rate in the event of late payment of any forthcoming installment. Also, the respondent party must ensure that the deadlines for verification of “old” foreign currency savings are extended for at least six months from the date when the judgment became final. So, the Court in its judgment clearly indicated the steps which the respondent party must take in order to remove the determined violations and prevent any similar violations in future, consequently, no further measures and suggestions are required.
9. Suggestions and proposals for enforcement of judgment Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina are given in the observations, as well as activities and tasks suggested for certain authorities, even for the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning the implementation of the judgment and amendments of the existing legislation relating to old foreign currency savings. Also, in the observations it was stated that control of the enforcement of the judgment Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina is within the competence of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that the Presidency is to communicate with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
10. Such allegations on the whole are not in compliance with the relevant legislation. Pursuant to domestic regulations, that is, to the Decision on the Agent of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina before the Court for Human Rights, the Agent of the Council of Ministers is in charge in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the enforcement of judgments rendered by the Court for Human Rights, and informs about it the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Council of Ministers of Council of Europe1, Also, the above decision specifies that all administrative and other authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation of BiH, Republika Srpska and the Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina have obligation to cooperate with and render all necessary assistance to the Agent of the Council of Ministers and enable the agent to implement the international obligations of Bosnia and Herzegovina".
11. from above described it derives that claim that enforcement of the judgment falls within the competence of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not stand, because, pursuant to the national law the government agent is an authorized person in charge with implementation of the judgment and with coordination of work of all relevant domestic authorities in implementation of the judgment. We also want to stress again that the judgment precisely specifies the activities to be taken in implementation of the judgment, therefore, there is no need for any other measures and manners in implementation.
12. The Association in its observations makes certain accusations against certain politicians as well as governmental and international bodies. The respondent party deems these allegations to be inappropriate and fully unfounded. Such allegations were presented during the proceedings before the Court, thus the Court pointed out that "the third parties, in their written submissions to the Court, accused all levels of government of incompetence and corruption”3. Also, the Court stated that “the Association from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina added that abuses also continued under the current legislation, but failed to substantiate this contention”4.
13. Finally, we want to point out once again that, so far, the respondent party before expiration of deadline for enforcement of the judgment/ took the following steps: The deadlines for verification of old foreign-currency savings in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been extended for at least six months; the government bonds for settlement of obligations arising from old savings have been issued in the BH Federation and the BH Federation government adopted the Decision on payment of all outstanding installments and interest due on 27 March 2009 and 27 September 2009 pursuant to planned issue of bonds for payment of old foreign currency savings in the year 2008 which will soon be paid. Also, the adoption of the Federation Government’s decision which will obligate the BH Federation Government to pay the default interest in the event of non- payment of due interest or principal (arising from old foreign currency savings) within 30 days from the date o f their maturity, has been underway.
14. As given above, it is evident that Bosnia and Herzegovina to this date, before expiration of the deadline that has been set, settled most of the obligations ordered by the pilot judgment in Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, and consequently, there is no delay or problems in implementation of the judgment whatsoever at issue here. The respondent party has been taking all necessary steps in order to fully implement
1 Article 7 of the Decision, published in Official Gazette of BiH, no. 41/03 od 24 December 2003 " Article 8 of above Decision 3 Item 47 of the judgment Suljagic v. B iH ■’ Item 48 of the judgment Suljagic v. B iH 5 Bosnia and Herzegovina is obliged to settle the obligations ordered in the judgment o f Suljagic by 3 August 2010. dll 3 A%^2010^ ^ AwgovW within the deadline, that is,
Yours faithfully.
e Council of Ministers of Bosnia and rzegovina before the n o Court of Human Rights
tonika Mijic