Ljubljanska banka - presuda iz Strazbura - novac ce se ipak morati isplatiti?

[anonimno]

Ima li komentara?

Napomena: 1994 legislation je cuveni slovenacki Ustavni zakon o LB.

 

Moj komentar: Dobiven izgubljeni spor, neumitna sudbina odlozena. Slovenci, svaka cast! Dajte mi adrese njihovih odvjetnika!

 

1.

206. Since the 1994 legislation did not only serve to protect the Slovenian financial and economic system from speculative claims under the NFA but also to protect a State-controlled bank from all claims from foreign creditors, especially individual savers, such an aim could not be considered to be legitimate. In any event, the measures were not proportionate since an excessive burden had been placed on the applicants who wanted nothing more than a secure bank in which to deposit their life savings. On the contrary, the Ljubljana Bank had been aware of the business risk in the political environment in which it was operating. In 1994, the Slovenian State had shifted the business risk entirely to the savers. In addition, the measures were not limited in time.

 

 

2.

209. The fact that the money had been physically deposited in a certain territory made no difference given that free movement of capital had existed between that territory and the territory where the head office of the financial institution was located. In the SFRY, that possibility existed among its former component republics. As to the restructuring of the Ljubljana Bank in 1994, it was obvious that it had been undertaken with a view to depriving foreign savers of their claims.