The issue of Ljubljanska Bank’s debt to the Croatian depositors is a matter of the private-legal relations between the bank and its depositors. The Croatian depositors have made their foreign exchange savings deposits to the Ljubljanska Bank (the Zagreb main branch) and rightfully expect to be paid off by the bank, along with the appropriate interest. The Ljubljanska Bank and the Republic of Slovenia have been denying the Croatian depositors their right to property – their savings deposits, for more than 12 years. Slovenia has interfered with those private-legal relations between the bank and its depositors by passing the 1994 Constitutional Act, dividing the Ljubljanska Bank in two. The New Ljubljanska Bank took on all of the active property and continued to pay off the Slovenian depositors, while the Old Ljubljanska Bank formally held on to the debts to the non-Slovenian depositors, but with no real means. In this way, the Republic of Slovenia has in a discriminating manner – ethically, completely contrary to all European standards and values – disabled the non-Slovenian depositors from recovering their debts. Apart from that, the Republic of Slovenia has also denied the non-Slovenian depositors the possibility of court protection in the issue, which is a continuation of the same unacceptable and non-European policy and was recently confirmed by the passing of the Succession Fund Act. The said law, contrary to the standards of a well-ordered society and the rule of law, continues to deny the depositors the realisation of their rights through court protection.
The Croatian MFAEI considers unacceptable that Slovenia persists in transferring a debt by a commercial bank to its depositors onto all of the ex-SFRY succession states, as if it were a matter of the ex-country’s debt, and not that of a commercial bank. The Ljubljanska Bank is the only one of all of the banks that continued to operate after the break-up of ex-SFRY that has failed to fulfil its obligations to its creditors and has, discriminating other citizens and national groups, fulfilled its obligations only towards the Slovenian citizens. It is precisely through such acts that Slovenia is violating the international-legal obligations assumed through the Succession Issues Agreement (Annex G), binding the states to protect the private property of all citizens and ensure a court protection of their rights.
The Ljubljanksa Bank has never gone bankrupt, and during the ex-SFRY, the guarantee of the ex-Federation and the National Bank of Yugoslavia has never been activated, so there was never a debt by the ex-SFRY that would now, as the Slovenian side claims, be a matter of succession between the succession states.
The Croatian MFAEI rejects the claim that the Republic of Croatia is not adhering in any way to the Succession Issues Agreement. The negotiations held at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, agreed upon in the Succession Issues Agreements to enable a swift and efficient protection of persons and their acquired rights, have not been stopped, as stated in the Slovenian document, but have come to an end with no results, since the ex-SFRY succession states – and not only Croatia and Slovenia – could not reconcile their positions. BIS informed the succession states in 2002 that its mediating role, as stipulated in the Succession Issues Agreement, has reached its end, which has been confirmed 2002 in the letters by the BIS High officials to the succession states. Therefore, the claim that the Republic of Croatia is not fulfilling its international-legal obligations is inaccurate and unacceptable.
Due to the Ljubljanska Bank’s refusal to pay off their foreign exchange savings, three of the Croatian depositors have sued the Republic of Slovenia before the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Court has determined that the issue is within its competence, rejected Slovenia’s objection that it is a matter of succession, and the verdict is expected to be reached soon. While the proceedings are ongoing, the states should refrain from any actions that could affect in any way the speed and the process of the trial, and should not interfere with an international legal body’s activities.