Priopcenje za javnost MVPEI RH
Nastavno na priopcenje broj 60/06 od 10. ožujka 2006. godine objavljeno povodom dokumenta „Stajalište Ministarstva vanjskih poslova Republike Slovenije o preuzimanju jamstava bivše SFRJ za devizne štedne uloge“, objavljenog na internetskoj stranici Ministarstva vanjskih poslova Republike Slovenije, Ministarstvo vanjskih poslova i europskih integracija Republike Hrvatske želi skrenuti pozornost na ocitovanje Hrvatske narodne banke o problemu devizne štednje hrvatskih gradana u Ljubljanskoj banci.
English
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Croatia - press release
Following the press release 60/06, published on 10 March 2006, concerning the document Position of the Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on assuming the guarantees of the ex-SFRY for foreign exchange savings deposits, published on the Slovenian MFA's webpage, the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration wishes to draw attention to the Croatian National Bank's (HNB) statement regarding the issue of the Croatian depositors' foreign currency savings in the Ljubljanska Bank.
Priopcenje za javnost MVPEI RH
Nastavno na priopcenje broj 60/06 od 10. ožujka 2006. godine objavljeno povodom dokumenta „Stajalište Ministarstva vanjskih poslova Republike Slovenije o preuzimanju jamstava bivše SFRJ za devizne štedne uloge“, objavljenog na internetskoj stranici Ministarstva vanjskih poslova Republike Slovenije, Ministarstvo vanjskih poslova i europskih integracija Republike Hrvatske želi skrenuti pozornost na ocitovanje Hrvatske narodne banke o problemu devizne štednje hrvatskih gradana u Ljubljanskoj banci.
OCITOVANJE, 14. ožujka 2006.
OCITOVANJE HRVATSKE NARODNE BANKE O PROBLEMU DEVIZNE šTEDNJE HRVATSKIH GRA?ANA U LJUBLJANSKOJ BANCI
U posljednje vrijeme iznova se aktualizira pitanje neisplacene devizne štednje hrvatskih gradana u nekadašnjoj Glavnoj filijali Zagreb Ljubljanske banke d.d. Ljubljana, a vezano za željeni ulazak Nove Ljubljanske banke ili njenog kvalificiranog suvlasnika u hrvatski bankovni sustav. Kao što je poznato, Hrvatska narodna banka smatra da je to neprihvatljivo, dok se ne riješi barem onaj dio dugovanja Ljubljanske banke hrvatskim gradanima koji se odnosi na tzv. neprenesenu deviznu štednju. Slovenska strana to u proteklom razdoblju nije prihvacala. Obrazlažuci svoj odbijajuci stav, pojedini slovenski dužnosnici nisu prezali ni od ignoriranja ili cak izvrtanja nepobitnih cinjenica, a posljednjih dana pojedinci na istaknutim pozicijama nisu se suzdržavali cak ni od prijetnji blokadom Hrvatske na putu u Europsku uniju (što je, prema najnovijim vijestima, ipak opovrgnuto), pa cak i od uvredljivih diskvalifikacija. Vrijedi stoga podsjetiti na neke od osnovnih slovenskih teza koje se plasiraju oko ovog slucaja i osvrnuti se na njihovu "utemeljenost", ostavljajuci ovom prigodom po strani i medusobnu kontradiktornost nekih od njih .
1. teza - Slovenska strana nema nikakvih obveza prema hrvatskim štedišama, jer su oni deponirali svoja sredstva u poslovnicama Ljubljanske banke na podrucju Hrvatske.
Ljubljanska banka osnovala je u prosincu 1969. godine u Hrvatskoj svoju filijalu, koja je tijekom naredna dva desetljeca doživjela nekoliko statusno-organizacijskih promjena. Zadnja od njih bila je krajem 1989.godine, kad je odlukom skupštine Ljubljanske banke d.d. Ljubljana postala Glavna filijala Zagreb Ljubljanske banke d.d. Ljubljana, bez statusa pravne osobe. Filijala posluje za racun maticne banke, a maticna banka jamci za njene obveze cjelokupnom svojom imovinom, bez ogranicenja (što nije nikakav ovdašnji specifikum, vec medunarodni standard, koji vrijedi i svuda u Europi). To ujedno znaci da su i štediše Glavne filijale Zagreb, koja nije imala status pravne osobe, bili i ostali u ugovornom odnosu s maticnom Ljubljanskom bankom d.d. Ljubljana.
2. teza - Raspadom Jugoslavije obveza Ljubljanske banke je prestala, štedišama je za deviznu štednju jamcila bivša federacije, a Nova Ljubljanska banka nema nikakve veze s Ljubljanskom bankom.
Jamstvo za štednju aktivira se (što takoder nije nikakva ovdašnja posebnost) kad banka završi u stecaju, što kod Ljubljanske banke nije bio slucaj. Ona je još nekoliko godina nakon raspada bivše federacije redovno poslovala pod istim imenom, a zatim je pretvorena u Novu Ljubljansku banku. To je ucinjeno nakon što su sudovi i u Sloveniji i izvan nje poceli donositi presude u korist štediša koji su prvi pokrenuli sudske postupke da bi došli do svojih štednih uloga. Takav potez realiziran je s evidentnom namjerom da se Nova Ljubljanska banka otarasi obveza svoje prethodnice prema štedišama izvan Slovenije. U toj "pretvorbi" Nova Ljubljanska banka preuzela je prakticki sveukupnu imovinu Ljubljanske banke, a naravno i sve njene štediše u Sloveniji. štoviše, Ustavnim zakonom iz srpnja 1994. godine, na kojemu se ta operacija zasnivala, ne-slovenskim štedišama je onemoguceno da naplate svoja potraživanja temeljem sudskih rješenja.
3. teza - Obveze Ljubljanske banke prema hrvatskim štedišama vec bi bile izmirene da Hrvatska narodna banka nije "onemogucila poslovanje zagrebackoj filijali" odnosno ulazak Novoj Ljubljanskoj banci.
Cinjenice govore nešto sasvim drugo. Nakon osamostaljenja Hrvatske (i Slovenije) Glavna filijala Zagreb Ljubljanske banke d.d. Ljubljana trebala je uskladiti svoj status s novonastalim okolnostima, dokapitalizacijom se osposobiti za nastavak poslovanja i zatražiti licencu za rad od hrvatske središnje banke. To, medutim, nikad nije ucinjeno. Umjesto da ju dokapitalizira maticna banka, predloženo je da se zagrebacka filijala Ljubljanske banke d.d. Ljubljana dokapitalizira najvecim dijelom sredstvima - Hrvatskog fonda za razvoj. Iz razumljivih razloga, za takav model osposobljavanja Glavne filijale Zagreb Ljubljanske banke d.d. hrvatska strana nije imala interesa. No, u znak dobro volje i u uvjerenju da ce maticna banka ipak iznaci neko obostrano prihvatljivo rješenje, zagrebackoj filijali je Hrvatska narodna banka još godinama tolerirala odredeni opseg poslovanja. Preciznije receno, dopušteni su joj poslovi domaceg platnog prometa za potrebe naplate njenih potraživanja i izvršavanja njenih obveza. Tek 14.srpnja 2000. godine konacno je zatvoren žiro racun zagrebacke filijale Ljubljanske banke, što znaci da je slovenska strana imala na raspolaganju cijelo desetljece da riješi njen status u skladu s važecim hrvatskim propisima i medunarodnom praksom, a tako i problem neizmirenih obveza prema ovdašnjim štedišama. To nije ucinjeno, ali se sad isplata štednje uvjetuje prethodnim, izravnim ili posrednim, ulaskom Nove Ljubljanske banke na hrvatsko financijsko tržište. Uzgred receno, u Bosni i Hercegovini omogucen je ulazak Nove Ljubljanske banke u bankovni sustav, ali obveze prema štedišama ipak nisu izmirene.
4. teza - Omogucivši svojim gradanima da prenesu svoju štednju iz filijala banaka sa sjedištem izvan Hrvatske u ovdašnje banke, Republika Hrvatska preuzela je na sebe obvezu prema svim štedišama, pa i onima koji još imaju važece štedne knjižice Ljubljanske banke.
Republika Hrvatska je nakon osamostaljenja – u cilju izgradnje povjerenja gradana u svoj bankovni sustav - omogucila svojim gradanima da izaberu hoce li ostati u izravnom privatno-pravnom ugovornom odnosu s bankama sa sjedištem izvan Hrvatske ili ce svoja potraživanja prepustiti Republici Hrvatskoj, a ona ce im jamciti postupnu isplatu štednje tijekom deset godina. Ni u jednom slucaju obveza slovenske banke se ne gasi, samo što je kod neprenesene štednje ostala i dalje izravna obveza prema štedišama, a za prenesenu štednju - koja je u meduvremenu isplacena na teret hrvatskog državnog proracuna - pravo potraživanja prenijeto je na Republiku Hrvatsku. Otprilike dvije trecine štednje od ukupne devizne štednje u Glavnoj filijali Zagreb je preneseno, a vlasnici približno jedne trecine štednje vjerovali su da ce lakše i brže do svog novca ako u svojim rukama zadrže važece štedne knjižice Ljubljanske banke d.d. Ljubljana. Dakle, temeljem neprenesene štednje u zagrebackoj filijali Ljubljanske banke hrvatski gradani izravno potražuju prema raspoloživim podacima oko 312 milijuna DEM glavnice plus kamate, a hrvatska država još gotovo dvaput toliko za isplacenu prenesenu štednju.
5. teza – Slovenija nije imala nikakve koristi od poslovnica Ljubljanske banke u Hrvatskoj, pa zašto bi onda imala i obveze prema njihovim štedišama.
Nitko nikad nije otvarao banke iz dobrocinstva prema lokalnom stanovništvu i poduzecima, vec zbog vlastitih poslovnih interesa, pa tako i Ljubljanska banka. Raspoloživi podaci pokazuju da je ukupni iznos devizne štednje koji su sve banke iz Slovenije (dakle i cijeli tamošnji sustav Ljubljanske banke i ostale) deponirale kod Narodne banke Jugoslavije bio samo za dvadesetak posto veci od iznosa deponiranog iz same zagrebacke podružnice Ljubljanske banke. Glavna filijala Zagreb Ljubljanske banke d.d. Ljubljana bila je po prikupljenoj deviznoj štednji jaca od svih banaka u bivšoj državi, a po velicini aktive druga u sustavu LB što prilicno uvjerljivo svjedoci koliku je važnost imala ta filijala za ukupno poslovanje najvece slovenske banke, a napose za prikupljanje u to vrijeme itekako važnih deviza, bez obzira jesu li one korištene unutar vlastitog bankovnog sustava ili redeponirane kod NBJ.
6. teza - Dinarima koje je Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana dobila u obliku beskamatnog kredita od Narodne banke Jugoslavije, kao protuvrijednost za deponiranu deviznu štednju prikupljenu od hrvatskih gradana, kreditirane su putem zagrebacke filijale hrvatske tvrtke.
štediša se ne tice niti imaju ikakvog utjecaja na odluke banke koga ce kreditirati raspoloživim sredstvima. Stoga je nezamislivo bilo gdje u civiliziranom svijetu da se obveza banke prema svom štediši osporava tvrdnjom da je njegovim novcem kreditirana neka tvrtka od koje nije naplacen dug. No, i neovisno o tome, treba reci da je prema vlastitim podacima Glavne filijale Zagreb Ljubljanske banke d.d. Ljubljana, njena bilanca na kraju 1989. godine iznosila 809 milijuna USD. U strukturi pasive cak 83 posto cinila je ukupna štednja gradana, a devizna štednja 73 posto odnosno 611,6 milijuna USD (ostalo se odnosilo na kapital i medubankovne transakcije). U aktivi bilance cak 74 posto odnosilo se na potraživanja od NBJ po osnovi deviznih depozita gradana, 14 posto cinili su uglavnom kreditni odnosi s maticnom bankom, a svega 12,6 posto plasmani gospodarstvu i gradanima s podrucja Hrvatske i Slovenije!
7. teza - Kad se uzmu u racun dugovanja i potraživanja Glavne filijale Zagreb Ljubljanske banke d.d. Ljubljana, ona se u najmanju ruku poništavaju ili je cak hrvatski dug veci!
U tom smislu vrlo je zanimljiv još jedan detalj o kojemu ovih dana saznajemo iz slovenskih medija: u bilanci zagrebacke filijale Ljubljanske banke, sa stanjem krajem prošle godine vodi se kao obveza prema 132 tisuce deviznih ulagaca ukupno 172 milijuna eura obveza. A kao njena sporna i dvojbena potraživanja, uglavnom prema pravnim osobama, navode 484 milijuna eura, uz napomenu da je "ovaj iznos tako visok zbog visokih hrvatskih zateznih kamata", koje ocigledno nisu primijenjene pri preracunavanju aktualne vrijednosti neisplacene štednje. Valjda i vrijednost novca ovisi o tome tko bi ga trebao (na)platiti.
8. teza - Republika Hrvatska ne poštuje medunarodne ugovore, u konkretnom slucaju Aneks C Ugovora o pitanjima sukcesije, koji su potpisali ministri vanjskih poslova država sljednica bivše SFRJ u Becu 29.6.2001. godine.
Kad je rijec o obvezama za štednju, slovenski predstavnici se u tumacenju tog Ugovora pozivaju na "nacelo teritorijalnosti", tj. da svaka od država sljednica bivše federacije mora preuzeti jamstva za sveukupnu štednju prikupljenu na njenom današnjem podrucju, bez obzira u koju banku je položena. Pritom se sasvim ignorira cinjenica da je upravo tim Ugovorom utvrden kljuc, prema kojem je udjel Slovenije u podjeli financijske imovine i obveza od 16 posto proizišao i iz njenog udjela u deviznim depozitima gradana deponiranima kod bivše Narodne banke Jugoslavije, a pri cemu su u korist Slovenije uracunati i depoziti gradana kod filijala Ljubljanske banke d.d. u svim republikama bivše federacije! Bez tih depozita i udjel Slovenije u raspodjeli imovine bio bi znatno niži (oko 13,26 posto). Dakle, kod podjele prava trebao bi vrijediti jedan princip, kod izmirivanja obveza prema štedišama drugi?!
9. teza - Republika Hrvatska onemogucila je i dogovor u okviru Banke za medunarodna poravnanja u Baselu, kao i MMF-a.
Nikakvih pregovora o ovom pitanju u okrilju MMF-a nije bilo, niti su predvideni. Pregovori u Baselu doista su zapoceti još prije nekoliko godina, pod vodstvom bivšeg švicarskog guvernera. No, nakon što se ispostavilo da su stajališta i interesi Slovenije (i njene Ljubljanske banke) s jedne strane te Hrvatske, Bosne i Hercegovine i Makedonije (i njihovih gradana koji su štedjeli u filijalama Ljubljanske banke) s druge strane oprecni i nepomirljivi, pregovori su okoncani bez rezultata.
10. teza - Republika Hrvatska, a napose Hrvatska narodna banka i njen guverner, ponašaju se "neeuropski" i diskriminatorski, te krše europske pravne stecevine u pogledu slobodnog kretanja kapitala.
Predbacivati državi u kojoj je 92 posto bankovnog sustava u stranom vlasništvu da onemogucava slobodno kretanje kapitala uistinu je apsurdno. Osporavati pravo središnjoj banci bilo koje države da procijeni da li banka koja pokušava uci u njen bankovni sustav pridonosi njegovoj vjerodostojnosti i stabilnosti, te da pritom vodi racuna i o odnosu te banke prema zakonskim propisima i ugovornim obvezama, nespojivo je takoder s bilo kakvim "europskim pravnim stecevinama".
O poštivanju europskih standarda i (ne)diskriminatornom postupanju nešto kaže i vec spomenuta cinjenica da je slovenska država svojim Ustavnim zakonom iz 1994. godine zabranila sudsku zaštitu i ovrhu u korist neslovenskih štediša Ljubljanske banke, dok hrvatska država niti jednim svojim aktom nije zabranila toj banci da i sudskim putem naplacuje svoja potraživanja od hrvatskih pravnih ili fizickih osoba.
Ivana Crnic
Glasnogovornica
English
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Croatia - press release
Following the press release 60/06, published on 10 March 2006, concerning the document Position of the Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on assuming the guarantees of the ex-SFRY for foreign exchange savings, published on the Slovenian MFA's webpage, the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration wishes to draw attention to the Croatian National Bank's (HNB) statement regarding the issue of the Croatian depositors' foreign currency savings in the Ljubljanska Banka.
Statement, 14 march 2006
STATEMENT OF THE CROATIAN NATIONAL BANK REGARDING THE ISSUE OF FOREIGN CURRENCY SAVINGS OF CROATIAN CITIZENS IN LJUBLJANSKA BANKA
The issue of unpaid foreign currency savings of Croatian citizens in the former Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb has again come under the spotlight in connection with the intended entry of Nova Ljubljanska banka or its qualified co-owner into the Croatian banking system. This, as the Croatian National Bank has stated previously, is unacceptable, until at least resolution is found to the issue of that part of debts of Ljubljanska banka to Croatian citizens which involves the so-called untransferred foreign currency savings. The Slovene side would not accept such an option in the past. In defending their rejective position, some Slovene officials have gone so far as to ignore or distort irrefutable facts, or even, as we witnessed in the last few days the attempts of Slovene individuals in prominent positions, to threat to block Croatia's entry into the European Union (which, as the latest news suggest, has been denied) or to dismiss Croatia on the basis of offensive disqualifications. In view of this situation, it is worth underlining some of the key Slovene positions regarding this issue and examine the extent of their "foundation in facts ", leaving aside at this point the contradictory nature of some of them.
Position 1 - The Slovene side has no obligations towards Croatian depositors since they made their deposits in branch offices of Ljubljanska banka in the territory of Croatia.
Ljubljanska banka established its branch office in Croatia in December 1969. The last in the line of changes in status and organisation that this branch underwent since its establishment took place towards the end of 1989, after a decision was made at the shareholders' meeting of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana to change it to Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb, a branch without legal personality. The branch office acts for the account of its parent bank while the parent bank guarantees for the liabilities of its branch with its entire assets, without limitation (which is not a feature specific of Croatia only but an international standard applied throughout Europe). This means that depositors of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb, which had no legal personality, were and remained in a contractual relation with the parent Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana.
Position 2 - The obligations of Ljubljanska banka terminated with Yugoslavia's dissolution, depositors' foreign currency savings had been guaranteed by the former Yugoslavia, and Nova Ljubljanska banka has nothing to do with Ljubljanska banka.
Deposit guarantees are activated (again, not something specific to this case only) when a bank goes into bankruptcy, which was not the case with Ljubljanska banka. This bank continued to operate under the same name for several years after the break-up of the former Yugoslavia and was later transformed to Nova Ljubljanska banka. This was done after courts, both in and outside Slovenia, started ruling in favour of the first depositors who initiated court proceedings to retrieve their savings. Evidently, the purpose of this transformation was to help Nova Ljubljanska banka to rid itself of the obligations of its predecessor towards depositors outside Slovenia. In this "transformation" Nova Ljubljanska banka took over practically the entire assets of Ljubljanska banka, including, naturally, all its depositors in Slovenia. Moreover, the July 1994 Constitutional Act, on which this operation was based, made it impossible for non-Slovene depositors to collect their claims on the basis of court decisions.
Position 3 - The obligations of Ljubljanska banka towards Croatian depositors would already have been settled had it not been for the Croatian National Bank which made the operations of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb, or the entry of Nova Ljubljanska banka impossible.
However, the facts speak of the opposite. Following Croatia's (and Slovenia's) independence, Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb had to adjust its status with the new circumstances if it were to proceed with its operations. This meant its recapitalisation and filing an application to obtain operating licence from the Croatian National Bank. This was never done. Instead of the recapitalisation of the branch office by its parent bank, it has been suggested that Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb be recapitalised largely by funding from the Croatian Fund for Development. Obviously, the Croatian side was not interested in this model of revitalisation of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb. As a token of its good will, however, and confident that the parent bank will ultimately find a mutually acceptable resolution, the Croatian National Bank tolerated some degree of operations of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb for a number of years. More specifically, it allowed the bank to perform domestic payment system services in connection with collection of its claims and servicing of its liabilities. It was not before 14 July 2000 that the giro account of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb was finally closed. This had left the Slovene side a whole ten-year period to resolve the status of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb in accordance with applicable Croatian legislation and international practice as well as the issue of unsettled obligations towards Croatian depositors. This was not done and now repayment of savings is made conditional upon previous, direct or indirect, entry of Nova Ljubljanska banka into the Croatian financial market. It is worth mentioning here that Bosnia and Herzegovina permitted the entry of Nova Ljubljanska banka into the country's banking system, but obligations towards depositors have nonetheless remained unsettled.
Position 4 - By permitting its citizens to transfer their savings from the branch offices of banks with a head office registered outside Croatia to the Croatian banks, the Republic of Croatia has assumed an obligation to all depositors, including to those who still have valid savings books of Ljubljanska banka.
After gaining autonomy, the Republic of Croatia permitted its citizens, with an aim of gaining the citizens' confidence in its banking system, to choose either to remain in a direct contractual relationship, under private law, with banks outside the territory of Croatia or to transfer their claims to the Republic of Croatia which would in turn guarantee a gradual repayment of savings over a ten-year period. In no case is the obligation of the Slovene bank extinguished. More specifically, in the case of untransferred savings, a direct obligation to depositors has remained, while in the case of transferred savings, which was in the meantime repaid by charging the Croatian government budget, a title to the claim has been transferred to the Republic of Croatia. Approximately two-thirds of the total foreign currency savings in Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb were transferred and about one-third of depositors believed that they would obtain their money in a much faster and easier way if they retained their valid savings books of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana. Consequently, according to the available data, the Croatian citizens have a direct claim of about DEM 312 million of principal plus interest, on the basis of untransferred savings in Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb, while the claim of the Croatian government for the repaid transferred savings is almost double.
Position 5 - Slovenia did not benefit from the branch offices of Ljubljanska banka in Croatia, so why expect Slovenia to have any obligations to their depositors?
No person has ever founded a bank to benefit the local population and enterprises, but for its own business interests, which was also the case with Ljubljanska banka. The available data show that the total amount of foreign currency savings deposited by all banks from Slovenia (including Ljubljanska banka system in Slovenia and other banks) with the National Bank of Yugoslavia exceeded by only about twenty percent the deposited amount originating from foreign currency savings with Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb. In terms of the collected foreign currency savings, Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb was stronger than any other bank in the former Yugoslavia and it was the second largest bank within the LB System in terms of assets. This is a rather convincing evidence of the importance of that branch office for the entire operation of the largest Slovene bank, and in particular for the collection of foreign currency, which was very important at that time, regardless of whether it was used within the own banking system or redeposited with the NBY.
Position 6 - The dinar amounts provided by the National Bank of Yugoslavia to Ljubljanska banka d.d., Ljubljana in the form of interest-free loans, in exchange for the foreign currency savings of Croatian citizens, have been used for extending loans to Croatian companies through Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb.
It is neither depositors' concern nor can they have any influence on a bank's decisions as to whom it will provide loans from its funds. It is therefore inconceivable that in any civilized country in the world the liabilities of a bank to its depositors would be challenged on the grounds that their money has been used for financing a loan to a company which has failed to repay it.
But aside from that, it should be noted that, according to the data of Ljubljanska banka d.d Ljubljana - Main Branch Office Zagreb, its balance sheet at the end of 1989 stood at USD 809 million. In the structure of liabilities, total savings deposits of citizens participated with as much as 83 percent and foreign currency deposits with 76 percent or USD 611.6 million (the rest related to capital accounts and interbank transactions). In the structure of assets, claims on the National Bank of Yugoslavia, based on foreign currency deposits of citizens, accounted for as much as 74 percent; credit transactions with the parent bank accounted for 14 percent, while placements to the business sector and citizens from Croatia and Slovenia accounted for only 12.6 percent!
Position 7 – When liabilities and claims of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana – Main Branch Office Zagreb are considered, they are at least mutually offset or the Croatian debt is even higher!
In that context we learnt about an interesting detail in Slovene media these days: in the balance sheet of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana – Main Branch Office Zagreb as at the end of 2005 the liabilities to 132 thousands foreign currency depositors are recorded as amounting to EUR 172 million. Doubtful claims of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana – Main Branch Office Zagreb - mostly on legal persons - are, on the other hand, recorded as amounting to EUR 484 million, with a remark that «this amount is so high due to high Croatian default interest». The default interest was obviously not accrued when the current value of not repaid savings deposits was calculated. It seems that the value of money also depends on the person that should (re)pay it.
Position 8 – The Republic of Croatia does not respect international agreements, in this case Annex C to the Agreement on Succession Issues, signed by ministers of foreign affairs of successor states to the former SFRY in Vienna on 29 June 2001.
When it comes to liabilities arising from foreign currency savings, the representatives of Slovenia interpret the Agreement by referring to the «territorial principle» under which every successor state to the former Yugoslavia must accept guarantees for total savings deposits collected in its current territory, regardless of the bank in which the savings were deposited. With such interpretation they completely ignore the fact that that very Agreement stipulated the key according to which the Slovene share in financial assets and liabilities of the former SFRY of 16 percent was also fixed on the basis of Slovene share in citizens' foreign currency deposits with the former National Bank of Yugoslavia. These included citizens' deposits in branch offices of Ljubljanska banka d.d. Ljubljana in all republics of the former Yugoslavia! Without these deposits Slovenia's share in the distribution of assets would be considerably lower (about 13.26 percent). Thus, the distribution of assets should be made according to one principle, while the liabilities towards depositors should be met according to a different one?!
Position 9 – The Republic of Croatia has made an agreement within the framework of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel and the IMF impossible.
No negotiations on the issue were conducted within the framework of the IMF, nor are such negotiations planned. The negotiations in Basel indeed started a few years ago, led by the former Swiss central bank Governor. However, after it has been established that the standpoints and interests of Slovenia (and its Ljubljanska banka) on one side, and Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia (and their citizens that deposited their savings with branch offices of Ljubljanska banka) on the other side, are completely opposite and irreconcilable, the negotiations ended without any results.
Position 10 – The Republic of Croatia, especially the Croatian National Bank and its Governor, act in an «anti-European» and discriminating way, violating the European acquis on free capital movement.
To accuse the state with 92 percent of its banking system in foreign ownership of restricting free movement of capital is absurd indeed. Denying the central bank of any country the right to assess whether the bank seeking to enter its banking system would contribute to its credibility and stability, while taking into account that bank's stance on legal and contractual obligations, cannot be based on any part of «European acquis».
The observance of European standards and (non)discriminatory behaviour can well be illustrated by the already mentioned fact that under its 1994 Constitutional Act, the Slovene state forbade legal protection and foreclosure for the benefit of non-Slovene depositors of Ljubljanska banka (it would be interesting to hear which part of the «European acquis» provided basis for such a provision?!). The Croatian state has in none of its acts forbidden Ljubljanska banka to collect its claims from Croatian legal or natural persons in court.
Insinuations that the Governor of the Croatian National Bank is closing the doors of the European Union to Croatia by demanding that Croatian depositors finally be given the possibility to access their money, as well as references to the dismissal of the Italian Governor (on account of his acting in favour of a bank connected with him via personal relations and abundant gifts to his family), represent a level of public communication that we do not want to descend to. This is certainly not the way to a resolution acceptable to both sides, which would be in the interest both of those directly involved and in the interest of good overall cooperation of Slovenia and Croatia as neighbouring countries.
Ivana Crnic
Spokesperson
Priopćenja
