SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 53320/99 by Strezo TRAJKOVSKI against the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) , sitting on 18 January 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr A. B aka , Mr G. Bonello , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr M. Fischbach , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr E. Levits , judges , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 1 September 1999 and registered on 13 December 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Macedonian national, born in 1926 and living in Skopje .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows.

The applicant had savings in foreign currency in one of the banks in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia (SRM) before the dissolution of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY).

Under the relevant legislation of the SFRY at the material time the banks were under a duty to deposit foreign currency savings in the SFRY National Bank. In 1991 and 1992 the SFRY Government passed decisions limiting the withdrawal from savings accounts in foreign currency.

On 8 September 1991, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia declared independence. On 17 November 1991 it adopted its Constitution under which the laws from the SFRY remained in force, except for the laws regulating the organisation and the competence of the SFRY institutions.

In 1992 the Yugoslav army withdrew from the Macedonian territory.

On an unspecified date in 1991 the applicant’s bank refused his request to withdraw his savings from his account in foreign currency on the basis of the aforementioned decisions of the Government of the SFRY.

On 18 November 1992 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Skopje Municipal Court against the bank claiming back his savings with interest. On 24 February 1993 it was dismissed on the ground that the relevant regulation from the SFRY allowed for withdrawal of the savings only in cases of purchase of an apartment or business premises.

On 12 May 1993 the Macedonian Parliament adopted the Act on the Guarantee by the Republic of Macedonia of Foreign Currency Savings and on the Funds and Means of Repayment of Foreign Currency Savings Deposited in 1993 and 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Act ). It provided that withdrawal from foreign currency bank accounts was only possible in exceptional cases (see the Relevant domestic law).

On 13 January 1994 Skopje Appellate Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted the case to Skopje Municipal Court.

On 20 December 1995 Skopje Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s civil claim on the ground that all savings in foreign currency had been frozen by decisions of the SFRY Government and by the 1993 Act and that therefore the withdrawal of the savings was only possible in exceptional cases.

On 6 March 1997 the Appellate Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on similar grounds.

On 18 March 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions.

B. Relevant domestic law

Act on the Guarantee by the Republic of Macedonia of Foreign Currency Savings and on the Funds and Means of Repayment of Foreign Currency Savings Deposited in 1993 and 1994 ( Закон за гаранција на Република Македонија за депонираните девизни влогови на граѓаните и за обезбедување на средства и начин за исплата на депонираните девизни влогови на граѓаните во 1993 и 1994 год.)

Under section 1 the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the guarantor for the payment of domestic and foreign currency bank savings and shall provide funds for their payment.

Under section 2 the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is guarantor for the payment of domestic and foreign currency bank savings deposited on its territory and which has been transferred in the National Bank of the SFRY by 27 April 1992.

Under section 4 in order to insure the liquidity of the State’s funds all foreign currency savings shall be frozen and may not be withdrawn save in cases set out in that law.

Under section 7 holders of saving accounts may withdraw the equivalent in domestic currency of DM 100 per month from their savings accounts in foreign currency provided that they do not have sufficient funds to meet their monthly needs.

Under section 8 account holders may withdraw part of their savings in foreign currency to meet medical, wedding and school expenses, or to pay credits, taxes, custom duties or account holders costs in connection with privatisation of socially owned companies.

Under section 10 account holders may withdraw part of their savings in foreign currency to meet their medical and school expenses overseas.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that there is an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possession, because he is unable to withdraw his foreign currency savings.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings to which he was a party were unfair, the courts were biased and have erred in fact and law.

THE LAW

1. As regards the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that there is an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possession, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine its admissibility and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings to which he was a party were unfair.

In the light of all the material in its possession and insofar as the applicant’s complaint has been substantiated and thus within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. The Court recalls in particular that its task when examining a complaint about fairness under Article 6 of the Convention is not to adjudicate on the dispute which was the subject matter of the domestic proceedings, but to assess whether the proceedings were fair within the meaning of that provision (the Helle v. Finland judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII, § 53, p. 2928). It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the alleged interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s savings.

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis              Registrar              President