Communicated on 31 May 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 80531/12 Anton AHAC and others against Slovenia lodged on 17 December 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns measures taken by the Government ’ s Securities Market Agency (“the Agency”) against mutual investment funds operated by company Proficia Dadas d.o.o . resulting in the loss of value of shares owned by the applicants. The applicants argue, inter alia , that the Agency did not diligently preform its regulatory and supervisory duties in relation to the company Proficia Dadas d.o.o . They consider that instead of limiting the assets of the mutual investment funds, the Agency should have temporarily suspended their operation.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Can the applicants claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?

2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights in the civil proceedings against the State and the Securities Market Agency (“the Agency”) in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for refusing the applicants ’ requests for evidence and did the domestic courts sufficiently substantiate the final decision on the applicants ’ civil rights ?

3. Was the applicants ’ access to the Supreme Court arbitrarily or/and excessively restricted on account of the courts ’ qualification of the proceedings as “an economic dispute” instead of “a civil dispute”? Has there consequently been a violation of the right to access to court under Article 6 § 1 and/or a violation of Article 13 of the Convention?

4. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the decree ( sklep ) adopted by the Agency on 20 March 1996 and the resulting limitation on assets of mutual funds managed by company Proficia Dadas d.o.o. ’ s and co-owned by the applicants and prohibition of further investments into these mutual funds?

If so, was the interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

Did such interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)? In particular, did the State have at its disposal other less severe measures by which it could achieve the same aim?

5. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment on account of the decree of 20 March 1996 in comparison with investors in other mutual funds at the relevant time?

If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?