EU Court in Luxembourg has provided VZMD with the written position of all persons concerned in the case of C-526/14, Tadej Kotnik e.a., in which the court was asked by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia to clarify the legal nature of the communication published by the European Commission – focusing on the question whether the Banking Communication as of August 1, 2013, with which the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Slovenia and the Bank of Slovenia »justify«the cancellation of all shares and subordinated bonds in as many as six Slovenian banks, is legally binding. Apart from the European Commission, the Bank of Slovenia, the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, and the Republic of Slovenia itself, represented by the State Attorney's Office, the brief written opinions on behalf of their countries were provided by the State Attorney's Offices of Ireland, Italy and Spain.
The European Commission (EC), the creator of the communications whose legal nature was subject to the question posed by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia to the EU Court, did -in its written report submitted to the EU Court in the document with the reference number 988019 - explicitly and unequivocally bolster the position of VZMD and expropriated investors in Slovenian banks that its Banking Communication is not a legally binding act: "The Banking Communication shall not bind the Member States" (page 5, section 11), and "The Banking Communication is not binding on the Member States" (page 7, section 18).
VZMD has, on behalf of the expropriated investors in Slovenian banks, who it represents, repeatedly cautioned to the absurdityof the claims made by the senior officials of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Slovenia and the Bank of Slovenia (BS), saying that the cancellation of all subordinated bonds in the Republic of Slovenia was unavoidable as it was ordered through the EC Banking Communication, which is allegedly a legally binding EU act. The absurdity of such claims is clearly evident from at least two legal facts: Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU which is defining legal acts of the EU, has no mention of the EC communication whatsoever; in addition, all legal acts of EU are published in the regulatory part of the Official Journal of the EU (section L - Legislation), whereas the EC communication in the announcements (section C - Information and Notices). As the officials of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Slovenia and the Bank of Slovenia have persistently "relativized" mentioned facts, VZMD has frequently reiterated that even the EU Court has in all three legal wrangles so far, in which the EC reproached the EU Member States (also) for the failure to comply with the EC communications, dismissed the reproach as unfounded explicitly stating that the EC communications are not legally binding acts (judgments in the matters C-70/06, EC against Portugal, §34; C‑369/07, EC against Greece, §112; in C-270/11, EC against Sweden, §41).
Hence even the EC expressly agrees with the legal fact that its communications are not legally binding acts and this has been explicitly indicated twice in its written position. However, the opposite written position provided by the Bank of Slovenia unfortunately has anew confirmed that this is an institution which has already ages ago disregarded any objectivity by covering up its inadmissible conduct and by resorting to falsehoods and misleading statements without hesitation - and if nothing works out, even to the utterly absurd ones. In so doing, in its written opinions provided to the EU Court in the document with the reference number 988072, the Bank of Slovenia stated: "The Banking Communication in terms of the interpretation of the EU primary law is only binding on the Commission but also on the national courts and other institutions in a Member State" (page 15, section 28)!
In view of the above, the VZMD President, Mr. Kristjan Verbič, stated: "As it seems, the Bank of Slovenia believes that it is highly competent to lecture the EU Court on withdrawal from its own - and the only reasonable - position on the unbinding legal nature of the European Commission communications, and as if this were not sufficiently arrogant and disgraceful, it also claims to understand the legal nature of the European Commission acts better than the European Commission itself!"
The legal experts, who have together with VZMD been preparing the materials for proceedings before the EU Court believe that such absurd statements by the Bank of Slovenia should in no way affect the ruling of the EU Court, but VZMD shall nevertheless submit a proposal to grant the oral proceedings in this matter at the Court. The EU Court normally institutes oral proceedings only in exceptional circumstances, but VZMD believes it to be useful in this case - also in the face of increasing non-credibility of the actions taken Bank of Slovenia, which is supposed to be the guardian of fairness.»Unfortunately in the Slovenian case, the Central bank has evidently focused majority of its efforts - together with certain representatives of the financial authorities - on the fight against its own citizens, which is a particularly alarming phenomenon we are compelled to deal with and "treat" abroad as well,« was how Mr. Verbič commented on the further steps of VZMD.