|Opis:||In the global banking business, banks headquartered in one country often provide banking services through their branches established in other countries. Irrespective of whether this concerns cross-border provision of banking services or not, the legal relationship between the bank and the depositor who places his or her funds in such a bank is created by way of money deposit agreement. In the event of dispute between the parties, this classical civil relationship is dealt with by the national courts, whereby a fact that the depositor has placed his or her funds in a branch of a foreign bank, has no role whatsoever. Subject to the legal definition of the branch concerned, both under Slovenian law and the EU legal order, the liable party for the repayment of cash deposit with accrued interest, pursuant to contractual terms, is a parent bank.
The basic subject of this study is an issue of whether at all and, if so, in what circumstances and under what conditions the payment of money to depositors falls within the responsibility of the State and not the bank as the debtor. Due to the importance that the banking industry has in modern national economies, the State, in fact, influences the bank-depositor civil relationship through its legal regulation providing for the protection of cash deposits with the banks in the event of their insolvency, or either directly enters this relationship as a guarantor for the payment. Through such conduct, based on the national laws, legal relationships between the State and the bank and also between the State and the depositors are created, which become an issue considered by domestic judicial authorities if the dispute emerges. However, recent case-law of the EFTA Court and of the European Court of Human Rights shows that the State-depositor relationship can be established also as a consequence of judgement of an international judicial authority which decides on the alleged violations of the State obligations assumed under international treaties, and which in the event of established violations may impose on the State the obligation to take the remedial actions.
The main content consists of an analysis of the cases EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland and Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which were decided on by the EFTA Court and the European Court of Human Rights, respectively. It describes the factual and the legal circumstances of each individual case, the essential arguments of the parties and analyses the final decisions by two international courts. The answer is given to the fundamental question about the legal nature of the State responsibility for money deposits in foreign branches of a bank, which is established or could be established by an international court, and legal consequences of such a decision for the State and an individual who suffered damages are analysed. A thesis that legal consequences of an international court's decision establishing State responsibility under international law do not contain obligations of the State only under international but also under civil law is substantiated. The conclusion gives the position in regard of a question whether two analysed court decisions constitute a sufficient basis to conclude that the State in such exceptional cases as the global financial crisis and/or dissolution of the State is not fully economically independent and autonomous, since the measures it takes with effect in its own territory, in order to protect its banking and economic system as well as the depositors, may be subject to adjudication by the international judicial authorities involving a risk that the ensuing decision(s) entail the responsibility of the State for the money deposits in the foreign branches of its banks.|