1. Introduction (ZPSVIKOB and ZPSVIKOB-1)

On 26 February 2025, the Higher Court in Ljubljana issued a decision (III Cp 246/2025), affirming the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court in Maribor in damage claims against the Bank of Slovenia stemming from its extraordinary measures. The ruling underscores the transitional legal framework between the repealed ZPSVIKOB and the new ZPSVIKOB-1, while providing clarity on the procedural treatment of already filed lawsuits.

2. Procedural Background

The lawsuit originated from a claim filed by a former holder of subordinated bank bonds whose value was extinguished following extraordinary measures taken by the Bank of Slovenia in December 2013. The claimant sought €20,001 in damages from both the Bank of Slovenia and a commercial bank, claiming unlawful deprivation of property rights.

The proceedings were interrupted and later resumed. The first-instance court ruled that:

• The proceedings would continue against the first defendant (the Bank of Slovenia);
• The District Court in Ljubljana lacked jurisdiction to decide the claim against the first defendant.

The claimant appealed only the second part of the decision, challenging the finding of lack of jurisdiction.

3. Legal Framework and Legislative Timeline (ZPSVIKOB and ZPSVIKOB-1)

This case unfolded against the backdrop of significant legislative change:

• ZPSVIKOB (2019) established exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court in Maribor and procedural rules for such claims.
• The Constitutional Court later annulled ZPSVIKOB in full (decision U-I-4/20 of 16 February 2023).
• On 15 June 2024, the new ZPSVIKOB-1 entered into force, reaffirming the Maribor court’s exclusive jurisdiction and setting out detailed procedural provisions for compensatory claims linked to extraordinary measures.

4. Key Issues in the Appeal

The appellant contended that:

• The referral of the case to Maribor deprived him of the ability to pursue legal remedies against the commercial bank;
• The claim was grounded in constitutional and EU law principles, including Article 26 of the Constitution and Article 85 of the BRRD Directive;
• The decision relied on a now-invalidated legal basis (ZPSVIKOB), and should thus be reversed or annulled.

5. Court’s Reasoning and Decision

The Higher Court rejected all grounds of appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision. Its core reasoning was as follows:

5.1. Applicability of the New Legal Framework (ZPSVIKOB-1)

Although the impugned decision was issued under the now-repealed ZPSVIKOB, the newly adopted ZPSVIKOB-1maintains an identical jurisdictional rule. Thus, repeating the decision would serve no purpose, particularly since the new law explicitly applies to pending proceedings and allows courts to declare lack of jurisdiction ex officio (Article 48(1) ZPSVIKOB-1).

5.2. No Violation of the Right to Effective Legal Remedy

The court emphasized that the appellant voluntarily withdrew his claim against the commercial bank. Therefore, any alleged impairment of procedural rights stemming from the bifurcation of the proceedings was unfounded.

Moreover, ZPSVIKOB-1 distinguishes between:

• Claims arising from the Bank of Slovenia’s resolution decisions (subject to its scope); and
• Separate contractual or disclosure-related claims against commercial banks (excluded from its scope).

As the plaintiff’s claim centered on damage caused by the extraordinary measure, the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court in Maribor was properly invoked.

5.3. Procedural Economy and Legal Certainty

The court invoked the principle of procedural economy (Article 11 ZPP), noting that reissuing an identical decision under the new law would unnecessarily delay proceedings without advancing the plaintiff’s rights.

6. Implications for Claimants and Legal Practitioners

This decision offers crucial guidance for ongoing and future litigation in the aftermath of the 2013 banking resolution:

• Claims against the Bank of Slovenia for damage caused by its resolution decisions must be filed — or continued — before the District Court in Maribor, regardless of when they were initially submitted.
• Even if older legislation (ZPSVIKOB) was in force at the time of filing, ZPSVIKOB-1 applies retroactively to such cases and reaffirms the jurisdictional rules.
• Legal arguments based on constitutional or EU norms do not override statutory jurisdiction rules, particularly when claims fall squarely within the specialized legal framework of ZPSVIKOB-1.

7. Conclusion

The Higher Court’s decision reaffirms a strict procedural approach to jurisdiction in claims related to bank resolution measures. While claimants may invoke a variety of legal arguments, the courts remain bound by the specialized framework of ZPSVIKOB-1, which channels such disputes to the District Court in Maribor. This reinforces legal certainty and facilitates efficient adjudication of claims arising from the long-contested 2013 banking measures.

* Finding yourself in need of legal services in Slovenia and looking for a law firm in Ljubljana, consider contacting us using our contact details as published on our web page. A qualified law firm can provide you with legal advice and representation – helping you navigate the complexities of Slovenian law and ensuring that your rights are protected. You can find more information on legal acts in Slovenia on the official pages of the Slovenian government. More legal topics can be found on our law firm publications page.