The associates and lawyers Ms. Tamara Kek, Mr. Miha Kunič and Mr. Jorg Sladič, who on behalf of the PanSlovenian Shareholders' Association (VZMD) represent over a thousand expropriated holders of subordinated bonds and shares of Slovenian banks before the EU Court in Luxembourg, have - in the process of preparing responses for the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia as to whether the European Commission's Banking Communication is indeed binding(?) and whether it actually invalidates provisions of other legal acts pertaining to investor rights  – tabled the motions to the EU Court to hold oral proceedings in regard to this case.

In the written opinions provided to the EU Court, the Bank of Slovenia (BS), State Attorney's Office and the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia have stated a number of blatant falsehoods about the supposed extent of catastrophic situation in Slovenian banks in December 2013 and which is why - only then and only in Slovenia - the Banking Communication of the European Commission was deemed binding, whereby the entire cancellation of all subordinated bonds in all banks recapitalized by the state was supposed to be the only possible interpretation of the Communication. Thus in the written opinion provided to the EU Court in April 2015, the BS outlined the macroeconomic situation in Slovenia in December 2013 using the assumptions, which had already been used for the cancellation for its justification that is "clarification" of the cancellation – therefore along with continuation and even additional deepening of recession – whereby BS "overlooked" that, at the time of writing the opinion, it had been clear for more than a year that the assumptions were utterly unrealistic. What is more - as early as on December 4, 2013, which is two weeks before the BS had ordered cancellation, on the website of Eurostat, an official statement that the quarterly GDP of Slovenia remained stable in the middle of 2013 was published (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/5168826/2-04122013-BP-EN.PDF)!

As if this had not sufficed for misleading the highest EU Court, in its written opinion, the BS also described the capital deficit of Slovenian banks during the fall of 2013 using highly unrealistic evaluations, whereby it "forgot" to mention that to make the evaluations it hired consulting companies which are not adhering to accounting standards and principles and had never before performed such tasks, and that the BS chose a "limited scope of information" which served as a basis for the consulting company to make the evaluations and provided - nevertheless for a fantastic fee (in excess of EUR 10 million) - even "clarifications" how they should be made (www.finance.si/8824165/). The claims of the BS, that in December 2013, both the situation in Slovenian banks and the macroeconomic situation in Slovenia were supposedly extremely poor, were also uncritically taken as a naked fact also by the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia and the State Attorney's Office in the written opinion and thus "itself reinforced the viewpoint" that the specific situation in Slovenia in December 2013 called for a specific legal interpretation of the European Commission's Banking Communication.

Albeit it is formally and legally clear that the question as to whether the European Commission's communications are to be treated as binding EU legal acts, and the GDP data of an EU member state and the capital deficit of certain banks in the state - even if they were credible - totally irrelevant, simultaneously reiterates a fact that the EU Court was provided with the information by the three important institutions in the Republic of Slovenia, whereby each of them claimed to have formulated the viewpoint by themselves and in a professional manner. For this reason, in the motion for the oral proceedings the authorized persons of expropriated holders stress that - in case the EU Court decides to consider the claims of the institutions in its judgment - the oral proceedings is all the more necessary as it will enable the expropriated holders, amongst other things, to present the Court official documents clearly indicating that the real situation in the Slovenian economy and Slovenian banks was significantly better than the one, which was claimed to be during the cancellation/expropriation by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, and which is being referred to in written opinions.