## Facts

- The National Bank of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) placed and invested funds in Austria through a series of contracts with Girocredit Bank A.G. der Sparkassen (Girocredit), an Austrian commercial bank.
- The SFRY later dissolved, and multiple successor states emerged, including Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia, Macedonia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY).
- After dissolution, Croatia and other successor states (and, in the proceedings, associated national banks) asserted that the former SFRY central-bank assets held abroad could not be treated as belonging to any single successor state until a succession settlement determined allocation.
- The National Bank of the FRY claimed to be the sole legal successor to the National Bank of the SFRY and therefore entitled to control and receive the Austrian-held funds.
- Croatia and other successor states asked Girocredit to freeze the SFRY central-bank assets pending an agreement among successor states on distribution.
- Girocredit declined to freeze the assets based solely on the successor states’ request, creating a risk that the funds could be paid out on instructions from the FRY-side claimant.
- The plaintiffs filed suit in Austria seeking interim relief ordering Girocredit to refrain from any unilateral disposition of the SFRY assets, aiming to prevent payouts without the consent of all successor states.
- Lower Austrian courts granted relief in favor of the plaintiffs.
- Girocredit sought review, and the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) took the case (decision dated December 17, 1996; translated and published at 36 I.L.M. 1520 (1997)).

## Issues

1. Whether the FRY was the continuator state of the SFRY (and thus exclusively entitled to former SFRY state property abroad), or instead one successor state among several.
2. Whether deposits and other foreign-held assets of the former SFRY central bank constitute state property subject to allocation among all successor states rather than immediate control by a single claimant.
3. Whether Austrian courts could order interim measures against an Austrian bank to prevent payments or other disposition of contested state assets pending allocation among successor states.
4. Whether rules reflected in the 1983 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts could be applied as customary international law when determining entitlement to former SFRY state property.

## Decision

- The Austrian Supreme Court held that the FRY did not continue the legal personality of the SFRY; it was a successor state alongside the other former Yugoslav republics.
- The Court treated the foreign-held assets of the former Yugoslav state/central bank as state property that remained undivided among the community of successor states pending distribution.
- Relying on the principle of equitable distribution among successor states, the Court rejected the idea that one successor (through a claim of continuity) could unilaterally control the former SFRY’s external assets.
- The Court applied rules on state property succession reflected in the 1983 Vienna Convention as customary international law in resolving the interim protection question.
- Using the civil-law concept of *communio incidens*, the Court characterized the successor states as co-owners of the undivided former state property for purposes of protecting it until a final settlement.
- The Court therefore upheld injunctive-style protection restraining Girocredit from making unilateral payouts or other dispositions of the SFRY assets absent the consent of all successor states (or a binding allocation arrangement).

## Legal Principles

- In a dissolution where multiple successor states emerge, a claim that one successor continues the predecessor state’s legal personality may be rejected based on international practice and recognition-related conduct; continuity is not assumed.
- State property of a dissolved predecessor state is generally subject to equitable distribution among successor states rather than exclusive vesting in a single successor.
- Rules stated in a widely cited treaty on state succession (here, the 1983 Vienna Convention on State Property, Archives and Debts) may be treated by a national court as evidence of customary international law for questions of state property succession.
- Until distribution is determined, successor states may be treated as a co-owning community of the undivided former state property; private-law co-ownership concepts such as *communio incidens* can support interim protection of contested assets.
- Courts may grant interim relief against a third-party custodian (such as a bank) to prevent irreversible prejudice to competing successor-state claims, including orders preventing payment without joint consent.

## Conclusion

Republic of Croatia v. Girocredit Bank concerned Austrian-held deposits and investments made by the former SFRY central bank and competing post-dissolution claims to those assets. The Austrian Supreme Court rejected the FRY’s assertion of continuity with the SFRY, treated the assets as undivided state property belonging to the community of successor states, and supported interim court-ordered restraints on Girocredit to prevent unilateral payout while allocation among successor states remained unresolved, applying equitable distribution principles and treating parts of the 1983 Vienna Convention’s state-property rules as customary international law.


Republic of Croatia v. Girocredit Bank A.G. der Sparkassen, 36 International Legal Materials 1520 (1997)