Pusic said on Tuesday Croatia "fully adheres to what was signed in the memorandum with Slovenia on dealing with the issue of transferred savings."
The focus of the talks will be "whether Slovenia will honour what was signed in the memorandum, which is that both sides should seek a stay of the proceedings before Croatian courts so that this stay, under the law, could happen, and to make time to possibly find alternative solutions to this issue," Pusic said.
The savings issue should have been at least temporarily solved with an English-language memorandum of understanding signed in March by Croatian Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic and Slovenia's then PM Janez Jansa, but the two countries were apparently lost in translation over the word "stay" in reference to the proceedings against Ljubljanska Banka in Croatian courts.
Slovenia claims the proceedings should be stopped in accordance with the memorandum and that the two sides have committed to seeking a solution as part of succession to the former Yugoslavia.
According to Croatia, the proceedings should be suspended and this suspension, under this year's amendments to the Litigation Act, can last up to a year, after which it can be prolonged for another year.
"Croatia has fully honoured that... requesting a stay of the proceedings. However, Slovenia has not done the same and we now want to know why Slovenia is not honouring the memorandum," Pusic said, adding that before it was signed, the Slovenian side "was acquainted in detail... with the legal frameworks within which this should happen."
According to Slovenia, Croatia is not honouring the memorandum because the court proceedings are still under way based on the power of attorney which the Croatian Finance Ministry gave two Croatian banks. Slovenia also claims that its law does not recognise temporary stay and that the proceedings must be stopped.
Croatia says the proceedings have not been stayed because, under Croatian law, all parties in the proceedings, including the defendants, must agree on the stay, and that Slovenia has not done this.
Our concrete proposal is that the memorandum must be honoured and that it represents an international agreement which clearly says that a final solution to the transferred foreign currency savings should be sought as part of succession to the former Yugoslavia, and that during this time the court proceedings against Ljubljanska Banka should be stopped, Erjavec said on Monday.
If the memorandum is not understood in that way, it begs the question why we signed it, as it wouldn't have been necessary and Croatian courts could continue with the proceedings in this case, Erjavec said, adding that this would be his main message during the talks with Pusic.
According to him, Croatia agreed to treating the old foreign currency savings as a succession issue not only with the March memorandum, but also by ratifying in 2004 the treaty on succession to the former Yugoslavia.