natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Constitutional Court refused to allow a referendum to be held, considering that the potential rejection of the amended Legal Status Act would lead to unconstitutional consequences.
Ustavno sodišče ni dovolilo referenduma, ker je menilo, da bi imela morebitna zavrnitev spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD protiustavne posledice.
It further found that the delay in implementing its leading decision of 2003 had entailed a fresh violation of the Constitution.
Ugotovilo je tudi, da je zamuda pri izvršitvi njegove odločbe iz leta 2003 pomenila novo kršitev ustave.
In paragraph 43 of its decision the Constitutional Court held that, by passing the Act in question, which provided for the retroactivity of permanent residence status, the legislature had introduced moral satisfaction as a particular form of reparation for the &quot;erased&quot;.
Ustavno sodišče je v 43. točki odločbe trdilo, da je zakonodajalec s sprejetjem spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD, ki predvideva veljavnost statusa stalnega prebivalca za nazaj, vzpostavil moralno zadoščenje kot posebno obliko poravnave škode izbrisanim.
If damage was caused to individuals as a result of their &quot;erasure&quot;, the question of possible State liability could arise on the basis of Article 26 of the Constitution if other conditions provided for by that Article and the relevant statutory conditions were met.
Če je bila posameznikom zaradi izbrisa povzročena škoda, bi se lahko zastavilo vprašanje o morebitni odškodninski odgovornosti države na podlagi 26. člena ustave, če bi bili izpolnjeni drugi v tem členu predvideni pogoji in ustrezni zakonski pogoji.
In any event, the amended Legal Status Act on its own did not entail a new type of State liability for damage or a new legal basis for enforcing claims for damages.
V vsakem primeru spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD sam po sebi ne vzpostavlja nove vrste odškodninske odgovornosti države ali nove pravne podlage za uveljavljanje odškodninskih zahtevkov.
It was legitimate for the legislature to pass specific legislation limiting the State&apos;s liability, as had been done, for instance, in respect of the victims of the Second World War.
Zakonodajalec lahko zakonito sprejme posebno zakonodajo o omejitvi odgovornosti države, kakor je bilo to na primer storjeno za žrtve druge svetovne vojne.
The Constitutional Court held that the fact that the amended Legal Status Act did not address the question of financial reparation was not unconstitutional.
Ustavno sodišče je trdilo, da dejstvo, da spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD ni urejal vprašanja denarne odškodnine, ni protiustavno.
On 15 June 2010 the President of the National Assembly publicly apologised to the &quot;erased&quot;; the Minister for the Interior did the same on 22 June 2010.
Predsednik Državnega zbora se je 15. junija 2010 javno opravičil izbrisanim; ministrica za notranje zadeve je storila prav tako 22. junija 2010.
On 24 June 2010 the amended Legal Status Act was published in the Official Gazette.
Spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD je bil 24. junija 2010 objavljen v uradnem listu.
It entered into force on 24 July 2010, a few days after the delivery of the Chamber judgment.
Začel je veljati 24. julija 2010, nekaj dni po izdaji sodbe senata.
Prior to its enactment, 13,600 requests for residence permits had been submitted, of which 12,345 had been granted.
Pred začetkom njegove veljavnosti je bilo vloženih 13.600 prošenj za dovoljenje za prebivanje, od katerih je bilo odobrenih 12.345.
Section 1 of the amended Legal Status Act applied to aliens who had been citizens of other former SFRY republics on 25 June 1991, had been registered as having their permanent residence in Slovenia on 23 December 1990 or on 25 June 1991, and had actually resided there since then, regardless of the provisions of the Aliens Act.
1. spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD se je uporabljal za tujce, ki so bili 25. junija 1991 državljani drugih republik nekdanje SFRJ in so imeli 23. decembra 1990 ali 25. junija 1991 prijavljeno stalno prebivališče v Sloveniji ter so od takrat tam dejansko prebivali ne glede na Zakon o tujcih.
It provided for the acquisition of both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits by the &quot;erased&quot;.
Zagotovil je, da izbrisani lahko pridobijo dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc).
It also regulated the status of the children of the &quot;erased&quot; and provided for the issuing of retroactive decisions to those &quot;erased&quot; persons who had been granted Slovenian citizenship without having obtained a permanent residence permit.
Uredil je tudi status otrok izbrisanih in predvidel izdajo odločb z učinkom za nazaj tistim izbrisanim, ki jim je bilo podeljeno slovensko državljanstvo, ne da bi prej pridobili dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje.
In particular, section 1 (è) defined the meaning of the words &quot;actually residing&quot; in Slovenia, which was a precondition for obtaining permanent residence status, as a situation where the person had the centre of his or her life interests in Slovenia, this being determined on the basis of personal, family, economic, social and other ties demonstrating the existence of actual and permanent connections between the individual and Slovenia.
Predvsem pa je 1. č člen opredelil pomen izraza &quot;dejansko življenje&quot; v Sloveniji, ki je bil prvi pogoj za pridobitev statusa stalnega prebivalca, kot stanje, ko ima oseba središče svojih življenjskih interesov v Sloveniji, kar se presoja na podlagi osebnih, družinskih, ekonomskih, socialnih in drugih vezi, ki kažejo na obstoj dejanskih in trajnih povezav med osebo in Slovenijo.
It further indicated that the condition of &quot;actually residing&quot; could be met in cases of justifiable absence for more than a year (forced removal from Slovenia, absence as a consequence of the &quot;erasure&quot; or impossibility of returning because of the state of war in other successor States of the SFRY).
Poleg tega je določal, da je pogoj &quot;dejanskega življenja&quot; lahko izpolnjen tudi ob upravičeni odsotnosti, ki je daljša od enega leta (prisilna odstranitev iz Slovenije, odsotnost kot posledica izbrisa, onemogočena vrnitev zaradi vojnega stanja v drugih državah naslednicah SFRJ).
In the case of a longer absence, the condition of &quot;actually residing&quot; could be satisfied for the period of five years and for a further five years only if the person had tried to return to Slovenia - see paragraph 211 below).
Ob daljši odsotnosti je pogoj &quot;dejanskega življenja&quot; izpolnjen za pet let, za naslednjih pet let pa le, če se je oseba poskušala vrniti v Slovenijo (glej 211. odstavek).
According to the data submitted by the Government, from 24 June 2010 to 31 May 2011 the territorial administrative units received 173 applications for ex nunc permanent residence permits and eighty-four applications for supplementary, ex tunc permits.
Po podatkih, ki jih je predložila vlada, so območne upravne enote od 24. junija 2010 do 31. maja 2011 prejele 173 prošenj za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in 84 prošenj za dopolnilno dovoljenje z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc).
Including the permits issued by the Ministry of the Interior, these applications resulted in the issuing of sixty-four ex nunc permanent residence permits and 111 ex tunc permanent residence permits, in some cases by the authorities ex proprio motu.
Vključno z dovoljenji, ki jih je izdalo ministrstvo, je bilo izdanih 64 dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in 111 dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc); v nekaterih primerih so jih organi izdali iz lastnega nagiba (ex proprio motu).
Further proceedings were still pending.
Nekaj postopkov še ni bilo končanih.
The deadline for submitting requests under the amended Legal Status Act expires on 24 July 2013.
Rok za predložitev prošenj po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD poteče 24. julija 2013.
On 26 April 2011 an association, Civil Initiative of the &quot;Erased&quot;, together with fifty-two other private individuals, lodged a petition with the Constitutional Court for constitutional review of the amended Legal Status Act (U-I-85/11).
Društvo civilna iniciativa izbrisanih prebivalcev je skupaj z dvainpetdesetimi drugimi posamezniki 26. aprila 2011 ustavnemu sodišču predložilo pobudo za presojo ustavnosti spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD (U-I-85/11).
The proceedings are currently pending.
Ta postopek še teče.
82. Furthermore, one of the &quot;erased&quot; lodged a constitutional appeal challenging the rejection by the Supreme Court of his compensation claim, amounting to 50,492.40 euros (EUR) for loss of work and non-pecuniary damage.
Poleg tega je eden od izbrisanih vložil ustavno pritožbo proti odločitvi vrhovnega sodišča o zavrnitvi njegove zahteve za odškodnino v znesku 50.492,40 evra zaradi izgube zaposlitve in nepremoženjske škode.
As far as pecuniary damage was concerned, the Supreme Court observed that the State authorities had not acted unlawfully and that Article 26 of the Constitution was therefore inapplicable.
Glede premoženjske škode je vrhovno sodišče menilo, da državni organi niso ravnali nezakonito in se zato 26. člen ustave ne uporabi.
On 5 July 2011 (Up-1176/09) the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal, upholding the Supreme Court&apos;s view that, in spite of the decision of the Constitutional Court subsequently abrogating the impugned provision of the Citizenship Act, it could not be said that administrative authorities or courts had acted unlawfully at the material time.
Ustavno sodišče je 5. julija 2011 (Up-1176/09) zavrnilo ustavno pritožbo in potrdilo stališče vrhovnega sodišča, da ne glede na odločbo, s katero je ustavno sodišče pozneje razveljavilo izpodbijano določbo Zakona o državljanstvu, ne moremo trditi, da so upravni organi ali sodišča ravnali nezakonito ob dejanskem stanju.
Furthermore, since the loss of work had been related to the refusal to grant Slovenian citizenship to the claimant and not to the refusal to grant a permanent residence permit, the leading decisions of the Constitutional Court on the subject of the &quot;erasure&quot; could not be taken into account.
Poleg tega se niso mogle upoštevati temeljne odločbe ustavnega sodišča o izbrisu, ker je bila izguba zaposlitve povezana z zavrnitvijo podelitve slovenskega državljanstva pritožniku in ne z zavrnitvijo izdaje dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje.
On 21 July 2011 the Government submitted some thirty final judgments delivered by the courts of first and second instance and by the Supreme Court in compensation proceedings brought by the &quot;erased&quot;.
Vlada je 21. julija 2011 predložila okoli trideset pravnomočnih sodb sodišč prve in druge stopnje ter vrhovnega sodišča v odškodninskih tožbah, ki so jih vložili izbrisani.
All the compensation claims were in the end dismissed, mostly for failure to comply with the prescribed time-limits, although the courts had in some cases initially established that the compensation claims were well-founded.
Vsi odškodninski zahtevki so bili na koncu zavrnjeni, predvsem zaradi nespoštovanja predpisanih rokov, čeprav so v nekaterih primerih sodišča na začetku ugotovila, da so bili odškodninski zahtevki utemeljeni.
At that time, proceedings in eleven cases brought by &quot;erased&quot; persons were pending before the Supreme Court.
Enajst zadev, ki so jih sprožili izbrisani, je bilo takrat še v obravnavi pred vrhovnim sodiščem.
Finally, on 7 November 2011 the Government submitted a new decision delivered by the Constitutional Court on 26 September 2011 (Up-108/11) in a case brought by one of the &quot;erased&quot; who had claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
Končno je 7. novembra 2011 vlada predložila novo odločbo, ki jo je ustavno sodišče izdalo 26. septembra 2011 (Up-108/11) v zadevi, ki jo je predložil eden od izbrisanih in zahteval odškodnino za premoženjsko in nepremoženjsko škodo.
In that case the first-instance court had initially held in an interim judgment that there were grounds for holding the State liable for damages.
Pri tej zadevi je na začetku sodišče prve stopnje v vmesni sodbi razsodilo, da so razlogi za odškodninsko odgovornost države.
However, the Supreme Court upheld the second-instance decision dismissing the claim on account of the expiry of the statutory time-limit.
Toda vrhovno sodišče je potrdilo odločitev drugostopenjskega sodišča, ki je zahtevek zavrnilo zaradi poteka zakonskega roka.
That decision was endorsed by the Constitutional Court.
Ustavno sodišče je potrdilo to odločitev.
Before 25 June 1991, the date on which Slovenia declared its independence, the applicants were citizens of both the SFRY and one of its constituent republics other than Slovenia.
Pred 25. junijem 1991, ko je Slovenija razglasila svojo neodvisnost, so bili pritožniki državljani SFRJ in ene od njenih sestavnih republik razen Slovenije.
They had acquired permanent resident status in Slovenia as SFRY citizens, a status which they retained until 26 February 1992, when their names were deleted from the Register.
Status stalnega prebivalca v Sloveniji so pridobili kot državljani SFRJ in ga ohranili do 26. februarja 1992, ko so bila njihova imena izbrisana iz registra.
Further to the entry into force of the amended Legal Status Act on 24 July 2010, received both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits. Mr and Mrs did not apply for residence permits.
Po začetku veljavnosti spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD 24. julija 2010 so prejeli dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc). nista zaprosila za dovoljenje za prebivanje.
The following is a summary of the specific situation of each applicant.
V nadaljevanju je povzetek posebnih okoliščin vsakega pritožnika.
was born on 8 April 1935 in Šipovo (Bosnia and Herzegovina).
se je rodil 8. aprila 1935 v Šipovem (Bosna in Hercegovina).
According to the Government, he is of unknown citizenship.
Po navedbah vlade njegovo državljanstvo ni znano.
After completing his elementary education, he trained as a shoemaker.
Po končani osnovni šoli se je izučil za čevljarja.
He moved to Slovenia at the age of twenty and settled in Koper in 1965. In 1976 he rented a small workshop from the Koper Municipality and established a private business there.
V Slovenijo se je preselil, ko je bil star dvajset let, in se leta 1965 naselil v Kopru. Leta 1976 je pri Občini Koper najel majhen lokal in odprl obrt.
He was registered as a permanent resident in Slovenia from 23 July 1970 until 26 February 1992.
Stalno prebivališče v Sloveniji je imel prijavljeno od 23. julija 1970 do 26. februarja 1992.
In 1991 he fell seriously ill, was hospitalised for three months, and allegedly failed for that reason to lodge an application for Slovenian citizenship.
Leta 1991 je resno zbolel in je bil tri mesece v bolnišnici, kar je po njegovih trditvah razlog, da ni vložil prošnje za slovensko državljanstvo.
He stated that he had been reassured that there would be further opportunities to apply for it.
Navedel je, da mu je bilo zagotovljeno, da bo še imel priložnost zaprositi zanj.
The Government confirmed that the applicant had been hospitalised.
Vlada je potrdila, da je bil pritožnik v bolnišnici.
However, he had already been released from hospital on 15 June 1991.
Toda iz bolnišnice je bil odpuščen že 15. junija 1991.
The applicant never received any official notification that he no longer had a legal status in Slovenia.
Pritožnik ni nikoli prejel nobenega uradnega obvestila, da nima več pravnega statusa v Sloveniji.
In 1993 the applicant&apos;s home caught fire and he lost most of his papers.
Leta 1993 je v pritožnikovem stanovanju izbruhnil požar in izgubil je večino svojih dokumentov.
When he applied to the Koper Municipality for replacement papers, he was informed that his name had been deleted from the Register.
Ko je na Občini Koper zaprosil za izdajo nadomestnih dokumentov, so ga obvestili, da je bilo njegovo ime izbrisano iz registra.
The applicant continued with his business and was paying rent until the late 1990s, when he started experiencing financial difficulties.
Pritožnik je še naprej opravljal svojo dejavnost in plačeval najemnino vse do poznih 90. let prejšnjega stoletja, ko so ga začele mučiti finančne težave.
Since he could no longer pay the rent, he lost the right to remain in the premises.
Ker ni mogel več plačevati najemnine, je izgubil pravico do uporabe lokala.
Without any identity documents, he was at risk of being expelled if he travelled outside the local community, where the police tolerated his presence.
Brez kakršnih koli identifikacijskih dokumentov je tvegal, da ga bodo izgnali, če bi potoval iz svoje občine, v kateri je policija dopuščala njegovo prisotnost.
The applicant stated that in the 1990s he tried on various occasions to regularise his status with the Koper Administrative Unit but allegedly received no reply or instruction on how to proceed.
Pritožnik je navedel, da je v 90. letih večkrat poskušal urediti svoj status na Upravni enoti Koper, vendar po njegovih trditvah ni dobil odgovora ali navodila, kaj naj stori.
In 2005 he wrote a letter to the Ministry in which he requested to be granted Slovenian citizenship.
Leta 2005 je ministrstvu poslal dopis, v katerem je zaprosil za slovensko državljanstvo.
He received no reply.
Odgovora ni prejel.
However, the Government maintained that Mr had never applied for a residence permit in Slovenia.
Vlada pa je trdila, da nikoli ni zaprosil za dovoljenje za prebivanje v Sloveniji.
The applicant further maintained that in 2006 he had started proceedings for pension rights with the Institute of Pension and Invalidity Insurance.
Pritožnik je tudi trdil, da je leta 2006 sprožil postopek za uveljavljanje pokojninskih pravic pri Zavodu za pokojninsko in invalidsko zavarovanje.
On 14 May 2006 the latter sent him a letter with evidence of his years of employment, requesting him to provide a certificate of citizenship.
Zavod mu je 14. maja 2006 poslal dopis z izpisom let zaposlitve ter zahteval, da predloži potrdilo o državljanstvu.
However, further to an enquiry by the Agent of the Government, on 29.October 2007 the Institute of Pension and Invalidity Insurance stated that the applicant had not begun any official proceedings before it.
Po poizvedbi zastopnika vlade pa je Zavod za pokojninsko in invalidsko zavarovanje 29. oktobra 2007 sporočil, da pritožnik pri njem ni sprožil nobenega uradnega postopka.
On 7 May 2007 the applicant applied for Slovenian citizenship as a stateless person.
Pritožnik je 7. maja 2007 zaprosil za slovensko državljanstvo kot oseba brez državljanstva.
His request was dismissed on 27 July 2007.
Njegova prošnja je bila 27. julija 2007 zavrnjena.
On 29 January 2008 the applicant again applied for Slovenian citizenship under section 10 of the Citizenship Act.
Pritožnik je 29. januarja 2008 ponovno zaprosil za slovensko državljanstvo na podlagi 10. člena Zakona o državljanstvu.
On 10 June 2009 the Koper Administrative Unit dismissed his request.
Upravna enota Koper je 10. junija 2009 zavrnila njegovo prošnjo.
He did not challenge this refusal before the Administrative Court.
Pritožnik te zavrnitve ni izpodbijal pred upravnim sodiščem.
On 24.February 2009 the applicant applied for a permanent residence permit.
Pritožnik je 24. februarja 2009 zaprosil za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje.
On 2 November 2010 he was granted both ex nunc and ex tunc residence permits.
novembra 2010 sta mu bili izdani dovoljenji za prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc).
They were delivered to him on 26 November 2010.
Dovoljenji sta mu bili vročeni 26. novembra 2010.
The applicant stated that even after receiving the permanent residence permit, he was still encountering many difficulties, particularly with regard to his claims for pension rights, and had serious health problems.
Pritožnik je trdil, da je imel tudi po prejetju dovoljenja za prebivanje številne težave, zlasti pri uveljavljanju pokojninskih pravic, in hude zdravstvene težave.
was born on 22 September 1969 in Koper (Slovenia).
se je rodil 22. septembra 1972 v Kopru (Slovenija).
He is a stateless person.
Je oseba brez državljanstva.
He was registered as a permanent resident in Slovenia from 29 September 1971 until 26 February 1992. His parents and two brothers were born in Montenegro and they, like the applicant, were removed from the Register in 1992. The applicant&apos;s mother was granted Slovenian citizenship in 1997 and his father in 2004. The applicant completed elementary school and two years&apos; specialised education in a secondary school for metal workers.
V Sloveniji je imel stalno prebivališče prijavljeno od 29. septembra 1971 do 26. februarja 1992. Njegovi starši in dva brata so bili rojeni v Črni gori in so bili tako kot pritožnik iz registra izbrisani leta 1992. Pritožnikova mati je dobila slovensko državljanstvo leta 1997, oče pa leta 2004. Pritožnik je končal osnovno šolo in dveletno poklicno izobraževanje na srednji kovinarski šoli.
He currently lives in Italy without any legal status.
Trenutno brez vsakega pravnega statusa živi v Italiji.
The applicant stated that in 1991 he had moved to Italy, but remained registered as a permanent resident in Koper (Slovenia) until the events of 1992. He allegedly received false information from the Koper Administrative Unit.
Pritožnik je navedel, da se je leta 1991 preselil v Italijo, vendar pa je ostal stalno prijavljen v Kopru (Slovenija) vse do dogodkov leta 1992. Po lastnih navedbah je na Upravni enoti Koper prejel napačne informacije.
The Government stated that the applicant had been living in Italy since 1989, and not since 1991. He had therefore not been resident in Slovenia when it became independent.
Vlada je navedla, da pritožnik v Italiji živi od leta 1989 in ne od leta 1991. Tako ni imel prebivališča v Sloveniji, ko se je osamosvojila.
The applicant alleged that when he had sought to apply to the Koper Administrative Unit for Slovenian citizenship, the employee had told him to submit his Slovenian employment record.
Pritožnik je navedel, da mu je, ko je na Upravni enoti Koper skušal zaprositi za slovensko državljanstvo, uslužbenec rekel, naj predloži slovensko delovno knjižico.
The applicant stated that he worked in Italy on the basis of a lawful working permit and that he could not provide such a document.
Pritožnik je navedel, da dela v Italiji na podlagi zakonitega delovnega dovoljenja in da takega dokumenta ne more predložiti.
The employee allegedly replied that Italy and not Slovenia should grant citizenship to the applicant.
Uslužbenec je po navedbah odvrnil, naj pritožniku podeli državljanstvo Italija in ne Slovenija.
The applicant further stated that he had learned about the &quot;erasure&quot; later than the other applicants.
Pritožnik je navedel tudi, da je za izbris izvedel pozneje kot drugi pritožniki.
In 2002, when his old SFRY passport expired, the Italian authorities had refused to extend his working residence permit (permesso di soggiorno) and had ordered him to return to Slovenia.
Leta 2002, ko mu je potekel potni list SFRJ, so mu italijanski organi zavrnili podaljšanje dovoljenja za prebivanje (permesso di soggiorno) in mu odredili vrnitev v Slovenijo.
Even though he had tried to return to Slovenia lawfully, he had been unable to regularise his status there.
Čeprav se je skušal v Slovenijo vrniti zakonito, si tam stanja ni mogel urediti.
The Government maintained that the applicant had never properly applied for a residence permit in Slovenia.
Vlada je trdila, da pritožnik nikoli ni pravilno zaprosil za izdajo dovoljenja za prebivanje v Sloveniji.
On 26 November 2003 the applicant urged the Ministry to issue a supplementary, ex tunc decision regulating his status following the delivery of the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision of 3 April 2003, without having previously submitted a request for an ex nunc permanent residence permit.
novembra 2003 je pritožnik zaprosil ministrstvo, naj izda dopolnilno odločbo z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc), s katero bi uredilo njegov status po izdaji odločbe ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003, ne da bi prej oddal prošnjo za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc).