natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With this special remedy, the legislature had provided for moral satisfaction as a special form of redress for the consequences of violations resulting from the &quot;erasure&quot;.
S tem posebnim pravnim sredstvom je zakonodajalec zagotovil moralno zadoščenje kot posebno obliko poprave posledic kršitev, ki izvirajo iz izbrisa.
As to the six applicants who had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits after the Chamber judgment, their status was equivalent to that of Mr who had been considered to have lost their &quot;victim&quot; status by the Chamber.
Pravni status šestih pritožnikov, ki so jim bila izdana dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc) skladno s sodbo senata, je bil izenačen s pravnim statusom, ki sta po razsoji senata izgubila status žrtve.
The application in respect of them should therefore be declared inadmissible.
Pritožba v zvezi z njima naj se torej razglasi za nesprejemljivo.
The same should apply to the remaining applicants, who had never started proceedings in Slovenia with a view to requesting permanent residence permits.
Isto bi moralo veljati za preostala pritožnika, ki nista nikoli začela postopka v Sloveniji, da bi zaprosila za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje.
Contrary to what the applicants alleged, a permanent residence permit was definitely not just &quot;a piece of worthless paper&quot;.
V nasprotju s tem, kar so zatrjevali pritožniki, dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje vsekakor ni bilo zgolj &quot;list ničvrednega papirja&quot;.
It linked the holder to twenty-seven different rights in the field of social care, including pension rights, education, health and access to the labour market.
Imetnika je povezovalo s sedemindvajsetimi različnimi pravicami socialnega varstva, vključno s pokojninskimi pravicami, izobraževanjem, zdravjem in dostopom do trga dela.
As far as those rights were concerned, permanent residents were placed on the same level as Slovenian citizens.
Glede teh pravic so bili stalni prebivalci izenačeni s slovenskimi državljani.
They did not enjoy the same political rights, but could vote in local elections.
Niso uživali istih političnih pravic, vendar so lahko volili na lokalnih volitvah.
As to compensation claims, Article 26 of the Constitution (see paragraph 203 above) provided for the right to compensation for damage caused by a civil authority.
Glede odškodninskih zahtevkov 26. ustave (glej 203. odstavek) zagotavlja pravico do nadomestila za škodo, ki jo povzroči civilni organ.
The applicants and other &quot;erased&quot; persons had the possibility of bringing civil proceedings in order to claim compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage under the Code of Obligations 2001, and could eventually lodge a constitutional appeal.
Pritožniki in drugi izbrisani so imeli možnost sprožiti civilno tožbo za povračilo premoženjske in nepremoženjske škode v skladu z Obligacijskim zakonikom iz leta 2001 in bi lahko vložili ustavno pritožbo.
In paragraph 43 of its decision of 10 June 2010, the Constitutional Court had held that &quot;the delivery of decisions on the basis of the Legal Status Act and the amended Legal Status Act on its own did not imply a new type of State liability for damage or a new legal basis for enforcing claims for damages&quot; (see paragraph 74 above).
V triinštiridesetem odstavku odločbe z dne 10. junija 2010 je ustavno sodišče razsodilo, da &quot;izdaja odločb na podlagi ZUSDDD ter spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD sama po sebi ne pomeni nove vrste državne odškodninske odgovornosti ali nove pravne podlage za uveljavljanje odškodninskih zahtevkov&quot; (glej 74. odstavek).
Claiming damages was also possible under section 14 of the State Attorney Act (see paragraph 213 above).
Uveljavljanje odškodninskih zahtevkov je bilo mogoče tudi na podlagi 14. člena Zakona o državnem pravobranilstvu (glej 213. odstavek).
In their submissions after the hearing, the Government relied on the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision of 5 July 2011 in one of the cases brought by the &quot;erased&quot;, from which it followed that the Constitutional Court had not yet taken a position on the question of State liability for the damage caused by the &quot;erasure&quot; (see paragraph 82 above).
Vlada se je v svojih vlogah po obravnavi sklicevala na odločbo ustavnega sodišča z dne 5. julija 2011 v eni od zadev, ki jo je vložila izbrisana oseba, iz katere izhaja, da ustavno sodišče še ni sprejelo stališča do vprašanja državne odgovornosti za škodo, povzročeno z izbrisom (glej 82. odstavek).
In addition, on 26.September 2011 the Constitutional Court had not accepted for consideration a constitutional appeal lodged by one of the &quot;erased&quot; (see paragraph 83 above).
Poleg tega ustavno sodišče 26. septembra 2011 ni sprejelo v obravnavo ustavne pritožbe, ki jo je vložil eden od izbrisanih (glej 83. odstavek).
The Government observed that none of the applicants had claimed compensation before the domestic courts.
Vlada je navedla, da noben pritožnik ni zahteval odškodnine pri domačih sodiščih.
Only had filed a claim for damages with the State Attorney&apos;s Office, which had been rejected. Mr had not instituted court proceedings (see paragraph 160 above).
Le sta vložila odškodninski zahtevek pri državnem pravobranilstvu, ki pa ga je zavrnilo. ni sprožil sodnega postopka (glej 160. odstavek).
The six applicants who had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits in the course of the proceedings before the Grand Chamber remained in their view &quot;victims&quot; of the human rights violations caused by the &quot;erasure&quot; since they had not received any proper redress for the breaches of the Convention.
Šest pritožnikov, ki so jim bila med trajanjem postopka pred velikim senatom izdana dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc), še vedno sami sebe štejejo za žrtve kršitve človekovih pravic, ki jih je povzročil izbris, ker niso prejeli nobenega ustreznega zadoščenja za kršitve konvencije.
Although it followed from the earlier case-law and also some later decisions that an applicant could cease to be a &quot;victim&quot; if a remedy was provided in the course of the proceedings (they cited, inter alia, Maaouia v..France (dec.), no. 39652/98, ECHR 1999-II; Panèenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 40772/98, 28 October 1999; and Mikheyeva v. Latvia (dec.), no..50029/99, 12 September 2002), the recent case-law under Article 8 of the Convention clearly indicated that the recognition of a violation was not sufficient in this respect; &quot;adequate&quot; redress, including the reparation of adverse consequences suffered by the applicants over a long period of time, was also required (they cited Aristimuño Mendizabal, cited above, § 79; Mengesha Kimfe v. Switzerland, no. 24404/05, §§ 41-49, 29 July 2010; and Agraw v. Switzerland, no. 3295/06, §§ 27-34, 29 July 2010).
Čeprav iz zgodnejše sodne prakse in tudi nekaterih poznejših sodb izhaja, da lahko pritožnik preneha biti žrtev, če je med trajanjem postopka kršitev odpravljena (med drugim so se sklicevali na zadeve Maaouia proti Franciji (dec.), št. 39652/98, ESČP 1999 II; Pančenko proti Latviji (dec.), št. oktober 1999 in Mikheyeva proti Latviji (dec.), št. september 2002), pa je nedavna sodna praksa po 8. členu konvencije jasno pokazala, da priznanje kršitve ni dovolj; potrebno je bilo tudi primerno zadoščenje, vključno s povrnitvijo škode zaradi hudih posledic, ki so jih utrpeli pritožniki v daljšem obdobju (sklicevali so se na zadeve Aristimuńo Mendizabal, 79. odstavek; Mengesha Kimfe proti Švici, št. odstavek, 29. julij 2010; in Agraw proti Švici, št. odstavek, 29. julij 2010).
The Court had also made a distinction between cases involving deportation of non-nationals, and those concerning the failure to regulate the applicant&apos;s legal status over a long period.
Sodišče je tudi ugotovilo, da je razlika med zadevami, ki vključujejo izgon nedržavljanov, in zadevami, ki se nanašajo na neureditev pravnega statusa pritožnika v daljšem obdobju.
In the first category of cases, an applicant could no longer claim to be a &quot;victim&quot; if the deportation measure was not enforceable or if he or she had been issued with a residence permit (the applicants referred to Sisojeva and Others, cited above, § 100, and Kaftailova, cited above, §§ 52-54).
V prvi skupini zadev pritožnik ni mogel več trditi, da je žrtev, če ukrep izgona ni bil izveden ali če mu je bilo izdano dovoljenje za prebivanje (pritožniki so se sklicevali na Sisojeva in drugi, 100. odstavek, in na Kaftailova, 52.-54. odstavek).
On the other hand, in the second category of cases (Aristimuño Mendizabal, Mengesha Kimfe, and Agraw, cited above) the Court had clearly stated that the issuance of residence permits was not enough, especially on account of the lapse of time needed to grant them.
Po drugi strani pa je v drugi skupini zadev (Aristimuńo Mendizabal, Mengesha Kimfe in Agraw) Sodišče jasno ugotovilo, da izdaja dovoljenj za prebivanje ni dovolj, predvsem zaradi časa, potrebnega za njihovo dodelitev.
The present application was more similar to the second category of cases.
Ta pritožba je bila podobnejša drugi skupini zadev.
The issuance of the residence permits to the six applicants, which was a measure preventing the continuation of a violation, could not be seen as recognition by the Slovenian authorities - at least in substance - of the violation complained of.
Izdaje dovoljenj za prebivanje šestim pritožnikom, kar je bil ukrep, ki je preprečil nadaljevanje kršitve, ni mogoče šteti (vsaj vsebinsko) za priznanje kršitve slovenskih organov, zaradi katere se pritožniki pritožujejo.
The authorities had continued to deny that their actions were illegal.
Organi so še naprej zanikali, da so bila njihova dejanja nezakonita.
Here, unlike in the Latvian cases, the deprivation of permanent residence status had been carried out in flagrant breach of domestic law.
V primerjavi z latvijskimi zadevami je bil tukaj odvzem statusa stalnega prebivalca izveden kot očitna kršitev notranje zakonodaje.
Finally, the retroactive nature of the permanent residence permits remained only declaratory since the applicants were unable to receive proper reparation under the domestic legislation.
Končno pa je bil učinek za nazaj dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje zgolj ugotovitvene narave, saj pritožniki po domači zakonodaji niso mogli prejeti ustreznega zadoščenja.
For that reason, the permits were &quot;just a piece of paper&quot;.
Zaradi tega so bila dovoljenja zgolj &quot;list papirja&quot;.
As to Mr the State should regulate their legal status ex proprio motu by issuing a retroactive permanent residence permit in compliance with the Constitutional Court&apos;s decisions.
Pravni status iz lastnega nagiba (ex proprio motu) bi morala država urediti z izdajo dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj v skladu z odločbami ustavnega sodišča.
Finally, as to the question of pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation, the amended Legal Status Act contained no specific provisions.
Končno pa spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD ni vseboval posebnih določb v zvezi s premoženjskim in nepremoženjskim nadomestilom.
Moreover, claiming damages before the domestic courts on the basis of the ordinary rules on tort liability would be virtually impossible.
Poleg tega bi bilo uveljavljanje odškodnin pred državnimi sodišči na podlagi običajnih pravil o odškodninski odgovornosti praktično nemogoče.
According to the latest statistics, by May 2011 the Ministry had dealt with 157 compensation claims.
Po zadnjih statističnih podatkih je ministrstvo do maja 2011 obravnavalo 157 odškodninskih zahtevkov.
Out of these, forty-one claims had been dismissed with final effect by the domestic courts.
Domača sodišča so pravnomočno zavrnila enainštirideset zahtevkov.
Only fifteen had been challenged before the Supreme Court and five of them had been dismissed.
Samo petnajst je bilo spodbijanih pred vrhovnim sodiščem in pet od teh je bilo zavrnjenih.
In addition, eight of the &quot;erased&quot; had brought claims directly before the courts.
Poleg tega je osem izbrisanih vložilo zahtevke neposredno pri sodiščih.
None of them had been successful (see paragraph 83 above).
Nihče ni bil uspešen (glej 83. odstavek).
The main reason for the rejection of the claims was the application of statutory limitations under the Code of Obligations:
Glavni razlog za zavrnitev zahtevkov je bila uporaba zastaralnega roka iz Obligacijskega zakonika:
three years since the victim had learned of the damage and five years since the damage had occurred.
tri leta od tedaj, ko je žrtev izvedela za škodo in pet let od tedaj, ko je bila škoda povzročena.
The domestic courts had so far deemed that the latter date was 12 March 1999, when the Constitutional Court&apos;s first leading decision had been published in the Official Gazette.
Domača sodišča so do zdaj štela, da je 12. marec 1999 datum, ko je bila v uradnem listu objavljena prva temeljna odločba ustavnega sodišča.
The Chamber did not have the opportunity to rule on this plea, which related to facts that occurred after the delivery of its judgment (see paragraph 243 above).
Senat ni imel priložnosti odločati o ugovoru, ki se je nanašal na dejstva po izreku sodbe (glej 243. odstavek).
The Court reiterates that it falls, firstly, to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention.
Sodišče ponovno poudarja, da so, prvič, domači organi odgovorni za popravo vseh zatrjevanih kršitev konvencije.
In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a &quot;victim&quot; of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see, inter alia, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 30, ECHR 2002-III).
Zato je vprašanje, ali pritožnik lahko trdi, da je žrtev zatrjevane kršitve, v skladu s konvencijo pomembno na vseh stopnjah postopka (glej med drugim Burdov proti Rusiji, št. odstavek, ESČP 2002-III).
A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a &quot;victim&quot; for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, §§ 69 et seq., Series A no. 51; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 179-180, ECHR 2006-V; and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 115, ECHR 2010).
Odločba ali ukrep v korist pritožnika načeloma še ni dovolj, da se pritožnik reši statusa žrtve v smislu 34. a konvencije, če državni organi niso izrecno ali vsebinsko priznali kršitve konvencije in tudi ponudili zadoščenja (glej na primer Eckle proti Nemčiji, 15. julij 1982, 69. in naslednji odstavek, serija A št. 51; Dalban proti Romuniji [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 1999-VI; Scordino proti Italiji (št. 1) [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2006 V; in Gäfgen proti Nemčiji [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2010).
As to the redress which is &quot;appropriate&quot; and &quot;sufficient&quot; in order to remedy a breach of a Convention right at national level, the Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, having regard, in particular, to the nature of the Convention violation at stake (see, for instance, Gäfgen, cited above, § 116).
Glede tega, kakšen je &quot;primeren&quot; in &quot;zadosten ukrep&quot; za popravo kršitve pravice iz konvencije na ravni države, je sodišče že večkrat ugotovilo, da je to odvisno od vseh okoliščin zadeve, predvsem ob upoštevanju narave kršitve konvencije (glej na primer Gäfgen, 116. odstavek).
The Court has held in a number of cases under Article 8 of the Convention relating to the deportation or extradition of non-nationals that the regularisation of an applicant&apos;s stay or the fact that the applicant was no longer under the threat of being deported or extradited - even if the case was still pending before the Court - was &quot;sufficient&quot; in principle to remedy a complaint under Article 8 (see Panèenko, cited above; Yang Chun Jin alias Yang Xiaolin v. Hungary (striking out), no. 58073/00, §§ 20-23, 8.March 2001; Mikheyeva, cited above; Fjodorova and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 69405/01, 6 April 2006; Sisojeva and Others, cited above, §§.102-104; Shevanova, cited above, §§ 48-50; and Kaftailova, cited above, §§ 52-54).
Sodišče je pri več zadevah na podlagi 8. člena konvencije v zvezi z izgonom ali izročitvijo nedržavljanov razsodilo, da je ureditev pritožnikovega prebivanja ali to, da pritožnik ni bil več ogrožen z izgonom ali izročitvijo, tudi če zadeva še vedno poteka pred sodiščem, načeloma &quot;dovolj&quot; za popravo pritožbe po 8. u (glej Pančenko; Yang Chun Jin, drugače Yang Xiaolin proti Madžarski (izbris), št. odstavek, 8. marec 2001; Mikheyeva; Fjodorova in drugi proti Latviji (dec.), št. april 2006; Sisojeva in drugi, 102.-104. odstavek; Shevanova, 48.-50. odstavek; in Kaftailova, 52.-54. odstavek).
Furthermore, the Court has already had occasion to indicate in the context of different Convention Articles that an applicant&apos;s &quot;victim&quot; status may also depend on the level of compensation awarded at domestic level, where appropriate, or at least on the possibility of seeking and obtaining compensation for the damage sustained, having regard to the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see, for instance, Gäfgen, cited above, § 118, in respect of a complaint under Article 3; Normann v..Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001, and Scordino (no. 1), cited above, § 202, in respect of a complaint under Article 6; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003, in respect of a complaint under Article 11).
Poleg tega je imelo sodišče na podlagi različnih členov konvencije že priložnost navesti, da je pritožnikov status &quot;žrtve&quot; lahko odvisen tudi od višine nadomestila, dodeljenega na državni ravni, kadar je primerno ali vsaj mogoče zahtevati in prejeti nadomestilo za nastalo škodo, ob upoštevanju dejstev, glede katerih se pritožuje pred Sodiščem (glej na primer, Gäfgen, 118. odstavek, v zvezi s pritožbo na podlagi 3. a; Normann proti Danski (sklep), št. junij 2001, in Scordino (št. odstavek, v zvezi s pritožbo na podlagi 6. a, Jensen in Rasmussen proti Danski (sklep), št. marec 2003, v zvezi s pritožbo na podlagi 11. a).
This finding applies, mutatis mutandis, to complaints concerning a breach of Article 8.
Ta ugotovitev se smiselno uporablja za pritožbe v zvezi s kršitvijo 8. člena.
Turning to the present case, the Grand Chamber reiterates that it has no jurisdiction in respect of the complaints of Mr Petreš and Mr.Jovanoviæ, as they were declared inadmissible by the Chamber after the issuance of the ex tunc residence permits (see paragraph 236 above).
V zvezi s to zadevo veliki senat ponovno poudarja, da ni pristojen za pritožbi Ljubomirja Petreša in Jovana Jovanovića, ker ju je senat po izdaji dovoljenja za prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc) (glej 236. odstavek) razglasil za nesprejemljivi.
However, no such procedural bar occurs as far as Mr, Ms., Mr, Mr, Mr and Mr are concerned.
Za pritožnike pa take postopkovne ovire ni.
The Grand Chamber therefore has jurisdiction to examine whether, notwithstanding the issuing of ex nunc and ex tunc residence permits, these six applicants can still claim to be victims of the alleged violations.
Veliki senat je torej pristojen za proučitev, ali teh šest pritožnikov, ne glede na to, da jim je bilo izdano dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc), še vedno lahko trdi, da so žrtve zatrjevanih kršitev.
This examination may therefore lead to conclusions different from those reached by the Chamber in respect of Mr Petreš and Mr.Jovanoviæ, despite the similarity of the facts at stake.
Ta obravnava lahko torej da drugačne ugotovitve od tistih, do katerih je prišel senat v zvezi z Ljubomirjem Petrešem in Jovanom Jovanovićem ne glede na podobnost spornih dejstev.
Such a result is, however, an unavoidable consequence of the restricted scope of the Grand Chamber&apos;s jurisdiction (see paragraph 235 above).
Taka ugotovitev je neizogibna posledica omejenega obsega pristojnosti velikega senata (glej 235. odstavek).
The Grand Chamber considers that the first condition for the loss of victim status, the acknowledgment of a violation by the national authorities, has been fulfilled.
Veliki senat meni, da je prvi pogoj za izgubo statusa žrtve priznanje državnih organov izpolnjen.
The administrative authorities granted permanent residence permits to the six applicants following the Constitutional Court&apos;s decisions finding the existing legislation unconstitutional and after the amendments to the Legal Status Act had been enacted.
Upravni organi so po odločbi ustavnega sodišča, ki je ugotovilo, da je veljavna zakonodaja neustavna, ter po uveljavitvi sprememb in dopolnil ZUSDDD izdali dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje šestim prosilcem.
In addition, in June 2010, there was also an official acknowledgment of a violation of the applicants&apos; rights on the part of the Government and Parliament.
Poleg tega sta junija 2010 vlada in Državni zbor javno priznala kršitve pravic pritožnikov.
The finding of a violation by the national authorities has therefore been made in substance (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino (no.1), cited above, § 194).
Ugotovitev kršitve državnih organov je bila torej vsebinska (smiselno glej Scordino (št. 1), 194. odstavek).
Furthermore, the Grand Chamber notes that in several other cases concerning the regularisation of the status of aliens, including cases involving comparable circumstances of the break-up of a predecessor State, the Court has held that the applicants were no longer victims of the alleged violations of the Convention after the issuing of a permit and has declared their applications inadmissible or found that the regularisation arrangements made available to the applicants constituted an &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;sufficient&quot; remedy for their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and has thus decided to strike the cases out of its list.
Veliki senat poleg tega ugotavlja, da je Sodišče v številnih drugih primerih, ki se nanašajo na urejanje statusa tujcev, vključno s primeri v primerljivih okoliščinah po razpadu prejšnje države, menilo, da pritožniki po izdaji dovoljenja niso več žrtve domnevnih kršitev konvencije in je njihove pritožbe razglasilo za nesprejemljive oziroma je ugotovilo, da so dogovori za ureditev statusa, ki so bili dani na voljo pritožnikom, učinkovito in zadostno pravno sredstvo za njihove pritožbe po 8. u konvencije ter se je zato odločilo, da te primere črta s svojega seznama.
The fact that the applicants were no longer at risk of deportation has also been taken into account by the Court (see Panèenko, cited above; Mikheyeva, cited above; Fjodorova and Others, cited above; Sisojeva and Others, cited above, §§ 102-104; Shevanova, cited above, §§ 48-50; and Kaftailova, cited above, § 54).
Sodišče je upoštevalo tudi to, da pritožnikom ni več grozilo tveganje izgona (glej Pančenko; Mikheyeva; Fjodorova in drugi; Sisojeva in drugi, 102.-104. odstavek; Shevanova, 48.-50. odstavek; Kaftailova, 54. odstavek).
In some of these cases, however, the Court noted that the applicants were at least partly responsible for the difficulties encountered in regularising their status (see Shevanova, cited above, §§ 47 and 49; Kaftailova, cited above, § 50; and Sisojeva and Others, cited above, § 94).
V nekaterih od teh primerov pa je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so bili pritožniki vsaj delno soodgovorni za nastale težave pri urejanju svojega statusa (glej Shevanova, 47. in 49. odstavek; Kaftailova, 50. odstavek; Sisojeva in drugi, 94. odstavek).
However, whereas those cases related to specific problems, the Grand Chamber finds that one of the characteristics of the present case is the widespread human-rights concern created by the &quot;erasure&quot;.
Čeprav se ti primeri nanašajo na konkretne probleme, veliki senat ugotavlja, da je ena od značilnosti sedanjega primera splošna zaskrbljenost glede človekovih pravic, ki jo je povzročil izbris.