natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the Court&apos;s case-law, the Convention does not guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country and Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see, among many other authorities, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 73, Reports 1996-V; El Boujaïdi v. France, 26 September 1997, § 39, Reports 1997-VI; Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 45, ECHR 1999-VIII; Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, § 39, ECHR 2001-IX; Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII; and Slivenko, cited above, § 115).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča konvencija ne zagotavlja tujcu pravice, da vstopa v posamezno državo ali prebiva v njej, države pogodbenice pa imajo v skladu z ustaljenim mednarodnim pravom in v skladu s svojimi pogodbenimi obveznostmi, vključno s konvencijo, pravico, da nadzorujejo vstop, prebivanje in izgon tujcev (glej med številnimi drugimi zadevami Chahal proti Združenemu kraljestvu, 15. november 1996, 73. odstavek, Poročila 1996-V; El Boujaďdi proti Franciji, 26. september 1997, 39. odstavek, Poročila 1997-VI; Baghli proti Franciji, št. odstavek, ESČP 1999-VIII; Boultif proti Švici, št. odstavek, ESČP 2001-IX; Üner proti Nizozemski [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2006-XII; in Slivenko, 115. odstavek).
However, measures restricting the right to reside in a country may, in certain cases, entail a violation of Article 8 of the Convention if they create disproportionate repercussions on the private or family life, or both, of the individuals concerned (see Boultif, cited above, § 55; Slivenko, cited above, § 128; Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, §§ 36-37, 22 April 2004; and Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, § 100, ECHR 2008).
Lahko pa ukrepi, ki omejujejo pravico do prebivanja v državi, v nekaterih primerih kršijo 8. konvencije, če ustvarjajo nesorazmerne posledice za zasebno ali družinsko življenje ali pa za oboje pri prizadetih posameznikih (glej Boultif, 55. odstavek; Slivenko, 128. odstavek; Radovanovic proti Avstriji, št. odstavek, 22. april 2004; in Maslov proti Avstriji [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2008).
In the present case, the applicants, who, prior to Slovenia&apos;s declaration of independence, had been lawfully residing in Slovenia for several years, had, as former SFRY citizens, enjoyed a wide range of social and political rights.
V tej zadevi so pritožniki, ki so pred razglasitvijo neodvisnosti Slovenije zakonito prebivali v Sloveniji več let, kot državljani nekdanje SFRJ uživali številne socialne in politične pravice.
Owing to the &quot;erasure&quot;, they experienced a number of adverse consequences, such as the destruction of identity documents, loss of job opportunities, loss of health insurance, the impossibility of renewing identity documents or driving licences, and difficulties in regulating pension rights.
Izbris je imel veliko hudih posledicČ, kakršne so uničenje osebnih dokumentov, izguba možnosti za delo, izguba zdravstvenega zavarovanja, nezmožnost podaljšanja veljavnosti osebnih dokumentov ali vozniškega dovoljenja in težave pri urejanju pokojninskih pravic.
Indeed, the legal vacuum in the independence legislation (see paragraph 344 above) deprived the applicants of their legal status, which had previously given them access to a wide range of rights.
Dejansko je pravna praznina v osamosvojitveni zakonodaji (glej 344. odstavek) pritožnikom odvzela njihov pravni status, ki jim je prej omogočal dostop do cele vrste pravic.
Allegedly, the &quot;erasure&quot; was a consequence of their failure to seek to obtain Slovenian citizenship.
Po navedbah je bil izbris posledica tega, da niso poskušali pridobiti slovenskega državljanstva.
However, the Court points out that an alien lawfully residing in a country may wish to continue living in that country without necessarily acquiring its citizenship.
Toda Sodišče poudarja, da tujec, ki zakonito prebiva v državi, morda želi še naprej prebivati v tej državi, ne da bi nujno pridobil njeno državljanstvo.
As shown by the difficulties faced by the applicants, for many years, in obtaining a valid residence permit, the Slovenian legislature failed to enact provisions aimed at permitting former SFRY citizens holding the citizenship of one of the other republics to regularise their residence status if they had chosen not to become Slovenian citizens or had failed to do so.
Kot kažejo težave, s katerimi se spoprijemajo pritožniki pri pridobivanju veljavnega dovoljenja za prebivanje že več let, slovenski zakonodajalec ni uzakonil določb, ki bi omogočile državljanom nekdanje SFRJ z državljanstvom ene od drugih republik, da bi uredili svoj status prebivalca, če so se odločili, da ne bodo postali slovenski državljani ali pa jim to ni uspelo.
Such provisions would not have undermined the legitimate aims of controlling the residence of aliens or creating a corpus of Slovenian citizens, or both.
Take določbe ne bi oslabile zakonitih ciljev nadzora nad prebivanjem tujcev ali oblikovanja slovenskega državljanskega telesa ali pa obojega.
In this connection, the Court reiterates that, while the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference:
Čeprav je bistveni cilj 8. člena zaščititi posameznika pred samovoljnim ravnanjem javne oblasti, v tej zvezi Sodišče ponovno poudarja, da to ,države ne zavezuje zgolj k temu, da se vzdrži takih posegov:
in addition to this negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective &quot;respect&quot; for private or family life or both, in particular in the case of long-term migrants such as the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Gül v. Switzerland, 19 February 1996, § 38, Reports 1996-I; Ahmut v. the Netherlands, 28 November 1996, § 67, Reports 1996-VI; and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 45, ECHR 2003-IV).
poleg te neugodne obveznosti lahko obstajajo pozitivne obveznosti, ki so neločljivo povezane z učinkovitim spoštovanjem zasebnega ali družinskega življenja ali pa obojega, predvsem pri dolgotrajnih priseljencih, kakršni so pritožniki (smiselno glej zadevo Gül proti Švici, 19. februar 1996, 38. odstavek, Poročila 1996-I; Ahmut proti Nizozemski, 28. november 1996, 67. odstavek, Poročila 1996-VI; in Mehemi proti Franciji (št. 2), št. odstavek, ESČP, 2003-IV).
The Court considers that, despite the efforts made after the Constitutional Court&apos;s decisions of 1999 and 2003, as well as recently with the enactment of the amended Legal Status Act, the Slovenian authorities have failed to remedy comprehensively and with the requisite promptness the blanket nature of the &quot;erasure&quot; and its grave consequences for the applicants.
Sodišče meni, da slovenska oblast kljub prizadevanju, izkazanemu po odločbah ustavnega sodišča iz let 1999 in 2003, pa tudi pred kratkim z uzakonitvijo spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD, ni celovito in dovolj hitro odpravila skupinske narave izbrisa ter njegovih resnih posledic za pritožnike.
For the reasons set out above, the measures complained of were neither &quot;prescribed by law&quot; nor &quot;necessary in a democratic society&quot; to achieve the legitimate aim of the protection of national security.
Iz navedenih razlogov ukrepi, nad katerimi se pritožujejo, niso bili niti &quot;predpisani z zakonom&quot; niti &quot;potrebni v demokratični družbi&quot; za uresničitev zakonitega cilja zaščite državne varnosti.
Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Torej je bil kršen 8. člen konvencije.
The applicants maintained that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of their grievances under Article 8 of the Convention.
Pritožniki so trdili, da niso imeli na voljo učinkovitega pravnega sredstva v zvezi s svojimi pritožbami na podlagi 8. člena konvencije.
Relying on the Court&apos;s judgment in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, § 291, ECHR 2011), and on the arguments set out in paragraphs 279-280 above, the applicants alleged that none of the remedies at their disposal at the material time had proved to be capable of addressing the substance of their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and of awarding them appropriate relief.
Pritožniki so, sklicujoč se na sodbo Sodišča v zadevi M. S. S. proti Belgiji in Grčiji ([VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2011) in na trditve iz 279.-280. odstavka, zatrjevali, da z nobenim od pravnih sredstev, ki so jim bila na voljo v spornem času, ni bilo mogoče uveljavljati vsebine njihovih pritožb po 8. členu konvencije in določiti ustreznega zadoščenja.
In spite of the Constitutional Court&apos;s leading decisions, the Government were not even willing to issue ex tunc residence permits to those who were already in possession of ex nunc permits, let alone to adopt a comprehensive legal solution to the problem arising from the &quot;erasure&quot; over a considerable number of years.
Kljub temeljnim odločbam ustavnega sodišča pa vlada ni bila niti pripravljena izdati dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc) tistim, ki so že imeli dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc), kaj šele, da bi sprejela celovito pravno rešitev problema, ki je precejšnje število let izhajal iz izbrisa.
The Government maintained that the legal remedies at the applicants&apos; disposal - the administrative proceedings, the individual constitutional complaint and the action for damages - had been both accessible and effective, in compliance with Article 13 of the Convention.
Vlada je trdila, da so bila notranjepravna sredstva, ki so bila na voljo pritožnikom - upravni postopek, posamezna ustavna pritožba in odškodninska tožba - dostopna, pa tudi učinkovita skladno s 13. členom konvencije.
The third parties maintained that as a result of the State&apos;s prolonged failure to enforce the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision of 3 April 2003, which was legally binding, the applicants&apos; right to an effective remedy had been violated, owing to a lack of political will.
Tretje strani so trdile, da je bila zaradi dolgotrajne opustitve države izvršiti pravno zavezujočo odločbo ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003 kršena pravica pritožnikov do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva, in to zaradi pomanjkanja politične volje.
The Chamber found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention on account of the non-compliance with the leading decisions of the Constitutional Court and held that the Government had failed to establish that the remedies available to the applicants were effective (see paragraphs 383-386 of the Chamber judgment).
Senat je ugotovil kršitev 13. a v povezavi z 8. om konvencije zaradi neskladnosti s temeljnimi odločbami ustavnega sodišča in razsodil, da vladi ni uspelo dokazati učinkovitosti razpoložljivih pravnih sredstev (glej 383.-386. odstavek sodbe senata).
As the Court has held on many occasions, Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order.
Kot je Sodišče že večkrat razsodilo, 13. člen konvencije na ravni države zagotavlja razpoložljivost pravnega sredstva v zvezi z uveljavljanjem bistva pravic in svoboščin iz konvencije v kakršni koli obliki zaradi njihovega varovanja v domačem pravnem redu.
The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an &quot;arguable complaint&quot; under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see Kud³a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
Učinek 13. člena je torej zahteva po notranjepravnem sredstvu, da bi se lahko obravnavalo bistvo &quot;verjetne pritožbe&quot; po konvenciji in zagotovilo primerno zadoščenje (glej Kudła proti Poljski [VS], št. 30210/96, 157. odstavek, ESČP 2000-XI).
The Court has already found that the applicants&apos; &quot;erasure&quot; amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph 362 above).
Sodišče je že ugotovilo, da je bil izbris pritožnikov kršitev 8. člena konvencije (glej 362. odstavek).
The applicants&apos; complaints in that regard are therefore &quot;arguable&quot; for the purposes of Article 13.
Pritožbe pritožnikov so v tem smislu &quot;verjetne&quot; po 13. členu.
The Court refers to its finding that the Government failed to establish that the remedies available to the applicants were &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;effective&quot; in order to redress, at the material time, the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraphs 295-313 above).
Sodišče se sklicuje na svojo ugotovitev, da vladi ni uspelo dokazati, &quot;ustreznosti&quot; in &quot;učinkovitosti&quot; razpoložljivih pravnih sredstev za popravo zatrjevane kršitve 8. člena konvencije v spornem času (glej 295.-313. odstavek).
Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.
Torej je bil kršen 13. v povezavi z 8. členom konvencije.
The applicants claimed that in enjoying their rights under Article 8 of the Convention, they had been discriminated against on the ground of their national origin, when compared to other foreign citizens (the so-called &quot;real&quot; aliens) who continued to live in Slovenia on the basis of temporary or permanent residence permits.
Pritožniki so trdili, da so bili pri uživanju svojih pravic po 8. členu konvencije diskriminirani na podlagi narodnostnega izvora v primerjavi z drugimi tujimi državljani (t. i. &quot;pravi&quot; tujci), ki so še naprej živeli v Sloveniji na podlagi izdanega dovoljenja za začasno ali stalno prebivanje.
The applicants argued that they had been treated less favourably than &quot;real&quot; aliens who had lived in Slovenia since before independence and whose permanent residence permits remained valid under section 82 of the Aliens Act.
Pritožniki so trdili, da so jih obravnavali manj ugodno kot &quot;prave&quot; tujce, ki so živeli v Sloveniji še pred osamosvojitvijo in katerih dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje je ostalo veljavno v skladu z 82. členom Zakona o tujcih.
In the applicants&apos; view, the issue of discriminatory treatment of the &quot;erased&quot; was one of the main features of the present case, and the Grand Chamber should examine the merits of their complaint under Article 14 (they cited Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos.
Po mnenju pritožnikov je bilo vprašanje diskriminacijske obravnave izbrisanih eno od glavnih značilnosti te zadeve in veliki senat naj bi proučil utemeljenost njihove pritožbe po 14. členu (sklicevali so se na zadevi Chassagnou in drugi proti Franciji [VS], št.
25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos.
25088/94, 28331/95 in 28443/95, 89. odstavek, ESČP 1999-III, in Nachova in drugi proti Bolgariji [VS], št.
43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 160-168, ECHR 2005-VII).
43577/98 in 43579/98, 160.-168. odstavek, ESČP 2005-VII).
They underlined that the Constitutional Court itself had confirmed the existence of discrimination.
Poudarili so, da je ustavno sodišče samo potrdilo obstoj diskriminacije.
If the continuous right to residence of &quot;real&quot; aliens was recognised by the Aliens Act, the same should apply all the more to the &quot;erased&quot;.
Če je bilo priznano nadaljevanje pravice do prebivanja &quot;pravih&quot; tujcev z Zakonom o tujcih, bi moralo enako še toliko bolj veljati tudi za izbrisane.
Lastly, the applicants contested the respondent Government&apos;s allegations (see paragraph 379 below) that positive discrimination had been carried out in respect of them since they had not been subjected to deportation; five of the applicants had in fact been deported.
Na koncu so pritožniki oporekali navedbam tožene vlade (glej 379. odstavek), da so bili pozitivno diskriminirani, ker niso bili izgnani iz države; pet od pritožnikov je bilo dejansko izgnanih iz države.
The Government stated that at the time of its independence, the Republic of Slovenia had allowed citizens of the other former republics of the SFRY with permanent residence in Slovenia to acquire Slovenian citizenship under exceptionally favourable conditions.
Vlada je navedla, da je Republika Slovenija med osamosvojitvijo omogočila državljanom drugih republik nekdanje SFRJ s stalnim prebivališčem v Sloveniji pridobiti slovensko državljanstvo pod izredno ugodnimi pogoji.
In addition, the 1991 Constitutional Law guaranteed them equal treatment to Slovenian citizens until their acquisition of Slovenian citizenship or the expiry of the time-limits set by the Aliens Act (see paragraph 202 above). However, bearing in mind the necessity of forming a corpus of Slovenian citizens - especially with a view to the 1992 parliamentary elections - this equality in treatment could not last indefinitely.
Poleg tega jim je ustavni zakon iz leta 1991 zagotovil enakost obravnavanja s slovenskimi državljani do pridobitve slovenskega državljanstva ali do poteka roka iz Zakona o tujcih (glej 202. odstavek) Ob upoštevanju potrebe po oblikovanju slovenskega državljanskega telesa, zlasti glede na državnozborske volitve leta 1992, pa ta enakost obravnavanja ni mogla trajati v nedogled.
Therefore, it was up to the permanent residents without Slovenian citizenship to seize the opportunity to acquire citizenship of the independent Slovenia; this was not granted automatically.
Zato je bilo od stalnih prebivalcev Slovenije, ki niso imeli slovenskega državljanstva, odvisno, ali bodo posegli po možnosti za pridobitev državljanstva neodvisne Slovenije, ki ni bilo zagotovljeno samodejno.
The applicants&apos; position was therefore linked to the fact that they, as aliens, had not acquired permanent residence permits.
Položaj pritožnikov je bil tako povezan z dejstvom, da kot tujci niso pridobili dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje.
They had been treated like all other aliens without a residence permit.
Obravnavani so bili enako kot vsi drugi tujci brez dovoljenja za prebivanje.
As to the SFRY legislation and the provisions of the Aliens Act, the applicants and the &quot;real&quot; aliens had never been in a comparable situation.
Glede na zakonodajo SFRJ in določbe Zakona o tujcih pritožniki in &quot;pravi&quot; tujci nikoli niso bili v primerljivem položaju.
Moreover, the applicants had benefited from positive discrimination, since they had in principle not been deported from Slovenia.
Poleg tega je pritožnikom pozitivna diskriminacija koristila, saj praviloma niso bili izgnani iz Slovenije.
Apart from the Serbian Government, the other third parties&apos; submissions before the Chamber focused primarily on the issue of discrimination, which had been recognised as being of fundamental importance in the Court&apos;s case-law.
Poleg srbske vlade so se vloge drugih tretjih strani pred senatom osredotočale predvsem na vprašanje diskriminacije, ki ga sodna praksa Sodišča prepoznava kot vprašanje bistvenega pomena.
The third-party interveners stated that the &quot;erased&quot; had been subject to discrimination, both direct and indirect, on the ground of national origin or ethnicity or both (citing D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 175).
Tretje strani, ki so sodelovale v postopku, so navedle, da so bili izbrisani posredno in neposredno diskriminirani na podlagi narodnostnega ali etničnega izvora ali pa obojega (sklicevale so se na zadevo D. H. in drugi proti Češki, 175. odstavek).
The Aliens Act contained stricter provisions for the &quot;erased&quot; than for other aliens.
Zakon o tujcih je za izbrisane vseboval strožje določbe kot za druge tujce.
Because the Slovenian population was ethnically homogeneous as compared to other former SFRY republics, the &quot;erasure&quot; disproportionately affected non-ethnic Slovenes, ex-SFRY minorities, and Roma, thereby also discriminating among residents on ethnic grounds.
Ker je bilo slovensko prebivalstvo v primerjavi z drugimi republikami nekdanje SFRJ etnično enovito, je izbris nesorazmerno prizadel tiste, ki po narodnostni pripadnosti niso bili Slovenci, manjšine nekdanje SFRJ in Rome. Tako so bili prebivalci diskriminirani tudi na etnični podlagi.
There was no objective justification for what had resulted in decades of legal limbo experienced by the &quot;erased&quot;.
Za desetletja dolgo pravno negotovost, ki so jo izkusili izbrisani, ni nobene objektivne utemeljitve.
Lastly, other Council of Europe bodies had interpreted the right to non-discrimination as requiring positive action on the part of member States.
Končno so drugi organi Sveta Evrope pravico do nediskriminacije razložili kot zahtevo po pozitivnem ravnanju držav članic.
The Chamber considered that, in view of its finding of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, it was not necessary to rule on the applicants&apos; complaint under Article 14 (see paragraph 400 of the Chamber judgment).
Senat je menil, da zaradi ugotovitve kršitve 8. a konvencije ni treba odločiti o pritožbah pritožnikov po 14. členu (glej 400. odstavek sodbe senata).
Having regard to the importance of the discrimination issue in the present case, the Grand Chamber considers, unlike the Chamber, that the applicants&apos; complaint under Article 14 of the Convention should be examined.
Ob upoštevanju pomembnosti vprašanja diskriminacije pri tej zadevi veliki senat v nasprotju s senatom meni, da je pritožbo pritožnikov po 14. členu konvencije treba obravnavati.
As the Court has consistently held, Article 14 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols.
Sodišče je dosledno vztrajalo, da 14. člen dopolnjuje druge vsebinske določbe konvencije in njenih protokolov.
It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to &quot;the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms&quot; safeguarded by those provisions.
Ne obstaja neodvisno, saj je veljaven samo v povezavi z &quot;uživanjem pravic in svoboščin&quot;, ki jih varujejo te določbe.
Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts in issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, among many other authorities, Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, § 33, Reports 1997-I; Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 22, Reports 1998-II; and Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 42, ECHR 2006-VIII).
Kljub temu da uporaba 14. člena ne predvideva kršitve teh določb - in člen je toliko neodvisen - se ne more uporabljati, razen če sporna dejstva ne spadajo na področje ene ali več določb (glej med številnimi drugimi zadevami Van Raalte proti Nizozemski, 21. februar 1997, 33. odstavek, Poročila 1997-I; Petrovic proti Avstriji, 27. marec 1998, 22. odstavek, Poročila 1998-II, in Zarb Adami proti Malti, št. odstavek, ESČP 2006-VIII).
In the present case, the Court has found that the measures complained of constituted an unlawful interference with the applicants&apos; &quot;private or family life&quot; or both within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 339 above).
V tej zadevi je Sodišče odločilo, da so ukrepi, zoper katere so se pritožniki pritožili, nezakonito poseganje v zasebno ali družinsko življenje pritožnikov ali pa oboje v smislu prvega odstavka 8. člena konvencije (glej 339. odstavek).
Article 8 thus being applicable to the facts of the case, Article 14 is applicable too.
Tako je 8. člen veljaven glede na dejstva zadeve, prav tako pa tudi 14. člen.
According to the Court&apos;s well-established case-law, discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča je diskriminacija različno obravnavanje oseb v podobnem položaju brez objektivne in smiselne utemeljitve (glej Willis proti Združenemu kraljestvu, št. odstavek, ESČP 2002-IV).