natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, all the applicants had failed to lodge individual constitutional complaints before the Constitutional Court, to challenge the constitutionality of the relevant legislation and to avail themselves of the more favourable provisions of the amended Legal Status Act.
Poleg tega nobeden od pritožnikov ni vložil posamične ustavne pritožbe pri ustavnem sodišču, da bi izpodbijal skladnost ustrezne zakonodaje z ustavo ter izkoristil ugodnejše določbe spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD.
The Grand Chamber observes that in the course of the proceedings before it, six applicants obtained both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits (see paragraph 243 above).
Veliki senat ugotavlja, da je med postopkom pred senatom šest pritožnikov dobilo dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc) (glej 243. odstavek).
They are therefore in a different factual situation from that of the remaining two applicants, who never obtained such permits.
Zato je njihovo dejansko stanje drugačno od stanja preostalih dveh pritožnikov, ki nikoli nista dobila takega dovoljenja.
The Court will therefore examine separately the Government&apos;s plea of non-exhaustion in respect of these two groups of applicants.
Sodišče bo zaradi tega ločeno obravnavalo ugovor vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev pri teh dveh skupinah pritožnikov.
The Government objected that had failed to submit a proper request for a residence permit under the Aliens Act and the Legal Status Act (see paragraph 272 above).
Vlada je ugovarjala, da nikoli nista pravilno zaprosila za dovoljenje za prebivanje po Zakonu o tujcih in ZUSDDD (glej 272. odstavek).
The applicants stated that they should be exempted from exhausting domestic legal remedies in view of their personal situations (see paragraph 281 above).
Pritožniki so navajali, da bi ob upoštevanju lastnih osebnih okoliščin morali biti oproščeni obveznosti izčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev (glej 281. odstavek).
The Court observes that Mr, who left Slovenia at an unspecified date, but most probably in 1990 or 1991, and settled in Italy, where he has lived ever since, failed to submit a proper request for an ex nunc residence permit in Slovenia.
Sodišče ugotavlja, da, ki je zapustil Slovenijo na nedoločen datum, vendar najverjetneje leta 1990 ali 1991, in se naselil v Italiji, kjer živi še danes, ni predložil ustrezne zahteve za dovoljenje za prebivanje v Sloveniji z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc).
He confined himself to urging the Ministry of the Interior to issue a supplementary, ex tunc decision regulating his status (see paragraph 101 above).
Svojo prošnjo ministrstvu je omejil na zahtevo za izdajo dopolnilne odločbe za ureditev svojega statusa za nazaj (ex tunc - glej 101. odstavek).
This legal avenue proved to be an incorrect one and no decision was issued (see paragraphs 103-104 above).
Ta pravna pot se je pokazala za nepravilno in odločba ni bila izdana (glej 103.-104. odstavek).
who now lives in Serbia, made no attempts after her deportation to obtain a residence permit in Slovenia, in spite of the fact that the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision of 3 April 2003 also addressed the situation of those &quot;erased&quot; persons who had been deported (see paragraphs.58-59, 128 and 215 above).
ki živi zdaj v Srbiji, si po izgonu ni prizadevala pridobiti dovoljenja za prebivanje v Sloveniji, čeprav se je odločba ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003 nanašala tudi na tiste izbrisane, ki so bili izgnani (glej 58.-59., 128. in 215. odstavek).
In the Court&apos;s view, the failure by Mr to manifest in any manner their wish to reside in Slovenia, that is, to take any proper legal steps in order to regularise their residence status, shows that they did not have sufficient interest in the subject matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Neziroviæ v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 16400/06, §§ 39-41, 25.November 2008).
Po mnenju Sodišča dejstvo, da na noben način nista izrazila želje prebivati v Sloveniji, tj. nista uporabila nobenih pravnih sredstev, da bi uredila svoj status prebivalca, kaže, da za to nista imela dovolj interesa (smiselno glej Nezirović proti Sloveniji (sklep) št. 16400/06, 39.-41. odstavek, 25. november 2008).
Although, as the Court will later establish, further domestic remedies against a refusal to grant a residence permit proved to be ineffective (see paragraphs 295-313 below), cannot be considered to be dispensed from the obligation to apply formally for a residence permit in the first place.
Čeprav so se, kot je Sodišče ugotovilo pozneje, nadaljnja notranjepravna sredstva zoper zavrnitev dovoljenja za prebivanje pokazala za neučinkovita (glej 295.-313. odstavek), ne moreta biti razbremenjena obveznosti, da predvsem uradno zaprosita za dovoljenje za prebivanje.
Instead, they submitted their application to the Court without initiating a statutory procedure at.the national level on the basis of which the authorities could have taken action in their favour.
Namesto tega sta predložila svoji pritožbi Sodišču, ne da bi sprožila zakonski postopek na državni ravni, na podlagi katerega bi lahko organi oblasti sprejeli ukrepe v njuno korist.
It follows that the Government&apos;s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of Mr should be upheld.
Iz tega izhaja, da se predhodnemu ugovoru vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev v primeru ugodi.
The application in respect of those two applicants should therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
Pritožba se v primeru teh dveh pritožnikov torej šteje kot nesprejemljiva v skladu s prvim in četrtim odstavkom 35. člena konvencije.
The Government first objected that these applicants had failed to lodge a constitutional appeal in their individual cases and pointed out that a number of other &quot;erased&quot; persons had been successful before the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 273-274 above).
Vlada je sprva ugovarjala, da ti pritožniki posamično niso vložili ustavne pritožbe, in poudarila, da so bili številni drugi izbrisani pri ustavnem sodišču uspešni (glej 273.-274. odstavek).
The Court notes that, as regards applications lodged against Slovenia, applicants are, according to its case-law, in principle required to exhaust remedies before the domestic courts, and ultimately to lodge a constitutional appeal (see Švarc and Kavnik v. Slovenia, no. 75617/01, §§.15 and 16, 8 February 2007, and Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, nos..8673/05 and 9733/05, §§.103-107, 1 December 2009).
Sodišče ugotavlja, da morajo pritožniki v zvezi s tožbami, vloženimi proti Sloveniji, v skladu z njegovo sodno prakso praviloma izčrpati pravna sredstva pred domačimi sodišči in nazadnje vložiti ustavno pritožbo (glej Švarc in Kavnik proti Sloveniji, št. in 16. odstavek, 8. februar 2007, in Eberhard in M. proti Sloveniji, št. 8673/05 in 9733/05, 103.-107. odstavek, 1. december 2009).
When the Constitutional Court examines an individual constitutional appeal and quashes a legal act breaching the individual&apos;s constitutional rights and freedoms (see section 60 of the Constitutional Court Act - paragraph 204 above), it may also remedy violations committed by authorities or officials.
Kadar ustavno sodišče obravnava posamično pritožbo in razveljavi pravni akt, ki krši posameznikove ustavne pravice in svoboščine (glej 60. Zakona o ustavnem sodišču, 204. odstavek), lahko tudi odpravi kršitve, ki so jih zagrešili organi ali uradniki.
It may do so by determining a contested right or freedom, if such a procedure is necessary in order to put an end to consequences that have already occurred, or if such is the nature of the constitutional right or freedom.
To lahko stori tako, da določi sporno pravico ali svoboščino, če je tak postopek potreben za odpravo posledic, ki so že nastale, ali če je taka narava ustavne pravice ali svoboščine.
The Slovenian constitutional appeal is thus similar to those existing in, for example, Germany, Spain or the Czech Republic which make it possible for the constitutional courts of those member States to remedy violations of fundamental rights and freedoms (see Riera Blume and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 37680/97, ECHR 1999-II; Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 49, ECHR 2003-VIII; Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 62, ECHR 2006-VII; and, by contrast, Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 42-46, ECHR 2006-XIV).
Slovenska ustavna pritožba je tako primerljiva s tisto, ki jo poznajo npr. v Nemčiji, Španiji ali na Češkem, kar omogoča ustavnim sodiščem teh držav članic odpravo kršitev temeljnih pravic in svoboščin (glej Riera Blume in drugi proti Španiji (sklep) št. 37680/97, ESČP 1999-II, Hartman proti Češki, št. 53341/99, 49. odstavek, ESČP 2003-VIII; Sürmeli proti Nemčiji [VS], št. 75529/01, 62. odstavek, ESČP 2006-VII; in, nasprotno, Apostol proti Gruziji, št. odstavek, ESČP 2006-XIV).
In the instant case, the Constitutional Court had already adopted erga omnes decisions, finding that the legislation applicable to the applicants had breached their constitutional rights and ordering the adoption of general measures.
V obravnavanem primeru je ustavno sodišče že sprejelo odločitve z veljavnostjo za vse (erga omnes), ker je ugotovilo, da je ustrezna zakonodaja kršila ustavne pravice tožnikov, in je odredilo sprejetje splošnih ukrepov.
In particular, on 4 February 1999 the Constitutional Court found the &quot;erasure&quot; unlawful and unconstitutional (see paragraphs.41-48 and 214 above) and on 3 April 2003 it declared certain provisions of the Legal Status Act unconstitutional (see paragraphs 58-60 and 215 above).
Tako je 4. februarja 1999 ugotovilo, da je izbris nezakonit in protiustaven (glej 41.-48. in 214. odstavek), in 3. aprila 2003 razglasilo nekatere določbe ZUSDDD za protiustavne (glej 58.-60. in 215. odstavek).
It should therefore be ascertained whether the applicants were still under an obligation to lodge a further constitutional appeal requesting the Constitutional Court to re-enter their names in the Register of Permanent Residents.
Zato je treba preveriti, ali morajo pritožniki še vedno vložiti tudi ustavno pritožbo s prošnjo ustavnemu sodišču, da se njihova imena ponovno vnesejo v register stalnega prebivalstva.
In this connection, it is worth noting that the applicants did not contest the Government&apos;s allegation that other &quot;erased&quot; persons had been successful in lodging such appeals.
S tem v zvezi je treba omeniti, da pritožniki niso izpodbijali trditve vlade, da je drugim izbrisanim z vložitvijo take pritožbe uspelo.
The Court observes, however, that the applicants have taken several steps before the domestic authorities - including, for many of them, before the courts - in order to obtain permanent residence permits either under the Legal Status Act or, like Mr, under the amended Legal Status Act (see paragraph 133 above).
Toda Sodišče ugotavlja, da so pritožniki sprožili več postopkov pri domačih organih, mnogi tudi pred sodišči, da bi pridobili dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje po ZUSDDD ali kot Tripun Ristanović po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD (glej 133. odstavek).
Unlike in the case of Mr and Mrs. the authorities can be said to have been aware of their wish to regularise their status in Slovenia.
V nasprotju s primerom bi se lahko reklo, da so organi vedeli, da želijo pritožniki urediti svoj status v Sloveniji.
Moreover, the two leading decisions of the Constitutional Court ordering general measures were not fully complied with for eleven and seven years respectively.
Poleg tega dve temeljni odločbi ustavnega sodišča, ki sta nalagali uvedbo splošnih ukrepov, nista bili v celoti upoštevani enajst oziroma sedem let.
In the Court&apos;s opinion, this fact undermined trust in the effectiveness and the prospects of success of further individual constitutional appeals.
Po mnenju Sodišča je to dejstvo spodkopalo zaupanje v učinkovitost in uspeh nadaljnjih posamičnih ustavnih pritožb.
In this connection, the Court observes that in other cases where a Constitutional Court has found a general or a structural problem in a decision which was not complied with by the domestic authorities during a long period, it has viewed that conduct as undermining the authority of the judiciary and of the rule of law (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no..31443/96, § 175, ECHR 2004-V, and Orchowski, cited above, § 151).
V zvezi s tem Sodišče ugotavlja, da se je v drugih primerih, pri katerih je ustavno sodišče ugotovilo splošni ali strukturni problem pri odločitvi, ki je domači organi dalj časa niso upoštevali, tako ravnanje razumelo kot spodkopavanje avtoritete sodstva in pravne države (glej Broniowski proti Poljski [VS], št. 31443/96, 175. odstavek, ESČP 2004-V, in Orchowski, 151. odstavek).
Furthermore, the Court observes that the Constitutional Court has, in all its subsequent decisions, referred to its two leading decisions of 1999 and 2003, holding in its decision of 10.June 2010 that the failure to implement its leading decision of 2003 entailed a fresh violation of the Constitution (see paragraph 73 above).
Poleg tega Sodišče ugotavlja, da se je ustavno sodišče pri vseh nadaljnjih odločitvah sklicevalo na svoji dve temeljni odločbi iz let 1999 in 2003, zajeti v odločbi z dne 10. junija 2010, da je neizvajanje temeljne odločbe iz leta 2003 povzročilo novo kršitev ustave (glej 73. odstavek).
Lastly, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the applicants, who did not have any Slovenian identity documents, were left for several years in a state of legal limbo, and therefore in a situation of vulnerability and legal insecurity (see, mutatis mutandis, Tokiæ and Others, cited above, §§.57-59, and Haliloviæ v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 23968/05, § 22, 24.November 2009).
Ne nazadnje Sodišče ne more spregledati, da so pritožnike, ki niso imeli nobenih slovenskih identifikacijskih dokumentov, več let pustili v pravni praznini ter zaradi tega ranljive in v pravni negotovosti (smiselno glej Tokić in drugi, 57.-59. odstavek, in Halilović proti Bosni in Hercegovini, št. 23968/05, 22. odstavek, 24. november 2009).
Having regard to the above considerations, and in particular to the overall duration of the administrative proceedings brought by the applicants and to the feelings of helplessness and frustration which inevitably derived from the prolonged inaction of the authorities in spite of the theoretically binding decisions of the Constitutional Court, the Court finds that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the applicants were dispensed from having to lodge individual constitutional appeals.
Ob upoštevanju gornjih ugotovitev, zlasti pa skupnega trajanja upravnih postopkov, ki so jih sprožili pritožniki, pa tudi občutkov nemoči in frustracije kot neizogibne posledice dolgotrajnega nedelovanja organov oblasti kljub teoretično zavezujočim odločbam ustavnega sodišča Sodišče meni, da v posebnih okoliščinah tega primera pritožnikom ni bilo treba vlagati posamičnih ustavnih pritožb.
This decision is limited to the particular circumstances of the present case and must not be interpreted as a general statement to the effect that an appeal to the Constitutional Court is never a remedy which must be used in Slovenia in cases of non-compliance with decisions in which that court has laid down general measures (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v..France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 81, ECHR 1999-V, and Tokiæ and Others, cited above, § 59).
Ta odločitev je omejena na posebne okoliščine tega primera in se ne sme razlagati kot splošna izjava o tem, da pritožba na ustavno sodišče ni nikoli sredstvo, ki se mora uporabljati v Sloveniji pri morebitni neskladnosti z odločitvami, s katerimi je to sodišče določilo splošne ukrepe (smiselno glej Selmouni proti Franciji [VS], št. 25803/94, 81. odstavek, ESČP 1999-V, in Tokić in drugi, 59. odstavek).
The Government further objected that the applicants could have filed a petition for an abstract review of the constitutionality of the legislation (see paragraph 275 above).
Vlada je še ugovarjala, da bi pritožniki lahko vložili pobudo za presojo ustavnosti zakonodaje (glej 275. odstavek).
The applicants contested the effectiveness of that remedy.
Pritožniki so ugovarjali učinkovitosti tega pravnega sredstva.
The Court notes that the Constitutional Court&apos;s leading decisions of 1999 and 2003 were adopted following the initiative of a number of &quot;erased&quot; persons and of the Association of the &quot;Erased&quot; (see paragraphs 40, 58 and 214-215 above), whereas none of the applicants had previously challenged the relevant provisions of the Aliens Act or of the Legal Status Act before the Constitutional Court.
Sodišče ugotavlja, da sta bili temeljni odločbi ustavnega sodišča iz let 1999 in 2003 sprejeti na pobudo številnih izbrisanih in Društva izbrisanih prebivalcev Slovenije (glej 40., 58. in 214.-215. odstavek), medtem ko pred ustavnim sodiščem nobeden od pritožnikov pred tem ni izpodbijal določb Zakona o tujcih ali ZUSDDD.
Only Mr Ristanoviæ recently lodged a petition challenging the provisions of the amended Legal Status Act, which was joined to the petition lodged by the association Civil Initiative of the &quot;Erased&quot; and to petitions lodged by fifty-one other individuals (see paragraph 81 above).
Samo Tripun Ristanović je pred kratkim vložil pobudo zoper določbe spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD, pridruženo pobudam, ki jih je vložilo Društvo civilna iniciativa izbrisanih prebivalcev in enainpetdeset drugih posameznikov (glej 81. odstavek).
Those proceedings are currently pending.
Ti postopki še potekajo.
However, the Court cannot but reiterate that the Constitutional Court&apos;s leading decisions of 1999 and 2003, both ordering general measures, were not fully complied with for several years (see paragraph 298 above).
Sodišče pa mora poudariti, da dve temeljni odločbi ustavnega sodišča iz let 1999 in 2003, ki sta zahtevali uvedbo splošnih ukrepov, vrsto let nista bili v celoti upoštevani (glej 298. odstavek).
The essence of the applicants&apos; complaints had, at the material time, already been addressed by those leading decisions (see, mutatis mutandis, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 122, ECHR 2007-IV).
Bistvo pritožb pritožnikov je bilo v spornem času že obravnavano v teh temeljnih odločbah (smiselno glej D. H. in drugi proti Češki [VS], št. 57325/00, 122. odstavek, ESČP 2007-IV).
The applicants were therefore not required to lodge an additional petition for an abstract review of the constitutionality of the impugned legislation, as it would essentially have duplicated the petitions that had previously been filed and determined.
Pritožnikom zato ni bilo treba vlagati dodatnih pobud za presojo ustavnosti izpodbijane zakonodaje, saj bi bilo to v bistvu podvajanje pobud, ki so bile pred tem že vložene in rešene.
Prior to the issuance of the residence permits to the six applicants during the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, the Government also objected that some of the applicants had failed to submit requests under the amended Legal Status Act, which was in their view a systemic instrument regulating comprehensively the status of the &quot;erased&quot; (see paragraph 276 above).
Pred izdajo dovoljenja za prebivanje šestim pritožnikom med postopkom pred velikim senatom je vlada oporekala, da nekateri pritožniki niso vložili prošenj po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD, ki je bil po njenem mnenju sistemsko pravno sredstvo za celostno urejanje statusa izbrisanih (glej 276. odstavek).
It entered into force on 24 July 2010 (see paragraph 76 above), almost immediately after the delivery of the Chamber judgment on 13 July 2010, in which the applicants&apos; complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention were declared admissible (see paragraph 9 above).
Začel je veljati 24. julija 2010 (glej 76. odstavek), skoraj takoj po sprejetju razsodbe senata 13. julija 2010, s katero so bile pritožbe pritožnikov po 8., 13. in 14. členu konvencije razglašene za sprejemljive (glej 9. odstavek).
According to the Court&apos;s case-law, objections of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised after an application has been declared admissible cannot be taken into account at the merits stage (see Demades v. Turkey (merits), no. 16219/90, § 20, 31 July 2003, and Lordos and Others v. Turkey (merits), no. 15973/90, § 41, 2 November 2010).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča se ugovori glede neizčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev, vloženi po tem, ko je bila pritožba razglašena za sprejemljivo, ne morejo upoštevati na stopnji ugotavljanja utemeljenosti (glej Demades proti Turčiji (utemeljenost), št. 16219/90, 20. odstavek, 31. julij 2003, in Lordos in drugi proti Turčiji (utemeljenost), št. 15973/90, 41. odstavek, 2. november 2010).
In the instant case, the amended Legal Status Act entered into force after the applicants&apos; complaints had been declared admissible.
V danem primeru je spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD začel veljati po tem, ko so bile pritožbe pritožnikov razglašene za sprejemljive.
For this reason, this part of the Government&apos;s objection cannot be upheld.
Zato tega dela vladnega ugovora ni mogoče sprejeti.
The Government also objected that four applicants - who had submitted applications for Slovenian citizenship had failed to properly exhaust domestic legal remedies.
Vlada je tudi ugovarjala, da štirje pritožniki - ki so predložili prošnjo za slovensko državljanstvo, niso pravilno izčrpali notranjepravnih sredstev.
The Grand Chamber observes that the applicants&apos; complaints concerning the impossibility for them to obtain Slovenian citizenship were declared incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention by the Chamber (see paragraphs 231 and 236 above).
Veliki senat ugotavlja, da so bile pritožbe pritožnikov glede njihove nezmožnosti pridobiti slovensko državljanstvo časovno neskladne (ratione temporis) z določbami konvencije (glej 231. in 236. odstavek).
Accordingly, the Grand Chamber has jurisdiction to examine the applicants&apos; complaints only in so far as they concern their residence status in Slovenia (see paragraph 237 above).
Veliki senat je torej pristojen, da prouči pritožbe pritožnikov samo v delu, ki se nanaša na njihov status prebivalca v Sloveniji (glej 237. odstavek).
Under these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that an application for Slovenian citizenship was not a remedy aimed at addressing the essence of the applicants&apos; complaints, as delimited by the decision on the admissibility of the application.
V teh okoliščinah Sodišče meni, da prošnja za slovensko državljanstvo ni bila pravno sredstvo, namenjeno reševanju bistva pritožb pritožnikov, kot to razmejuje odločba o sprejemljivosti pritožbe.
Consequently, it does not need to examine whether this remedy was effective and accessible.
Zato ni potrebno, da ugotavlja, ali je bilo to pravno sredstvo učinkovito in dostopno.
For the above reasons, the Government&apos;s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the six applicants who obtained permanent residence permits should be dismissed.
Iz navedenih razlogov se predhodni ugovor vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev šestih pritožnikov, ki so prejeli dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje, zavrne.
The applicants claimed that they had been arbitrarily deprived of the possibility of preserving their status as permanent residents in Slovenia.
Pritožniki so trdili, da jim je bila samovoljno odvzeta možnost ohraniti status stalnega prebivalca v Sloveniji.
They invoked Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Sklicevali so se na 8. člen konvencije, ki se glasi:
The applicants alleged that they had not been in a position to submit a formal request for citizenship within the short period set out in the domestic legislation.
Pritožniki so navajali, da niso bili sposobni predložiti uradne prošnje za državljanstvo v tako kratkem roku, kot ga je določala domača zakonodaja.
As a result, on 26 February 1992 their names had been unlawfully &quot;erased&quot; from the Register.
Posledično so bila 26. februarja 1992 njihova imena protipravno izbrisana iz registra.