natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, this situation lasted nearly twenty years for the majority of the applicants, in spite of the Constitutional Court&apos;s leading decisions, which were themselves not complied with for more than a decade (see Makuc and Others, cited above, § 168).
Poleg tega je to stanje pri večini pritožnikov trajalo skoraj dvajset let kljub temeljnim odločbam ustavnega sodišča, ki se več kot desetletje niso upoštevale (glej Makuc in drugi, 168. odstavek).
Having regard to this lengthy period in which the applicants experienced insecurity and legal uncertainty and to the gravity of the consequences of the &quot;erasure&quot; for them, the Grand Chamber, unlike the Chamber, considers that the acknowledgment of the human rights violations and the issuance of permanent residence permits to Mr Kuriæ, Ms Mezga, Mr.Ristanoviæ, Mr Berisha, Mr Ademi and Mr Miniæ did not constitute &quot;appropriate&quot; and &quot;sufficient&quot; redress at the national level (see, mutatis mutandis, Aristimuño Mendizabal, cited above, §§ 67-69 and 70-72; Mengesha Kimfe, cited above, §§ 41-47 and 67-72; and Agraw, cited above, §§ 30-32 and 50-55).
Ob upoštevanju dolgega obdobja, v katerem so pritožniki trpeli zaradi ogroženosti in pravne negotovosti ter resnosti posledic, ki jih je imel zanje izbris, veliki senat v nasprotju s senatom meni, da priznanje kršitev človekovih pravic in izdaja dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje pritožnikom Mustafu Kuriću, Ani Mezga, Tripunu Ristanoviću, Aliju Berishi, Ilfanu Sadiku Ademiju in Zoranu Miniću nista primerna in zadostna poprava krivic na državni ravni (smiselno glej Aristimuńo Mendizabal, 67.-69. odstavek in 70.-72. odstavek; Mengesha Kimfe, 41.-47. in 67.-72. odstavek ter Agraw, 30.-32. in 50.-55. odstavek).
As to the possibility of seeking and obtaining compensation at the domestic level (see paragraphs 250-252 and 257 above), the Court observes that none of the &quot;erased&quot; have so far been awarded compensation in a final and binding judgment for the damage sustained, although several sets of proceedings are currently pending (see paragraph 83 above).
Glede možnosti, da zahtevajo in dobijo odškodnino na državni ravni, Sodišče ugotavlja, da nihče od izbrisanih do zdaj ni prejel zadoščenja za utrpelo škodo v obliki končne in zavezujoče sodbe, čeprav več postopkov čaka na rešitev (glej 83. odstavek).
In addition, none of the applicants have so far been successful before the State Attorney&apos;s Office in their claims for compensation.
Poleg tega državno pravobranilstvo nobenemu pritožniku ni ugodno rešilo zahtevka za odškodnino.
Therefore, their prospects of receiving compensation in Slovenia appear, for the time being, to be too remote to be relevant for the purposes of the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Dalban, cited above, § 44).
Njihove možnosti, da bi prejeli odškodnino v Sloveniji, so zato trenutno preveč oddaljene, da bi lahko vplivale na sedanji primer (smiselno glej Dalban, 44. odstavek).
In conclusion, the Court holds that the six applicants who were awarded both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits in the course of the proceedings before the Grand Chamber may still claim to be &quot;victims&quot; of the alleged violations.
Za konec Sodišče ugotavlja, da šest pritožnikov, ki jim je bilo izdano dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc) med trajanjem postopka pred velikim senatom, še vedno lahko trdi, da so žrtve zatrjevanih kršitev.
The Government&apos;s preliminary objection in this respect should accordingly be dismissed.
Predhodni ugovor vlade v zvezi s tem je torej treba zavreči.
Lastly, as to the Government&apos;s plea of lack of &quot;victim&quot; status in respect of the remaining applicants (Mr Dabetiæ and Mrs Ristanoviæ), who never started proper proceedings in Slovenia with a view to being granted permanent residence permits, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine it since these applicants&apos; complaints are in any event inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraphs 293-294 below).
Končno, glede ugovora vlade, da druga dva pritožnika (Velimir Dabetić in Ljubenka Ristanović), ki nista sprožila ustreznih postopkov za pridobitev dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje v Sloveniji, nimata statusa žrtve, Sodišče ugotavlja, da tega ni treba obravnavati, ker so pritožbe teh pritožnikov v vsakem primeru neutemeljene zaradi neizčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev (glej 293.-294. odstavek).
The Government objected that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
Vlada je ugovarjala, da pritožnik ni izčrpal notranjepravnih sredstev.
Before the Grand Chamber the Government objected that three of the applicants had never applied for a residence permit.
Vlada je pred velikim senatom ugovarjala, da trije pritožniki niso nikoli zaprosili za dovoljenje za prebivanje.
Relying on the Kaftailova and Shevanova judgments (cited above, §§ 52-54 and §§ 48-50 respectively), they stated that the applicants were under an obligation to act lawfully and to try to regularise their status in Slovenia.
Sklicujoč se na sodbi Kaftailova in Shevanova (52.-54. odstavek oziroma 48.-50. odstavek), so izjavili, da so pritožniki morali ravnati v skladu z zakonom in si prizadevati za ureditev svojega statusa v Sloveniji.
No procedure was available under the Administrative Procedure Act which would enable the State to issue a residence permit ex proprio motu without a request having been made.
Po Zakonu o upravnem postopku ni bilo na razpolago nobenega postopka, ki bi vladi omogočil, da iz lastnega nagiba (ex proprio motu) izda dovoljenja za prebivanje brez predhodno vložene prošnje.
Subsequently, Mr Ristanoviæ, who had in the meantime submitted a request under the amended Legal Status Act, had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permits (see paragraph 133 above).
Posledično je bilo Tripunu Ristanoviću, ki je medtem predložil prošnjo v skladu s spremenjenim in dopolnjenim ZUSDDD, izdano dovoljenje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc) (glej 133. odstavek).
Moreover, all the applicants had failed to pursue the available legal avenues for obtaining permanent residence permits, either under the Aliens Act or under the Legal Status Act.
Poleg tega nobeden od pritožnikov ni izkoristil razpoložljivih pravnih poti za pridobitev dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje po Zakonu o tujcih in tudi ne po ZUSDDD.
After exhaustion of the remedies at their disposal in the framework of administrative proceedings (application for a residence permit, administrative proceedings, complaint alleging inaction on the part of the authorities), the applicants should have lodged a constitutional appeal in their individual cases.
Po izčrpanju razpoložljivih pravnih sredstev v administrativnih postopkih (prošnja za dovoljenje za prebivanje, administrativni postopki, pritožbe zaradi domnevnega neukrepanja organov) bi morali pritožniki za vsak posamezen primer vložiti ustavno pritožbo.
In a large number of Slovenian cases, the Court had held that a constitutional appeal was an effective remedy.
V velikem številu slovenskih primerov je Sodišče presodilo, da je ustavna pritožba učinkovito pravno sredstvo.
Further to the Constitutional Court&apos;s leading decisions of 4.February 1999 and 3 April 2003 on the &quot;erasure&quot; (see paragraphs 41-48, 58-60 and 214-215 above), which had the effect of precedents, the applicants could have effectively relied on their right to obtain residence permits before the Constitutional Court, which enjoyed full jurisdiction under section 60 of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 204 above).
Ob upoštevanju temeljnih odločb ustavnega sodišča o izbrisanih z dne 4. februarja 1999 in 3. aprila 2003 (glej 41.-48., 58.-60. in 214.-215. odstavek) s precedenčnim učinkom bi lahko pritožniki uspešno zavarovali svoje pravice do dovoljenja za prebivanje pred ustavnim sodiščem, ki ima na podlagi 60. a Zakona o ustavnem sodišču polno jurisdikcijo (glej 204. odstavek).
In a number of cases brought by other &quot;erased&quot; persons, the Constitutional Court had ordered the re-entry of their names in the Register pending the enactment of the new law, thus filling the legal vacuum arising from the legislature&apos;s failure to enforce its decisions.
Ustavno sodišče je v številnih zadevah, ki so jih sprožili izbrisani, odredilo ponovni vnos njihovih imen v register do sprejetja novega zakona in tako zapolnilo pravno praznino, nastalo zaradi opustitve zakonodajalca, da bi izvršil odločbo ustavnega sodišča.
The Constitutional Court had also remitted some cases to the Supreme Court or quashed the lower courts&apos; judgments (see paragraphs 52-56 above).
Ustavno sodišče je nekaj primerov tudi vrnilo vrhovnemu sodišču ali pa razveljavilo sodbe nižjih sodišč (glej 52.-56. odstavek).
None of the applicants had lodged such an individual appeal, which was an &quot;accessible&quot;, &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;effective&quot; remedy both in theory and in practice.
Nobeden od pritožnikov ni vložil take posamične pritožbe, ki je bila teoretično in praktično dostopno, ustrezno in učinkovito pravno sredstvo.
In addition, individuals could also lodge a petition for a review of the constitutionality of the relevant legislation.
Poleg tega bi posamezniki lahko vložili pobudo za presojo ustavnosti ustrezne zakonodaje.
The decisions on such petitions had erga omnes effect and were binding.
Odločitve o takih pobudah veljajo za vse (erga omnes) in so zavezujoče.
The fact that the legislature had not executed the decisions within the specified time-limit did not mean that the decisions were not enforceable in individual and administrative legal proceedings.
Dejstvo, da zakonodajalec ni izvršil odločb v določenem roku, ne pomeni, da se niso dale uveljaviti v posamičnih pravnih in upravnih postopkih.
Contrary to the Bosnian Constitutional Court (the Government cited Tokiæ and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos..12455/04, 14140/05, 12906/06 and 26028/06, §§ 57-59, 8 July 2008), the Slovenian Constitutional Court could effectively remedy the alleged violations.
V nasprotju z Ustavnim sodiščem Bosne in Hercegovine (vlada navaja zadevo Tokić in drugi proti Bosni in Hercegovini, št. 12455/04, 14140/05, 12906/06 in 26028/06, 57.-59. odstavek, 8. julij 2008) bi Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije lahko učinkovito odpravilo domnevne kršitve.
The Government also noted that on 8 March 2010, prior to the adoption of the Chamber judgment, the National Assembly had already passed a systemic Act (the amended Legal Status Act) regulating the status of the &quot;erased&quot; both ex nunc and ex tunc, in compliance with the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision of 2003 (see paragraphs 71, 76-79 and 211 above).
Vlada je tudi opozorila, da je 8. marca 2010, pred sprejetjem sodbe senata, Državni zbor že sprejel sistemski zakon (spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD), ki ureja status izbrisanih z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc), v skladu z odločbo ustavnega sodišča iz leta 2003 (glej 71., 76.-79. in 211. odstavek).
In its decision of 10 June 2010 on a referendum, the Constitutional Court had considered that the amended Legal Status Act should provide for a permanent solution of the status of those &quot;erased&quot; persons who had been unable to regularise their status, and had not allowed a referendum to be held (see paragraph 73 above).
Ustavno sodišče je v svoji odločitvi o referendumu 10. junija 2010 upoštevalo, da bi moral spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD omogočati trajno rešitev statusa tistih izbrisanih, ki niso mogli urediti svojega statusa, in ni dovolilo izvedbe referenduma (glej 73. odstavek).
On 24 June 2010 the amended Legal Status Act had been published in the Official Gazette and on 24 July 2010, almost immediately after the delivery of the Chamber judgment, it had entered into force (see paragraph 76 above).
junija 2010 je bil spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD objavljen v uradnem listu in je začel veljati 24. julija 2010, skoraj takoj po razglasitvi sodbe senata (glej 76. odstavek).
The applicants had therefore had at their disposal a new legal avenue with the eventual possibility of lodging a constitutional appeal.
Pritožniki so tako imeli na voljo novo pravno pot z možnostjo za vložitev ustavne pritožbe.
The deadline for submitting requests for permanent residence permits under the amended Legal Status Act would not expire until 24 July 2013 (see paragraph 80 above).
Rok za oddajo prošenj za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD bi potekel 24. julija 2013 (glej 80. odstavek).
The implementation of the Act was regularly monitored by the authorities.
Izvajanje tega zakona so redno spremljali pooblaščeni organi.
By 31 May 2011, sixty-four ex nunc and 111 ex tunc permanent residence permits had been issued under the amended Legal Status Act.
Do 31. maja 2011 je bilo po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD izdanih štiriinšestdeset dovoljenj za prebivanje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc) in 111 z veljavnostjo za nazaj (ex tunc).
Under both the Legal Status Act and the amended Legal Status Act, approximately 12,500 of the &quot;erased&quot; had regularised their status (see paragraphs 67, 76 and 80 above).
Tako je na podlagi ZUSDDD ter spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD približno 12.500 izbrisanih uredilo svoj status (glej 67., 76. in 80. odstavek).
The applicants who had not yet received permanent residence permits should apply for them under the amended Legal Status Act.
Pritožniki, ki še niso prejeli dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje, morajo zaprositi zanj na podlagi spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD.
In any event, in the Government&apos;s view the applicants had failed to prove the existence of special circumstances which could have dispensed them from having to exhaust domestic legal remedies (the Government cited Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
V vsakem primeru pa po mnenju vlade pritožnikom ni uspelo dokazati obstoja posebnih okoliščin, zaradi katerih jim ne bi bilo treba izčrpati notranjepravnih sredstev (vlada navaja Akdivar in drugi proti Turčiji, 16. september 1996, 69. odstavek, Poročilo o sodbah in sklepih 1996-IV).
The applicants contended that the domestic remedies at their disposal were in general not &quot;accessible&quot;, &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;effective&quot; as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since none of them was capable of addressing the substance of the relevant Convention complaints and of awarding appropriate relief, especially considering the prolonged and systematic refusal of the administrative authorities to comply with the Constitutional Court&apos;s decisions and the substantial and unjustified delay of the legislature in passing the new law.
Pritožniki so trdili, da notranjepravna sredstva, ki so jim bila na voljo, na splošno niso bila &quot;dostopna&quot;, &quot;ustrezna&quot; in &quot;učinkovita&quot;, kot zahteva prvi odstavek 35. a konvencije, saj nobeno ni omogočalo obravnave vsebine ustreznih pritožb po konvenciji in določitve ustreznega zadoščenja, posebno še glede na dolgotrajno in sistematično zavračanje upravnih organov, da bi spoštovali odločitev ustavnega sodišča, ter na precejšnje in neupravičene zamude zakonodajalca pri sprejemanju novega zakona.
Accepting the Government&apos;s arguments would imply placing on the Constitutional Court the burden of adjudicating on each single case by repeating its previous findings of general flaws in the relevant legal provisions.
Sprejetje argumentov vlade bi pomenilo, da se ustavnemu sodišču naloži breme razsojanja o vsakem posamičnem primeru, tako da ponavlja svoje prejšnje ugotovitve splošnih pomanjkljivosti v ustreznih pravnih predpisih.
In addition, even under the Legal Status Act as it had previously stood, 1,250 requests for permanent residence had been rejected (see paragraphs 67 and 76 above), which showed the existence of serious flaws in the legislative framework at the material time.
Poleg tega je bilo na podlagi prejšnjega ZUSDDD zavrnjenih 1250 prošenj za stalno prebivanje (glej 67. in 76. odstavek), kar je kazalo na obstoj resnih pomanjkljivosti v pravnem okviru tistega časa.
For many of the &quot;erased&quot;, and not just for the applicants, it was objectively impossible to satisfy the requirements of that Act, which in any event had been found to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.
Za mnoge izbrisane in ne le za pritožnike je bilo objektivno nemogoče izpolniti zahteve ZUSDDD, za katerega je ustavno sodišče v vsakem primeru ugotovilo, da je neustaven.
The ineffectiveness of the remedies concerned was exemplarily demonstrated in the case of Mr Miniæ, who had had to wait for a long time to regularise his status in spite of two judgments in his favour delivered by the Administrative Court (see paragraphs 190 and 193-194 above).
Neučinkovitost pravnih sredstev je nazorno prikazal primer Zorana Minića, ki je moral kljub dvema sodbama, ki ju je izreklo upravno sodišče v njegovo korist, dolgo čakati na ureditev svojega statusa (glej 190. in 193.-194. odstavek).
Even assuming that the remedies relied on by the Government were &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;effective&quot;, three of the applicants - Mr Dabetiæ, Mr.Ristanoviæ and Mrs Ristanoviæ - would still be exempted from having to make use of them in the light of the exceptional circumstances of their cases and their personal situation, and also in view of the general political and social situation in Slovenia and the total passivity of the administrative authorities.
Tudi ob domnevi, da bi bila pravna sredstva, na katera se sklicuje vlada, &quot;ustrezna&quot; in &quot;učinkovita&quot;, jih trem pritožnikom - Velimirju Dabetiću, Tripunu Ristanoviću in Ljubenki Ristanović - glede na izjemne okoliščine njihovih primerov in osebne razmere, pa tudi glede na splošno politično in družbeno stanje v Sloveniji ter popolno pasivnost upravnih organov ne bi bilo treba uporabiti.
They had also been clearly unable to fulfil the criteria at the relevant time.
Bili so tudi očitno nezmožni izpolniti takratne pogoje.
In particular, had no legal status either in Slovenia or in Italy and was de jure and de facto stateless.
Zlasti ni imel zakonitega statusa niti v Sloveniji niti v Italiji ter je bil pravno in dejansko brez državljanstva.
Even though he had not submitted a request for a permanent residence permit, he had urged the Ministry of the Interior, after the delivery of the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision in 2003, to issue a decision regulating his status and had filed a complaint alleging inaction on the part of the administrative authorities.
Čeprav ni vložil prošnje za stalno prebivanje, je po objavi razsodbe ustavnega sodišča leta 2003 zaprosil ministrstvo, da izda odločbo za ureditev njegovega statusa, in vložil pritožbo zaradi domnevnega neukrepanja upravnih organov.
He had also submitted a request for Slovenian citizenship (see paragraphs.101-105 above), and had thus done everything that could reasonably be expected of him in order to regularise his position.
Vložil je tudi prošnjo za slovensko državljanstvo (glej 101.-105. odstavek) in tako naredil vse, kar je bilo od njega smiselno mogoče pričakovati, da bi uredil svoj položaj.
As to Mrs, it should not be overlooked that they had been deported from Slovenia and that it would have been very difficult for them to pursue any legal remedy there.
sta bila izgnana iz Slovenije in bi tam zelo težko uporabila katera koli pravna sredstva.
In sum, the remedies available to the three applicants did not offer them realistic chances of success.
Skratka, pravna sredstva, ki so bila na razpolago trem pritožnikom, niso zagotavljala realnih možnosti za uspeh.
Moreover, the general climate of social and political adversity encountered by the &quot;erased&quot; should not be overlooked.
Poleg tega je treba upoštevati splošno neugodno družbeno in politično ozračje, v katerem so se znašli izbrisani.
Since the &quot;erasure&quot; the applicants had continued to find themselves in a state of extreme vulnerability and insecurity.
Vse od izbrisa so bili neprestano izredno ranljivi in v stalni negotovosti.
The Serbian Government and most of the other third-party interveners submitted that the legal remedies referred to by the Government had proved to be both ineffective and inadequate in the circumstances of the instant case.
Srbska vlada in večina drugih tretjih strani, ki so sodelovale v postopku, sta izjavili, da so se pravna sredstva, na katera se sklicuje vlada, pokazala kot neučinkovita in neustrezna glede na okoliščine obravnavane zadeve.
The Chamber noted that the Constitutional Court had found the &quot;erasure&quot; unconstitutional on various occasions and that the applicants essentially complained about the lack of compliance with those decisions.
Senat je opozoril, da je ustavno sodišče ob različnih priložnostih ugotovilo neustavnost izbrisa in da se pritožniki v bistvu pritožujejo zaradi nespoštovanja teh odločb.
Relying on the judgment in the case of Tokiæ and Others (cited above, §§.57-59), it dismissed the Government&apos;s plea of failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see paragraph 308 of the Chamber judgment).
Sklicujoč se na sodbo v zadevi Tokić in drugi (57.-59. odstavek), je zavrnilo ugovor vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev (glej 308. odstavek sodbe senata).
The general principles on the exhaustion of domestic remedies are set out in Sejdovic v. Italy ([GC], no. 56581/00, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2006-II).
Splošna načela glede izčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev so navedena v zadevi Sejdovic proti Italiji ([VS], št. 56581/00, 43.-46. odstavek, ESČP 2006-II).
The Court will apply these principles to the different legal avenues referred to by the Government.
Sodišče bo uporabilo ta načela pri različnih pravnih poteh, ki jih navaja vlada.
It emphasises, at the outset, that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether the rule has been observed, it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of the individual case.
V izhodišču poudarja, da pravilo izčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev ni niti absolutno niti se ne da uporabiti samodejno; ko se preverja, ali je bilo pravilo spoštovano, je treba nujno upoštevati posebne okoliščine posameznega primera.
This means, amongst other things, that the Court must take realistic account not only of the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the Contracting Party concerned but also of the general legal and political context in which they operate, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicants (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others, cited above, §§ 66 and 68-69; Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, §§ 105-106, 22.October 2009; and Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos..46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04, §.70, ECHR 2010).
To med drugim pomeni, da mora Sodišče realno upoštevati ne le formalnopravna sredstva, ki so na voljo v pravnem sistemu pogodbenice, temveč tudi splošne pravne in politične danosti, v katerih delujejo, pa tudi osebne okoliščine pritožnikov (glej med drugimi zadevami Akdivar in drugi proti Turčiji, 66. in 68.-69. odstavek; Orchowski proti Poljski, št. 17885/04, 105.-106. odstavek, 22. oktober 2009; Demopoulos in drugi proti Turčiji (sklep) [VS], št. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04, 70. odstavek, ESČP 2010).
The Government cited five different grounds why in their opinion domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
Vlada je navedla pet različnih razlogov, zakaj po njenem mnenju notranjepravna sredstva niso bila izčrpana.
First, two applicants had never properly applied for a residence permit (this plea was initially also directed against Mr, who, however, subsequently made a request under the amended Legal Status Act and was granted a residence permit - see paragraph 272 above).
Prva dva pritožnika nista nikoli pravilno zaprosila za izdajo dovoljenja za prebivanje v Sloveniji (ta ugovor je bil sprva naravnan tudi zoper, ki pa je pozneje predložil prošnjo po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD ter mu je bilo izdano dovoljenje za prebivanje - glej 272. odstavek).