natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
He added that a number of the &quot;erased&quot; persons had become stateless and drew attention to the Council of Europe&apos;s international-law instruments on the avoidance and the reduction of statelessness and the need for Slovenia to ratify them.
Dodal je, da so številni izbrisani postali osebe brez državljanstva in opozoril na dokumente mednarodnega prava Sveta Evrope za preprečevanje in zmanjševanje brezdržavljanstva ter potrebo, da jih Slovenija ratificira.
On 13 February 2007 the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (&quot;ECRI&quot;) published its third report on Slovenia, which was adopted on 30 June 2006. This report described the situation of the &quot;erased&quot; and made recommendations to the Government (for the relevant extracts see paragraph 266 of the Chamber judgment).
februarja 2007 je Evropska komisija proti rasizmu in nestrpnosti (&quot;ECRI&quot;) objavila svoje tretje poročilo o Sloveniji, ki ga je sprejela 30. junija 2006. To poročilo opisuje položaj izbrisanih in vsebuje priporočila vladi (glej 266. odstavek sodbe senata za ustrezne izvlečke).
In 1961 the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Reduction of Statelesness.
Leta 1961 so Združeni narodi sprejeli Konvencijo o zmanjševanju brezdržavljanstva.
Slovenia has not ratified it.
Slovenija je ni ratificirala.
In 1999 the International Law Commission of the United Nations adopted the Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States.
Leta 1999 je Mednarodna pravna komisija Združenih narodov sprejela osnutke členov o državljanstvu fizičnih oseb v zvezi z državami naslednicami.
Article 6 of the Draft Articles states as follows:
6. člen osnutkov členov se glasi:
&quot;Each State concerned should, without undue delay, enact legislation on nationality and other connected issues arising in relation to the succession of States consistent with the provisions of the present draft articles.
&quot;Vsaka država mora brez nepotrebnega odlašanja sprejeti zakonodajo o državljanstvu in drugih problemih v zvezi z nasledstvom držav skladno z določbami teh osnutkov členov.
It should take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons concerned will be apprised, within a reasonable period, of the effect of its legislation on their nationality, of any choices they may have there under, as well as of the consequences that the exercise of such choices will have on their status.&quot;
Sprejeti mora primerne ukrepe, da bodo osebe v razumnem roku obveščene o učinku zakonodaje na njihovo državljanstvo, o vseh izbirah, ki jih imajo po tej zakonodaji, ter o posledicah, ki jih bo izvajanje teh izbir imelo na njihov status.&quot;
On 24 August 2010 the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued concluding observations stating, inter alia:
2010 je Odbor Združenih narodov za odpravo rasne diskriminacije izdal sklepne ugotovitve in med drugim navaja:
&quot;While taking note of the adoption in March 2010 of the law regulating the legal status of the &apos;erased&apos; people, the Committee remains concerned at the situation of the non-Slovenes from the former Yugoslavia, including Bosnians, ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, Macedonians and Serbs, whose legal status remains unresolved and who are therefore facing difficulties in terms of access to social and economic rights, such as access to healthcare services, social security, education and employment.
&quot;Ob upoštevanju sprejetja zakona, ki ureja pravni status izbrisanih oseb, marca 2010 je odbor še naprej zaskrbljen zaradi položaja Neslovencev iz nekdanje Jugoslavije, vključno z Bosanci, etničnimi Albanci s Kosova, Makedonci in Srbi, katerih pravni status ostaja nerešen in imajo zato težave pri dostopu do socialnih in ekonomskih pravic, kot so dostop do zdravstvenih storitev, socialne varnosti, izobraževanja in zaposlitve.
The Committee is also concerned that the new law does not envisage any outreach campaign directed towards the &apos;erased&apos; people living abroad in order to inform them of its existence ...
Odbor prav tako z zaskrbljenostjo ugotavlja, da novi zakon ne predvideva nobene navzven usmerjene akcije, ki bi bila namenjena izbrisanim osebam, živečim v tujini, da bi jih obvestili o obstoju tega novega zakona ... &quot;
The Committee recommends that the State party:
Odbor priporoča državi pogodbenici, da:
(a) Resolve definitely the legal status of all concerned citizens from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia States presently living in Slovenia;
(a) dokončno reši pravni status vseh prizadetih državljanov nekdanje Socialistične federativne republike Jugoslavije, ki zdaj živijo v Sloveniji;
(b) Ensure the full enjoyment of their economic and social rights including the access to health services, social security, education and employment;
(b) zagotovi polno uživanje njihovih ekonomskih in socialnih pravic, vključno z dostopom do zdravstvenih storitev, socialnega zavarovanja, izobraževanja in zaposlovanja;
(c) Conduct an outreach campaign to inform the &apos;erased&apos; currently living outside Slovenia of the existence of the new legislative measures and the possibility of benefiting from them; and
(c) začne obveščati izbrisane, ki trenutno živijo zunaj Slovenije, o novih zakonodajnih ukrepih in možnostih za njihovo uporabo;
(d) Grant full reparation, including restitution, satisfaction, compensation, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition, to all individuals affected by the &apos;erasure&apos;.&quot;
(d) vsem posameznikom, ki jih je prizadel izbris, zagotovi polno povrnitev škode, vključno s povrnitvijo v prejšnje stanje, zadoščenjem, nadomestilom, ponovno usposobitvijo in jamstvi za neponovitev.
On 20 June 2011 the United Nations Committee against Torture issued its concluding remarks, stating, inter alia:
2011 je Odbor Združenih narodov proti mučenju izdal sklepne ugotovitve in med drugim navaja:
&quot;While noting the legislative measures taken to amend the Act Regulating the Legal Status of citizens of Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Living in the Republic of Slovenia in order to remedy the provisions that were found to be unconstitutional, the Committee remains concerned that the State party failed to enforce the Act and to restore the residency rights of persons, known as the &apos;erased&apos;, originating from other Yugoslav republics whose permanent residence in Slovenia was unlawfully revoked in 1992 and already returned to other republics of Former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia.
&quot;Odbor je sicer seznanjen s sprejetimi zakonodajnimi ukrepi za spremembo Zakona o urejanju statusa državljanov drugih držav naslednic nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji, da bi odpravili določbe, razglašene za protiustavne, vendar z zaskrbljenostjo ugotavlja, da državi pogodbenici ni uspelo uveljaviti tega zakona in obnoviti pravic do stalnega prebivališča za osebe, znane kot izbrisani, ki izvirajo iz drugih jugoslovanskih republik in jim je bilo stalno prebivališče v Sloveniji leta 1992 nezakonito odvzeto ter so se že vrnili v druge republike nekdanje Socialistične republike Jugoslavije.
The Committee is concerned that the discrimination against the so called &apos;erased&apos; persons, including against those who belong to Roma community, is persistent (arts. 3 and 16).
Odbor izraža zaskrbljenost, da so t. i. izbrisani in tudi tisti, ki pripadajo romski skupnosti, še vedno diskriminirani (3. in 16. ).
In light of its general comment No. 2 (2008) on implementation of article 2 by States parties, the Committee recalls the special protection of certain minorities or marginalized individuals or groups especially at risk is part of the State party&apos;s obligations under the Convention.
Odbor glede na svoj splošni komentar št. 2 (2008) o 2. členu, ki ga morajo izvajati države pogodbenice, opozarja, da je posebna zaščita manjšin ali na družbeni rob odrinjenih posameznikov ali posebej ogroženih skupin del obveznosti države pogodbenice v skladu s konvencijo.
In this respect, the Committee recommends that the State party takes measures to restore the permanent resident status of the so-called &apos;erased&apos; persons who were returned to other States in Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
V zvezi s tem odbor priporoča, da država pogodbenica sprejme ukrepe za vrnitev statusa stalnega prebivališča t. i. izbrisanim, ki so bile vrnjeni drugim državam nekdanje Socialistične federativne republike Jugoslavije.
The Committee also encourages the State party to facilitate the full integration of the &apos;erased&apos; persons, including of those who belong to Roma communities and guarantee them with fair procedures for application for citizenship.&quot;
Odbor tudi spodbuja državo pogodbenico, naj omogoči popolno vključitev izbrisanih v družbo, tudi tistih, ki pripadajo romski skupnosti, in jim zagotovi pravične postopke pri prošnjah za državljanstvo.&quot;
On 3 March 2009, in the course of the proceedings before the Chamber, the applicants Mr Petreš and Mr Jovanoviæ - both already in possession of ex nunc permits issued in 2006 - were awarded ex tunc permanent residence permits by the authorities ex proprio motu with effect from 26 February 1992.
Med postopkom pred senatom so pristojni organi 3. marca 2009 pritožnikoma Ljubomirju Petrešu in Jovanu Jovanoviću, ki sta oba že imela dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc), izdano leta 2006, iz lastnega nagiba (ex proprio motu) podelili še dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc), in sicer od 26. februarja 1992.
Relying on the judgments in the cases of Shevanova v. Latvia ((striking out) [GC], no. 58822/00, §§ 48-50, 7.December 2007) and Kaftailova v. Latvia ((striking out) [GC], no..59643/00, §§ 52-54, 7.December 2007), the Chamber held that the issuance of the retroactive residence permits constituted an &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;sufficient&quot; remedy for the complaints of Mr and Mr under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and that those applicants could no longer claim to be the &quot;victims&quot; of the alleged violations (see paragraphs 309-311 of the Chamber judgment).
Sklicujoč se na sodbe v zadevah Shevanova proti Latviji ((izbris) [VS], št. odstavek, 7. december 2007) in Kaftailova proti Latviji ((izbris) [VS], št. odstavek, 7. december 2007), je senat razsodil, da je izdaja dovoljenj za prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj &quot;učinkovito&quot; in &quot;zadostno&quot; pravno sredstvo za pritožbe Ljubomirja Petreša in Jovana Jovanovića po 8., 13. in 14. u konvencije ter da ta dva pritožnika ne moreta več trditi, da sta &quot;žrtvi&quot; zatrjevanih kršitev konvencije (glej 309.-311. odstavek sodbe senata).
The Chamber also held that the applicants&apos; complaints concerning the lack of opportunity to acquire Slovenian citizenship in 1991 were incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, and thus declared them inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see Makuc and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 26828/06, §§.162-165, 31.May 2007; see also paragraph 355 of the Chamber judgment).
Senat je tudi razsodil, da so bile pritožbe pritožnikov o pomanjkanju možnosti za pridobitev slovenskega državljanstva v letu 1991 časovno neskladne (ratione temporis) z določbami konvencije in jih je zato razglasil za nesprejemljive v smislu tretjega in četrtega odstavka 35. člena konvencije (glej zadevo Makuc in drugi proti Sloveniji (sklep), št. odstavek, 31. maj 2007; glej tudi 355. odstavek sodbe senata).
The applicants essentially requested the Grand Chamber to reverse the Chamber&apos;s finding in so far as the Chamber had declared the application inadmissible with regard to Mr The mere regularisation of their legal status after many years of unlawful interference with their right to respect for private and family life could not be considered to afford &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;sufficient&quot; redress for their complaints under Articles.8, 13 and 14 of the Convention (they cited Aristimuño Mendizabal v..France, no. 51431/99, § 79, 17 January 2006).
Pritožnika sta v bistvu zahtevala od velikega senata, da razveljavi ugotovitev senata, ker je razglasil pritožbo v zvezi s za nesprejemljivo. Zgolj ureditve njunega pravnega statusa po mnogih letih nezakonitega poseganja v njuno pravico do spoštovanja zasebnega in družinskega življenja ni mogoče šteti za &quot;učinkovito&quot; in &quot;zadostno&quot; popravo krivic iz njunih pritožb po 8., 13. in 14. členu konvencije (sklicevala sta se na zadevo Aristimuńo Mendizabal proti Franciji, št. odstavek, 17. januar 2006).
The two applicants were also unable to seek adequate reparation before the domestic courts or the State Attorney&apos;s Office for the damage sustained over a long period of time.
Pritožnika tudi nista mogla uveljavljati primernega nadomestila pred državnimi sodišči ali državnim pravobranilstvom za škodo, ki sta jo utrpela v daljšem obdobju.
The Government asked the Grand Chamber to confirm the Chamber&apos;s finding that the two applicants had lost their &quot;victim&quot; status.
Vlada je zahtevala od velikega senata, naj potrdi ugotovitev senata, da sta pritožnika izgubila svoj status &quot;žrtve&quot;.
They had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits in the course of the proceedings before the Chamber and had been afforded just satisfaction in respect of the violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
Med trajanjem postopka pred senatom sta jima bili izdani dovoljenji za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc) ter dodeljeno pravično zadoščenje za kršitev njunih pravic po 8. členu konvencije.
In any event, the Grand Chamber could not examine those parts of the application which had been declared inadmissible by the Chamber (they cited Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 61, ECHR 2007-I).
Vsekakor pa veliki senat ni mogel obravnavati tistih delov pritožbe, ki jih je senat razglasil za nesprejemljive (sklicevali so se na zadevo Sisojeva in drugi proti Latviji (izbris) [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2007-I).
According to the Court&apos;s settled case-law, the &quot;case&quot; referred to the Grand Chamber necessarily embraces all aspects of the application previously examined by the Chamber in its judgment.
Zadeva, predložena velikemu senatu, v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča nujno zajema vse vidike pritožbe, ki jih je predhodno v svoji sodbi obravnaval senat.
The content and scope of the &quot;case&quot; referred to the Grand Chamber are therefore delimited by the Chamber&apos;s decision on admissibility (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no..25702/94, §§ 140-141, ECHR 2001-VII; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no..56679/00, § 32, ECHR 2004-III; and Kovaèiæ and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, § 194, 3 October 2008).
Vsebino in obseg zadeve, predložene velikemu senatu, tako omejuje sklep senata o sprejemljivosti (glej zadevi K. in T. proti Finski [VS], št. 25702/94, 140.-141. odstavek, ESČP 2001-VII; Azinas proti Cipru [VS], št. 56679/00, 32. odstavek, ESČP 2004-III; in Kovačić in drugi proti Sloveniji [VS], št. 44574/98, 45133/98 in 48316/99, 194. odstavek, 3. oktober 2008).
This means that the Grand Chamber may examine the case in its entirety in so far as it has been declared admissible; it cannot, however, examine those parts of the application which have been declared inadmissible by the Chamber.
To pomeni, da veliki senat lahko obravnava zadevo v celoti, če je bila razglašena za sprejemljivo, ne more pa obravnavati tistih delov pritožbe, ki jih je senat razglasil za nesprejemljive.
The Court sees no reason to depart from this principle in the present case (see Sisojeva and Others, cited above, §§.59-62).
Sodišče ne vidi razloga, da bi odstopilo od tega načela v tej zadevi (glej Sisojeva in drugi, 59.-62. odstavek).
In sum, the Court holds that, in the context of the present case, it no longer has jurisdiction to examine the complaints raised by Mr Similarly, it cannot examine the complaints concerning the lack of opportunity to acquire Slovenian citizenship in 1991, which were declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention (see paragraph 231 above).
Skratka, Sodišče meni, da pri tej zadevi ni več pristojno za obravnavo pritožb pritožnikov. Prav tako ne more obravnavati pritožb o pomanjkanju možnosti za pridobitev slovenskega državljanstva v letu 1991, ki so bile razglašene za nesprejemljive zaradi časovne neskladnosti (ratione temporis) z določbami konvencije (glej 231. odstavek).
Therefore, the Grand Chamber will only examine the complaints of the remaining applicants pertaining to the consequences of the &quot;erasure&quot; for their residence status in Slovenia.
Zato bo veliki senat obravnaval samo pritožbe drugih pritožnikov, ki se nanašajo na posledice izbrisa na status stalnega prebivalca v Sloveniji.
Before the Chamber, the Government objected that the applicants&apos; complaints concerning the repercussions of the &quot;erasure&quot; on their residence status were incompatible ratione materiae and ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention.
Vlada je pred senatom ugovarjala, da so bile pritožbe pritožnikov glede posledic izbrisa na njihov status stalnega prebivalca stvarno (ratione materiae) in časovno (ratione temporis) neskladne z določbami konvencije.
The Convention did not regulate citizenship or residence and the entry into force of the independence legislation and the &quot;erasure&quot; had taken place in 1992, that is, before 28 June 1994, the date on which the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia.
Konvencija ni urejala državljanstva ali stalnega prebivanja in osamosvojitvena zakonodaja je začela veljati prej, izbris je bil leta 1992, tj. pred 28. junijem 1994, ko je konvencija začela veljati za Slovenijo.
As to the subsequent proceedings, they were inextricably linked with the initial event (see paragraphs 278-281 of the Chamber judgment).
Poznejši postopki pa so bili neločljivo povezani z začetnim dogodkom (glej 278.-281. odstavek sodbe senata).
Furthermore, the Government submitted that the applicants had failed to comply with the six-month rule set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as the situation complained of could not be construed as a &quot;continuous&quot; one (see paragraph 282 of the Chamber judgment).
Poleg tega je vlada trdila, da pritožniki niso upoštevali šestmesečnega roka, določenega v prvem odstavku 35. a konvencije, saj spornega stanja ni mogoče šteti kot &quot;trajajoče stanje&quot; (glej 282. odstavek sodbe senata).
The Chamber dismissed all these pleas, observing, in particular, that it could have regard to the facts which had occurred prior to ratification inasmuch as they could be considered to have created a continuous situation extending beyond that date or might have been relevant for the understanding of facts occurring after that date (see, in particular, Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no..35014/97, §§ 147-153, ECHR 2006-VIII).
Senat je zavrnil vse te ugovore, pri čemer je predvsem ugotavljal, da bi lahko upošteval dejstva pred ratifikacijo, če bi jih bilo mogoče šteti za vzrok trajajočega stanja, ki presega ta datum, ali pa bi bila lahko pomembna za razumevanje dejstev po tem datumu (glej zlasti Hutten-Czapska proti Poljski [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2006 VIII).
The repercussions of the &quot;erasure&quot;, which had been found to be unconstitutional on 3 April 2003, had still obtained on 28 June 1994 and were continuing to adversely affect the applicants more than fifteen years after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Slovenia (see paragraphs 303-306 of the Chamber judgment).
Posledice izbrisa, ki je bil 3. aprila 2003 ugotovljen za protiustavnega, so 28. junija 1994 še vedno bile in še naprej slabo vplivale na pritožnike po več kot petnajstih letih od začetka veljavnosti konvencije za Slovenijo (glej 303.-306. odstavek sodbe senata):
The Grand Chamber observes that the Government have reiterated the above objections in their memorial before the Grand Chamber.
Veliki senat ugotavlja, da je vlada ponovno poudarila navedene ugovore v svojem memorandumu, vloženem pri velikem senatu.
However, having regard to the Government&apos;s arguments, it does not see any reason to depart from the Chamber&apos;s findings.
Toda ob upoštevanju trditev vlade ne vidi razloga, da ne bi upošteval ugotovitev senata.
The Government&apos;s objections that the application is incompatible ratione materiae and ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention and was lodged out of time are accordingly dismissed.
Ugovori vlade, da je pritožba stvarno (ratione materiae) in časovno (ratione temporis) neskladna z določbami konvencije in da je bila vložena prepozno, se torej zavrnejo.
The Government submitted that the six applicants who had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits after the 2010 Chamber judgment (see paragraphs 95, 123, 133, 158, 173 and 194 above) could no longer claim to be &quot;victims&quot; of the facts complained of within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
Vlada je navedla, da šest pritožnikov, ki so jim bila izdana dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc), po sodbi senata iz leta 2010 (glej 95., 123., 133., 158., 173. in 194. odstavek) ne more več trditi, da so žrtve dejstev, o katerih se pritožujejo v smislu 34. a konvencije.
The applicants challenged this position.
Pritožniki so izpodbijali to stališče.
The Government maintained that it was an irrefutable fact that the &quot;erasure&quot; was illegal and had led to an unconstitutional situation.
Vlada je trdila, da je nesporno, da je bil izbris nezakonit in da je ustvaril protiustavni položaj.
The Republic of Slovenia had acknowledged this at both a symbolic and a legal level.
Republika Slovenija je to priznala na simbolični in pravni ravni.
On 15 June 2010 the President of the National Assembly had publicly apologised to the &quot;erased&quot;, as had the Minister for the Interior on 22 June 2010 (see paragraph 75 above).
junija 2010 se je predsednik Državnega zbora javno opravičil izbrisanim, prav tako pa 22. junija 2010 tudi minister za notranje zadeve (glej 75. odstavek).
As to the legal level, from 1999 onwards the Constitutional Court had held on several occasions that the &quot;erasure&quot; was unconstitutional (see paragraphs 41-48, 52-56, 58-60 and 214-215 above).
Glede pravne ravni je ustavno sodišče vse od leta 1999 večkrat ugotovilo, da je bil izbris protiustaven (glej 41.-48., 52.-56., 58.-60. in 214.-215. odstavek).
The applicants&apos; allegation that the Republic of Slovenia continued to deny the illegality of the &quot;erasure&quot; was therefore not accurate.
Navedba pritožnikov, da je Republika Slovenija še naprej zanikala nezakonitost izbrisa, je torej netočna.
Significant activities had been performed in order to comply fully with the Constitutional Court&apos;s decisions and to redress the unlawfulness and the unconstitutionality of the &quot;erasure&quot;.
Izvedene so bile pomembne dejavnosti, da bi v celoti zadostili odločbam ustavnega sodišča in popravili nezakonitost in protiustavnost izbrisa.
The amended Legal Status Act, which had been passed on 8 March 2010 and had entered into force on 24 July 2010 (see paragraphs 71, 76-79 and 211 above), had eliminated the remaining unconstitutionalities in the domestic legislation, offering the applicants who had not yet settled their legal status the possibility of requesting both ex nunc and ex tunc residence permits.
Spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD, ki je bil sprejet 8. marca 2010 in je začel veljati 24. julija 2010 (glej 71., 76.-79. in 211. odstavek), je odpravil preostale protiustavnosti v notranji zakonodaji, pri čemer je pritožnikom, ki še niso rešili svojega pravnega statusa, ponudil možnost za prošnjo za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc).