natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Government&apos;s efforts to regularise the status of the &quot;erased&quot; by issuing residence permits ex proprio motu and by implementing the amended Legal Status Act were welcomed.
Dobro je bilo sprejeto prizadevanje vlade, da bi uredila status izbrisanih z izdajo dovoljenj za prebivanje iz lastnega nagiba (ex proprio motu) ter z izvajanjem spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD.
However, UNHCR remained concerned that the reforms would not allow all those affected by the &quot;erasure&quot; to receive a permanent residence permit and citizenship because of the onerous requirements imposed.
Kljub temu je bil UNHCR še naprej zaskrbljen, da reforme zaradi zahtevnosti postavljenih meril ne bodo omogočile pridobitve dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje in državljanstva vsem, ki jih je prizadel izbris.
The other third-party interveners basically agreed with the submissions of Open Society Justice Initiative.
Preostale tretje strani, ki so sodelovale v postopku, so se na splošno strinjale z navedbami Open Society Justice Initiative.
The Chamber observed that before 1991 the applicants had had their lawful permanent residence on Slovenian territory under the SFRY legislation applicable at the material time for several years, and most of them for decades, and had had a stronger residence status than long-term migrants.
Senat je ugotovil, da so pritožniki pred letom 1991 v skladu z zakonodajo SFRJ, veljavno v tistem obdobju, zakonito stalno prebivali na slovenskem ozemlju več let in večina od njih celo desetletij ter da so imeli močnejši status prebivalca kakor dolgotrajni priseljenci.
They had all spent a substantial part of their lives in Slovenia and had developed there the network of personal, social, cultural, linguistic and economic relations that made up the private life of every human being; most of them had also formed families in Slovenia or maintained ties with their families living there.
Vsi so preživeli velik del življenja v Sloveniji ter razvili mrežo osebnih, socialnih, kulturnih, jezikovnih in ekonomskih vezi, ki sestavljajo zasebno življenje vsakega človeškega bitja; večina je v Sloveniji zasnovala tudi družino ali vzdrževala vezi s sorodniki, živečimi v Sloveniji.
The Chamber concluded that the applicants had therefore had a private or family life or both in Slovenia at the material time within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.
Senat je ugotovil, da so imeli torej pritožniki v Sloveniji v spornem času zasebno ali družinsko življenje ali pa oboje v smislu prvega odstavka 8. člena konvencije.
Furthermore, the repercussions of the &quot;erasure&quot; and the prolonged refusal of the Slovenian authorities to comprehensively regulate the applicants&apos; situation constituted an interference with the exercise of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention, in particular in cases of statelessness (see paragraphs 348-361 of the Chamber judgment).
Poleg tega so posledice izbrisa in dolgotrajno zavračanje slovenske oblasti, da bi celovito uredila položaj pritožnikov, posegli v uresničevanje njihovih pravic po 8. členu konvencije, predvsem v primerih brezdržavljanstva (glej 348.-361. odstavek sodbe senata).
As to whether that interference was &quot;in accordance with the law&quot; under paragraph 2 of Article 8, the Chamber held that the &quot;erasure&quot; had been found to be unlawful by the Constitutional Court and saw no reason to depart from that court&apos;s decisions.
Glede tega, ali je bil ta poseg &quot;v skladu z zakonom&quot; na podlagi drugega odstavka 8. člena, je senat razsodil, da je ustavno sodišče ugotovilo nezakonitost izbrisa in zato ne vidi razloga, da bi odstopal od odločb tega sodišča.
The Chamber therefore found a violation of Article 8, also in the light of relevant international-law standards aimed at the avoidance of statelessness, especially in situations of State succession (see paragraphs 362-376 of the Chamber judgment).
Senat je tako ugotovil kršitev 8. člena tudi glede na ustrezne standarde mednarodnega prava, katerih cilj je preprečevanje brezdržavljanstva, zlasti v primerih nasledstva držav (glej 362.-376. odstavek sodbe senata).
The Grand Chamber observes at the outset that the Government did not contest before it that the &quot;erasure&quot; and its repercussions had had an adverse effect on the applicants and amounted to an interference with their &quot;private or family life&quot; or both within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 96, ECHR 2003-X).
Veliki senat najprej ugotavlja, da vlada pred njim ni izpodbijala, da so izbris in njegove posledice slabo učinkovali na pritožnike ter posegli v njihovo &quot;zasebno ali družinsko življenje&quot; ali pa oboje v smislu prvega odstavka 8. člena konvencije (glej Slivenko proti Latviji [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2003-X).
Having regard to both parties&apos; arguments, the Grand Chamber sees no reason to depart from the Chamber&apos;s findings that, although the &quot;erasure&quot; had been carried out before 28 June 1994, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia, the applicants had a private or family life or both in Slovenia within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention at the material time, and that the &quot;erasure&quot; interfered with their Article 8 rights and continues to do so (see paragraph 337 above).
Ob upoštevanju trditev obeh strank veliki senat ne vidi razloga, da bi odstopal od ugotovitev senata, da čeprav je bil izbris izveden pred 28. junijem 1994, ko je konvencija začela veljati za Slovenijo, so pritožniki v Sloveniji v spornem času imeli zasebno ali družinsko življenje ali pa oboje v smislu prvega odstavka 8. a konvencije ter da je izbris posegel v njihove pravice po 8. u konvencije in je še vedno tako (glej 337. odstavek).
It remains to be examined whether that interference was compatible with the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention, that is, whether it was &quot;in accordance with the law&quot;, pursued one or more of the legitimate aims listed in that paragraph and was &quot;necessary in a democratic society&quot;.
Treba pa je proučiti, ali je bil poseg v skladu z drugim odstavkom 8. a konvencije, torej ali je bil &quot;v skladu z zakonom&quot;, ali je sledil enemu ali več zakonitim ciljem iz tega odstavka in ali je bil &quot;nujen v demokratični družbi&quot;.
According to the Court&apos;s established case-law, the expression &quot;in accordance with the law&quot; requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, and it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-II, and Slivenko, cited above, § 100).
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča izraz &quot;v skladu z zakonom&quot; zahteva, da ima izpodbijani ukrep podlago v domačem pravu, prav tako pa se nanaša na kakovost ustreznih predpisov, saj zahteva, da morajo biti osebam, na katere se nanašajo, dostopni in predvidljivi po svojih učinkih (glej zadevo Amann proti Švici [VS], št. 27798/95, 50. odstavek, ESČP 2000-II, in Slivenko, 100. odstavek).
The Court observes that the &quot;erasure&quot; of the applicants&apos; names from the Register, together with the names of more than 25,000 other former SFRY citizens, occurred as a result of the joint effect of two sections of the independence legislation enacted on 25 June 1991:
Sodišče ugotavlja, da so bila imena pritožnikov in imena več kot 25.000 nekdanjih državljanov SFRJ izbrisana iz registra stalnega prebivalstva zaradi skupnega učinka dveh delov osamosvojitvene zakonodaje, ki je začela veljati 25. junija 1991:
section 40 of the Citizenship Act and section 81 of the Aliens Act (see paragraphs 25 and 27 above).
40. a Zakona o državljanstvu in 81. a Zakona o tujcih (glej 25. in 27. odstavek).
Those ex-SFRY citizens with the citizenship of one of the other republics and permanent residence in Slovenia who failed to submit requests for Slovenian citizenship by 25 December 1991, or whose requests had been rejected, fell under the second subsection of section 81 of the Aliens Act.
Za tiste nekdanje državljane SFRJ, ki so imeli državljanstvo ene od drugih republik in stalno prebivališče v Sloveniji ter niso vložili prošnje za slovensko državljanstvo do 25. decembra 1991 ali pa so bile njihove prošnje zavrnjene, je veljal drugi odstavek 81. a Zakona o tujcih.
On 26 February 1992, when the latter provision became directly applicable, the applicants became aliens.
Pritožniki so 26. februarja 1992, ko se je ta določba začela neposredno uporabljati, postali tujci.
The Court considers that section 40 of the Citizenship Act and section 81 of the Aliens Act were legal instruments which were accessible to any interested persons.
Sodišče meni, da sta bila 40. Zakona o državljanstvu in 81. Zakona o tujcih pravni sredstvi, dostopni vsem interesentom.
The applicants could therefore foresee that by failing to apply for Slovenian nationality, they would be treated as aliens.
Pritožniki so tako lahko predvideli, da bodo obravnavani kot tujci, če ne bodo zaprosili za slovensko državljanstvo.
However, in the Court&apos;s opinion, they could not reasonably have expected, in the absence of any clause to that effect, that their status as aliens would entail the unlawfulness of their residence on Slovenian territory and would lead to such an extreme measure as the &quot;erasure&quot;.
Po mnenju Sodišča pa glede na to, da ni bilo nikakršne ustrezne določbe, niso mogli utemeljeno pričakovati, da bo posledica njihovega statusa tujca nezakonitost njihovega prebivanja na slovenskem ozemlju in tak skrajni ukrep, kakršen je izbris.
In this connection, it is to be recalled that the &quot;erasure&quot; was carried out automatically and without prior notification.
V tej zvezi je treba pripomniti, da je bil izbris opravljen samodejno in brez poprejšnjega obvestila.
Nor were the applicants given the opportunity to challenge it before the competent domestic authorities or to give explanations as to the reasons for their failure to apply for Slovenian citizenship.
Pritožniki tudi niso imeli možnosti, da bi zadevo izpodbijali pred pristojnimi domačimi organi ali obrazložili, zakaj niso zaprosili za slovensko državljanstvo.
The absence of any notification or personal information could have led them to believe that their status as residents had remained unchanged and that they could continue residing and working in Slovenia as they had done for several years.
Ker ni bilo nikakršnega obvestila ali osebne informacije, bi lahko verjeli, da je njihov status prebivalca ostal nespremenjen ter da še naprej lahko prebivajo in delajo v Sloveniji tako kot že vrsto let pred tem.
Indeed, it was only incidentally that they learned about the &quot;erasure&quot; (see paragraphs 89, 111, 126, 137, 162 and 177 above).
Res so izvedeli o izbrisu zgolj po naključju (glej 89., 111., 126., 137., 162. in 177. odstavek).
Serious doubts may therefore arise as to the foreseeability of the measure complained of.
Tako se lahko porajajo resni dvomi o predvidljivosti ukrepa, nad katerim se pritožujejo.
Moreover, the Court cannot but attach significant weight to the fact that in its leading decision of 4 February 1999, the Constitutional Court held that the transfer of the names of the &quot;erased&quot; from the Register of Permanent Residents to the Register of Aliens without a Residence Permit had no domestic legal basis; neither the Aliens Act nor the Inhabitants&apos; Evidence of Residence and Population Registry Act provided for such ex lege deregistration and transfer (see paragraphs 41 and 214 above).
Poleg tega Sodišče pripisuje precejšnjo težo dejstvu, da je ustavno sodišče v temeljni odločbi z dne 4. februarja 1999 razsodilo, da za prenos imen izbrisanih iz registra stalnega prebivalstva v register tujcev brez dovoljenja za prebivanje ni bilo domače pravne podlage; niti Zakon o tujcih niti Zakon o evidenci nastanitve občanov in o registru prebivalstva nista zagotovila take odjave in prenosa po zakonu (ex lege) (glej 41. in 214. odstavek).
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court found that no legal provision regulated the transition of the legal status of the &quot;erased&quot; to the status of aliens living in Slovenia; sections 13 and 16 of the Aliens Act (see paragraph 207 above) were designed for aliens entering Slovenia and were therefore not applicable to the applicants (see paragraphs 41-42, 44-45 and 214 above).
Poleg tega je ustavno sodišče ugotovilo, da nobena pravna določba ni urejala prehoda iz pravnega statusa izbrisanih v pravni status tujcev, živečih v Sloveniji; 13. in 16. Zakona o tujcih (glej 207. odstavek) sta bila oblikovana za tujce, ki vstopajo v Slovenijo, in zato nista veljala za pritožnike (glej 41.-42. odstavek, 44.-45. odstavek in 214. odstavek).
There was therefore a legal vacuum in the legislation at the time since for those ex-SFRY citizens holding the citizenship of one of the other republics who fell within the scope of the second subsection of section 81 of the Aliens Act, no procedure was put in place to request permanent residence permits.
Tako je tedaj v zakonodaji nastala pravna praznina, saj za tiste nekdanje državljane SFRJ z državljanstvom ene od drugih republik, za katere je veljal drugi odstavek 81. Zakona o tujcih, ni bil določen postopek, po katerem bi lahko zaprosili za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje.
Under section 13 of the Aliens Act, they could only apply for a temporary residence permit, as if they were aliens entering Slovenia with a valid visa who wished to remain longer on Slovenian territory.
Na podlagi 13. člena Zakona o tujcih so lahko zaprosili samo za dovoljenje za začasno prebivanje, kot če bi bili tujci, ki vstopajo v Slovenijo z veljavnim vizumom in bi želeli ostati na slovenskem ozemlju dalj časa.
In addition, it is evident from the administrative circulars addressed by the Ministry of the Interior to the administrative units, in particular those dated 27 February and 15 June 1992 relating to the implementation of the Aliens Act, the interpretation of section 81 and the keeping of records (see paragraphs 28, 30 and 35 above), that the Slovenian authorities were aware at the material time of the negative consequences of the &quot;erasure&quot;, which was carried out in secret.
Poleg tega je iz upravnih okrožnic, ki jih je ministrstvo naslovilo na upravne enote, predvsem tistih z datumom 27. februar in 15. junij 1992 ter nanašajočih se na izvajanje Zakona o tujcih, na razlago 81. člena in vodenje evidenc (glej 28., 30. in 35. odstavek), razvidno, da so se v spornem času slovenski organi zavedali negativnih posledic izbrisa, ki je bil izveden tajno.
By definition, these administrative circulars were not accessible to the applicants.
Te upravne okrožnice pritožnikom niso bile dostopne.
The Court therefore finds that, until 8 July 1999, when the Legal Status Act was passed, the impugned Slovenian legislation and administrative practice which resulted in the &quot;erasure&quot; lacked the requisite standards of foreseeability and accessibility, as developed in the Court&apos;s case-law.
Sodišče zato ugotavlja, da izpodbijana slovenska zakonodaja in upravna praksa, katerih posledica je bil izbris, do 8. julija 1999, ko je bil sprejet ZUSDDD, nista vsebovali potrebnih standardov predvidljivosti in dostopnosti, kot jih je razvila sodna praksa Sodišča.
It is true that following the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision of 4 February 1999, on 8 July 1999 the Legal Status Act was passed in order to regularise the situation of the &quot;erased&quot; (see paragraphs 49-50 above).
Res pa je, da je bil 8. julija 1999 po odločbi ustavnega sodišča z dne 4. februarja 1999 sprejet ZUSDDD, zato da se uredi položaj izbrisanih (glej 49.-50. odstavek).
However, the Constitutional Court held on 3 April 2003 that certain provisions of the Legal Status Act were unconstitutional, in particular since they failed to grant the &quot;erased&quot; retroactive permanent residence permits and to regulate the situation of those who had been deported (see paragraphs 58-60 and 215 above).
Toda 3. aprila 2003 je ustavno sodišče razsodilo, da so nekatere določbe ZUSDDD neustavne, zlasti zato, ker izbrisanim niso zagotovile dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj in ker niso uredile položaja tistih, ki so bili izgnani iz države (glej 58.-60. odstavek in 215. odstavek).
Finally, it took more than seven years, until 24 July 2010, for the latter decision of the Constitutional Court ordering general measures to be complied with, when the amended Legal Status Act was enacted (see paragraph 76 above).
Končno je trajalo več kot sedem let, tj. vse do 24. julija 2010, ko je bil sprejet spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD (glej 76. odstavek), da je bila izpolnjena navedena odločba ustavnega sodišča, ki je zahtevala uvedbo splošnih ukrepov.
It follows that, at least until 2010, the domestic legal system failed to regulate clearly the consequences of the &quot;erasure&quot; and the residence status of those who had been subjected to it.
Iz tega izhaja, da vsaj do leta 2010 domači pravni sistem ni jasno uredil posledic izbrisa in statusa prebivalca tistih, ki jih je izbris zajel.
Therefore, not only were the applicants not in a position to foresee the measure complained of, but they were also unable to envisage its repercussions on their private or family life or both.
Torej ne samo da pritožniki niso mogli predvideti ukrepa, nad katerim se pritožujejo, ampak tudi niso mogli predvideti njegovih posledic na zasebno ali družinsko življenje ali pa oboje.
This is sufficient for the Court to come to the conclusion that the interference with the applicants&apos; Article 8 rights was not &quot;in accordance with the law&quot; and that this provision has been violated.
To pa Sodišču zadostuje za ugotovitev, da poseganje v pravice pritožnikov po 8. u ni bilo &quot;v skladu z zakonom&quot; in da je bila ta določba kršena.
However, in the particular circumstances of the present case, and given the widespread repercussions of the &quot;erasure&quot;, the Court considers it necessary to examine also whether, quite apart from its lack of sufficient legal basis, this measure pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate to it.
Sodišče v konkretnih okoliščinah te zadeve in zaradi obsežnih posledic izbrisa meni, da je treba ločeno od pomanjkanja zadostne pravne podlage tudi proučiti, ali je ta ukrep sledil zakonitemu cilju in bil z njim sorazmeren.
The Government submitted that at the time when the new State was being created, the independence legislation had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national security.
Vlada je navedla, da je med nastajanjem nove države osamosvojitvena zakonodaja sledila zakonitemu cilju zaščite državne varnosti.
Moreover, the right for the State to control the entry and residence of aliens within its territory presupposed that it could take dissuasive measures, such as deportation, against persons infringing immigration laws (see paragraph 325 above).
Poleg tega je pravica države, da nadzoruje vstop in prebivanje tujcev na svojem ozemlju, predvidela, da lahko sprejme odvračilne ukrepe, kakršen je izgon, zoper osebe, ki kršijo zakone priseljevanja (glej 325. odstavek).
The Court considers that the aim of the independence legislation and the measures taken in respect of the applicants cannot be dissociated from the wider context of the dissolution of the SFRY, the achievement of Slovenia&apos;s independence in 1991 and the establishment of an effective political democracy, which entailed the formation of a &quot;corpus of Slovenian citizens&quot; with a view to the parliamentary elections.
Sodišče meni, da cilja osamosvojitvene zakonodaje in ukrepov, ki so bili sprejeti v zvezi s pritožniki, ni mogoče ločiti od širših okoliščin razpada SFRJ, uresničevanja neodvisnosti Slovenije leta 1991 in vzpostavitve učinkovite politične demokracije, ki je vključevala oblikovanje &quot;slovenskega državljanskega telesa&quot; zaradi državnozborskih volitev.
The interference complained of (the &quot;erasure&quot;) has to be seen within this general framework.
Poseg, nad katerim se pritožniki pritožujejo (izbris), je treba videti v tem splošnem okviru.
The Court therefore considers that with the enactment of the independence legislation, which contained an option for all citizens of the other former republics of the SFRY resident in Slovenia to acquire Slovenian citizenship within a short period of time only, the Slovenian authorities sought to create a &quot;corpus of Slovenian citizens&quot; and thus to protect the interests of the country&apos;s national security (see, mutatis mutandis, Slivenko, cited above, §§ 110-111), a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
Sodišče zato meni, da si je slovenska oblast z uzakonitvijo osamosvojitvene zakonodaje, ki je vsebovala možnost, da vsi državljani republik nekdanje SFRJ, ki so prebivali v Sloveniji, edino v kratkem obdobju pridobijo slovensko državljanstvo, prizadevala ustvariti &quot;slovensko državljansko telo&quot; in tako zaščititi interese državne varnosti (smiselno glej Slivenko, 110.-111. odstavek), kar je zakoniti cilj v smislu drugega odstavka 8. člena konvencije.
This independence legislation, however, had adverse consequences for those former SFRY citizens who had not applied for Slovenian citizenship within the prescribed time-limit of six months and who consequently became aliens unlawfully residing on Slovenian territory because their names were &quot;erased&quot; from the Register of Permanent Residents.
Ta osamosvojitvena zakonodaja pa je imela negativne posledice za tiste državljane nekdanje SFRJ, ki niso zaprosili za slovensko državljanstvo v predpisanih šestih mesecih in so zato postali tujci, ki nezakonito prebivajo na slovenskem ozemlju, ker so bila njihova imena izbrisana iz registra stalnega prebivalstva.
The Court will assess the compatibility of this measure with the applicants&apos; right to respect for their private or family life or both.
Sodišče bo presodilo skladnost tega ukrepa s pravico pritožnikov do spoštovanja njihovega zasebnega ali družinskega življenja ali pa obojega.
It reiterates that a measure interfering with rights guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention can be regarded as being &quot;necessary in a democratic society&quot; if it has been taken in order to respond to a pressing social need and if the means employed are proportionate to the aims pursued.
Sodišče ponovno poudarja, da se ukrep, ki posega v pravice, zagotovljene s prvim odstavkom 8. člena konvencije, lahko šteje za &quot;potrebnega v demokratični družbi&quot;, če je bil sprejet kot odgovor na nujne družbene potrebe in če so uporabljena sredstva sorazmerna s cilji, ki se uresničujejo.
The Court&apos;s task consists in ascertaining whether the impugned measures struck a fair balance between the relevant interests, namely the individual&apos;s rights protected by the Convention on the one hand and the community&apos;s interests on the other (see Slivenko, cited above, § 113).
Naloga Sodišča je ugotoviti, ali so izpodbijani ukrepi dosegli pravično ravnotežje med ustreznimi interesi, namreč pravicami posameznika, ki jih varuje konvencija, po eni strani in interesi skupnosti po drugi strani (glej Slivenko, 113. odstavek).