natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 1 December 2005 the Government filed their written comments (see the relevant part of the report in Kuriæ and Others v..Slovenia, no. 26828/06, § 262, 13 July 2010 - hereinafter referred to as &amp; quot;the Chamber judgment &amp; quot;).
decembra 2005 je vlada predložila svoje pisne pripombe (glej ustrezni del poročila Kurić in drugi proti Sloveniji, št. odstavek, 13. julij 2010 - v nadaljnjem besedilu: &amp; quot;sodba senata &amp; quot;).
It noted as an issue of concern the situation of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Ugotovil je, da položaj izbrisanih vzbuja skrb.
The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has addressed the issue of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; on a number of occasions and addressed recommendations to the Government in order to remedy the situation (see the relevant extracts of the Commissioner &amp; apos;s reports in paragraphs 264-265 of the Chamber judgment).
Komisar Sveta Evrope za človekove pravice je večkrat obravnaval vprašanje izbrisanih in priporočil vladi, naj popravi položaj (glej ustrezne izvlečke iz komisarjevih poročil v 264.-265. odstavku sodbe senata).
Further to his visits, during which he discussed the issue of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; with the Slovenian authorities, he sent letters to the Prime Minister in office.
Po svojih obiskih, na katerih se je pogovarjal o izbrisanih s slovenskimi organi, je pošiljal pisma tedanjemu predsedniku vlade.
In his letter of 10 May 2011 he expressed appreciation of the Government &amp; apos;s determination to find a solution for &amp; quot;the erased &amp; quot;.
V svojem pismu je 10. maja 2011 izrazil zadovoljstvo ob odločenosti vlade, da poišče rešitev za izbrisane.
He nevertheless expressed concern that the law did not fully remedy the negative impact of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot;.
Kljub temu je izrazil zaskrbljenost, da zakon ni popolnoma odpravil negativnega učinka izbrisa.
Only 127 of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; had submitted requests under the new law at that time and thirty-two of them had been rejected.
Samo 127 izbrisanih je tedaj vložilo prošnje na podlagi novega zakona, od katerih je bilo 32 zavrnjenih.
He was also concerned by the non-existence of any reparation mechanism at the domestic level that would provide redress to the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Zaskrbljen je bil tudi, ker ni bilo nikakršnega načina za povrnitev škode izbrisanim na državni ravni.
He added that a number of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons had become stateless and drew attention to the Council of Europe &amp; 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 ( &amp; quot;ECRI &amp; quot;) published its third report on Slovenia, which was adopted on 30 June 2006. This report described the situation of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; 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 ( &amp; quot;ECRI &amp; 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).
&amp; 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.
&amp; 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. &amp; 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. &amp; quot;
&amp; quot;While taking note of the adoption in March 2010 of the law regulating the legal status of the &amp; apos;erased &amp; 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.
&amp; 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 &amp; apos;erased &amp; 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 ... &amp; quot;
(c) Conduct an outreach campaign to inform the &amp; apos;erased &amp; 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 &amp; apos;erasure &amp; apos;. &amp; 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.
&amp; 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 &amp; apos;erased &amp; 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.
&amp; 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 &amp; apos;erased &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; apos;erased &amp; 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 &amp; apos;erased &amp; apos; persons, including of those who belong to Roma communities and guarantee them with fair procedures for application for citizenship. &amp; 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. &amp; quot;
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 &amp; quot;adequate &amp; quot; and &amp; quot;sufficient &amp; 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 &amp; quot;victims &amp; 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 &amp; quot;učinkovito &amp; quot; in &amp; quot;zadostno &amp; 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 &amp; quot;žrtvi &amp; quot; zatrjevanih kršitev konvencije (glej 309.-311. odstavek sodbe senata).
The Chamber also held that the applicants &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; quot;adequate &amp; quot; and &amp; quot;sufficient &amp; 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 &amp; quot;učinkovito &amp; quot; in &amp; quot;zadostno &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; apos;s finding that the two applicants had lost their &amp; quot;victim &amp; quot; status.
Vlada je zahtevala od velikega senata, naj potrdi ugotovitev senata, da sta pritožnika izgubila svoj status &amp; quot;žrtve &amp; quot;.
According to the Court &amp; apos;s settled case-law, the &amp; quot;case &amp; 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 &amp; quot;case &amp; quot; referred to the Grand Chamber are therefore delimited by the Chamber &amp; 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).
Therefore, the Grand Chamber will only examine the complaints of the remaining applicants pertaining to the consequences of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 &amp; apos; complaints concerning the repercussions of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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.
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 &amp; quot;continuous &amp; 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 &amp; quot;trajajoče stanje &amp; quot; (glej 282. odstavek sodbe senata).
The repercussions of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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):
However, having regard to the Government &amp; apos;s arguments, it does not see any reason to depart from the Chamber &amp; apos;s findings.
Toda ob upoštevanju trditev vlade ne vidi razloga, da ne bi upošteval ugotovitev senata.
The Government &amp; 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 &amp; quot;victims &amp; 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 Government maintained that it was an irrefutable fact that the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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.
On 15 June 2010 the President of the National Assembly had publicly apologised to the &amp; quot;erased &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 &amp; apos; allegation that the Republic of Slovenia continued to deny the illegality of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 &amp; apos;s decisions and to redress the unlawfulness and the unconstitutionality of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot;.
Izvedene so bile pomembne dejavnosti, da bi v celoti zadostili odločbam ustavnega sodišča in popravili nezakonitost in protiustavnost izbrisa.
With this special remedy, the legislature had provided for moral satisfaction as a special form of redress for the consequences of violations resulting from the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot;.
S tem posebnim pravnim sredstvom je zakonodajalec zagotovil moralno zadoščenje kot posebno obliko poprave posledic kršitev, ki izvirajo iz izbrisa.
As to the six applicants who had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits after the Chamber judgment, their status was equivalent to that of Mr who had been considered to have lost their &amp; quot;victim &amp; quot; status by the Chamber.
Pravni status šestih pritožnikov, ki so jim bila izdana dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc) skladno s sodbo senata, je bil izenačen s pravnim statusom, ki sta po razsoji senata izgubila status žrtve.
Contrary to what the applicants alleged, a permanent residence permit was definitely not just &amp; quot;a piece of worthless paper &amp; quot;.
V nasprotju s tem, kar so zatrjevali pritožniki, dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje vsekakor ni bilo zgolj &amp; quot;list ničvrednega papirja &amp; quot;.
The applicants and other &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons had the possibility of bringing civil proceedings in order to claim compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage under the Code of Obligations 2001, and could eventually lodge a constitutional appeal.
Pritožniki in drugi izbrisani so imeli možnost sprožiti civilno tožbo za povračilo premoženjske in nepremoženjske škode v skladu z Obligacijskim zakonikom iz leta 2001 in bi lahko vložili ustavno pritožbo.
In paragraph 43 of its decision of 10 June 2010, the Constitutional Court had held that &amp; quot;the delivery of decisions on the basis of the Legal Status Act and the amended Legal Status Act on its own did not imply a new type of State liability for damage or a new legal basis for enforcing claims for damages &amp; quot; (see paragraph 74 above).
V triinštiridesetem odstavku odločbe z dne 10. junija 2010 je ustavno sodišče razsodilo, da &amp; quot;izdaja odločb na podlagi ZUSDDD ter spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD sama po sebi ne pomeni nove vrste državne odškodninske odgovornosti ali nove pravne podlage za uveljavljanje odškodninskih zahtevkov &amp; quot; (glej 74. odstavek).
In their submissions after the hearing, the Government relied on the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 5 July 2011 in one of the cases brought by the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;, from which it followed that the Constitutional Court had not yet taken a position on the question of State liability for the damage caused by the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; (see paragraph 82 above).
Vlada se je v svojih vlogah po obravnavi sklicevala na odločbo ustavnega sodišča z dne 5. julija 2011 v eni od zadev, ki jo je vložila izbrisana oseba, iz katere izhaja, da ustavno sodišče še ni sprejelo stališča do vprašanja državne odgovornosti za škodo, povzročeno z izbrisom (glej 82. odstavek).
In addition, on 26.September 2011 the Constitutional Court had not accepted for consideration a constitutional appeal lodged by one of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; (see paragraph 83 above).
Poleg tega ustavno sodišče 26. septembra 2011 ni sprejelo v obravnavo ustavne pritožbe, ki jo je vložil eden od izbrisanih (glej 83. odstavek).
Only had filed a claim for damages with the State Attorney &amp; apos;s Office, which had been rejected. Mr had not instituted court proceedings (see paragraph 160 above).
Le sta vložila odškodninski zahtevek pri državnem pravobranilstvu, ki pa ga je zavrnilo. ni sprožil sodnega postopka (glej 160. odstavek).