natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 Chamber noted that the Constitutional Court had found the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 &amp; 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 Court will therefore examine separately the Government &amp; apos;s plea of non-exhaustion in respect of these two groups of applicants.
Sodišče bo zaradi tega ločeno obravnavalo ugovor vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev pri teh dveh skupinah pritožnikov.
who now lives in Serbia, made no attempts after her deportation to obtain a residence permit in Slovenia, in spite of the fact that the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 3 April 2003 also addressed the situation of those &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons who had been deported (see paragraphs.58-59, 128 and 215 above).
ki živi zdaj v Srbiji, si po izgonu ni prizadevala pridobiti dovoljenja za prebivanje v Sloveniji, čeprav se je odločba ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003 nanašala tudi na tiste izbrisane, ki so bili izgnani (glej 58.-59., 128. in 215. odstavek).
In the Court &amp; apos;s view, the failure by Mr to manifest in any manner their wish to reside in Slovenia, that is, to take any proper legal steps in order to regularise their residence status, shows that they did not have sufficient interest in the subject matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Neziroviæ v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 16400/06, §§ 39-41, 25.November 2008).
Po mnenju Sodišča dejstvo, da na noben način nista izrazila želje prebivati v Sloveniji, tj. nista uporabila nobenih pravnih sredstev, da bi uredila svoj status prebivalca, kaže, da za to nista imela dovolj interesa (smiselno glej Nezirović proti Sloveniji (sklep) št. 16400/06, 39.-41. odstavek, 25. november 2008).
It follows that the Government &amp; apos;s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of Mr should be upheld.
Iz tega izhaja, da se predhodnemu ugovoru vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev v primeru ugodi.
The Government first objected that these applicants had failed to lodge a constitutional appeal in their individual cases and pointed out that a number of other &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons had been successful before the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 273-274 above).
Vlada je sprva ugovarjala, da ti pritožniki posamično niso vložili ustavne pritožbe, in poudarila, da so bili številni drugi izbrisani pri ustavnem sodišču uspešni (glej 273.-274. odstavek).
When the Constitutional Court examines an individual constitutional appeal and quashes a legal act breaching the individual &amp; apos;s constitutional rights and freedoms (see section 60 of the Constitutional Court Act - paragraph 204 above), it may also remedy violations committed by authorities or officials.
Kadar ustavno sodišče obravnava posamično pritožbo in razveljavi pravni akt, ki krši posameznikove ustavne pravice in svoboščine (glej 60. Zakona o ustavnem sodišču, 204. odstavek), lahko tudi odpravi kršitve, ki so jih zagrešili organi ali uradniki.
In particular, on 4 February 1999 the Constitutional Court found the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; unlawful and unconstitutional (see paragraphs.41-48 and 214 above) and on 3 April 2003 it declared certain provisions of the Legal Status Act unconstitutional (see paragraphs 58-60 and 215 above).
Tako je 4. februarja 1999 ugotovilo, da je izbris nezakonit in protiustaven (glej 41.-48. in 214. odstavek), in 3. aprila 2003 razglasilo nekatere določbe ZUSDDD za protiustavne (glej 58.-60. in 215. odstavek).
In this connection, it is worth noting that the applicants did not contest the Government &amp; apos;s allegation that other &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons had been successful in lodging such appeals.
S tem v zvezi je treba omeniti, da pritožniki niso izpodbijali trditve vlade, da je drugim izbrisanim z vložitvijo take pritožbe uspelo.
In the Court &amp; apos;s opinion, this fact undermined trust in the effectiveness and the prospects of success of further individual constitutional appeals.
Po mnenju Sodišča je to dejstvo spodkopalo zaupanje v učinkovitost in uspeh nadaljnjih posamičnih ustavnih pritožb.
The Court notes that the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s leading decisions of 1999 and 2003 were adopted following the initiative of a number of &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons and of the Association of the &amp; quot;Erased &amp; quot; (see paragraphs 40, 58 and 214-215 above), whereas none of the applicants had previously challenged the relevant provisions of the Aliens Act or of the Legal Status Act before the Constitutional Court.
Sodišče ugotavlja, da sta bili temeljni odločbi ustavnega sodišča iz let 1999 in 2003 sprejeti na pobudo številnih izbrisanih in Društva izbrisanih prebivalcev Slovenije (glej 40., 58. in 214.-215. odstavek), medtem ko pred ustavnim sodiščem nobeden od pritožnikov pred tem ni izpodbijal določb Zakona o tujcih ali ZUSDDD.
Only Mr Ristanoviæ recently lodged a petition challenging the provisions of the amended Legal Status Act, which was joined to the petition lodged by the association Civil Initiative of the &amp; quot;Erased &amp; quot; and to petitions lodged by fifty-one other individuals (see paragraph 81 above).
Samo Tripun Ristanović je pred kratkim vložil pobudo zoper določbe spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD, pridruženo pobudam, ki jih je vložilo Društvo civilna iniciativa izbrisanih prebivalcev in enainpetdeset drugih posameznikov (glej 81. odstavek).
However, the Court cannot but reiterate that the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s leading decisions of 1999 and 2003, both ordering general measures, were not fully complied with for several years (see paragraph 298 above).
Sodišče pa mora poudariti, da dve temeljni odločbi ustavnega sodišča iz let 1999 in 2003, ki sta zahtevali uvedbo splošnih ukrepov, vrsto let nista bili v celoti upoštevani (glej 298. odstavek).
The essence of the applicants &amp; apos; complaints had, at the material time, already been addressed by those leading decisions (see, mutatis mutandis, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 122, ECHR 2007-IV).
Bistvo pritožb pritožnikov je bilo v spornem času že obravnavano v teh temeljnih odločbah (smiselno glej D. H. in drugi proti Češki [VS], št. 57325/00, 122. odstavek, ESČP 2007-IV).
Prior to the issuance of the residence permits to the six applicants during the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, the Government also objected that some of the applicants had failed to submit requests under the amended Legal Status Act, which was in their view a systemic instrument regulating comprehensively the status of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; (see paragraph 276 above).
Pred izdajo dovoljenja za prebivanje šestim pritožnikom med postopkom pred velikim senatom je vlada oporekala, da nekateri pritožniki niso vložili prošenj po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD, ki je bil po njenem mnenju sistemsko pravno sredstvo za celostno urejanje statusa izbrisanih (glej 276. odstavek).
It entered into force on 24 July 2010 (see paragraph 76 above), almost immediately after the delivery of the Chamber judgment on 13 July 2010, in which the applicants &amp; apos; complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention were declared admissible (see paragraph 9 above).
Začel je veljati 24. julija 2010 (glej 76. odstavek), skoraj takoj po sprejetju razsodbe senata 13. julija 2010, s katero so bile pritožbe pritožnikov po 8., 13. in 14. členu konvencije razglašene za sprejemljive (glej 9. odstavek).
According to the Court &amp; apos;s case-law, objections of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised after an application has been declared admissible cannot be taken into account at the merits stage (see Demades v. Turkey (merits), no. 16219/90, § 20, 31 July 2003, and Lordos and Others v. Turkey (merits), no. 15973/90, § 41, 2 November 2010).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča se ugovori glede neizčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev, vloženi po tem, ko je bila pritožba razglašena za sprejemljivo, ne morejo upoštevati na stopnji ugotavljanja utemeljenosti (glej Demades proti Turčiji (utemeljenost), št. 16219/90, 20. odstavek, 31. julij 2003, in Lordos in drugi proti Turčiji (utemeljenost), št. 15973/90, 41. odstavek, 2. november 2010).
In the instant case, the amended Legal Status Act entered into force after the applicants &amp; apos; complaints had been declared admissible.
V danem primeru je spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD začel veljati po tem, ko so bile pritožbe pritožnikov razglašene za sprejemljive.
For this reason, this part of the Government &amp; apos;s objection cannot be upheld.
Zato tega dela vladnega ugovora ni mogoče sprejeti.
The Grand Chamber observes that the applicants &amp; apos; complaints concerning the impossibility for them to obtain Slovenian citizenship were declared incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention by the Chamber (see paragraphs 231 and 236 above).
Veliki senat ugotavlja, da so bile pritožbe pritožnikov glede njihove nezmožnosti pridobiti slovensko državljanstvo časovno neskladne (ratione temporis) z določbami konvencije (glej 231. in 236. odstavek).
Accordingly, the Grand Chamber has jurisdiction to examine the applicants &amp; apos; complaints only in so far as they concern their residence status in Slovenia (see paragraph 237 above).
Veliki senat je torej pristojen, da prouči pritožbe pritožnikov samo v delu, ki se nanaša na njihov status prebivalca v Sloveniji (glej 237. odstavek).
Under these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that an application for Slovenian citizenship was not a remedy aimed at addressing the essence of the applicants &amp; apos; complaints, as delimited by the decision on the admissibility of the application.
V teh okoliščinah Sodišče meni, da prošnja za slovensko državljanstvo ni bila pravno sredstvo, namenjeno reševanju bistva pritožb pritožnikov, kot to razmejuje odločba o sprejemljivosti pritožbe.
For the above reasons, the Government &amp; apos;s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the six applicants who obtained permanent residence permits should be dismissed.
Iz navedenih razlogov se predhodni ugovor vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev šestih pritožnikov, ki so prejeli dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje, zavrne.
As a result, on 26 February 1992 their names had been unlawfully &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; from the Register.
Posledično so bila 26. februarja 1992 njihova imena protipravno izbrisana iz registra.
As to foreseeability, the Aliens Act did not expressly apply to the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; since it was designed to regulate the status of illegal aliens.
Glede predvidljivosti Zakon o tujcih ne velja izrecno za izbrisane, saj je namenjen urejanju statusa nezakonito priseljenih tujcev.
In addition, the applicants regarded the Slovenian authorities &amp; apos; overall conduct as arbitrary.
Poleg tega so pritožniki menili, da je bilo splošno ravnanje slovenske oblasti samovoljno.
The applicants essentially agreed with the Chamber &amp; apos;s findings and urged that the Government &amp; apos;s passive attitude be stigmatised in stronger terms.
Pritožniki so se v bistvu strinjali z ugotovitvami senata in zahtevali, da se pasivni odnos vlade označi z ostrejšimi izrazi.
The &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; had been carried out arbitrarily, without any legal basis and in secret, and had concerned 25,671 persons.
Izbris je bil izveden samovoljno, brez vsake pravne podlage in na skrivaj, prizadel pa je 25.671 oseb.
It was only in 1999, after the decision of the Constitutional Court, that the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; had begun to discover what had really happened.
Šele leta 1999, po odločitvi ustavnega sodišča, so izbrisani začeli ugotavljati, kaj se je v resnici zgodilo.
In the subsequent years, the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decisions had been systematically and deliberately disregarded by the Government and Parliament.
V naslednjih letih sta vlada in državni zbor sistematično in namerno prezrla odločitve ustavnega sodišča.
The new framework legislation - the amended Legal Status Act - had been passed eleven years after the first leading decision on the unlawfulness of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; and seven years after the second leading ruling.
Nova okvirna zakonodaja - spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD - je bila sprejeta enajst let po prvi temeljni odločbi o nezakonitosti izbrisa in sedem let po drugi temeljni odločbi.
The &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; were not only denied access to Slovenian citizenship but were also bereft of any legal status conferring &amp; quot;the right to have rights &amp; quot;.
Izbrisanim ni bil onemogočen le dostop do slovenskega državljanstva, temveč jim je bil odvzet tudi kateri koli pravni status, po katerem bi imeli &amp; quot;pravico uveljavljati svoje pravice &amp; quot;.
The &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; irremediably affected their private or family life or both under Article 8 of the Convention, which also protected the right to establish details of a person &amp; apos;s identity as an individual human being (the applicants cited, inter alia, Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 90, ECHR 2002-VI, and Mikuliæ v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-I).
Izbris je nepopravljivo vplival na njihovo zasebno in/ali družinsko življenje glede na 8. konvencije, po katerem se zagotavlja tudi pravica do evidentiranja podatkov, ki določajo identiteto osebe kot posameznega človeškega bitja (pritožniki so med drugim navedli primera Christine Goodwin proti Združenemu kraljestvu [VS], št. 28957/95, 90. odstavek, ESČP 2002-VI, in Mikulić proti Hrvaški, št. 53176/99, 53. odstavek, ESČP 2002-I).
The difficulties the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; had to surmount were illustrated by the applicants &amp; apos; personal histories.
Težave, ki so jih morali premagovati izbrisani, so razvidne iz osebnih opisov življenja pritožnikov.
The Government had continued to minimise the unlawfulness and arbitrariness of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot;.
Vlada je še naprej podcenjevala nezakonitost in samovoljnost izbrisa.
The weakness of the Government &amp; apos;s argument that the presence of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; was tolerated was brought out by the fact that many had been forcibly deported from Slovenia, including five of the present applicants.
Pomanjkljivost ugovora vlade, da so dopuščali prisotnost izbrisanih, je postala očitna ob dejstvu, da so mnoge nasilno izgnali iz Slovenije, med njimi tudi pet sedanjih pritožnikov.
The Government had also minimised the consequences ensuing from the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decisions of 1999 and 2003. The prior legislative framework or its implementation or both by the competent administrative authorities were clearly inadequate.
Vlada je tudi podcenjevala posledice odločb ustavnega sodišča iz let 1999 in 2003. Prejšnji pravni okvir oziroma njegovo izvajanje v pristojnih upravnih organih je bilo očitno neustrezno.
According to the official data, approximately 13,000 of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; were therefore still waiting for the situation to be settled.
Po uradnih podatkih naj bi na ureditev razmer čakalo še približno 13.000 izbrisanih.
It was therefore clear that the effects of the Court &amp; apos;s judgment would extend well beyond the specific situations of each applicant since the judgment would concern the entire category of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Zato je bilo jasno, da bi učinki sodbe Sodišča presegli posebni primer vsakega posameznega pritožnika, saj bi se sodba nanašala na celotno skupino izbrisanih.
As to the Government &amp; apos;s criticism of the Chamber &amp; apos;s findings concerning statelessness, the Chamber had in any event not ruled that the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; as such had caused statelessness or that the violations of the applicants &amp; apos; rights had originated from their statelessness, but had recorded an undisputable objective fact.
V zvezi s kritiko vlade glede ugotovitev senata, ki se nanašajo na osebe brez državljanstva, senat v nobenem primeru ni presodil, da je izbris kot tak povzročil, da so osebe ostale brez državljanstva, ali da so bile kršene pravice pritožnikov zato, ker so bili brez državljanstva, temveč je samo zapisal nesporna in objektivna dejstva.
The applicants believed that the Chamber should have gone further in assessing the real impact the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; had had on citizenship rights, taking into account the relevant substantive and procedural rules of international law concerning the avoidance of statelessness.
Pritožniki so menili, da bi senat pri presoji dejanskih učinkov izbrisa na državljanske pravice moral iti še dlje ter upoštevati ustrezna vsebinska in postopkovna pravila mednarodnega prava o preprečevanju brezdržavljanstva.
The &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; had created a factual situation in which it was much more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for the applicants to regularise their citizenship in accordance with the relevant legislation either in Slovenia or in the other former republics of the SFRY.
Izbris je povzročil dejansko stanje, v katerem je bilo pritožnikom veliko težje in včasih tudi nemogoče urejati državljanstvo v skladu z ustrezno zakonodajo v Sloveniji ali v drugih nekdanjih republikah SFRJ.
The Government &amp; apos;s assumption that every former SFRY citizen should have kept his or her previous republic citizenship was not entirely correct.
Domneva vlade, da bi moral vsak državljan nekdanje SFRJ obdržati svoje prejšnje republiško državljanstvo, ni bila popolnoma točna.
Since 1968, the practice had been to enter one &amp; apos;s citizenship in the registers kept in Slovenia, but the relevant data were in practice often not reported to the republic of origin in spite of the existing legislation.
Praksa od leta 1968 je bila taka, da se je državljanstvo osebe vneslo v registre v Sloveniji, ustreznih podatkov pa kljub veljavni zakonodaji pogosto niso sporočili matični republiki.
Before the Grand Chamber, the Government acknowledged that the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; had been illegal and had led to an unconstitutional situation.
Vlada je pred velikim senatom potrdila, da je bil izbris nezakonit in je povzročil neustavni položaj.
They had fully complied in recent years with the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decisions in order to redress the consequences of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot;:
V zadnjih letih je v celoti zadostila odločbam ustavnega sodišča, da bi popravila posledice izbrisa:
Moreover, various media had been used to provide information to the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; (for example, a brochure, the Internet and a free phone line).
Poleg tega so bila za zagotavljanje informacij izbrisanim uporabljena različna sredstva obveščanja (npr. brošura, internet in brezplačna telefonska številka).
In addition, although Article 8 of the Convention could not be construed as guaranteeing, as such, the right to a particular type of residence permit, and although the choice as to the most appropriate means of achieving respect for the rights enshrined in the Convention was a matter for the domestic authorities alone (the Government cited Sisojeva and Others, cited above, § 91), the Republic of Slovenia had decided to grant the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; permanent retroactive residence permits, as the most favourable legal status for aliens.
Poleg tega pa čeprav ni mogoče šteti, da 8. konvencije sam po sebi zagotavlja pravico do posamezne vrste dovoljenja za prebivanje, in čeprav je izbira najprimernejšega sredstva za doseganje spoštovanja pravic, zapisanih v konvenciji, prepuščena zgolj domačim oblastem (vlada se je sklicevala na zadevo Sisojeva in drugi, 91. odstavek), se je Republika Slovenija odločila, da bo dodelila izbrisanim dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj kot najugodnejši pravni status za tujce.
They stressed that the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; had resulted only in the cessation of registered permanent residence and had had no impact on the individual &amp; apos;s citizenship.
Poudarila je, da je bila posledica izbrisa samo prenehanje prijavljenega stalnega prebivanja in da izbris ni vplival na posameznikovo državljanstvo.
Therefore, the Chamber &amp; apos;s findings on this issue had been legally and substantively inaccurate.
Torej so ugotovitve senata glede tega vprašanja pravno in vsebinsko netočne.
They drew attention to the concept of &amp; quot;dual citizenship &amp; quot;:
Opozorili so tudi na načelo dvojnega državljanstva:
According to UNHCR data, at the end of 2009, 4,090 former SFRY citizens who had been &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; in 1992 and were now stateless were living in Slovenia.
V skladu s podatki UNHCR je ob koncu leta 2009 v Sloveniji živelo 4090 državljanov nekdanje SFRJ, ki so bili izbrisani leta 1992 in so zdaj kot osebe brez državljanstva živeli v Sloveniji.
Open Society Justice Initiative relied on the provisions of the European Convention on Nationality, which placed a distinct emphasis on the importance of habitual residence in nationality rules, the notion of a &amp; quot;genuine and effective link &amp; quot; and the State &amp; apos;s obligation to facilitate the acquisition of nationality by stateless persons habitually resident on the territory, and in particular children.
Open Society Justice Initiative se je sklicevala na določbe Evropske konvencije o državljanstvu, ki posebej poudarja pomembnost običajnega prebivališča v pravilih o državljanstvu, pojem &amp; quot;pristne in dejanske vezi &amp; quot; in dolžnost države, da osebam brez državljanstva, ki običajno prebivajo na njenem ozemlju, še posebno otrokom, omogoči pridobitev državljanstva.
Among the group of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; in Slovenia, a significant number remained stateless.
V skupini izbrisanih v Sloveniji je ostalo brez državljanstva precej oseb.
some former SFRY citizens did not possess or could not prove their republic citizenship for different reasons (destruction of documents or registers or both in the context of an armed conflict, impossibility of obtaining confirmation of one &amp; apos;s republic citizenship at the place of birth, and so on).
nekateri državljani nekdanje SFRJ niso imeli ali niso mogli dokazati svojega republiškega državljanstva iz različnih vzrokov (uničenje dokumentov ali evidenc ali pa obojega zaradi oboroženega spopada, nezmožnost pridobiti potrdilo o republiškem državljanstvu posameznika v kraju rojstva itd.).
The Government &amp; apos;s efforts to regularise the status of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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.