natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court considers that the present case is suitable for the adoption of a pilot-judgment procedure within the meaning of Rule 61 of the Rules of Court, given that one of the fundamental implications of this procedure is that the Court &amp; apos;s assessment of the situation complained of in a &amp; quot;pilot &amp; quot; case necessarily extends beyond the sole interests of the individual applicants and requires it to examine that case also from the perspective of the general measures that need to be taken in the interest of other potentially affected persons (see Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 36, ECHR 2005-IX, and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 33, 28 April 2008).
Sodišče meni, da je ta zadeva primerna za postopek sprejemanja pilotne sodbe v smislu 61. a Poslovnika Sodišča, ker je ena temeljnih posledic tega postopka, da presoja Sodišča v zvezi s stanjem, ki se očita v &amp; quot;pilotni &amp; quot; zadevi, neizogibno presega izključne interese posameznih pritožnikov in da od njega zahteva preverjanje te zadeve tudi z vidika splošnih ukrepov, ki jih je treba sprejeti v interesu drugih oseb, morebiti prav tako prizadetih (glej Broniowski proti Poljski (prijateljska poravnava) [VS], št. 31443/96, 36. odstavek, ESČP, 2005-IX, in Hutten-Czapska proti Poljski (prijateljska poravnava) [VS], št. odstavek, 28. 4. 2008).
Although only a few similar applications lodged by &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons are currently pending before the Court, in the context of systemic, structural or similar violations the potential inflow of future cases is also an important consideration in terms of preventing the accumulation of such repetitive cases on the Court &amp; apos;s docket.
Čeprav je pri Sodišču le še nekaj podobnih nerešenih pritožb, ki so jih vložili izbrisani, je glede na sistemske, strukturne ali podobne kršitve morebiten priliv prihodnjih zadev prav tako zelo pomemben,, da se prepreči kopičenje takih ponavljajočih se zadev na seznamu Sodišča.
The applicants contended that the Government &amp; apos;s position that they should first file their compensation claims before the domestic courts or the State Attorney &amp; apos;s Office had no merit (they cited Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, § 17, Series A no. 285-C).
Pritožniki so trdili, da stališče vlade, po katerem naj bi svoje odškodninske zahtevke najprej vložili pri domačih sodiščih ali državnem pravobranilstvu, ni bilo utemeljeno (navedli so Barberŕ, Messegué in Jabardo proti Španiji (50. ), 13. 6. 1994, 17. odstavek, serija A, št. 285-C).
Each applicant with no income requested an amount corresponding to the social and housing allowances which he or she could have received if the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; had not taken place.
Vsak pritožnik brez prihodkov je zahteval znesek, ki ustreza socialnim in stanovanjskim dodatkom, ki bi jih lahko prejel ali prejela, če ne bi bilo izbrisa.
Furthermore, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicants stated that the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; had had extremely serious consequences for them and had caused dramatic and wide-ranging upheaval in their lives: unregulated status, loss of employment, living conditions unworthy of a human being, and serious health problems for many of them.
Poleg tega so pritožniki glede nepremoženjske škode navedli, da je imel izbris zanje izjemno hude posledice in je v njihovem življenju povzročil dramatičen in obsežen prelom: neurejen status, izgubo zaposlitve, človeka nevredne življenjske razmere in za mnoge od njih hude zdravstvene težave.
In short, they had sustained different forms of suffering recognised by the Court &amp; apos;s case-law:
Na kratko, izpostavljeni so bili različnim oblikam trpljenja, ki ga priznava sodna praksa Sodišča:
They contended that the non-pecuniary damage should be calculated from February 1999, the date of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s first decision, and claimed the following amounts:
Trdili so, da bi se morala nepremoženjska škoda izračunati od februarja 1999 oziroma datuma prve odločbe ustavnega sodišča, in zahtevali te zneske:
Only Mr Berisha and Mr Miniæ had filed a partial claim for damages with the State Attorney &amp; apos;s Office, which had been rejected.
Le Ali Berisha in Zoran Minić sta vložila delni odškodninski zahtevek pri državnem pravobranilstvu, a to ga je zavrnilo.
According to the Court &amp; apos;s case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XI).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča je pritožnik upravičen do povrnitve stroškov in izdatkov le, če dokaže, da so dejansko nastali, da so bili potrebni in da so razumno visoki (glej na primer Iatridis proti Grčiji (pravično zadoščenje) [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2000-XI).
Dismisses, unanimously, 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;
soglasno zavrne ugovore vlade, da je pritožba stvarno (ratione materiae) in časovno (ratione temporis) neskladna z določbami konvencije in je bila vložena prepozno;
Holds, unanimously, that may claim to be &amp; quot;victims &amp; quot;, for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, of the alleged violations of their Convention rights;
soglasno razsoja, da po 34. členu konvencije lahko trdijo, da so &amp; quot;žrtve &amp; quot; zatrjevanih kršitev svojih pravic iz konvencije;
Upholds, by nine votes to eight, the Government &amp; apos;s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of Mr
z devetimi glasovi proti osmim ugodi predhodnemu ugovoru vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev v primeru;
Dismisses, unanimously, the Government &amp; apos;s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the remaining applicants;
soglasno zavrne predhodni ugovor vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev preostalih pritožnikov;
Dismisses, unanimously, the remainder of the applicants &amp; apos; claims under Article 41 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
soglasno zavrne preostali del zahtevkov pritožnikov po 41. členu v zvezi z nepremoženjsko škodo ter stroški in izdatki.
In this historical reassessment, the French would say: &amp; quot;A quoi tout cela a-t-il servi? &amp; quot;
Pri tej zgodovinski ponovni ocenitvi bi Francozi rekli: &amp; quot;A quoi tout cela a-t-il servi? &amp; quot;
In this case the Court unanimously found a clear violation of Article 8 of the Convention, considering that the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; of the applicants amounted to an interference with their &amp; quot;private or family life &amp; 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).
Sodišče je v tej zadevi soglasno ugotovilo nedvomno kršitev 8. člena konvencije glede na to, da je bil za pritožnike izbris poseg v njihovo &amp; quot;zasebno ali družinsko življenje &amp; quot; ali oboje v smislu prvega odstavka 8. a konvencije (glej Slivenko proti Latviji [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2003-X).
The main and the worst consequence of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; was that it was factually and legally impossible for the applicants to obtain permanent residence permits and/or Slovenian citizenship, and thus to continue to enjoy the full range of social and political rights which they had enjoyed prior to Slovenia &amp; apos;s independence, having been lawfully residing there for several years, or even decades, as former SFRY citizens.
Glavna in najhujša posledica izbrisa je bila, da pritožniki dejansko in pravno niso mogli pridobiti dovoljenja za stalno prebivališče oziroma slovenskega državljanstva, na podlagi katerega bi še naprej uživali vse socialne in politične pravice, ki so jih imeli pred osamosvojitvijo Slovenije, v kateri so kot državljani nekdanje SFRJ zakonito prebivali mnoga leta ali celo desetletja.
As the Court pointed out in paragraph 356 of the judgment, &amp; quot;owing to the &amp; apos;erasure &amp; apos;, they experienced a number of adverse consequences, such as the destruction of identity documents, loss of job opportunities, loss of health insurance, the impossibility of renewing identity documents or driving licences, and difficulties in regulating pension rights.
Kot je Sodišče poudarilo v 356. odstavku sodbe, so zaradi izbrisa &amp; quot;pretrpeli veliko negativnih posledic, kakršne so uničenje osebnih dokumentov, izguba možnosti za delo, izguba zdravstvenega zavarovanja, nemožnost podaljšanja veljavnosti osebnih dokumentov ali vozniškega dovoljenja in težave pri urejanju pokojninskih pravic.
Indeed, the legal vacuum in the independence legislation ... deprived the applicants of their legal status, which had previously given them access to a wide range of rights &amp; quot; (emphasis added).
Dejansko je pravna praznina v osamosvojitveni zakonodaji … pritožnikom odvzela njihov pravni status, ki jim je prej omogočal dostop do cele vrste pravic &amp; quot; (poudarek dodan).
This is no &amp; quot;ordinary violation &amp; quot; of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.
To ni &amp; quot;navadna kršitev &amp; quot; prvega odstavka 8. člena konvencije.
By their &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; the applicants were de facto deprived of their legal personality, because they had been simply and ruthlessly &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; from the legal order of Slovenia.
Z izbrisom je bila pritožnikom dejansko odvzeta njihova pravna osebnost, ker so bili enostavno in neusmiljeno izbrisani iz slovenskega pravnega reda.
They ceased to exist as &amp; quot;legal subjects &amp; quot; - that is, as &amp; quot;natural persons &amp; quot; in the Slovenian legal system.
Kot &amp; quot;pravni subjekti &amp; quot; oziroma kot &amp; quot;fizične osebe &amp; quot; so v slovenskem pravnem sistemu prenehali obstajati.
Needless to say, this runs counter to the applicants &amp; apos; inherent human personality and dignity.
Odveč je reči, da je to v nasprotju z neločljivo človeško osebnostjo in dostojanstvom pritožnikov.
As the Court has ruled on several occasions, the concept of &amp; quot;private life &amp; quot; is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition.
Kot je Sodišče že večkrat presodilo, je &amp; quot;zasebno življenje &amp; quot; širok pojem, ki se ne more v celoti opredeliti.
It can therefore embrace multiple aspects of the person &amp; apos;s physical, social and moral identity and dignity.
Zato lahko zajema tudi mnogovrstne vidike telesne, družbene in moralne celovitosti osebe.
The right to private life cannot be restricted to the so-called &amp; quot;inner circle &amp; quot; of human existence, in which an individual may live his or her own personal life as he or she chooses, thus excluding entirely the outside world not encompassed within that circle.
Pravica do zasebnega življenja se ne more omejiti na tako imenovani &amp; quot;notranji krog &amp; quot; človekovega bivanja, v katerem lahko posameznik živi svoje osebno življenje po lastni izbiri, s čimer popolnoma izključi zunanji svet, ki ga ta krog ne zajema.
It follows necessitate nature that Article 8 protects in addition the right to personal development and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings as well as the outside world, even in the public context, which may also fall within the scope of &amp; quot;private life &amp; quot; (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008, and P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, ECHR 2001-IX).
Iz te necessitate nature izhaja, da 8. člen varuje tudi pravico do osebnega razvoja ter pravico do vzpostavljanja in razvoja odnosov z drugimi človeškimi bitji, pa tudi z zunanjim svetom, celo v povezavi z javnim, kar prav tako lahko spada v &amp; quot;zasebno življenje &amp; quot; (glej S. in Marper proti Združenemu kraljestvu [VS], št. 30562/04 in 30566/04, 66. odstavek, ESČP 2008, ter P. G. in J. H. proti Združenemu kraljestvu, št. 44787/98, ESČP 2001-IX).
On the one hand, it is absolutely clear that the right to legal personality is a basic precondition and essential necessity both for the realisation and enjoyment of the aforementioned different aspects of private life, including the so-called &amp; quot;inner circle &amp; quot;, and also - in the public context - for the &amp; quot;external development &amp; quot; of personality.
Po eni strani je popolnoma jasno, da je pravica do pravne osebnosti temeljni pogoj in bistvena nujnost za uresničevanje in uživanje že omenjenih različnih vidikov zasebnega življenja, vključno s tako imenovanim &amp; quot;notranjim krogom &amp; quot;, pa tudi - v povezavi z javnim - za &amp; quot;zunanji razvoj &amp; quot; osebnosti.
The restriction or denial of this right can take place through two principal means of &amp; quot;vulgar positivism &amp; quot;:
Ta pravica se lahko omeji ali zanika z dvema glavnima sredstvoma &amp; quot;vulgarnega pozitivizma &amp; quot;:
the passing of &amp; quot;illegal and illegitimate laws &amp; quot;, that is, laws with illegal and illegitimate aims or with an &amp; quot;anti-human content &amp; quot;; and the improper and arbitrary implementation of formally &amp; quot;legal and legitimate laws &amp; quot;, as happened in the present case.
s sprejemanjem &amp; quot;nezakonitih in nelegitimnih zakonov &amp; quot;, namreč zakonov z nezakonitimi in nelegitimnimi cilji ali s &amp; quot;protičloveško vsebino &amp; quot;, ter z nepravilnim in samovoljnim izvajanjem formalno &amp; quot;zakonitih in legitimnih zakonov &amp; quot;, kot se je zgodilo v tej zadevi.
Divesting the applicants of their legal personality by virtue of the large-scale &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; deprived them not only of their legal status, which had previously given them access to a wide range of rights.
Z odvzemom pravne osebnosti pritožnikom na podlagi velikopoteznega izbrisa ti niso bili le prikrajšani za pravni status, ki jim je prej omogočal dostop do cele vrste pravic.
Not only the legal vacuum in the independence legislation (see paragraphs 344-356 of the judgment), but also the deliberate implementation of this legislation through secret and subordinate regulations with clearly illegitimate aims, placed additional, insurmountable administrative obstacles in the applicants &amp; apos; way and thwarted the subsequent success of their legitimate claims for regularisation of their legal status.
Ne le pravna praznina v osamosvojitveni zakonodaji (glej 344.-356. odstavek sodbe), ampak tudi premišljeno izvajanje te zakonodaje na podlagi tajnih in podrejenih predpisov z nedvomno nezakonitimi cilji sta na pot pritožnikov postavila dodatne, nepremostljive administrativne ovire in preprečila poznejši uspeh njihovih zakonitih zahtev za zakonsko ureditev njihovega pravnega statusa.
In a situation where they had previously been &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; from the legal system of Slovenia, de facto deprived of their legal capacity and confronted with an organised and carefully planned governmental policy with the aim of decreasing the number of &amp; quot;ethnically unsuitable &amp; quot; citizens, such an application, no doubt, would have been totally pointless and futile, as was clearly the case for the other applicants.
Potem ko sta bila predhodno izbrisana iz slovenskega pravnega sistema, dejansko prikrajšana za svojo pravno sposobnost ter postavljena pred organizirano in skrbno načrtovano vladno politiko, katere cilj je bil zmanjšati število &amp; quot;etnično neprimernih &amp; quot; državljanov, bi bila taka prošnja nedvomno popolnoma nesmiselna in jalova, kakor se je jasno pokazalo pri drugih pritožnikih.
They have to endure the consequences of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; and the deprivation of their legal personality.
Prenašati morajo posledice izbrisa in odvzema pravne osebnosti.
These judgments of the Constitutional Court clearly confirmed the violations of the applicants &amp; apos; rights.
V njih je ustavno sodišče nedvoumno potrdilo kršitve pravic pritožnikov.
In this case, we have what is a classic example of a &amp; quot;continuing violation &amp; quot; of the Convention.
Pri tej zadevi imamo opravka s prvovrstnim primerom &amp; quot;trajajoče kršitve &amp; quot; konvencije.
Last but not least, in my opinion, the Court did not sufficiently take into consideration the particularly aggravating circumstances in this case, namely the fact that this was a large-scale, gross and systematic violation of basic human rights as a consequence of a deliberately organised and planned governmental policy, as more than 25,000 persons were &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; from the Slovenian legal system and thus deprived of their right to be recognised as a person before the law.
Ne nazadnje menim, da Sodišče pri tej zadevi ni dovolj upoštevalo posebej obremenilnih okoliščin, namreč da je bila to velikopotezna, velikanska in sistematična kršitev temeljnih človekovih pravic kot posledica premišljeno organizirane in načrtovane vladne politike, saj je bilo več kot 25.000 oseb izbrisanih iz slovenskega pravnega sistema, s čimer jim je bila odvzeta pravica, da se priznavajo kot osebe pred zakonom.
We are unable to follow the majority in upholding the Government &amp; apos;s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of Mr and Mrs (point 4 of the operative provisions of the judgment).
Ne moremo se pridružiti večini, ki je v primeru ugodila predhodnemu ugovoru vlade glede neizčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev (4. točka izreka sodbe).
In paragraph 371 of the judgment it referred to its finding that the Government had failed to establish that the remedies available to the applicants were &amp; quot;adequate &amp; quot; and &amp; quot;effective &amp; quot; in order to redress, at the material time, the alleged violation of Article 8. The Court linked its finding of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention to its decision to dismiss the objection of non-exhaustion in respect of the six applicants who eventually received residence permits (see paragraphs 295-313 of the judgment).
V 371. odstavku sodbe se sklicuje na svojo ugotovitev, da vladi ni uspelo dokazati &amp; quot;ustreznosti &amp; quot; in &amp; quot;učinkovitosti &amp; quot; razpoložljivih pravnih sredstev za popravo zatrjevane kršitve 8. člena v spornem času. Sodišče je ugotovitev kršitve 13. a konvencije navezalo na svoj sklep, da zavrne ugovor neizčrpanja pri šestih pritožnikih, ki so na koncu prejeli dovoljenje za prebivanje (glej 295.-313. odstavek sodbe).
In accordance with the traditional approach taken in its case-law, it thereby applied the principle of the &amp; quot;close affinity &amp; quot; characterising the subtle links between Articles 35 and 13 of the Convention.
V skladu z običajnim načinom v svoji sodni praksi je tako uporabilo načelo &amp; quot;tesne sorodnosti &amp; quot;, ki je značilno za subtilne vezi med 35. in 13. členom konvencije.
Firstly, although the Court &amp; apos;s case-law does not lay down a rigid hierarchy regarding objections to admissibility, it would seem more natural to determine whether applicants have victim status before deciding whether they have exhausted domestic remedies.
Prvič, čeprav sodna praksa Sodišča ne določa stroge hierarhije pri ugovorih glede sprejemljivosti, bi se še pred odločanjem o tem, ali sta pritožnika izčrpala notranjepravna sredstva, vendarle zdelo primerneje ugotoviti, ali imata status žrtve.
In this regard the Chamber on the one hand found that “the issuing of the retroactive residence permits, in line with the Constitutional Court's decision, constitutes an adequate and sufficient remedy for their complaints” (see paragraph 311 of the Chamber judgment), while on the other hand finding a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, holding that “the respondent Government have failed to establish that the [same] remedies at the applicants' disposal can be regarded as effective remedies” (see paragraph 385 of the Chamber judgment).
V tej zvezi je senat po eni strani ugotovil, da &amp; quot;je izdaja dovoljenj za prebivanje za nazaj v skladu z odločbo ustavnega sodišča primerno in zadostno pravno sredstvo za njuni pritožbi &amp; quot; (glej 311. odstavek sodbe senata). Pri tem pa je po drugi strani ugotovil kršitev 13. člena konvencije, ker je menil, da &amp; quot;tožena vlada ni dokazala, da se lahko [ista] pravna sredstva, ki so bila na voljo pritožnikoma, štejejo za učinkovita &amp; quot; (glej 285. odstavek sodbe senata).
We fully subscribe to the Grand Chamber's express conclusions that “[h]aving regard to this lengthy period in which the applicants experienced insecurity and legal uncertainty and the gravity of the consequences of the ‘erasure' for them, ... the acknowledgment of the human rights violations and the issuance of permanent residence permits [to the other six applicants] did not constitute ‘appropriate' and ‘sufficient' redress at the national level” (see paragraph 267 of the judgment) and that in view of the Government's failure to establish the effectiveness of the available remedies, there was a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8. For the same reasons why we disagree tha t an applicant may be required to make use of rem edies that are unable to provide “adequa te and sufficient” redress, we equally fail to see how the implementation of the same measures could deprive an applicant of his or her victim status.
Popolnoma se pridružujeva jasnim ugotovitvam velikega senata, da &amp; quot;ob upoštevanju tega dolgega obdobja, v katerem so pritožniki trpeli zaradi ogroženosti, pravne negotovosti ter resnosti posledic, ki jih je imel zanje izbris, … priznanje kršitve človekovih pravic in izdaja dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje [drugim šestim pritožnikom] nista bila &amp; apos;primerna in zadostna &amp; apos; poprava krivic na državni ravni &amp; quot; (glej 267. odstavek sodbe) ter da je bil kršen 13. člen v povezavi z 8. členom, ker vlada ni dokazala učinkovitosti razpoložljivih pravnih sredstev. Iz istih razlogov, zakaj se ne strinjava, da se lahko od pritožnika zahteva uporaba pravnih sredstev, s katerimi se ne more zagotoviti &amp; quot;primerna in zadostna &amp; quot; poprava krivic, tudi ne moreva razumeti, kako lahko izvajanje istih ukrepov pritožniku odvzame njegov ali njen status žrtve.
We regret the majority &amp; apos;s view that the controversial findings of the Chamber on the victim status of the applicants Mr and Mr constituted a &amp; quot;procedural bar &amp; quot; to the Grand Chamber &amp; apos;s jurisdiction (see paragraph 263 of the judgment), thus allowing a clearly different outcome in identical individual cases.
Obžalujeva stališče večine, da so bile sporne ugotovitve senata glede statusa žrtve pritožnikov Ljubomirja &amp; quot;postopkovna ovira &amp; quot; jurisdikciji velikega senata (glej 263. odstavek sodbe), s čimer je bil v enakih posameznih primerih omogočen popolnoma različen izid.
The Government of the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter the &amp; quot;Government &amp; quot;) and European Investment Bank Group (hereinafter the &amp; quot;EIB &amp; quot;)
Vlada Republike Slovenije (»Vlada«) in skupina Evropske investicijske banke (»EIB«)
Desiring to implement the provisions of the Transfer of Pension Rights Act of 28 April 2010 (hereinafter referred to as &amp; quot;ZPPP &amp; quot;) and the provisions of the EIB Staff and Pension Scheme Regulations related to the transfer of pension rights,
sta se z namenom, da se izvajajo določbe Zakona o prenosu pokojninskih pravic z dne 28. aprila 2010 (»ZPPP«) ter določbe Kadrovskih predpisov in Pravil sistema pokojninskega zavarovanja EIB, povezanih s prenosom pokojninskih pravic,