natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, the repercussions of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; and the prolonged refusal of the Slovenian authorities to comprehensively regulate the applicants &amp; 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 &amp; quot;in accordance with the law &amp; quot; under paragraph 2 of Article 8, the Chamber held that the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; had been found to be unlawful by the Constitutional Court and saw no reason to depart from that court &amp; apos;s decisions.
Glede tega, ali je bil ta poseg &amp; quot;v skladu z zakonom &amp; 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 Grand Chamber observes at the outset that the Government did not contest before it that the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; and its repercussions had had an adverse effect on the applicants and 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).
Veliki senat najprej ugotavlja, da vlada pred njim ni izpodbijala, da so izbris in njegove posledice slabo učinkovali na pritožnike ter posegli v njihovo &amp; quot;zasebno ali družinsko življenje &amp; 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 &amp; apos; arguments, the Grand Chamber sees no reason to depart from the Chamber &amp; apos;s findings that, although the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 &amp; quot;in accordance with the law &amp; quot;, pursued one or more of the legitimate aims listed in that paragraph and was &amp; quot;necessary in a democratic society &amp; quot;.
Treba pa je proučiti, ali je bil poseg v skladu z drugim odstavkom 8. a konvencije, torej ali je bil &amp; quot;v skladu z zakonom &amp; quot;, ali je sledil enemu ali več zakonitim ciljem iz tega odstavka in ali je bil &amp; quot;nujen v demokratični družbi &amp; quot;.
According to the Court &amp; apos;s established case-law, the expression &amp; quot;in accordance with the law &amp; 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 &amp; quot;v skladu z zakonom &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; of the applicants &amp; 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:
However, in the Court &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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.
Indeed, it was only incidentally that they learned about the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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).
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 &amp; quot;erased &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erased &amp; 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).
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 &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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.
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 &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; lacked the requisite standards of foreseeability and accessibility, as developed in the Court &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erased &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erased &amp; 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).
It follows that, at least until 2010, the domestic legal system failed to regulate clearly the consequences of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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.
This is sufficient for the Court to come to the conclusion that the interference with the applicants &amp; apos; Article 8 rights was not &amp; quot;in accordance with the law &amp; quot; and that this provision has been violated.
To pa Sodišču zadostuje za ugotovitev, da poseganje v pravice pritožnikov po 8. u ni bilo &amp; quot;v skladu z zakonom &amp; quot; in da je bila ta določba kršena.
However, in the particular circumstances of the present case, and given the widespread repercussions of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 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 &amp; apos;s independence in 1991 and the establishment of an effective political democracy, which entailed the formation of a &amp; quot;corpus of Slovenian citizens &amp; 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 &amp; quot;slovenskega državljanskega telesa &amp; quot; zaradi državnozborskih volitev.
The interference complained of (the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; 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 &amp; quot;corpus of Slovenian citizens &amp; quot; and thus to protect the interests of the country &amp; 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 &amp; quot;slovensko državljansko telo &amp; 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 &amp; quot;erased &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; quot;necessary in a democratic society &amp; 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 &amp; quot;potrebnega v demokratični družbi &amp; quot;, če je bil sprejet kot odgovor na nujne družbene potrebe in če so uporabljena sredstva sorazmerna s cilji, ki se uresničujejo.
The Court &amp; apos;s task consists in ascertaining whether the impugned measures struck a fair balance between the relevant interests, namely the individual &amp; apos;s rights protected by the Convention on the one hand and the community &amp; 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).
According to the Court &amp; apos;s case-law, the Convention does not guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country and Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see, among many other authorities, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 73, Reports 1996-V; El Boujaïdi v. France, 26 September 1997, § 39, Reports 1997-VI; Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 45, ECHR 1999-VIII; Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, § 39, ECHR 2001-IX; Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII; and Slivenko, cited above, § 115).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča konvencija ne zagotavlja tujcu pravice, da vstopa v posamezno državo ali prebiva v njej, države pogodbenice pa imajo v skladu z ustaljenim mednarodnim pravom in v skladu s svojimi pogodbenimi obveznostmi, vključno s konvencijo, pravico, da nadzorujejo vstop, prebivanje in izgon tujcev (glej med številnimi drugimi zadevami Chahal proti Združenemu kraljestvu, 15. november 1996, 73. odstavek, Poročila 1996-V; El Boujaďdi proti Franciji, 26. september 1997, 39. odstavek, Poročila 1997-VI; Baghli proti Franciji, št. odstavek, ESČP 1999-VIII; Boultif proti Švici, št. odstavek, ESČP 2001-IX; Üner proti Nizozemski [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2006-XII; in Slivenko, 115. odstavek).
In the present case, the applicants, who, prior to Slovenia &amp; apos;s declaration of independence, had been lawfully residing in Slovenia for several years, had, as former SFRY citizens, enjoyed a wide range of social and political rights.
V tej zadevi so pritožniki, ki so pred razglasitvijo neodvisnosti Slovenije zakonito prebivali v Sloveniji več let, kot državljani nekdanje SFRJ uživali številne socialne in politične pravice.
Owing to the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot;, 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.
Izbris je imel veliko hudih posledicČ, kakršne so uničenje osebnih dokumentov, izguba možnosti za delo, izguba zdravstvenega zavarovanja, nezmožnost podaljšanja veljavnosti osebnih dokumentov ali vozniškega dovoljenja in težave pri urejanju pokojninskih pravic.
Allegedly, the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; was a consequence of their failure to seek to obtain Slovenian citizenship.
Po navedbah je bil izbris posledica tega, da niso poskušali pridobiti slovenskega državljanstva.
in addition to this negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective &amp; quot;respect &amp; quot; for private or family life or both, in particular in the case of long-term migrants such as the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Gül v. Switzerland, 19 February 1996, § 38, Reports 1996-I; Ahmut v. the Netherlands, 28 November 1996, § 67, Reports 1996-VI; and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 45, ECHR 2003-IV).
poleg te neugodne obveznosti lahko obstajajo pozitivne obveznosti, ki so neločljivo povezane z učinkovitim spoštovanjem zasebnega ali družinskega življenja ali pa obojega, predvsem pri dolgotrajnih priseljencih, kakršni so pritožniki (smiselno glej zadevo Gül proti Švici, 19. februar 1996, 38. odstavek, Poročila 1996-I; Ahmut proti Nizozemski, 28. november 1996, 67. odstavek, Poročila 1996-VI; in Mehemi proti Franciji (št. 2), št. odstavek, ESČP, 2003-IV).
The Court considers that, despite the efforts made after the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decisions of 1999 and 2003, as well as recently with the enactment of the amended Legal Status Act, the Slovenian authorities have failed to remedy comprehensively and with the requisite promptness the blanket nature of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; and its grave consequences for the applicants.
Sodišče meni, da slovenska oblast kljub prizadevanju, izkazanemu po odločbah ustavnega sodišča iz let 1999 in 2003, pa tudi pred kratkim z uzakonitvijo spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD, ni celovito in dovolj hitro odpravila skupinske narave izbrisa ter njegovih resnih posledic za pritožnike.
For the reasons set out above, the measures complained of were neither &amp; quot;prescribed by law &amp; quot; nor &amp; quot;necessary in a democratic society &amp; quot; to achieve the legitimate aim of the protection of national security.
Iz navedenih razlogov ukrepi, nad katerimi se pritožujejo, niso bili niti &amp; quot;predpisani z zakonom &amp; quot; niti &amp; quot;potrebni v demokratični družbi &amp; quot; za uresničitev zakonitega cilja zaščite državne varnosti.
Relying on the Court &amp; apos;s judgment in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, § 291, ECHR 2011), and on the arguments set out in paragraphs 279-280 above, the applicants alleged that none of the remedies at their disposal at the material time had proved to be capable of addressing the substance of their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and of awarding them appropriate relief.
Pritožniki so, sklicujoč se na sodbo Sodišča v zadevi M. S. S. proti Belgiji in Grčiji ([VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2011) in na trditve iz 279.-280. odstavka, zatrjevali, da z nobenim od pravnih sredstev, ki so jim bila na voljo v spornem času, ni bilo mogoče uveljavljati vsebine njihovih pritožb po 8. členu konvencije in določiti ustreznega zadoščenja.
In spite of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s leading decisions, the Government were not even willing to issue ex tunc residence permits to those who were already in possession of ex nunc permits, let alone to adopt a comprehensive legal solution to the problem arising from the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; over a considerable number of years.
Kljub temeljnim odločbam ustavnega sodišča pa vlada ni bila niti pripravljena izdati dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc) tistim, ki so že imeli dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc), kaj šele, da bi sprejela celovito pravno rešitev problema, ki je precejšnje število let izhajal iz izbrisa.
The Government maintained that the legal remedies at the applicants &amp; apos; disposal - the administrative proceedings, the individual constitutional complaint and the action for damages - had been both accessible and effective, in compliance with Article 13 of the Convention.
Vlada je trdila, da so bila notranjepravna sredstva, ki so bila na voljo pritožnikom - upravni postopek, posamezna ustavna pritožba in odškodninska tožba - dostopna, pa tudi učinkovita skladno s 13. členom konvencije.
The third parties maintained that as a result of the State &amp; apos;s prolonged failure to enforce the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 3 April 2003, which was legally binding, the applicants &amp; apos; right to an effective remedy had been violated, owing to a lack of political will.
Tretje strani so trdile, da je bila zaradi dolgotrajne opustitve države izvršiti pravno zavezujočo odločbo ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003 kršena pravica pritožnikov do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva, in to zaradi pomanjkanja politične volje.
The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an &amp; quot;arguable complaint &amp; quot; under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see Kud³a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
Učinek 13. člena je torej zahteva po notranjepravnem sredstvu, da bi se lahko obravnavalo bistvo &amp; quot;verjetne pritožbe &amp; quot; po konvenciji in zagotovilo primerno zadoščenje (glej Kudła proti Poljski [VS], št. 30210/96, 157. odstavek, ESČP 2000-XI).
The Court has already found that the applicants &amp; apos; &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph 362 above).
Sodišče je že ugotovilo, da je bil izbris pritožnikov kršitev 8. člena konvencije (glej 362. odstavek).
The applicants &amp; apos; complaints in that regard are therefore &amp; quot;arguable &amp; quot; for the purposes of Article 13.
Pritožbe pritožnikov so v tem smislu &amp; quot;verjetne &amp; quot; po 13. členu.