natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 15 June 2010 the President of the National Assembly publicly apologised to the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;; the Minister for the Interior did the same on 22 June 2010.
Predsednik Državnega zbora se je 15. junija 2010 javno opravičil izbrisanim; ministrica za notranje zadeve je storila prav tako 22. junija 2010.
It provided for the acquisition of both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits by the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Zagotovil je, da izbrisani lahko pridobijo dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc).
It also regulated the status of the children of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; and provided for the issuing of retroactive decisions to those &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons who had been granted Slovenian citizenship without having obtained a permanent residence permit.
Uredil je tudi status otrok izbrisanih in predvidel izdajo odločb z učinkom za nazaj tistim izbrisanim, ki jim je bilo podeljeno slovensko državljanstvo, ne da bi prej pridobili dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje.
In particular, section 1 (è) defined the meaning of the words &amp; quot;actually residing &amp; quot; in Slovenia, which was a precondition for obtaining permanent residence status, as a situation where the person had the centre of his or her life interests in Slovenia, this being determined on the basis of personal, family, economic, social and other ties demonstrating the existence of actual and permanent connections between the individual and Slovenia.
Predvsem pa je 1. č člen opredelil pomen izraza &amp; quot;dejansko življenje &amp; quot; v Sloveniji, ki je bil prvi pogoj za pridobitev statusa stalnega prebivalca, kot stanje, ko ima oseba središče svojih življenjskih interesov v Sloveniji, kar se presoja na podlagi osebnih, družinskih, ekonomskih, socialnih in drugih vezi, ki kažejo na obstoj dejanskih in trajnih povezav med osebo in Slovenijo.
It further indicated that the condition of &amp; quot;actually residing &amp; quot; could be met in cases of justifiable absence for more than a year (forced removal from Slovenia, absence as a consequence of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; or impossibility of returning because of the state of war in other successor States of the SFRY).
Poleg tega je določal, da je pogoj &amp; quot;dejanskega življenja &amp; quot; lahko izpolnjen tudi ob upravičeni odsotnosti, ki je daljša od enega leta (prisilna odstranitev iz Slovenije, odsotnost kot posledica izbrisa, onemogočena vrnitev zaradi vojnega stanja v drugih državah naslednicah SFRJ).
In the case of a longer absence, the condition of &amp; quot;actually residing &amp; quot; could be satisfied for the period of five years and for a further five years only if the person had tried to return to Slovenia - see paragraph 211 below).
Ob daljši odsotnosti je pogoj &amp; quot;dejanskega življenja &amp; quot; izpolnjen za pet let, za naslednjih pet let pa le, če se je oseba poskušala vrniti v Slovenijo (glej 211. odstavek).
On 26 April 2011 an association, Civil Initiative of the &amp; quot;Erased &amp; quot;, together with fifty-two other private individuals, lodged a petition with the Constitutional Court for constitutional review of the amended Legal Status Act (U-I-85/11).
Društvo civilna iniciativa izbrisanih prebivalcev je skupaj z dvainpetdesetimi drugimi posamezniki 26. aprila 2011 ustavnemu sodišču predložilo pobudo za presojo ustavnosti spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD (U-I-85/11).
82. Furthermore, one of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; lodged a constitutional appeal challenging the rejection by the Supreme Court of his compensation claim, amounting to 50,492.40 euros (EUR) for loss of work and non-pecuniary damage.
Poleg tega je eden od izbrisanih vložil ustavno pritožbo proti odločitvi vrhovnega sodišča o zavrnitvi njegove zahteve za odškodnino v znesku 50.492,40 evra zaradi izgube zaposlitve in nepremoženjske škode.
On 5 July 2011 (Up-1176/09) the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal, upholding the Supreme Court &amp; apos;s view that, in spite of the decision of the Constitutional Court subsequently abrogating the impugned provision of the Citizenship Act, it could not be said that administrative authorities or courts had acted unlawfully at the material time.
Ustavno sodišče je 5. julija 2011 (Up-1176/09) zavrnilo ustavno pritožbo in potrdilo stališče vrhovnega sodišča, da ne glede na odločbo, s katero je ustavno sodišče pozneje razveljavilo izpodbijano določbo Zakona o državljanstvu, ne moremo trditi, da so upravni organi ali sodišča ravnali nezakonito ob dejanskem stanju.
Furthermore, since the loss of work had been related to the refusal to grant Slovenian citizenship to the claimant and not to the refusal to grant a permanent residence permit, the leading decisions of the Constitutional Court on the subject of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; could not be taken into account.
Poleg tega se niso mogle upoštevati temeljne odločbe ustavnega sodišča o izbrisu, ker je bila izguba zaposlitve povezana z zavrnitvijo podelitve slovenskega državljanstva pritožniku in ne z zavrnitvijo izdaje dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje.
On 21 July 2011 the Government submitted some thirty final judgments delivered by the courts of first and second instance and by the Supreme Court in compensation proceedings brought by the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Vlada je 21. julija 2011 predložila okoli trideset pravnomočnih sodb sodišč prve in druge stopnje ter vrhovnega sodišča v odškodninskih tožbah, ki so jih vložili izbrisani.
At that time, proceedings in eleven cases brought by &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; persons were pending before the Supreme Court.
Enajst zadev, ki so jih sprožili izbrisani, je bilo takrat še v obravnavi pred vrhovnim sodiščem.
Finally, on 7 November 2011 the Government submitted a new decision delivered by the Constitutional Court on 26 September 2011 (Up-108/11) in a case brought by one of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; who had claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
Končno je 7. novembra 2011 vlada predložila novo odločbo, ki jo je ustavno sodišče izdalo 26. septembra 2011 (Up-108/11) v zadevi, ki jo je predložil eden od izbrisanih in zahteval odškodnino za premoženjsko in nepremoženjsko škodo.
In 1993 the applicant &amp; apos;s home caught fire and he lost most of his papers.
Leta 1993 je v pritožnikovem stanovanju izbruhnil požar in izgubil je večino svojih dokumentov.
He was registered as a permanent resident in Slovenia from 29 September 1971 until 26 February 1992. His parents and two brothers were born in Montenegro and they, like the applicant, were removed from the Register in 1992. The applicant &amp; apos;s mother was granted Slovenian citizenship in 1997 and his father in 2004. The applicant completed elementary school and two years &amp; apos; specialised education in a secondary school for metal workers.
V Sloveniji je imel stalno prebivališče prijavljeno od 29. septembra 1971 do 26. februarja 1992. Njegovi starši in dva brata so bili rojeni v Črni gori in so bili tako kot pritožnik iz registra izbrisani leta 1992. Pritožnikova mati je dobila slovensko državljanstvo leta 1997, oče pa leta 2004. Pritožnik je končal osnovno šolo in dveletno poklicno izobraževanje na srednji kovinarski šoli.
The applicant further stated that he had learned about the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; later than the other applicants.
Pritožnik je navedel tudi, da je za izbris izvedel pozneje kot drugi pritožniki.
On 26 November 2003 the applicant urged the Ministry to issue a supplementary, ex tunc decision regulating his status following the delivery of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 3 April 2003, without having previously submitted a request for an ex nunc permanent residence permit.
novembra 2003 je pritožnik zaprosil ministrstvo, naj izda dopolnilno odločbo z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc), s katero bi uredilo njegov status po izdaji odločbe ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003, ne da bi prej oddal prošnjo za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc).
On 20 May 2005 the applicant &amp; apos;s complaint was rejected by the Administrative Court.
maja 2005 je upravno sodišče pritožnikovo tožbo zavrglo.
According to the applicant, in 1992, after the birth of her second child, she became aware of the fact that her name had been &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; from the Register.
Po navedbah pritožnice je po rojstvu drugega otroka leta 1992 spoznala, da je bilo njeno ime izbrisano iz registra.
On 14 April 2004 the applicant requested the Ministry to issue a supplementary decision under point no. 8 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 3 April 2003 (see paragraph 60 above).
aprila 2004 je pritožnica od ministrstva zahtevala, naj ji izda dopolnilno odločbo po 8. točki izreka odločbe ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003 (glej 60. odstavek).
On 5 November 2004 the Institute of Pension and Invalidity Insurance stated that the applicant &amp; apos;s employment in Slovenia was registered in their files.
novembra 2004 je Zavod za pokojninsko in invalidsko zavarovanje potrdil, da ima v evidenci zavedeno pritožničino zaposlitev v Sloveniji.
On 6 December 2004 the Ministry terminated the proceedings relating to the applicant &amp; apos;s request for a permanent residence permit on account of her inactivity and her inability to prove that she had been actually resident in Slovenia since 23 December 1990 onwards.
decembra 2004 je ministrstvo ustavilo postopek v zvezi s pritožničino prošnjo za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje zaradi njene nedejavnosti in nezmožnosti dokazovanja, da od 23. decembra 1990 dejansko živi v Sloveniji.
She stated that she learned about the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; at that time.
Navedla je, da je za izbris izvedela takrat.
However, Mrs Ristanoviæ &amp; apos;s husband, who was in possession of a work permit and a temporary residence permit at the material time, remained in Slovenia.
Njen mož, ki je imel takrat delovno dovoljenje in dovoljenje za začasno prebivanje, pa je ostal v Sloveniji.
According to the respondent Government, Mrs moved from her municipality without deregistering her permanent residence and her personal records were transferred from the Register of Permanent Residents into the register of persons who had &amp; quot;emigrated without having deregistered &amp; quot;.
Po navedbah tožene vlade se je odselila iz občine, ne da bi odjavila stalno prebivališče, zaradi česar je bil njen osebni karton iz registra stalnega prebivalstva prenesen v kartoteko &amp; quot;odseljenih, a neodjavljenih oseb &amp; quot;.
The petition was joined to those lodged by the association Civil Initiative of the &amp; quot;Erased &amp; quot; and by other private individuals.
Pobuda je bila združena s pobudami, ki jih je vložilo Društvo civilna iniciativa izbrisanih prebivalcev in drugi posamezniki.
The applicant maintainted that it was then that he learned about the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot;.
Pritožnik trdi, da je za izbris izvedel takrat.
In 2005 the German authorities dismissed the applicant &amp; apos;s request for another extension of his residence permit because the overall situation in Kosovo was deemed stable enough for him to return there.
Leta 2005 so nemški organi zavrnili pritožnikovo prošnjo za ponovno podaljšanje dovoljenja za prebivanje, saj so menili da so splošne razmere na Kosovu dovolj stabilne, da se lahko vrne.
On 28 July 2006 the applicant &amp; apos;s fifth child was born in Slovenia.
julija 2006 se je v Sloveniji rodil peti pritožnikov otrok.
On 5 November 2006 the applicant and his family instituted proceedings in the Administrative Court, contesting the Ministry &amp; apos;s decision.
novembra 2006 so pritožnik in člani njegove družine sprožili postopek pred upravnim sodiščem in izpodbijali sklep ministrstva.
On 28.December 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the Ministry &amp; apos;s decision of 30 October 2006 that Germany had jurisdiction under the Dublin Regulation to decide on the applicant &amp; apos;s request for asylum.
decembra 2006 je vrhovno sodišče potrdilo sklep ministrstva z dne 30. oktobra 2006, da je po Dublinski uredbi za odločitev o pritožnikovi prošnji za azil pristojna Nemčija.
On 1 February 2007 the applicant and his family were handed over to Germany, where they have lived with &amp; quot;toleration &amp; quot; status (Duldung).
februarja 2007 so pritožnika in njegovo družino izročili Nemčiji, kjer živijo in imajo status &amp; quot;toleriran &amp; quot; (Duldung).
On an unspecified date, the applicant filed a compensation claim with the State Attorney &amp; apos;s Office, which was rejected.
Na neugotovljeni datum je pritožnik vložil odškodninski zahtevek na državnem pravobranilstvu, ki pa je bil zavrnjen.
Mr was born on 28 July 1952 in Skopje ( &amp; quot;the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia &amp; quot;) in a Roma ethnic community.
Ilfan Sadik Ademi se je rodil 28. julija 1952 v Skopju (Nekdanja jugoslovanska republika Makedonija) in je pripadnik romske etnične skupnosti.
The applicant maintained that he had learned about the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; at that time.
Pritožnik je navedel, da je za izbris izvedel takrat.
On 9 February 1999 he requested the Embassy of &amp; quot;the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia &amp; quot; to issue him with a passport, but received a negative reply since he was not a citizen of that country.
februarja 1999 je na veleposlaništvu Nekdanje jugoslovanske republike Makedonije zaprosil za izdajo potnega lista, vendar je bila prošnja zavrnjena, ker ni bil njen državljan.
On 18 February 2009 the Administrative Court upheld the decision by the Ministry, dismissing the applicant &amp; apos;s request for a permanent residence permit.
februarja 2009 je upravno sodišče podprlo odločbo ministrstva in zavrnilo pritožnikovo prošnjo za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje.
It noted that the amended Legal Status Act had been enacted in the meantime and that the applicant &amp; apos;s request should now be examined in the light of the new legislation.
Ugotovilo je, da je v vmesnem obdobju začel veljati spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD, zato je treba pritožnikovo prošnjo obravnavati po novi zakonodaji.
According to the Government, there was no evidence that Mr. had applied for Slovenian citizenship in 1991. In addition, it followed from the applicant &amp; apos;s employment documents that he had been working in Podujevo from 1992 until 1999. He married a Serbian citizen, with whom he has four children.
Po navedbah vlade ni dokazov, da je Zoran Minić leta 1991 zaprosil za slovensko državljanstvo. Poleg tega iz pritožnikove delovne knjižice izhaja, da je bil od leta 1992 do leta 1999 zaposlen v Podujevu. Poročil se je s srbsko državljanko, s katero ima štiri otroke.
The applicant stated that he had found out that he had been &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; together with other members of his family when trying to regularise his status in Slovenia.
Po navedbi pritožnika je ugotovil, da je bil izbrisan skupaj z drugimi člani družine, ko je poskušal urediti svoj status v Sloveniji.
He was prosecuted, ordered to pay a fine and on 5 June 2002 expelled to Hungary, in spite of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 4.February 1999 (see paragraphs 41-48 above), without any formal order.
Uveden je bil postopek o prekršku, naloženo mu je bilo plačilo denarne kazni, 5. junija 2002 pa je bil brez izdaje kakršne koli odločbe izgnan na Madžarsko, in to kljub odločbi ustavnega sodišča z dne 4. februarja 1999 (glej 41.-48. odstavek).
After the delivery of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 3.April 2003 (see paragraphs 58-60 above), on 15 September 2003 the applicant applied for Slovenian citizenship under section 19 of the amended Citizenship Act.
Po izdaji odločbe ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003 (glej 58.-60. odstavek) je pritožnik 15. septembra 2003 zaprosil za slovensko državljanstvo na podlagi 19. a dopolnjenega in spremenjenega Zakona o državljanstvu.
On 18 July 2007 the Ministry dismissed the applicant &amp; apos;s request since he did not meet the requirement of actual residence in Slovenia.
julija 2007 je ministrstvo zavrnilo pritožnikovo prošnjo, saj ni izpolnjeval pogoja za dejansko življenje v Sloveniji.
On 10 September 2008, in the context of administrative proceedings concerning the applicant &amp; apos;s request for Slovenian citizenship, the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by him.
septembra 2008 je v upravnem postopku o pritožnikovi prošnji za slovensko državljanstvo ustavno sodišče zavrglo ustavno pritožbo, ki jo je vložil pritožnik.
On 26 November 2008 the Administrative Court quashed the Ministry &amp; apos;s decision of 18 July 2007 (see paragraph 187 above) and sent the case back for re-examination.
novembra 2008 je upravno sodišče zavrnilo odločbo ministrstva z dne 18. julija 2007 (glej 187. odstavek) in vrnilo zadevo v ponovno odločanje.
On 24 July 2009 the Ministry again dismissed the applicant &amp; apos;s request since he did not meet the requirement of actually residing in Slovenia.
julija 2009 je ministrstvo spet zavrnilo pritožnikovo prošnjo, saj ni izpolnjeval pogoja dejanskega življenja v Sloveniji.
On 1 June 2011 the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the State Attorney &amp; apos;s Office.
junija 2011 je pritožnik vložil odškodninski zahtevek na državnem pravobranilstvu.
His claim was rejected owing to the expiry of the statutory time-limit, on the ground that he had found out about the damage caused to him by the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; when he had applied for Slovenian citizenship or for a permanent residence permit.
Njegov zahtevek je bil zavrnjen zaradi poteka zakonsko predpisanega roka z obrazložitvijo, da je bil seznanjen s škodo, ki mu je bila povzročena z izbrisom, ko je zaprosil za slovensko državljanstvo ali dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje.
(c) Inhabitants &amp; apos; Evidence of Residence and Population Registry Act (Zakon o evidenci nastanitve obèanov in o registru prebivalstva - Official Gazette of the SRS, no. 6/83 of 1983 and no. 11/91 of 1991)
(c) Zakon o evidenci nastanitve občanov in o registru prebivalstva (Uradni list SRS, št. 6/83 in 11/91)
&amp; quot;The registration of permanent residence and registration of any change of address is obligatory for all inhabitants, whenever they settle permanently in a settlement or change their address.
&amp; quot;Prijava stalnega prebivališča in prijava spremembe naslova stanovanja je obvezna za vse občane, kadar se v nekem naselju stalno naselijo ali spremenijo naslov stanovanja.
Deregistration of permanent residence is obligatory for inhabitants who move from the territory of the Republic of Slovenia. &amp; quot;
Odjava stalnega prebivališča pa je obvezna za občane, ki se odselijo z območja Republike Slovenije. &amp; quot;
The purpose of the Statement of Good Intentions, adopted on 6.December 1990 in the course of preparations for the plebiscite on the independence of Slovenia, was to express the State &amp; apos;s commitment to certain values in pursuit of its independence.
Namen Izjave o dobrih namenih, sprejete 6. decembra 1990 ob pripravah na plebiscit o neodvisnosti Slovenije, je bil, da je na poti v neodvisnost izrazila zavezo države nekaterim vrednotam.
The Slovenian State ... shall ... guarantee to all members of other nations and nationalities the right to an all-embracing development of their culture and language and to all those who have their permanent residence in Slovenia the right to obtain Slovenian citizenship if they so wish ... &amp; quot;
&amp; quot;Slovenska dr?ava zagotavlja ... vsem pripadnikom drugih narodov in narodnosti pravico do vsestranskega kulturnega in jezikovnega razvoja, vsem s stalnim bivališčem v Sloveniji pa, da lahko pridobijo državljanstvo Slovenije, če to želijo. &amp; quot;
214...The relevant parts of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 4.February 1999 (see paragraphs 41-48 above) read as follows:
Ustrezni deli odločbe ustavnega sodišča z dne 4. februarja 1999 (glej 41.?48. odstavek) določajo:
&amp; quot;At the session of 4 February 1999 concerning the proceedings for the review of constitutionality commenced on the initiative of B.M. and V.T. ..., the Constitutional Court gave the following decision:
&amp; quot;Ustavno sodi??e je v postopku za presojo ustavnosti, za?etem na pobudo B. M. in V.T. ..., na seji 4. februarja 1999 odločilo:
The Inhabitants &amp; apos; Evidence of Residence and Population Registry Act, which is invoked by the Government in its explanations, does not contain any provisions on the removal of permanent residents from the Register on the basis of the Act itself.
Zakon o evidenci nastanitve občanov in o registru prebivalstva, na katerega se sklicuje vlada v svojih pojasnilih, ne pozna izbrisa stalnega prebivališča na podlagi samega zakona.
It was quite justified that citizens of other republics who did not opt for Slovenian citizenship should not expect that they would be made equal to foreigners who had only just come into the Republic of Slovenia and that they would be deprived of permanent residence, without, moreover, being given any notice whatsoever.
Državljani drugih republik, ki se niso odločili za slovensko državljanstvo, povsem upravičeno niso mogli pričakovati, da bodo izenačeni s tujci, ki šele prihajajo v Republiko Slovenijo, in da bodo izgubili stalno prebivališče, in še to brez vsakršnega obvestila. &amp; quot;
215...The relevant parts of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 3 April 2003 (see paragraphs 58-60 above) read as follows:
Ustrezni deli odločbe ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003 (glej 58.?60. odstavek) določajo:
&amp; quot;At a session held on 3 April 2003 in the proceedings to examine petitions and in the proceedings to review constitutionality commenced upon petitions by the Association of the Erased of Slovenia, Ptuj, and others, represented by M.K. ... and N.M.P. ... , the Constitutional Court decided as follows:
&amp; quot;Ustavno sodišče je v postopku za preizkus pobud in v postopku za presojo ustavnosti, začetem na pobude Društva izbrisanih prebivalcev Slovenije, Ptuj, in drugih, ki jih zastopata M. K. in N. M. P. iz Ljubljane, na seji 3. aprila 2003 odločilo:
The petitioners did not explicitly define these rights; however, from the decisions of the Constitutional Court it follows that these concerned, in particular, the right to the advance payment of a military pension, the right to social-security benefits and the ability to change one &amp; apos;s driving licence.
Pobudniki jih izrecno ne opredeljujejo, iz odločb ustavnega sodišča pa izhaja, da je šlo predvsem za pravice do akontacije vojaške pokojnine, pravice do varstvenega dodatka in za nemožnost zamenjave vozniškega dovoljenj.
The Badinter Arbitration Commission handed down fifteen opinions on &amp; quot;major legal questions &amp; quot; arising from the dissolution of the SFRY.
Badinterjeva arbitražna komisija je izdala petnajst strokovnih mnenj o &amp; quot;glavnih pravnih vprašanjih &amp; quot; v zvezi z razpadom SFRJ.
(c) last habitual residence on the territory of the predecessor State which has become territory of the successor State. &amp; quot;
(c) zadnje običajno prebivališče na ozemlju države predhodnice, ki je postalo ozemlje države naslednice. &amp; quot;
Article 11 &amp; quot;States concerned shall take all necessary steps to ensure that persons concerned have sufficient information about rules and procedures with regard to the acquisition of their nationality. &amp; quot;
&amp; quot;Države bodo sprejele potrebne ukrepe, da se zagotovi, da imajo osebe dovolj informacij o pravilih in postopkih v zvezi s pridobitvijo njihovega državljanstva. &amp; quot;
(b) The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities On 26 May 2005 the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities adopted its second opinion concerning Slovenia and expressed concern about the problematic situation of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
maja 2005 je svetovalni odbor za Okvirno konvencijo za zaščito narodnih manjšin sprejel svoje drugo mnenje v zvezi s Slovenijo in izrazil svojo zaskrbljenost zaradi težavnega položaja izbrisanih.