natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court refers to its finding that the Government 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 of the Convention (see paragraphs 295-313 above).
Sodišče 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 konvencije v spornem času (glej 295.-313. odstavek).
The applicants claimed that in enjoying their rights under Article 8 of the Convention, they had been discriminated against on the ground of their national origin, when compared to other foreign citizens (the so-called &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens) who continued to live in Slovenia on the basis of temporary or permanent residence permits.
Pritožniki so trdili, da so bili pri uživanju svojih pravic po 8. členu konvencije diskriminirani na podlagi narodnostnega izvora v primerjavi z drugimi tujimi državljani (t. i. &amp; quot;pravi &amp; quot; tujci), ki so še naprej živeli v Sloveniji na podlagi izdanega dovoljenja za začasno ali stalno prebivanje.
The applicants argued that they had been treated less favourably than &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens who had lived in Slovenia since before independence and whose permanent residence permits remained valid under section 82 of the Aliens Act.
Pritožniki so trdili, da so jih obravnavali manj ugodno kot &amp; quot;prave &amp; quot; tujce, ki so živeli v Sloveniji še pred osamosvojitvijo in katerih dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje je ostalo veljavno v skladu z 82. členom Zakona o tujcih.
In the applicants &amp; apos; view, the issue of discriminatory treatment of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; was one of the main features of the present case, and the Grand Chamber should examine the merits of their complaint under Article 14 (they cited Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos.
Po mnenju pritožnikov je bilo vprašanje diskriminacijske obravnave izbrisanih eno od glavnih značilnosti te zadeve in veliki senat naj bi proučil utemeljenost njihove pritožbe po 14. členu (sklicevali so se na zadevi Chassagnou in drugi proti Franciji [VS], št.
If the continuous right to residence of &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens was recognised by the Aliens Act, the same should apply all the more to the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Če je bilo priznano nadaljevanje pravice do prebivanja &amp; quot;pravih &amp; quot; tujcev z Zakonom o tujcih, bi moralo enako še toliko bolj veljati tudi za izbrisane.
Lastly, the applicants contested the respondent Government &amp; apos;s allegations (see paragraph 379 below) that positive discrimination had been carried out in respect of them since they had not been subjected to deportation; five of the applicants had in fact been deported.
Na koncu so pritožniki oporekali navedbam tožene vlade (glej 379. odstavek), da so bili pozitivno diskriminirani, ker niso bili izgnani iz države; pet od pritožnikov je bilo dejansko izgnanih iz države.
The applicants &amp; apos; position was therefore linked to the fact that they, as aliens, had not acquired permanent residence permits.
Položaj pritožnikov je bil tako povezan z dejstvom, da kot tujci niso pridobili dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje.
As to the SFRY legislation and the provisions of the Aliens Act, the applicants and the &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens had never been in a comparable situation.
Glede na zakonodajo SFRJ in določbe Zakona o tujcih pritožniki in &amp; quot;pravi &amp; quot; tujci nikoli niso bili v primerljivem položaju.
Apart from the Serbian Government, the other third parties &amp; apos; submissions before the Chamber focused primarily on the issue of discrimination, which had been recognised as being of fundamental importance in the Court &amp; apos;s case-law.
Poleg srbske vlade so se vloge drugih tretjih strani pred senatom osredotočale predvsem na vprašanje diskriminacije, ki ga sodna praksa Sodišča prepoznava kot vprašanje bistvenega pomena.
The third-party interveners stated that the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; had been subject to discrimination, both direct and indirect, on the ground of national origin or ethnicity or both (citing D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 175).
Tretje strani, ki so sodelovale v postopku, so navedle, da so bili izbrisani posredno in neposredno diskriminirani na podlagi narodnostnega ali etničnega izvora ali pa obojega (sklicevale so se na zadevo D. H. in drugi proti Češki, 175. odstavek).
The Aliens Act contained stricter provisions for the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; than for other aliens.
Zakon o tujcih je za izbrisane vseboval strožje določbe kot za druge tujce.
Because the Slovenian population was ethnically homogeneous as compared to other former SFRY republics, the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; disproportionately affected non-ethnic Slovenes, ex-SFRY minorities, and Roma, thereby also discriminating among residents on ethnic grounds.
Ker je bilo slovensko prebivalstvo v primerjavi z drugimi republikami nekdanje SFRJ etnično enovito, je izbris nesorazmerno prizadel tiste, ki po narodnostni pripadnosti niso bili Slovenci, manjšine nekdanje SFRJ in Rome. Tako so bili prebivalci diskriminirani tudi na etnični podlagi.
There was no objective justification for what had resulted in decades of legal limbo experienced by the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Za desetletja dolgo pravno negotovost, ki so jo izkusili izbrisani, ni nobene objektivne utemeljitve.
The Chamber considered that, in view of its finding of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, it was not necessary to rule on the applicants &amp; apos; complaint under Article 14 (see paragraph 400 of the Chamber judgment).
Senat je menil, da zaradi ugotovitve kršitve 8. a konvencije ni treba odločiti o pritožbah pritožnikov po 14. členu (glej 400. odstavek sodbe senata).
Having regard to the importance of the discrimination issue in the present case, the Grand Chamber considers, unlike the Chamber, that the applicants &amp; apos; complaint under Article 14 of the Convention should be examined.
Ob upoštevanju pomembnosti vprašanja diskriminacije pri tej zadevi veliki senat v nasprotju s senatom meni, da je pritožbo pritožnikov po 14. členu konvencije treba obravnavati.
It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to &amp; quot;the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms &amp; quot; safeguarded by those provisions.
Ne obstaja neodvisno, saj je veljaven samo v povezavi z &amp; quot;uživanjem pravic in svoboščin &amp; quot;, ki jih varujejo te določbe.
In the present case, the Court has found that the measures complained of constituted an unlawful interference with the applicants &amp; apos; &amp; quot;private or family life &amp; quot; or both within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 339 above).
V tej zadevi je Sodišče odločilo, da so ukrepi, zoper katere so se pritožniki pritožili, nezakonito poseganje v zasebno ali družinsko življenje pritožnikov ali pa oboje v smislu prvega odstavka 8. člena konvencije (glej 339. odstavek).
According to the Court &amp; apos;s well-established case-law, discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča je diskriminacija različno obravnavanje oseb v podobnem položaju brez objektivne in smiselne utemeljitve (glej Willis proti Združenemu kraljestvu, št. odstavek, ESČP 2002-IV).
A difference in treatment has no objective and reasonable justification if it does not pursue a &amp; quot;legitimate aim &amp; quot; or if there is not a &amp; quot;reasonable relationship of proportionality &amp; quot; between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised.
Razlika v obravnavanju ni utemeljena objektivno in smiselno, če ne sledi &amp; quot;zakonitemu cilju &amp; quot; ali če med uporabljenimi sredstvi in ciljem, ki se želi doseči, ni &amp; quot;primernega sorazmerja &amp; quot;.
The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and its background (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 40, Series A no. 87, and Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, § 41, Series A no. 126), but the final decision as to observance of the Convention &amp; apos;s requirements rests with the Court.
Obseg proste presoje se spreminja glede na okoliščine, zadevo in njeno ozadje (glej Rasmussen proti Danski, 28. 11. 1984, 40. odstavek, serija A, št. 87, in Inze proti Avstriji, 28. 10. 1987, 41. odstavek, serija A, št. 126), vendar pa dokončni sklep o upoštevanju zahtev konvencije sprejme Sodišče.
That being said, Article 14 does not prohibit Contracting Parties from treating groups differently in order to correct &amp; quot;factual inequalities &amp; quot; between them.
Glede na povedano je treba dodati, da 14. pogodbenicam ne prepoveduje različnega obravnavanja skupin, zato da bi odpravile &amp; quot;dejansko neenakost &amp; quot; med njimi.
Turning to the instant case, the Court observes that the status of citizens of States other than the former SFRY republics who had lived in Slovenia before its independence (the so-called &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens) was regulated by section 82 of the Aliens Act, which provided that their permanent residence permits remained valid (see paragraph 207 above).
V tej zadevi Sodišče pripominja, da je razen državljanov republik nekdanje SFRJ status državljanov drugih držav, ki so živeli v Sloveniji pred njeno osamosvojitvijo (tako imenovani &amp; quot;pravi &amp; quot; tujci), urejal 82. Zakona o tujcih, ki je določal, da ostanejo njihova dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje še naprej veljavna (glej 207. odstavek).
As underlined above (see paragraph 344 above), this legal vacuum resulted in the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; of the latter and the unlawfulness of their stay on the Slovenian territory.
Kot je bilo že predhodno poudarjeno (glej 344. odstavek), sta bili posledici te pravne praznine njihov izbris in nezakonitost njihovega prebivanja na slovenskem ozemlju.
However, in the Court &amp; apos;s opinion, after the declaration of independence and the coming into existence of the new State, their situation became at least comparable.
Sodišče meni, da je njihov položaj po razglasitvi neodvisnosti in nastanku nove države postal vsaj primerljiv.
As an effect of the &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot;, members of only one of the groups could keep their residence permits.
Posledica izbrisa je bila, da so dovoljenje za prebivanje lahko obdržali le pripadniki ene skupine.
Therefore, there has been a difference in treatment between two groups - &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens and citizens of former SFRY Republics other than Slovenia - which were in a similar situation in respect of residence-related matters.
Zato je nastala razlika v obravnavanju med tema skupinama - &amp; quot;pravimi &amp; quot; tujci in državljani republik nekdanje SFRJ razen Slovenije -, ki sta bili glede zadev, povezanih s prebivališčem, v podobnem položaju.
It is true that only the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;, and not &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens, were given the possibility of acquiring Slovenian nationality on favourable conditions.
Res je, da je bila le izbrisanim in ne &amp; quot;pravim &amp; quot; tujcem dana možnost pridobitve slovenskega državljanstva pod ugodnejšimi pogoji.
Moreover, the situation of the former SFRY citizens, including the applicants, was significantly altered after the declaration of independence when compared with that of &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens.
Poleg tega se je v primerjavi s &amp; quot;pravimi &amp; quot; tujci položaj državljanov nekdanje SFRJ, vključno s pritožniki, bistveno spremenil po razglasitvi neodvisnosti.
Before 1991, former SFRY citizens were, in matters connected to residence, in a privileged position in comparison with &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens.
Pred letom 1991 so bili državljani nekdanje SFRJ v zadevah, povezanih s prebivališčem, v primerjavi s &amp; quot;pravimi &amp; quot; tujci v privilegiranem položaju.
However, as a consequence of the independence legislation, former SFRY citizens suddenly found themselves in a situation of unlawfulness which has been found to breach Article 8 (see paragraphs 361-362 above) and in a disadvantaged position vis-à-vis &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens, as only the permanent residence permits of the latter remained valid, even in the absence of an application for Slovenian nationality (see paragraph 390 above).
Toda zaradi osamosvojitvene zakonodaje so se državljani nekdanje SFRJ nenadoma znašli v protipravnem položaju, za katerega je bilo ugotovljeno, da je v nasprotju z 8. om (glej 361. in 362. odstavek) in da so bili prikrajšani v primerjavi s &amp; quot;pravimi &amp; quot; tujci, ker so samo ti obdržali veljavno dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje, čeprav niso zaprosili za slovensko državljanstvo (glej 390. odstavek).
In the Court &amp; apos;s view, the legislation at stake thus placed a disproportionate and excessive burden on former SFRY citizens.
Po mnenju Sodišča je zakonodaja državljanom nekdanje SFRJ naložila nesorazmerno in pretirano breme.
The above conclusion is also confirmed by the decision of 4 February 1999 in which the Constitutional Court held that the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; were in a less favourable legal position than &amp; quot;real &amp; quot; aliens who had been living in Slovenia before independence and whose special permanent residence permits remained valid under section 82 of the Aliens Act (see paragraph 42 above).
To ugotovitev potrjuje tudi odločba z dne 4. 2. 1999, v kateri je ustavno sodišče odločilo, da so bili izbrisani v manj ugodnem pravnem položaju kakor &amp; quot;pravi &amp; quot; tujci, ki so živeli v Sloveniji pred osamosvojitvijo in katerih posebno dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje je v skladu z 82. om Zakona o tujcih ostalo veljavno še naprej (glej 42. odstavek).
Under this provision, the applicants requested the Court to indicate general measures aimed at redressing the situation of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
V skladu s to določbo so pritožniki Sodišče pozvali, da navede splošne ukrepe za popravo položaja izbrisanih.
The applicants submitted that, at this stage and in the absence of any settled practice, the enactment and implementation of the amended Legal Status Act could not be regarded as general measures capable of removing the systemic violation of the rights of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Pritožniki so trdili, da se na tej stopnji in brez kakršne koli ustaljene prakse sprejetje in izvajanje spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD nista mogli šteti za splošna ukrepa, s katerima bi se lahko odpravila sistemska kršitev pravic izbrisanih.
The condition of &amp; quot;actually residing in Slovenia &amp; quot; had been changed in order to include some exceptions.
Pogoj &amp; quot;dejanskega prebivanja v Sloveniji &amp; quot; je bil spremenjen zaradi vključitve nekaterih izjem.
However, not all the cases of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; fell under any of the exceptions mentioned.
Toda nekateri primeri izbrisanih niso spadali v nobeno od omenjenih izjem.
The procedure was cumbersome and costly and the burden of proof was incumbent on the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Postopek je bil okoren in drag, dokazno breme pa je bilo na strani izbrisanih.
This had also been stressed in the 2010 concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The Council of Europe &amp; apos;s Commissioner for Human Rights had also stated that other measures were necessary in order to redress the violations suffered by the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;, for instance in relation to family reunion.
To je bilo poudarjeno tudi v sklepnih ugotovitvah Odbora za odpravo rasne diskriminacije leta 2010. Tudi komisar za človekove pravice Sveta Evrope je izjavil, da bi bili potrebni še drugi ukrepi za popravo posledic kršitev, ki so jih utrpeli izbrisani, na primer v zvezi z združitvijo družin.
The concluding observations of the Committee against Torture had also urged the respondent Government to facilitate the full integration of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;, including those belonging to Roma communities.
Odbor proti mučenju je v svojih sklepnih ugotovitvah prav tako pozval toženo vlado, da omogoči polno združitev izbrisanih, vključno s pripadniki romskih skupnosti.
The Government maintained that the enactment and implementation of the amended Legal Status Act had constituted an appropriate, comprehensive and general measure for ensuring the right to private or family life, or both, of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Vlada je trdila, da sta uveljavitev in izvajanje spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD primeren, celovit in splošen ukrep za zagotavljanje pravice do zasebnega oziroma družinskega življenja izbrisanih.
With this, the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decision of 2003 had been fully implemented.
S tem je bila odločba ustavnega sodišča iz leta 2003 v celoti uveljavljena.
Moreover, various media had been used to provide information to the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; (a brochure, the Internet, a free phone line, and so on).
Poleg tega so bila za zagotavljanje informacij izbrisanim uporabljena različna sredstva obveščanja (brošura, internet, brezplačna telefonska številka itd.).
Furthermore, on 25 November 2011 an intergovernmental commission had been set up in order to deal with the problem of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot;.
Poleg tega je bila zaradi obravnavanja vprašanja izbrisanih 25. 11. 2011 ustanovljena medvladna komisija.
Altogether, 12,500 of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; had regularised their status.
Skupaj je svoj status zakonsko uredilo 12.500 izbrisanih.
The Chamber held that the violation found on account of the failure by the Slovenian legislative and administrative authorities to comply with the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s decisions clearly indicated the appropriate general and individual measures to be adopted in the Slovenian domestic legal order:
Senat je razsodil, da je kršitev, ugotovljena na podlagi ravnanja slovenske zakonodajne in upravne oblasti, ki nista upoštevali odločbe ustavnega sodišča, jasno nakazala potrebo po uvedbi primernih splošnih in posameznih ukrepov v slovenski pravni red.
As the Court &amp; apos;s judgments are essentially declaratory, the respondent State remains free, subject to the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court &amp; apos;s judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Sejdovic, cited above, § 119; and Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 238, 22 December 2008).
Ker so sodbe Sodišča v bistvu ugotovitvene, lahko tožena država svobodno, vendar pod nadzorom Odbora ministrov izbere sredstva, s katerimi bo izpolnila svoje pravne obveznosti po 46. u konvencije, če so ta sredstva združljiva s sklepi, določenimi v sodbi Sodišča (glej Scozzari in Giunta proti Italiji [VS], št. 39221/98 in 41963/98, 249. odstavek, ESČP 2000-VIII, Sejdovic, 119. odstavek, in Aleksanyan proti Rusiji, št. 46468/06, 238. odstavek, 22. 12. 2008).
In the present case, the Court has found violations of the applicants &amp; apos; rights guaranteed by Articles 8, 13 and 14, which essentially originated in the prolonged failure of the Slovenian authorities, in spite of the Constitutional Court &amp; apos;s leading judgments, to regularise the applicants &amp; apos; residence status following their &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; and to provide them with adequate redress.
V tej zadevi je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so bile pritožnikom kršene pravice, ki jih jamčijo 8., 13. in 14. člen. Bistveni razlog teh kršitev je bilo dolgotrajno omahovanje slovenske oblasti, da kljub temeljnim odločbam ustavnega sodišča zakonsko uredi prebivališče pritožnikov po njihovem izbrisu in jim zagotovi ustrezno zadoščenje.
The &amp; quot;erasure &amp; quot; concerned an entire category of former SFRY citizens with permanent residence in Slovenia who had the citizenship of one of the other former SFRY republics at the time of Slovenia &amp; apos;s declaration of independence.
Izbris se je nanašal na celotno skupino državljanov nekdanje SFRJ s stalnim prebivališčem v Sloveniji, ki so imeli ob razglasitvi slovenske neodvisnosti državljanstvo ene od republik nekdanje SFRJ.
This new law enables the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; to take steps to regularise their residence in Slovenia.
Ta novi zakon izbrisanim omogoča sprejetje ukrepov za zakonsko ureditev njihovega prebivališča v Sloveniji.
It is also worth noting that the six applicants in respect of whom the Court has found a breach of the Convention have been provided with permanent residence permits (see paragraphs 95, 123, 133, 158, 173 and 194 above) and that the Government have set up an intergovernmental commission in order to monitor the implementation of the amended Legal Status Act and to tackle the problem of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; (see paragraph 404 above).
Treba je še ugotoviti, da je bilo šestim pritožnikom, glede katerih je Sodišče ugotovilo kršitev konvencije, izdano dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje (glej 95., 123., 133., 158., 173. in 194. odstavek) in da je vlada ustanovila medvladno komisijo zaradi spremljanja izvajanja spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD ter obravnavanja vprašanja izbrisanih (glej 404. odstavek).
However, the Court considers that it would be premature at this stage, in the absence of any settled domestic practice, to examine whether the reforms outlined above and the various steps taken by the Government have achieved the result of satisfactorily regulating the residence status of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; (see, mutatis mutandis, Sejdovic, cited above, §§ 119 and 123).
Sodišče meni, da bi bilo na tej stopnji, zato ker ni bilo nikakršne ustaljene domače prakse, prezgodaj preverjati, ali je bila z zgoraj navedenimi spremembami in različnimi ukrepi, ki jih je sprejela vlada, dosežena zadovoljiva zakonska ureditev prebivališča izbrisanih (smiselno glej Sejdovic, 119. in 123. odstavek).
At the same time, the Court has found that the applicants were not awarded proper financial redress for the years during which they were in a position of vulnerability and legal insecurity and that, as matters currently stand, the possibility of obtaining compensation at the domestic level in civil proceedings or before the State Attorney &amp; apos;s Office is still remote (see paragraph 268 above).
Istočasno je Sodišče ugotovilo, da pritožnikom ni bilo dodeljeno primerno denarno povračilo za leta, v katerih so bili ranljivi in izpostavljeni pravni negotovosti, ter da je glede na zdajšnje stanje možnost pridobitve odškodnine na domači ravni v pravdnem postopku ali pri državnem pravobranilstvu še vedno zelo majhna (glej 268. odstavek).
Therefore, the Court finds that the facts of the case disclose the existence, within the Slovenian legal order, of a shortcoming as a consequence of which the whole category of the &amp; quot;erased &amp; quot; are still denied compensation for the infringement of their fundamental rights.
Zato Sodišče ugotavlja, da dejstva obravnavane zadeve razkrivajo pomanjkljivosti slovenskega pravnega reda, posledica česar je, da se celotni skupini izbrisanih še vedno zanika pravica do odškodnine zaradi kršitve njihovih temeljnih pravic.