natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows that, at least until 2010, the domestic legal system failed to regulate clearly the consequences of the &quot;erasure&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.
Therefore, not only were the applicants not in a position to foresee the measure complained of, but they were also unable to envisage its repercussions on their private or family life or both. 
Torej ne samo da pritožniki niso mogli predvideti ukrepa, nad katerim se pritožujejo, ampak tudi niso mogli predvideti njegovih posledic na zasebno ali družinsko življenje ali pa oboje.
This is sufficient for the Court to come to the conclusion that the interference with the applicants&apos; Article 8 rights was not &quot;in accordance with the law&quot; and that this provision has been violated. 
To pa Sodišču zadostuje za ugotovitev, da poseganje v pravice pritožnikov po 8. u ni bilo &quot;v skladu z zakonom&quot; in da je bila ta določba kršena.
However, in the particular circumstances of the present case, and given the widespread repercussions of the &quot;erasure&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 Government submitted that at the time when the new State was being created, the independence legislation had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national security. 
Vlada je navedla, da je med nastajanjem nove države osamosvojitvena zakonodaja sledila zakonitemu cilju zaščite državne varnosti.
Moreover, the right for the State to control the entry and residence of aliens within its territory presupposed that it could take dissuasive measures, such as deportation, against persons infringing immigration laws (see paragraph 325 above). 
Poleg tega je pravica države, da nadzoruje vstop in prebivanje tujcev na svojem ozemlju, predvidela, da lahko sprejme odvračilne ukrepe, kakršen je izgon, zoper osebe, ki kršijo zakone priseljevanja (glej 325. odstavek).
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&apos;s independence in 1991 and the establishment of an effective political democracy, which entailed the formation of a &quot;corpus of Slovenian citizens&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 &quot;slovenskega državljanskega telesa&quot; zaradi državnozborskih volitev.
The interference complained of (the &quot;erasure&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 &quot;corpus of Slovenian citizens&quot; and thus to protect the interests of the country&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 &quot;slovensko državljansko telo&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 &quot;erased&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&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 &quot;necessary in a democratic society&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 &quot;potrebnega v demokratični družbi&quot;, če je bil sprejet kot odgovor na nujne družbene potrebe in če so uporabljena sredstva sorazmerna s cilji, ki se uresničujejo.
The Court&apos;s task consists in ascertaining whether the impugned measures struck a fair balance between the relevant interests, namely the individual&apos;s rights protected by the Convention on the one hand and the community&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&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).
However, measures restricting the right to reside in a country may, in certain cases, entail a violation of Article 8 of the Convention if they create disproportionate repercussions on the private or family life, or both, of the individuals concerned (see Boultif, cited above, § 55; Slivenko, cited above, § 128; Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, §§ 36-37, 22 April 2004; and Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, § 100, ECHR 2008). 
Lahko pa ukrepi, ki omejujejo pravico do prebivanja v državi, v nekaterih primerih kršijo 8. konvencije, če ustvarjajo nesorazmerne posledice za zasebno ali družinsko življenje ali pa za oboje pri prizadetih posameznikih (glej Boultif, 55. odstavek; Slivenko, 128. odstavek; Radovanovic proti Avstriji, št. odstavek, 22. april 2004; in Maslov proti Avstriji [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2008).
In the present case, the applicants, who, prior to Slovenia&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 &quot;erasure&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.
Indeed, the legal vacuum in the independence legislation (see paragraph 344 above) deprived the applicants of their legal status, which had previously given them access to a wide range of rights. 
Dejansko je pravna praznina v osamosvojitveni zakonodaji (glej 344. odstavek) pritožnikom odvzela njihov pravni status, ki jim je prej omogočal dostop do cele vrste pravic.
Allegedly, the &quot;erasure&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.
However, the Court points out that an alien lawfully residing in a country may wish to continue living in that country without necessarily acquiring its citizenship. 
Toda Sodišče poudarja, da tujec, ki zakonito prebiva v državi, morda želi še naprej prebivati v tej državi, ne da bi nujno pridobil njeno državljanstvo.
As shown by the difficulties faced by the applicants, for many years, in obtaining a valid residence permit, the Slovenian legislature failed to enact provisions aimed at permitting former SFRY citizens holding the citizenship of one of the other republics to regularise their residence status if they had chosen not to become Slovenian citizens or had failed to do so. 
Kot kažejo težave, s katerimi se spoprijemajo pritožniki pri pridobivanju veljavnega dovoljenja za prebivanje že več let, slovenski zakonodajalec ni uzakonil določb, ki bi omogočile državljanom nekdanje SFRJ z državljanstvom ene od drugih republik, da bi uredili svoj status prebivalca, če so se odločili, da ne bodo postali slovenski državljani ali pa jim to ni uspelo.
Such provisions would not have undermined the legitimate aims of controlling the residence of aliens or creating a corpus of Slovenian citizens, or both. 
Take določbe ne bi oslabile zakonitih ciljev nadzora nad prebivanjem tujcev ali oblikovanja slovenskega državljanskega telesa ali pa obojega.
In this connection, the Court reiterates that, while the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: 
Čeprav je bistveni cilj 8. člena zaščititi posameznika pred samovoljnim ravnanjem javne oblasti, v tej zvezi Sodišče ponovno poudarja, da to ,države ne zavezuje zgolj k temu, da se vzdrži takih posegov:
in addition to this negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective &quot;respect&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&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 &quot;erasure&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 &quot;prescribed by law&quot; nor &quot;necessary in a democratic society&quot; to achieve the legitimate aim of the protection of national security. 
Iz navedenih razlogov ukrepi, nad katerimi se pritožujejo, niso bili niti &quot;predpisani z zakonom&quot; niti &quot;potrebni v demokratični družbi&quot; za uresničitev zakonitega cilja zaščite državne varnosti.
Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 
Torej je bil kršen 8. člen konvencije.
The applicants maintained that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of their grievances under Article 8 of the Convention. 
Pritožniki so trdili, da niso imeli na voljo učinkovitega pravnega sredstva v zvezi s svojimi pritožbami na podlagi 8. člena konvencije.
Relying on the Court&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&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 &quot;erasure&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&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&apos;s prolonged failure to enforce the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision of 3 April 2003, which was legally binding, the applicants&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 Chamber found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention on account of the non-compliance with the leading decisions of the Constitutional Court and held that the Government had failed to establish that the remedies available to the applicants were effective (see paragraphs 383-386 of the Chamber judgment). 
Senat je ugotovil kršitev 13. a v povezavi z 8. om konvencije zaradi neskladnosti s temeljnimi odločbami ustavnega sodišča in razsodil, da vladi ni uspelo dokazati učinkovitosti razpoložljivih pravnih sredstev (glej 383.-386. odstavek sodbe senata).
As the Court has held on many occasions, Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. 
Kot je Sodišče že večkrat razsodilo, 13. člen konvencije na ravni države zagotavlja razpoložljivost pravnega sredstva v zvezi z uveljavljanjem bistva pravic in svoboščin iz konvencije v kakršni koli obliki zaradi njihovega varovanja v domačem pravnem redu.
The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an &quot;arguable complaint&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 &quot;verjetne pritožbe&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&apos; &quot;erasure&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&apos; complaints in that regard are therefore &quot;arguable&quot; for the purposes of Article 13. 
Pritožbe pritožnikov so v tem smislu &quot;verjetne&quot; po 13. členu.
The Court refers to its finding that the Government failed to establish that the remedies available to the applicants were &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;effective&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, &quot;ustreznosti&quot; in &quot;učinkovitosti&quot; razpoložljivih pravnih sredstev za popravo zatrjevane kršitve 8. člena konvencije v spornem času (glej 295.-313. odstavek).
Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. 
Torej je bil kršen 13. v povezavi z 8. členom konvencije.
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 &quot;real&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. &quot;pravi&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 &quot;real&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 &quot;prave&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&apos; view, the issue of discriminatory treatment of the &quot;erased&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.
25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 
25088/94, 28331/95 in 28443/95, 89. odstavek, ESČP 1999-III, in Nachova in drugi proti Bolgariji [VS], št.
43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 160-168, ECHR 2005-VII). 
43577/98 in 43579/98, 160.-168. odstavek, ESČP 2005-VII).
They underlined that the Constitutional Court itself had confirmed the existence of discrimination. 
Poudarili so, da je ustavno sodišče samo potrdilo obstoj diskriminacije.
If the continuous right to residence of &quot;real&quot; aliens was recognised by the Aliens Act, the same should apply all the more to the &quot;erased&quot;. 
Če je bilo priznano nadaljevanje pravice do prebivanja &quot;pravih&quot; tujcev z Zakonom o tujcih, bi moralo enako še toliko bolj veljati tudi za izbrisane.
Lastly, the applicants contested the respondent Government&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 Government stated that at the time of its independence, the Republic of Slovenia had allowed citizens of the other former republics of the SFRY with permanent residence in Slovenia to acquire Slovenian citizenship under exceptionally favourable conditions. 
Vlada je navedla, da je Republika Slovenija med osamosvojitvijo omogočila državljanom drugih republik nekdanje SFRJ s stalnim prebivališčem v Sloveniji pridobiti slovensko državljanstvo pod izredno ugodnimi pogoji.
In addition, the 1991 Constitutional Law guaranteed them equal treatment to Slovenian citizens until their acquisition of Slovenian citizenship or the expiry of the time-limits set by the Aliens Act (see paragraph 202 above). However, bearing in mind the necessity of forming a corpus of Slovenian citizens - especially with a view to the 1992 parliamentary elections - this equality in treatment could not last indefinitely. 
Poleg tega jim je ustavni zakon iz leta 1991 zagotovil enakost obravnavanja s slovenskimi državljani do pridobitve slovenskega državljanstva ali do poteka roka iz Zakona o tujcih (glej 202. odstavek) Ob upoštevanju potrebe po oblikovanju slovenskega državljanskega telesa, zlasti glede na državnozborske volitve leta 1992, pa ta enakost obravnavanja ni mogla trajati v nedogled.
Therefore, it was up to the permanent residents without Slovenian citizenship to seize the opportunity to acquire citizenship of the independent Slovenia; this was not granted automatically. 
Zato je bilo od stalnih prebivalcev Slovenije, ki niso imeli slovenskega državljanstva, odvisno, ali bodo posegli po možnosti za pridobitev državljanstva neodvisne Slovenije, ki ni bilo zagotovljeno samodejno.