natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The applicants&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.
They had been treated like all other aliens without a residence permit. 
Obravnavani so bili enako kot vsi drugi tujci brez dovoljenja za prebivanje.
As to the SFRY legislation and the provisions of the Aliens Act, the applicants and the &quot;real&quot; aliens had never been in a comparable situation. 
Glede na zakonodajo SFRJ in določbe Zakona o tujcih pritožniki in &quot;pravi&quot; tujci nikoli niso bili v primerljivem položaju.
Moreover, the applicants had benefited from positive discrimination, since they had in principle not been deported from Slovenia. 
Poleg tega je pritožnikom pozitivna diskriminacija koristila, saj praviloma niso bili izgnani iz Slovenije.
Apart from the Serbian Government, the other third parties&apos; submissions before the Chamber focused primarily on the issue of discrimination, which had been recognised as being of fundamental importance in the Court&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 &quot;erased&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 &quot;erased&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 &quot;erasure&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 &quot;erased&quot;. 
Za desetletja dolgo pravno negotovost, ki so jo izkusili izbrisani, ni nobene objektivne utemeljitve.
Lastly, other Council of Europe bodies had interpreted the right to non-discrimination as requiring positive action on the part of member States. 
Končno so drugi organi Sveta Evrope pravico do nediskriminacije razložili kot zahtevo po pozitivnem ravnanju držav članic.
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&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&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.
As the Court has consistently held, Article 14 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. 
Sodišče je dosledno vztrajalo, da 14. člen dopolnjuje druge vsebinske določbe konvencije in njenih protokolov.
It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to &quot;the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms&quot; safeguarded by those provisions. 
Ne obstaja neodvisno, saj je veljaven samo v povezavi z &quot;uživanjem pravic in svoboščin&quot;, ki jih varujejo te določbe.
Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts in issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, among many other authorities, Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, § 33, Reports 1997-I; Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 22, Reports 1998-II; and Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 42, ECHR 2006-VIII). 
Kljub temu da uporaba 14. člena ne predvideva kršitve teh določb - in člen je toliko neodvisen - se ne more uporabljati, razen če sporna dejstva ne spadajo na področje ene ali več določb (glej med številnimi drugimi zadevami Van Raalte proti Nizozemski, 21. februar 1997, 33. odstavek, Poročila 1997-I; Petrovic proti Avstriji, 27. marec 1998, 22. odstavek, Poročila 1998-II, in Zarb Adami proti Malti, št. odstavek, ESČP 2006-VIII).
In the present case, the Court has found that the measures complained of constituted an unlawful interference with the applicants&apos; &quot;private or family life&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).
Article 8 thus being applicable to the facts of the case, Article 14 is applicable too. 
Tako je 8. člen veljaven glede na dejstva zadeve, prav tako pa tudi 14. člen.
According to the Court&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 &quot;legitimate aim&quot; or if there is not a &quot;reasonable relationship of proportionality&quot; between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. 
Razlika v obravnavanju ni utemeljena objektivno in smiselno, če ne sledi &quot;zakonitemu cilju&quot; ali če med uporabljenimi sredstvi in ciljem, ki se želi doseči, ni &quot;primernega sorazmerja&quot;.
Where the difference in treatment is based on race, colour or ethnic origin, the notion of objective and reasonable justification must be interpreted as strictly as possible (see, among many other authorities, Oršuš and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, § 156, ECHR 2010). 
Če temelji različno obravnavanje na rasi, barvi kože ali narodnostnem izvoru, je treba pojem objektivne in smiselne utemeljitve razlagati čim dosledneje (glej med številnimi drugimi zadevami Oršuš in drugi proti Hrvaški, [VS], št. 15766/03, 156. odstavek, ESČP 2010).
The Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a difference in treatment (see Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, § 42, Reports 1996-IV). 
Države pogodbenice imajo neke meje pri prosti presoji, ali in koliko razlike v sicer podobnih okoliščinah upravičujejo razlikovanje v obravnavanju (glej Gaygusuz proti Avstriji, 16. september 1996, 42. odstavek, Poročila 1996-IV).
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&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.
Since the Convention is first and foremost a system for the protection of human rights, the Court must, however, have regard to the changing conditions in Contracting States and respond, for example, to any emerging consensus as to the standards to be achieved (see Ünal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 54, ECHR 2004-X, and, mutatis mutandis, Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 68, ECHR 2002-IV). 
Ker je konvencija predvsem sistem varstva človekovih pravic, mora Sodišče vendarle upoštevati spreminjajoče se pogoje v državah pogodbenicah in se na primer odzvati na vsako nastajajoče soglasje glede standardov, ki naj bi se dosegli (glej Ünal Tekeli proti Turčiji, št. odstavek, ESČP 2004-X, in smiselno Stafford proti Združenemu kraljestvu [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2002-IV).
That being said, Article 14 does not prohibit Contracting Parties from treating groups differently in order to correct &quot;factual inequalities&quot; between them. 
Glede na povedano je treba dodati, da 14. pogodbenicam ne prepoveduje različnega obravnavanja skupin, zato da bi odpravile &quot;dejansko neenakost&quot; med njimi.
Indeed, in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may, without an objective and reasonable justification, give rise to a breach of that Article (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV, and Sejdiæ and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 44, ECHR 2009). 
Pravzaprav v nekaterih okoliščinah opustitev poskusa, da se neenakost odpravi z različnim obravnavanjem, lahko povzroči kršitev tega člena brez objektivne in smiselne utemeljitve (glej Thlimmenos proti Grčiji [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2000-IV, in Sejdić in Finci proti Bosni in Hercegovini [VS], št. 27996/06 in 34836/06, 44. odstavek, ESČP 2009).
The Court has also accepted that a general policy or measure that has disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group may be considered discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed at that group, and that discrimination potentially contrary to the Convention may result from a de facto situation (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 175, and the authorities cited therein). 
Sodišče je tudi potrdilo, da se lahko splošna usmeritev ali ukrep, ki ima nesorazmerno škodljive posledice za določeno skupino, šteje za diskriminacijskega, čeprav ni posebej usmerjen v to skupino, in da lahko diskriminacija, ki je morebiti v nasprotju s konvencijo, izvira iz dejanskega stanja (glej D. H. in drugi proti Češki republiki, 175. odstavek, in v njej navedene zadeve).
Lastly, as to the burden of proof in relation to Article 14 of the Convention, the Court has held that once the applicant has shown a difference in treatment, it is for the Government to show that it was justified (ibid., § 177). 
Glede dokaznega bremena v povezavi s 14. om konvencije pa Sodišče končno meni, da je vlada tista, ki mora prikazati upravičenost razlike v obravnavanju, potem ko jo je pritožnik že dokazal (prav tam, 177. odstavek).
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 &quot;real&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 &quot;pravi&quot; tujci), urejal 82. Zakona o tujcih, ki je določal, da ostanejo njihova dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje še naprej veljavna (glej 207. odstavek).
However, the Aliens Act failed to regulate the status of the citizens of other SFRY republics who were residing in Slovenia. 
Toda Zakon o tujcih ni uredil statusa državljanov drugih republik SFRJ, ki so prebivali v Sloveniji.
As underlined above (see paragraph 344 above), this legal vacuum resulted in the &quot;erasure&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.
It could be argued that before the independence of Slovenia there was a difference between these two groups, since one was composed of aliens, whereas the other was composed of citizens of the former federal State of which Slovenia was a constituent part. 
Lahko bi se trdilo, da je pred slovensko osamosvojitvijo med tema skupinama obstajala razlika, ker so eno sestavljali tujci, drugo pa državljani nekdanje zvezne države, katere sestavni del je bila tudi Slovenija.
However, in the Court&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.
The two groups were both composed of aliens holding citizenship of a State other than Slovenia or stateless people. 
Obe skupini so sestavljali tujci, ki niso imeli slovenskega, ampak državljanstvo neke druge države, in osebe brez državljanstva.
As an effect of the &quot;erasure&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 - &quot;real&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 - &quot;pravimi&quot; tujci in državljani republik nekdanje SFRJ razen Slovenije -, ki sta bili glede zadev, povezanih s prebivališčem, v podobnem položaju.
The Court does not see how the necessity, referred to by the Government, of forming a corpus of Slovenian citizens with a view to the parliamentary elections of 1992 (see paragraph 378 above) could have required differential treatment in granting foreigners the possibility of residing in Slovenia, as a residence permit did not confer the right to vote on the holder. 
Sodišče ne razume, kako je lahko potreba po oblikovanju slovenskega državljanskega telesa zaradi parlamentarnih volitev leta 1992, ki jo omenja vlada (glej 378. odstavek), zahtevala različno obravnavanje tujcev pri odobritvi možnosti prebivanja v Sloveniji, saj dovoljenje za prebivanje imetniku ni dodeljevalo volilne pravice.
It is true that only the &quot;erased&quot;, and not &quot;real&quot; aliens, were given the possibility of acquiring Slovenian nationality on favourable conditions. 
Res je, da je bila le izbrisanim in ne &quot;pravim&quot; tujcem dana možnost pridobitve slovenskega državljanstva pod ugodnejšimi pogoji.
However, the Court has already underlined that, as such, a failure to apply for citizenship cannot be considered a reasonable ground for depriving a group of aliens of their residence permits (see paragraph 357 above). 
Kot je Sodišče že poudarilo, pa se opustitev vložitve prošnje za državljanstvo sama po sebi ne more šteti za utemeljen razlog, na podlagi katerega se skupina tujcev prikrajša za dovoljenje za prebivanje (glej 357. odstavek).
Under these circumstances, the Court considers that the differential treatment complained of was based on the national origin of the persons concerned - as former SFRY citizens were treated differently from other foreigners - and that it did not pursue a legitimate aim and therefore lacked an objective and reasonable justification (see, mutatis mutandis, Sejdiæ and Finci, cited above, §§ 45-50). 
V teh okoliščinah Sodišče meni, da je očitano pristransko obravnavanje temeljilo na narodnostnem izvoru obravnavanih oseb - kot državljani nekdanje SFRJ so bili obravnavani drugače kakor drugi tujci - ter da ni sledilo zakonitemu cilju in je bilo zato objektivno in smiselno neutemeljeno (smiselno glej Sejdić in Finci, 45.-50. odstavek).
Moreover, the situation of the former SFRY citizens, including the applicants, was significantly altered after the declaration of independence when compared with that of &quot;real&quot; aliens. 
Poleg tega se je v primerjavi s &quot;pravimi&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 &quot;real&quot; aliens. 
Pred letom 1991 so bili državljani nekdanje SFRJ v zadevah, povezanih s prebivališčem, v primerjavi s &quot;pravimi&quot; tujci v privilegiranem položaju.
At the relevant time, citizenship of the federal State could have been looked at as an objective ground for such preferential treatment. 
V tistem času bi bilo državljanstvo zvezne države lahko objektivni razlog za tako prednostno obravnavo.
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 &quot;real&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 &quot;pravimi&quot; tujci, ker so samo ti obdržali veljavno dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje, čeprav niso zaprosili za slovensko državljanstvo (glej 390. odstavek).
In the Court&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 &quot;erased&quot; were in a less favourable legal position than &quot;real&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 &quot;pravi&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).
Having regard to the foregoing, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. 
Glede na navedeno Sodišče ugotavlja, da je bil kršen 14. člen v povezavi z 8. členom konvencije.
Under this provision, the applicants requested the Court to indicate general measures aimed at redressing the situation of the &quot;erased&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 &quot;erased&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 amended Legal Status Act was prima facie an insufficient legal remedy, the decision of 3 April 2003 being applied in the most minimal and restrictive way, preserving the main features and requirements of the previous legislation. 
Spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD je bil že na prvi pogled (prima facie) nezadostno pravno sredstvo, pri čemer se je odločba z dne 3. 4. 2003 uporabljala kar najmanj in kar najbolj omejevalno, ohranil pa je tudi glavne značilnosti in zahteve iz prejšnje zakonodaje.
The condition of &quot;actually residing in Slovenia&quot; had been changed in order to include some exceptions. 
Pogoj &quot;dejanskega prebivanja v Sloveniji&quot; je bil spremenjen zaradi vključitve nekaterih izjem.
However, not all the cases of the &quot;erased&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 &quot;erased&quot;. 
Postopek je bil okoren in drag, dokazno breme pa je bilo na strani izbrisanih.
In the event of prolonged absence from Slovenia, they had to show that they had tried to return during the first ten years, which was extremely difficult to prove. 
Ob daljši odsotnosti so morali dokazati, da so se v prvih desetih letih poskušali vrniti v Slovenijo, kar je bilo izjemno težko dokazati.
It was therefore not surprising that according to the latest statistics as of June 2011, out of 127 applications submitted (from a total of 13,000 eligible persons), only thirty had been successful while sixty had been dismissed. 
Zato ni bilo presenetljivo, da je bilo po zadnjih statističnih podatkih iz junija 2011 od 127 vloženih pritožb (od skupaj 13.000 upravičencev) uspešnih le trideset, šestdeset pa je bilo zavrnjenih.
The heavy rate of rejected applications showed that the legislation had serious shortcomings. 
Visok odstotek zavrnjenih pritožb je razkril resne pomanjkljivosti v zakonodaji.
As to the individual measures, the issuing of permanent residence permits did not constitute sufficient redress for the violations found. 
Glede posameznih ukrepov je treba reči, da izdaja dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje ni zadosti popravila krivice zaradi ugotovljenih kršitev.
The serious non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage suffered required further remedial action, namely the adoption of individual measures of reparation. 
Resna nepremoženjska in premoženjska škoda je zahtevala nadaljnje popravno ravnanje, namreč sprejetje posameznih ukrepov za ustrezno nadomestilo.
This had also been stressed in the 2010 concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The Council of Europe&apos;s Commissioner for Human Rights had also stated that other measures were necessary in order to redress the violations suffered by the &quot;erased&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.
He had stressed that the new legislation did not provide for any specific mechanism for affording fair compensation for the many years of unregulated status. 
Poudaril je, da nova zakonodaja ni zagotovila nobenega posebnega mehanizma za dodelitev poštene odškodnine za dolgoletni neurejeni status.
The concluding observations of the Committee against Torture had also urged the respondent Government to facilitate the full integration of the &quot;erased&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.