natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, the three above-mentioned international bodies had underlined the shortcomings of the amended Legal Status Act. 
Trije zgoraj navedeni mednarodni organi so prav tako poudarili pomanjkljivosti spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD.
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 &quot;erased&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&apos;s decision of 2003 had been fully implemented. 
S tem je bila odločba ustavnega sodišča iz leta 2003 v celoti uveljavljena.
In their view, the Chamber had failed to attach sufficient weight to the fact that the amended Legal Status Act was about to enter into force. 
Po njenem mnenju senat ni pripisal zadostnega pomena skorajšnji uveljavitvi spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD.
The Republic of Slovenia had therefore already taken appropriate steps before the delivery of the Chamber judgment. 
Republika Slovenija je zato še pred izrekom sodbe senata sprejela ustrezne ukrepe.
Moreover, various media had been used to provide information to the &quot;erased&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.).
This was also the main reason why referral to the Grand Chamber had been requested. 
To je bil tudi glavni razlog za prošnjo, da se zadeva predloži velikemu senatu.
Furthermore, on 25 November 2011 an intergovernmental commission had been set up in order to deal with the problem of the &quot;erased&quot;. 
Poleg tega je bila zaradi obravnavanja vprašanja izbrisanih 25. 11. 2011 ustanovljena medvladna komisija.
The implementation of the Act was also regularly monitored by the authorities. 
Izvajanje omenjenega zakona so redno spremljali tudi pristojni organi.
Sixty-four permanent residence permits and 111 supplementary permits had been issued under the amended Legal Status Act. 
Na podlagi spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD je bilo izdanih štiriinšestdeset dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje in 111 dopolnilnih dovoljenj.
Altogether, 12,500 of the &quot;erased&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&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.
enactment of appropriate legislation and regulation of the situation of the individual applicants by issuing retroactive permanent residence permits (see paragraphs 401-407 of the Chamber judgment). 
To se nanaša na sprejetje primerne zakonodaje in ureditev položaja posameznih pritožnikov z izdajo dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj (glej 401.-407. odstavek sodbe senata).
By Article 46 of the Convention the High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they are parties, execution being supervised by the Committee of Ministers. 
Visoke pogodbenice se v skladu s 46. členom konvencije zavezujejo, da bodo spoštovale končno sodbo Sodišča v vsaki zadevi, v kateri nastopajo kot stranke, pri čemer njeno izvršitev nadzoruje Odbor ministrov.
It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction under Article 41, but also to choose the general or, if appropriate, individual measures or both to be adopted. 
Iz tega med drugim izhaja, da se s sodbo, v kateri Sodišče ugotovi kršitev, toženi državi naloži pravna obveznost, po kateri mora prizadetim ne le plačati zneske, priznane kot pravično zadoščenje po 41. členu, ampak tudi izbrati splošne, ali če je primerno, posamične ukrepe ali oboje in jih tudi sprejeti.
As the Court&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&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).
However, in exceptional cases, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court will seek to indicate the type of measure that might be taken in order to put an end to a situation it has found to exist (see, for example, Broniowski, cited above, § 194). 
Da bi Sodišče toženi državi pomagalo izpolniti obveznosti po 46. členu, lahko v izjemnih primerih poskuša navesti vrsto ukrepa, ki naj bi se sprejel za prenehanje stanja, ki ga je ugotovilo (glej na primer Broniowski, 194. odstavek).
In the present case, the Court has found violations of the applicants&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&apos;s leading judgments, to regularise the applicants&apos; residence status following their &quot;erasure&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 &quot;erasure&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&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.
It has therefore affected and still affects a large number of persons. 
Zato je prizadel in še vedno prizadeva veliko oseb.
However, it should be borne in mind that various legislative reforms, notably the amended Legal Status Act (see paragraphs 76-79 and 211 above), have been implemented after the delivery of the Chamber judgment. 
Treba pa je vedeti, da so bile različne zakonodajne spremembe, zlasti spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD (glej 76.-79. in 211. odstavek), uveljavljene po izreku sodbe senata.
This new law enables the &quot;erased&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 &quot;erased&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).
It is true that the amended Legal Status Act has been in place since 24 July 2010 and that some international monitoring bodies have underlined certain of its shortcomings (see paragraphs 223 and 227-228 above). 
Nesporno je, da je spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD obstajal od 24. 7. 2010 ter da so nekateri mednarodni nadzorni organi opozorili na nekatere pomanjkljivosti tega zakona (glej 223. in 227.-228. 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 &quot;erased&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&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 &quot;erased&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.
The Court considers that the present case is suitable for the adoption of a pilot-judgment procedure within the meaning of Rule 61 of the Rules of Court, given that one of the fundamental implications of this procedure is that the Court&apos;s assessment of the situation complained of in a &quot;pilot&quot; case necessarily extends beyond the sole interests of the individual applicants and requires it to examine that case also from the perspective of the general measures that need to be taken in the interest of other potentially affected persons (see Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 36, ECHR 2005-IX, and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 33, 28 April 2008). 
Sodišče meni, da je ta zadeva primerna za postopek sprejemanja pilotne sodbe v smislu 61. a Poslovnika Sodišča, ker je ena temeljnih posledic tega postopka, da presoja Sodišča v zvezi s stanjem, ki se očita v &quot;pilotni&quot; zadevi, neizogibno presega izključne interese posameznih pritožnikov in da od njega zahteva preverjanje te zadeve tudi z vidika splošnih ukrepov, ki jih je treba sprejeti v interesu drugih oseb, morebiti prav tako prizadetih (glej Broniowski proti Poljski (prijateljska poravnava) [VS], št. 31443/96, 36. odstavek, ESČP, 2005-IX, in Hutten-Czapska proti Poljski (prijateljska poravnava) [VS], št. odstavek, 28. 4. 2008).
In this connection, the Court observes that, further to the pilot judgment in the case of Lukenda v. Slovenia (no. 23032/02, §§ 89-98, ECHR 2005-X), concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings and the malfunctioning of the domestic legal system in this respect, the Government adopted a number of measures, including the setting up of a special financial mechanism. 
V tej zvezi Sodišče pripominja, da je vlada kot nadaljevanje pilotne sodbe v zadevi Lukenda proti Sloveniji (št. odstavek, ESČP 2005-X) zaradi predolgih sodnih postopkov in pomanjkljivega delovanja domačega pravnega sistema v tem pogledu sprejela celo vrsto ukrepov, vključno s postavitvijo posebnega finančnega mehanizma.
This has enabled the Court to dispose of a high number of pending cases. 
To je Sodišču omogočilo, da se je rešilo veliko nerešenih zadev.
Although only a few similar applications lodged by &quot;erased&quot; persons are currently pending before the Court, in the context of systemic, structural or similar violations the potential inflow of future cases is also an important consideration in terms of preventing the accumulation of such repetitive cases on the Court&apos;s docket. 
Čeprav je pri Sodišču le še nekaj podobnih nerešenih pritožb, ki so jih vložili izbrisani, je glede na sistemske, strukturne ali podobne kršitve morebiten priliv prihodnjih zadev prav tako zelo pomemben,, da se prepreči kopičenje takih ponavljajočih se zadev na seznamu Sodišča.
As regards the consultation of the parties to the proceedings on this matter, as provided for by Rule 61 § 2 (a), the Court would point out that this provision entered into force on 1 April 2011, well after this case was brought before the Grand Chamber, thus preventing it from being applied in the present case. 
Glede posvetovanja strank v postopku v tej zadevi, kot ga določa točka a drugega odstavka 61. a poslovnika, želi Sodišče poudariti, da je ta določba začela veljati 1. 4. 2011, torej precej po predložitvi zadeve velikemu senatu, zaradi česar se pri slednji ni mogla uporabiti.
The Court therefore decides to indicate, in accordance with Rule 61 § 3, that the respondent Government should, within one year, set up an ad hoc domestic compensation scheme (see, mutatis mutandis, Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 239, and Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (merits), no. 46347/99, § 40, 22 December 2005). 
Sodišče je zato v skladu s tretjim odstavkom 61. a poslovnika sklenilo, da mora vlada v enem letu postaviti odškodninsko shemo na državni ravni posebej za ta primer (smiselno glej Hutten-Czapska, 239. odstavek, in Xenides-Arestis proti Turčiji (utemeljenost), št. odstavek, 22. 12. 2005).
Pursuant to Rule 61 § 6 (a), the examination of all similar applications will be adjourned pending the adoption of the remedial measures at issue. 
V skladu s točko a šestega odstavka 61. a poslovnika se preverjanje vseh podobnih pritožb preloži, dokler ne bodo sprejeti ustrezni popravni ukrepi.
The applicants claimed awards for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as the reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 
Pritožniki so zahtevali, da se jim prisodi odškodnina za nepremoženjsko in premoženjsko škodo, pa tudi povračilo stroškov in izdatkov, nastalih v postopku pred Sodiščem.
The Government disputed their claims. 
Vlada je njihove zahtevke izpodbijala.
The applicants contended that the Government&apos;s position that they should first file their compensation claims before the domestic courts or the State Attorney&apos;s Office had no merit (they cited Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, § 17, Series A no. 285-C). 
Pritožniki so trdili, da stališče vlade, po katerem naj bi svoje odškodninske zahtevke najprej vložili pri domačih sodiščih ali državnem pravobranilstvu, ni bilo utemeljeno (navedli so Barberŕ, Messegué in Jabardo proti Španiji (50. ), 13. 6. 1994, 17. odstavek, serija A, št. 285-C).
The admissibility of claims for just satisfaction was not subordinate to the prior exercise of domestic legal remedies. 
Sprejemljivost zahtev za pravično zadoščenje ni bila podrejena predhodnemu uveljavljanju domačih pravnih sredstev.
This was particularly true where, as in the present case, the remedies in question were manifestly incapable of offering the injured parties a speedy and simple opportunity to obtain pecuniary reparation. 
To je še zlasti veljalo, ko tako kot v tej zadevi ustrezna pravna sredstva oškodovancem očitno niso mogla zagotoviti hitre in preproste priložnosti za pridobitev denarnega nadomestila.
Before the Grand Chamber, the applicants updated their just satisfaction claims. 
Pri velikem senatu so pritožniki dopolnili svoje zahtevke za pravično zadoščenje.
Each applicant with no income requested an amount corresponding to the social and housing allowances which he or she could have received if the &quot;erasure&quot; had not taken place. 
Vsak pritožnik brez prihodkov je zahteval znesek, ki ustreza socialnim in stanovanjskim dodatkom, ki bi jih lahko prejel ali prejela, če ne bi bilo izbrisa.
The applicants submitted the following claims in respect of pecuniary damage: 
Pritožniki so predložili te zahtevke v zvezi s premoženjsko škodo:
Furthermore, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicants stated that the &quot;erasure&quot; had had extremely serious consequences for them and had caused dramatic and wide-ranging upheaval in their lives: unregulated status, loss of employment, living conditions unworthy of a human being, and serious health problems for many of them. 
Poleg tega so pritožniki glede nepremoženjske škode navedli, da je imel izbris zanje izjemno hude posledice in je v njihovem življenju povzročil dramatičen in obsežen prelom: neurejen status, izgubo zaposlitve, človeka nevredne življenjske razmere in za mnoge od njih hude zdravstvene težave.
In short, they had sustained different forms of suffering recognised by the Court&apos;s case-law: 
Na kratko, izpostavljeni so bili različnim oblikam trpljenja, ki ga priznava sodna praksa Sodišča:
pain and feelings of deep instability and insecurity about the future, which they had endured for an extremely long period, anxiety deriving from the danger of deportation, and a deep sensation of anxiety and sadness because of xenophobic attitudes and because of the absence of effective remedies. 
bolečini in občutkom hude zaskrbljenosti in negotovosti glede prihodnosti, kar so trpeli v izjemno dolgem obdobju, tesnobi zaradi strahu pred izgonom iz države, občutkom tesnobe in žalosti zaradi ksenofobičnega odnosa in pomanjkanja učinkovitih pravih sredstev.
They contended that the non-pecuniary damage should be calculated from February 1999, the date of the Constitutional Court&apos;s first decision, and claimed the following amounts: 
Trdili so, da bi se morala nepremoženjska škoda izračunati od februarja 1999 oziroma datuma prve odločbe ustavnega sodišča, in zahtevali te zneske:
Lastly, the applicants claimed EUR 49,975.82, plus VAT and additional taxes (EUR 62,369.82), for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 
Končno so pritožniki zahtevali 49.975,82 EUR, vključno z DDV in dodatnimi davki (62.369,82 EUR), za stroške in izdatke, ki so nastali v postopkih pred Sodiščem.
They underlined that given the exceptional circumstances of the case and their extremely poor living conditions, their representatives had agreed to waive their fees should the Court reject their complaints. 
Poudarili so, da so se glede na izjemne okoliščine in njihove zelo slabe življenjske razmere njihovi zastopniki strinjali, da se odpovedo svojim honorarjem, če bi Sodišče pritožbe zavrnilo.
Therefore, no payment had been made so far by the applicants, and no relevant supporting documents could be produced. 
Zato pritožniki doslej niso plačali ničesar, prav tako pa niso mogli predložiti nobenih dokazil.
Only Mr Berisha and Mr Miniæ had filed a partial claim for damages with the State Attorney&apos;s Office, which had been rejected. 
Le Ali Berisha in Zoran Minić sta vložila delni odškodninski zahtevek pri državnem pravobranilstvu, a to ga je zavrnilo.
The Chamber considered that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision and accordingly decided to reserve it as a whole (see paragraphs 422-423 of the Chamber judgment and point 7 of its operative provisions). 
Senat je menil, da vprašanje uporabe 41. a konvencije še ni zrelo za odločanje, in se je zato odločil, da ga bo kot celoto pridržal (glej 422.-423. odstavek sodbe senata in 7. točko njenega izreka).
In the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the question of compensation for pecuniary damage is not ready for decision. 
V okoliščinah te zadeve Sodišče meni, da vprašanje nadomestila za premoženjsko škodo ni zrelo za odločanje.
That question must accordingly be reserved and the subsequent procedure fixed, having due regard to any agreement which might be reached between the Government and the applicants and in the light of such individual or general measures as may be taken by the Government in the execution of the present judgment (Rule 61 § 7 and Rule 75 § 1 of the Rules of Court). 
Odločanje o tem vprašanju je torej treba pridržati in določiti nadaljnji postopek ob upoštevanju morebitnega dogovora, doseženega med toženo vlado in pritožniki, ter glede na posamezne ali splošne ukrepe, ki jih bo sprejela vlada pri izvršitvi te sodbe (sedmi odstavek 61. a in prvi odstavek 75. a Poslovnika Sodišča).
Having regard to the nature of the violations found in the instant case and the suffering endured by the applicants, the Court is prepared to uphold their claims in part and to award, on an equitable basis, EUR 20,000 to each successful applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 
Ob upoštevanju narave kršitev, ugotovljenih v tej zadevi, in trpljenja pritožnikov je Sodišče pripravljeno delno pritrditi njihovim zahtevkom ter po načelu pravičnosti vsakemu uspešnemu pritožniku prisoditi 20.000 EUR za nepremoženjsko škodo.
According to the Court&apos;s case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XI). 
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča je pritožnik upravičen do povrnitve stroškov in izdatkov le, če dokaže, da so dejansko nastali, da so bili potrebni in da so razumno visoki (glej na primer Iatridis proti Grčiji (pravično zadoščenje) [VS], št. odstavek, ESČP 2000-XI).
The Court notes that the case involved perusing a certain amount of factual and documentary evidence and required a fair degree of research and preparation. 
Sodišče pripominja, da je obravnavana zadeva zahtevala pozorno prebiranje veliko dejanskih in listinskih dokazov ter precej raziskav in priprav.
Although the Court does not doubt that the fees claimed were actually incurred, it considers the amount claimed for the costs and expenses relating to the proceedings before it excessive. 
Čeprav Sodišče ne dvomi o dejanskih zneskih zahtevanih honorarjev, pa vendarle meni, da je znesek, ki se zahteva za stroške in izdatke v zvezi s postopki, pretiran.
Having regard to the fact that the legal issues raised by the application were similar for all the applicants, the Court decides to award them the overall sum of EUR 30,000. 
Ob upoštevanju, da so bila pravna vprašanja, postavljena v pritožbi, podobna za vse pritožnike, je Sodišče sklenilo, da se jim prisodi skupni znesek v višini 30.000 EUR.
Holds, by fifteen votes to two, that it does not have jurisdiction to examine the complaints raised by 
s petnajstimi glasovi proti dvema razsoja, da ni pristojno za preverjanje pritožb, ki sta jih vložila