natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Turning to the present case, the Grand Chamber reiterates that it has no jurisdiction in respect of the complaints of Mr Petreš and Mr.Jovanoviæ, as they were declared inadmissible by the Chamber after the issuance of the ex tunc residence permits (see paragraph 236 above). 
V zvezi s to zadevo veliki senat ponovno poudarja, da ni pristojen za pritožbi Ljubomirja Petreša in Jovana Jovanovića, ker ju je senat po izdaji dovoljenja za prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc) (glej 236. odstavek) razglasil za nesprejemljivi.
However, no such procedural bar occurs as far as Mr, Ms., Mr, Mr, Mr and Mr are concerned. 
Za pritožnike pa take postopkovne ovire ni.
The Grand Chamber therefore has jurisdiction to examine whether, notwithstanding the issuing of ex nunc and ex tunc residence permits, these six applicants can still claim to be victims of the alleged violations. 
Veliki senat je torej pristojen za proučitev, ali teh šest pritožnikov, ne glede na to, da jim je bilo izdano dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc), še vedno lahko trdi, da so žrtve zatrjevanih kršitev.
This examination may therefore lead to conclusions different from those reached by the Chamber in respect of Mr Petreš and Mr.Jovanoviæ, despite the similarity of the facts at stake. 
Ta obravnava lahko torej da drugačne ugotovitve od tistih, do katerih je prišel senat v zvezi z Ljubomirjem Petrešem in Jovanom Jovanovićem ne glede na podobnost spornih dejstev.
Such a result is, however, an unavoidable consequence of the restricted scope of the Grand Chamber&apos;s jurisdiction (see paragraph 235 above). 
Taka ugotovitev je neizogibna posledica omejenega obsega pristojnosti velikega senata (glej 235. odstavek).
The Grand Chamber considers that the first condition for the loss of victim status, the acknowledgment of a violation by the national authorities, has been fulfilled. 
Veliki senat meni, da je prvi pogoj za izgubo statusa žrtve priznanje državnih organov izpolnjen.
The administrative authorities granted permanent residence permits to the six applicants following the Constitutional Court&apos;s decisions finding the existing legislation unconstitutional and after the amendments to the Legal Status Act had been enacted. 
Upravni organi so po odločbi ustavnega sodišča, ki je ugotovilo, da je veljavna zakonodaja neustavna, ter po uveljavitvi sprememb in dopolnil ZUSDDD izdali dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje šestim prosilcem.
In addition, in June 2010, there was also an official acknowledgment of a violation of the applicants&apos; rights on the part of the Government and Parliament. 
Poleg tega sta junija 2010 vlada in Državni zbor javno priznala kršitve pravic pritožnikov.
The finding of a violation by the national authorities has therefore been made in substance (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino (no.1), cited above, § 194). 
Ugotovitev kršitve državnih organov je bila torej vsebinska (smiselno glej Scordino (št. 1), 194. odstavek).
Furthermore, the Grand Chamber notes that in several other cases concerning the regularisation of the status of aliens, including cases involving comparable circumstances of the break-up of a predecessor State, the Court has held that the applicants were no longer victims of the alleged violations of the Convention after the issuing of a permit and has declared their applications inadmissible or found that the regularisation arrangements made available to the applicants constituted an &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;sufficient&quot; remedy for their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and has thus decided to strike the cases out of its list. 
Veliki senat poleg tega ugotavlja, da je Sodišče v številnih drugih primerih, ki se nanašajo na urejanje statusa tujcev, vključno s primeri v primerljivih okoliščinah po razpadu prejšnje države, menilo, da pritožniki po izdaji dovoljenja niso več žrtve domnevnih kršitev konvencije in je njihove pritožbe razglasilo za nesprejemljive oziroma je ugotovilo, da so dogovori za ureditev statusa, ki so bili dani na voljo pritožnikom, učinkovito in zadostno pravno sredstvo za njihove pritožbe po 8. u konvencije ter se je zato odločilo, da te primere črta s svojega seznama.
The fact that the applicants were no longer at risk of deportation has also been taken into account by the Court (see Panèenko, cited above; Mikheyeva, cited above; Fjodorova and Others, cited above; Sisojeva and Others, cited above, §§ 102-104; Shevanova, cited above, §§ 48-50; and Kaftailova, cited above, § 54). 
Sodišče je upoštevalo tudi to, da pritožnikom ni več grozilo tveganje izgona (glej Pančenko; Mikheyeva; Fjodorova in drugi; Sisojeva in drugi, 102.-104. odstavek; Shevanova, 48.-50. odstavek; Kaftailova, 54. odstavek).
In some of these cases, however, the Court noted that the applicants were at least partly responsible for the difficulties encountered in regularising their status (see Shevanova, cited above, §§ 47 and 49; Kaftailova, cited above, § 50; and Sisojeva and Others, cited above, § 94). 
V nekaterih od teh primerov pa je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so bili pritožniki vsaj delno soodgovorni za nastale težave pri urejanju svojega statusa (glej Shevanova, 47. in 49. odstavek; Kaftailova, 50. odstavek; Sisojeva in drugi, 94. odstavek).
However, whereas those cases related to specific problems, the Grand Chamber finds that one of the characteristics of the present case is the widespread human-rights concern created by the &quot;erasure&quot;. 
Čeprav se ti primeri nanašajo na konkretne probleme, veliki senat ugotavlja, da je ena od značilnosti sedanjega primera splošna zaskrbljenost glede človekovih pravic, ki jo je povzročil izbris.
Furthermore, this situation lasted nearly twenty years for the majority of the applicants, in spite of the Constitutional Court&apos;s leading decisions, which were themselves not complied with for more than a decade (see Makuc and Others, cited above, § 168). 
Poleg tega je to stanje pri večini pritožnikov trajalo skoraj dvajset let kljub temeljnim odločbam ustavnega sodišča, ki se več kot desetletje niso upoštevale (glej Makuc in drugi, 168. odstavek).
Having regard to this lengthy period in which the applicants experienced insecurity and legal uncertainty and to the gravity of the consequences of the &quot;erasure&quot; for them, the Grand Chamber, unlike the Chamber, considers that the acknowledgment of the human rights violations and the issuance of permanent residence permits to Mr Kuriæ, Ms Mezga, Mr.Ristanoviæ, Mr Berisha, Mr Ademi and Mr Miniæ did not constitute &quot;appropriate&quot; and &quot;sufficient&quot; redress at the national level (see, mutatis mutandis, Aristimuño Mendizabal, cited above, §§ 67-69 and 70-72; Mengesha Kimfe, cited above, §§ 41-47 and 67-72; and Agraw, cited above, §§ 30-32 and 50-55). 
Ob upoštevanju dolgega obdobja, v katerem so pritožniki trpeli zaradi ogroženosti in pravne negotovosti ter resnosti posledic, ki jih je imel zanje izbris, veliki senat v nasprotju s senatom meni, da priznanje kršitev človekovih pravic in izdaja dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje pritožnikom Mustafu Kuriću, Ani Mezga, Tripunu Ristanoviću, Aliju Berishi, Ilfanu Sadiku Ademiju in Zoranu Miniću nista primerna in zadostna poprava krivic na državni ravni (smiselno glej Aristimuńo Mendizabal, 67.-69. odstavek in 70.-72. odstavek; Mengesha Kimfe, 41.-47. in 67.-72. odstavek ter Agraw, 30.-32. in 50.-55. odstavek).
As to the possibility of seeking and obtaining compensation at the domestic level (see paragraphs 250-252 and 257 above), the Court observes that none of the &quot;erased&quot; have so far been awarded compensation in a final and binding judgment for the damage sustained, although several sets of proceedings are currently pending (see paragraph 83 above). 
Glede možnosti, da zahtevajo in dobijo odškodnino na državni ravni, Sodišče ugotavlja, da nihče od izbrisanih do zdaj ni prejel zadoščenja za utrpelo škodo v obliki končne in zavezujoče sodbe, čeprav več postopkov čaka na rešitev (glej 83. odstavek).
In addition, none of the applicants have so far been successful before the State Attorney&apos;s Office in their claims for compensation. 
Poleg tega državno pravobranilstvo nobenemu pritožniku ni ugodno rešilo zahtevka za odškodnino.
Therefore, their prospects of receiving compensation in Slovenia appear, for the time being, to be too remote to be relevant for the purposes of the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Dalban, cited above, § 44). 
Njihove možnosti, da bi prejeli odškodnino v Sloveniji, so zato trenutno preveč oddaljene, da bi lahko vplivale na sedanji primer (smiselno glej Dalban, 44. odstavek).
In conclusion, the Court holds that the six applicants who were awarded both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits in the course of the proceedings before the Grand Chamber may still claim to be &quot;victims&quot; of the alleged violations. 
Za konec Sodišče ugotavlja, da šest pritožnikov, ki jim je bilo izdano dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc) med trajanjem postopka pred velikim senatom, še vedno lahko trdi, da so žrtve zatrjevanih kršitev.
The Government&apos;s preliminary objection in this respect should accordingly be dismissed. 
Predhodni ugovor vlade v zvezi s tem je torej treba zavreči.
Lastly, as to the Government&apos;s plea of lack of &quot;victim&quot; status in respect of the remaining applicants (Mr Dabetiæ and Mrs Ristanoviæ), who never started proper proceedings in Slovenia with a view to being granted permanent residence permits, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine it since these applicants&apos; complaints are in any event inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraphs 293-294 below). 
Končno, glede ugovora vlade, da druga dva pritožnika (Velimir Dabetić in Ljubenka Ristanović), ki nista sprožila ustreznih postopkov za pridobitev dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje v Sloveniji, nimata statusa žrtve, Sodišče ugotavlja, da tega ni treba obravnavati, ker so pritožbe teh pritožnikov v vsakem primeru neutemeljene zaradi neizčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev (glej 293.-294. odstavek).
The Government objected that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 
Vlada je ugovarjala, da pritožnik ni izčrpal notranjepravnih sredstev.
Before the Grand Chamber the Government objected that three of the applicants had never applied for a residence permit. 
Vlada je pred velikim senatom ugovarjala, da trije pritožniki niso nikoli zaprosili za dovoljenje za prebivanje.
Relying on the Kaftailova and Shevanova judgments (cited above, §§ 52-54 and §§ 48-50 respectively), they stated that the applicants were under an obligation to act lawfully and to try to regularise their status in Slovenia. 
Sklicujoč se na sodbi Kaftailova in Shevanova (52.-54. odstavek oziroma 48.-50. odstavek), so izjavili, da so pritožniki morali ravnati v skladu z zakonom in si prizadevati za ureditev svojega statusa v Sloveniji.
No procedure was available under the Administrative Procedure Act which would enable the State to issue a residence permit ex proprio motu without a request having been made. 
Po Zakonu o upravnem postopku ni bilo na razpolago nobenega postopka, ki bi vladi omogočil, da iz lastnega nagiba (ex proprio motu) izda dovoljenja za prebivanje brez predhodno vložene prošnje.
Subsequently, Mr Ristanoviæ, who had in the meantime submitted a request under the amended Legal Status Act, had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permits (see paragraph 133 above). 
Posledično je bilo Tripunu Ristanoviću, ki je medtem predložil prošnjo v skladu s spremenjenim in dopolnjenim ZUSDDD, izdano dovoljenje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc) (glej 133. odstavek).
Moreover, all the applicants had failed to pursue the available legal avenues for obtaining permanent residence permits, either under the Aliens Act or under the Legal Status Act. 
Poleg tega nobeden od pritožnikov ni izkoristil razpoložljivih pravnih poti za pridobitev dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje po Zakonu o tujcih in tudi ne po ZUSDDD.
After exhaustion of the remedies at their disposal in the framework of administrative proceedings (application for a residence permit, administrative proceedings, complaint alleging inaction on the part of the authorities), the applicants should have lodged a constitutional appeal in their individual cases. 
Po izčrpanju razpoložljivih pravnih sredstev v administrativnih postopkih (prošnja za dovoljenje za prebivanje, administrativni postopki, pritožbe zaradi domnevnega neukrepanja organov) bi morali pritožniki za vsak posamezen primer vložiti ustavno pritožbo.
In a large number of Slovenian cases, the Court had held that a constitutional appeal was an effective remedy. 
V velikem številu slovenskih primerov je Sodišče presodilo, da je ustavna pritožba učinkovito pravno sredstvo.
Further to the Constitutional Court&apos;s leading decisions of 4.February 1999 and 3 April 2003 on the &quot;erasure&quot; (see paragraphs 41-48, 58-60 and 214-215 above), which had the effect of precedents, the applicants could have effectively relied on their right to obtain residence permits before the Constitutional Court, which enjoyed full jurisdiction under section 60 of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 204 above). 
Ob upoštevanju temeljnih odločb ustavnega sodišča o izbrisanih z dne 4. februarja 1999 in 3. aprila 2003 (glej 41.-48., 58.-60. in 214.-215. odstavek) s precedenčnim učinkom bi lahko pritožniki uspešno zavarovali svoje pravice do dovoljenja za prebivanje pred ustavnim sodiščem, ki ima na podlagi 60. a Zakona o ustavnem sodišču polno jurisdikcijo (glej 204. odstavek).
In a number of cases brought by other &quot;erased&quot; persons, the Constitutional Court had ordered the re-entry of their names in the Register pending the enactment of the new law, thus filling the legal vacuum arising from the legislature&apos;s failure to enforce its decisions. 
Ustavno sodišče je v številnih zadevah, ki so jih sprožili izbrisani, odredilo ponovni vnos njihovih imen v register do sprejetja novega zakona in tako zapolnilo pravno praznino, nastalo zaradi opustitve zakonodajalca, da bi izvršil odločbo ustavnega sodišča.
The Constitutional Court had also remitted some cases to the Supreme Court or quashed the lower courts&apos; judgments (see paragraphs 52-56 above). 
Ustavno sodišče je nekaj primerov tudi vrnilo vrhovnemu sodišču ali pa razveljavilo sodbe nižjih sodišč (glej 52.-56. odstavek).
None of the applicants had lodged such an individual appeal, which was an &quot;accessible&quot;, &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;effective&quot; remedy both in theory and in practice. 
Nobeden od pritožnikov ni vložil take posamične pritožbe, ki je bila teoretično in praktično dostopno, ustrezno in učinkovito pravno sredstvo.
In addition, individuals could also lodge a petition for a review of the constitutionality of the relevant legislation. 
Poleg tega bi posamezniki lahko vložili pobudo za presojo ustavnosti ustrezne zakonodaje.
The decisions on such petitions had erga omnes effect and were binding. 
Odločitve o takih pobudah veljajo za vse (erga omnes) in so zavezujoče.
The fact that the legislature had not executed the decisions within the specified time-limit did not mean that the decisions were not enforceable in individual and administrative legal proceedings. 
Dejstvo, da zakonodajalec ni izvršil odločb v določenem roku, ne pomeni, da se niso dale uveljaviti v posamičnih pravnih in upravnih postopkih.
Contrary to the Bosnian Constitutional Court (the Government cited Tokiæ and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos..12455/04, 14140/05, 12906/06 and 26028/06, §§ 57-59, 8 July 2008), the Slovenian Constitutional Court could effectively remedy the alleged violations. 
V nasprotju z Ustavnim sodiščem Bosne in Hercegovine (vlada navaja zadevo Tokić in drugi proti Bosni in Hercegovini, št. 12455/04, 14140/05, 12906/06 in 26028/06, 57.-59. odstavek, 8. julij 2008) bi Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije lahko učinkovito odpravilo domnevne kršitve.
The Government also noted that on 8 March 2010, prior to the adoption of the Chamber judgment, the National Assembly had already passed a systemic Act (the amended Legal Status Act) regulating the status of the &quot;erased&quot; both ex nunc and ex tunc, in compliance with the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision of 2003 (see paragraphs 71, 76-79 and 211 above). 
Vlada je tudi opozorila, da je 8. marca 2010, pred sprejetjem sodbe senata, Državni zbor že sprejel sistemski zakon (spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD), ki ureja status izbrisanih z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc), v skladu z odločbo ustavnega sodišča iz leta 2003 (glej 71., 76.-79. in 211. odstavek).
In its decision of 10 June 2010 on a referendum, the Constitutional Court had considered that the amended Legal Status Act should provide for a permanent solution of the status of those &quot;erased&quot; persons who had been unable to regularise their status, and had not allowed a referendum to be held (see paragraph 73 above). 
Ustavno sodišče je v svoji odločitvi o referendumu 10. junija 2010 upoštevalo, da bi moral spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD omogočati trajno rešitev statusa tistih izbrisanih, ki niso mogli urediti svojega statusa, in ni dovolilo izvedbe referenduma (glej 73. odstavek).
On 24 June 2010 the amended Legal Status Act had been published in the Official Gazette and on 24 July 2010, almost immediately after the delivery of the Chamber judgment, it had entered into force (see paragraph 76 above). 
junija 2010 je bil spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD objavljen v uradnem listu in je začel veljati 24. julija 2010, skoraj takoj po razglasitvi sodbe senata (glej 76. odstavek).
The applicants had therefore had at their disposal a new legal avenue with the eventual possibility of lodging a constitutional appeal. 
Pritožniki so tako imeli na voljo novo pravno pot z možnostjo za vložitev ustavne pritožbe.
The deadline for submitting requests for permanent residence permits under the amended Legal Status Act would not expire until 24 July 2013 (see paragraph 80 above). 
Rok za oddajo prošenj za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD bi potekel 24. julija 2013 (glej 80. odstavek).
The implementation of the Act was regularly monitored by the authorities. 
Izvajanje tega zakona so redno spremljali pooblaščeni organi.
By 31 May 2011, sixty-four ex nunc and 111 ex tunc permanent residence permits had been issued under the amended Legal Status Act. 
Do 31. maja 2011 je bilo po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD izdanih štiriinšestdeset dovoljenj za prebivanje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc) in 111 z veljavnostjo za nazaj (ex tunc).
Under both the Legal Status Act and the amended Legal Status Act, approximately 12,500 of the &quot;erased&quot; had regularised their status (see paragraphs 67, 76 and 80 above). 
Tako je na podlagi ZUSDDD ter spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD približno 12.500 izbrisanih uredilo svoj status (glej 67., 76. in 80. odstavek).
The applicants who had not yet received permanent residence permits should apply for them under the amended Legal Status Act. 
Pritožniki, ki še niso prejeli dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje, morajo zaprositi zanj na podlagi spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD.
In any event, in the Government&apos;s view the applicants had failed to prove the existence of special circumstances which could have dispensed them from having to exhaust domestic legal remedies (the Government cited Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV). 
V vsakem primeru pa po mnenju vlade pritožnikom ni uspelo dokazati obstoja posebnih okoliščin, zaradi katerih jim ne bi bilo treba izčrpati notranjepravnih sredstev (vlada navaja Akdivar in drugi proti Turčiji, 16. september 1996, 69. odstavek, Poročilo o sodbah in sklepih 1996-IV).
The applicants contended that the domestic remedies at their disposal were in general not &quot;accessible&quot;, &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;effective&quot; as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since none of them was capable of addressing the substance of the relevant Convention complaints and of awarding appropriate relief, especially considering the prolonged and systematic refusal of the administrative authorities to comply with the Constitutional Court&apos;s decisions and the substantial and unjustified delay of the legislature in passing the new law. 
Pritožniki so trdili, da notranjepravna sredstva, ki so jim bila na voljo, na splošno niso bila &quot;dostopna&quot;, &quot;ustrezna&quot; in &quot;učinkovita&quot;, kot zahteva prvi odstavek 35. a konvencije, saj nobeno ni omogočalo obravnave vsebine ustreznih pritožb po konvenciji in določitve ustreznega zadoščenja, posebno še glede na dolgotrajno in sistematično zavračanje upravnih organov, da bi spoštovali odločitev ustavnega sodišča, ter na precejšnje in neupravičene zamude zakonodajalca pri sprejemanju novega zakona.
Accepting the Government&apos;s arguments would imply placing on the Constitutional Court the burden of adjudicating on each single case by repeating its previous findings of general flaws in the relevant legal provisions. 
Sprejetje argumentov vlade bi pomenilo, da se ustavnemu sodišču naloži breme razsojanja o vsakem posamičnem primeru, tako da ponavlja svoje prejšnje ugotovitve splošnih pomanjkljivosti v ustreznih pravnih predpisih.
In addition, even under the Legal Status Act as it had previously stood, 1,250 requests for permanent residence had been rejected (see paragraphs 67 and 76 above), which showed the existence of serious flaws in the legislative framework at the material time. 
Poleg tega je bilo na podlagi prejšnjega ZUSDDD zavrnjenih 1250 prošenj za stalno prebivanje (glej 67. in 76. odstavek), kar je kazalo na obstoj resnih pomanjkljivosti v pravnem okviru tistega časa.
For many of the &quot;erased&quot;, and not just for the applicants, it was objectively impossible to satisfy the requirements of that Act, which in any event had been found to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. 
Za mnoge izbrisane in ne le za pritožnike je bilo objektivno nemogoče izpolniti zahteve ZUSDDD, za katerega je ustavno sodišče v vsakem primeru ugotovilo, da je neustaven.
The ineffectiveness of the remedies concerned was exemplarily demonstrated in the case of Mr Miniæ, who had had to wait for a long time to regularise his status in spite of two judgments in his favour delivered by the Administrative Court (see paragraphs 190 and 193-194 above). 
Neučinkovitost pravnih sredstev je nazorno prikazal primer Zorana Minića, ki je moral kljub dvema sodbama, ki ju je izreklo upravno sodišče v njegovo korist, dolgo čakati na ureditev svojega statusa (glej 190. in 193.-194. odstavek).
Even assuming that the remedies relied on by the Government were &quot;adequate&quot; and &quot;effective&quot;, three of the applicants - Mr Dabetiæ, Mr.Ristanoviæ and Mrs Ristanoviæ - would still be exempted from having to make use of them in the light of the exceptional circumstances of their cases and their personal situation, and also in view of the general political and social situation in Slovenia and the total passivity of the administrative authorities. 
Tudi ob domnevi, da bi bila pravna sredstva, na katera se sklicuje vlada, &quot;ustrezna&quot; in &quot;učinkovita&quot;, jih trem pritožnikom - Velimirju Dabetiću, Tripunu Ristanoviću in Ljubenki Ristanović - glede na izjemne okoliščine njihovih primerov in osebne razmere, pa tudi glede na splošno politično in družbeno stanje v Sloveniji ter popolno pasivnost upravnih organov ne bi bilo treba uporabiti.
They had also been clearly unable to fulfil the criteria at the relevant time. 
Bili so tudi očitno nezmožni izpolniti takratne pogoje.
In particular, had no legal status either in Slovenia or in Italy and was de jure and de facto stateless. 
Zlasti ni imel zakonitega statusa niti v Sloveniji niti v Italiji ter je bil pravno in dejansko brez državljanstva.