natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Slovenian Parliament submitted a request for a referendum on the question whether or not citizenship granted to former SFRY citizens on the basis of section 40 of the Citizenship Act should be withdrawn. 
Slovenski parlament je vložil zahtevo za referendum o tem, ali bi bilo treba državljanstvo, podeljeno državljanom nekdanje SFRJ na podlagi 40. a Zakona o državljanstvu, preklicati.
On 20 November 1995 the Constitutional Court held that the request was unconstitutional. 
Ustavno sodišče je 20. novembra 1995 razsodilo, da je ta zahteva protiustavna.
In the years that followed, several non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International and Helsinki Monitor, and the Slovenian Human Rights Ombudsman issued reports drawing attention to the situation of the &quot;erased&quot;. 
V naslednjih letih so številne nevladne organizacije, med njimi Amnesty International in Helsinški monitor ter slovenski varuh človekovih pravic, izdali poročila, v katerih so opozorili na položaj izbrisanih.
On 24 June 1998 the Constitutional Court declared partly admissible a challenge to the constitutionality of the first subsection of section 16 and the second subsection of section 81 of the Aliens Act (see paragraphs 27 above and 207 below), brought in 1994 by two individuals whose names had been removed from the Register in 1992. 
24. junija 1998 je ustavno sodišče razglasilo pobudo za presojo ustavnosti prvega odstavka 16. a in drugega odstavka 81. člena Zakona o tujcih (glej 27. in 207. odstavek), ki sta jo leta 1994 vložila dva posameznika, katerih imeni sta bili leta 1992 izbrisani iz registra, za delno sprejemljivo.
In a decision of 4 February 1999 (U-I-284/94) the Constitutional Court declared that section 81 of the Aliens Act was unconstitutional since it had not set out the conditions for acquisition of permanent residence for those subject to its second subsection. 
Z odločbo z dne 4. februarja 1999 (U-I-284/94) je ustavno sodišče razglasilo, da je 81. člen Zakona o tujcih v neskladju z ustavo, ker ne določa pogojev za pridobitev stalnega prebivališča za osebe, na katere se nanaša njegov drugi odstavek.
It noted that the authorities had deleted from the Register the names of citizens of the former SFRY republics who had not applied for Slovenian citizenship and entered them ex proprio motu in the Register of Aliens, without any notification. 
Ugotovilo je, da so organi imena državljanov republik nekdanje SFRJ, ki niso zaprosili za slovensko državljanstvo, brez obvestila izbrisali iz registra in jih iz lastnega nagiba (ex proprio motu) vnesli v evidenco tujcev.
It further found that there was no legal basis for this measure; the Inhabitants&apos; Evidence of Residence and Population Registry Act did not provide for ex lege deregistration. 
Ugotovilo je tudi, da ni bilo nobene pravne podlage za ta ukrep; v samem Zakonu o evidenci nastanitve občanov in o registru prebivalstva (ex lege) odjava ni bila predvidena.
The provisions of the Aliens Act were, in general, designed to regulate the status of aliens who entered Slovenia after independence, not of those who were already living there. 
Določbe Zakona o tujcih so bile na splošno namenjene ureditvi statusa tujcev, ki so v Slovenijo prišli po njeni osamosvojitvi, ne pa tistih, ki so tam že živeli.
While section 82 of the Aliens Act did regulate the legal status of aliens originating from outside the former SFRY republics, no similar provision existed in respect of persons from the former SFRY. 
Medtem ko je 82. Zakona o tujcih urejal pravni status tujcev, katerih države izvora niso bile republike nekdanje SFRJ, pa za osebe iz nekdanje SFRJ ni bilo podobne določbe.
As a consequence, the latter were in a less favourable legal position than aliens who had lived in Slovenia since before independence. 
Posledično so bile te osebe v manj ugodnem pravnem položaju kot tujci, ki so v Sloveniji živeli že pred njeno osamosvojitvijo.
A proposal had been made in the legislative process in 1991 for a special provision regulating the temporary situation of former SFRY citizens living in Slovenia who had not applied for Slovenian citizenship. 
V zakonodajnem postopku leta 1991 je bil vložen predlog za posebno določbo, ki bi urejala začasni položaj v Sloveniji živečih državljanov nekdanje SFRJ, ki niso zaprosili za slovensko državljanstvo.
The legislature had maintained that their situation should not be regulated by the Aliens Act but rather by an agreement between the successor States to the former SFRY. 
Zakonodajalec je menil, da njihovega položaja ne bi smel urejati Zakon o tujcih, temveč sporazum med državami naslednicami nekdanje SFRJ.
Since the relevant agreements had not been concluded, notably because of the state of war in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, their situation remained unaddressed. 
Ker taki sporazumi niso bili sklenjeni, predvsem zaradi vojne na Hrvaškem ter v Bosni in Hercegovini, je njihov položaj ostal neurejen.
In the Constitutional Court&apos;s view, in the light of modern developments in human-rights protection, the situation of persons who had held the nationality of the predecessor but not of the successor State, with permanent residence on the territory of States that had disintegrated after 1990, had become a matter governed by international agreements. 
Po mnenju ustavnega sodišča in z vidika sodobnega razvoja varstva človekovih pravic bi morali položaj oseb, ki so imele stalno prebivališče na ozemlju po letu 1990 razpadlih držav in državljanstvo države predhodnice, ne pa tudi države naslednice, urejati mednarodni sporazumi.
Section 81 was therefore declared unconstitutional as it did not prescribe the conditions under which persons who either failed to apply for or were denied Slovenian citizenship could apply for permanent residence after the expiry of the prescribed time-limit. 
Zato je bil 81. člen razglašen za protiustavnega, saj ni določal pogojev, pod katerimi bi lahko osebe, ki niso zaprosile za slovensko državljanstvo ali jim je bilo zavrnjeno, zaprosile za stalno prebivanje po poteku predpisanega roka.
A legal void had thus formed and the principles of the rule of law, legal certainty and equality had been breached. 
S tem je nastala pravna praznina in kršena so bila načela pravne države, pravne varnosti in enakosti.
Furthermore, the provisions of the Aliens Act regulating the acquisition of permanent and temporary residence for aliens entering Slovenia (sections 13 and 16 of the Aliens Act - see paragraph 207 below) should not be used to regulate the status of citizens of the former SFRY republics who had a reasonable expectation that the new conditions for retaining permanent residence in Slovenia would not be stricter than those set forth in section 13 of the Constitutional Law (see paragraph 202 below) and section 40 of the Citizenship Act (see paragraph 205 below), and that their status would be determined in accordance with international law. 
Poleg tega se določbe Zakona o tujcih, ki urejajo pridobitev stalnega in začasnega prebivališča za tujce, ki vstopajo v Slovenijo (13. in 16. člen Zakona o tujcih - glej 207. odstavek), ne bi smele uporabljati za urejanje statusa državljanov republik nekdanje SFRJ, ki so utemeljeno pričakovali, da novi pogoji za ohranitev stalnega prebivališča v Sloveniji ne bodo strožji od tistih, določenih v 13. členu ustavnega zakona (glej 202. odstavek) in 40. členu Zakona o državljanstvu (glej 205. odstavek), ter da se bo njihov status določal v skladu z mednarodnim pravom.
The Constitutional Court further found that section 16(1) of the Aliens Act was not unconstitutional, because it applied only to aliens entering Slovenia after independence. 
Ustavno sodišče je tudi ugotovilo, da prvi odstavek 16. a člena Zakona o tujcih ni protiustaven, ker se nanaša le na tujce, ki v Slovenijo vstopajo po osamosvojitvi.
The legislature was given six months in which to modify the unconstitutional provisions. 
Zakonodajalcu je bil določen rok šest mesecev, da spremeni protiustavne določbe.
In the meantime, the Constitutional Court ruled that no citizen of the former SFRY who was registered as a permanent resident in Slovenia on 23 December 1990 and was actually residing there could be forcibly removed from Slovenia pursuant to section 28 of the Aliens Act. 
Medtem je ustavno sodišče razsodilo, da noben državljan nekdanje SFRJ, ki je imel 23. decembra 1990 prijavljeno stalno prebivališče v Sloveniji in je tam dejansko prebival, ne sme biti prisilno izgnan iz Slovenije na podlagi 28. člena Zakona o tujcih.
The Constitutional Court also pointed out that the unregulated situation of citizens of the former SFRY republics who had found themselves in a precarious legal position could lead to a violation of, inter alia, the right to respect for family life, as protected by Article 8 of the Convention (extracts of this decision are quoted in paragraph 214 below). 
Ustavno sodišče je tudi opozorilo, da lahko neurejen status državljanov republik nekdanje SFRJ, ki so se znašli v negotovem pravnem položaju, med drugim povzroči kršitve pravice do spoštovanja družinskega življenja, kot je zavarovana z 8. členom konvencije (izvlečki iz te odločbe so navedeni v 214. odstavku).
As a consequence, the Act on Regularisation of the Legal Status of Citizens of Other Successor States to the Former SFRY in Slovenia (Zakon o urejanju statusa državljanov drugih držav naslednic nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji - &quot;the Legal Status Act&quot;) was passed on 8 July 1999 to regulate the legal status of the &quot;erased&quot; by simplifying the requirements for acquiring a permanent residence permit. 
Posledično je bil 8. julija 1999 sprejet Zakon o urejanju statusa državljanov drugih držav naslednic nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ZUSDDD), da uredi pravni status izbrisanih s poenostavitvijo zahtev za pridobitev dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje.
Under section 1 of the Legal Status Act, citizens of other successor States to the former SFRY who were registered as permanent residents on Slovenian territory on 23 December 1990, the date of the plebiscite, or on 25 June 1991, the date of independence, and had been actually resident there were entitled to a permanent residence permit, regardless of the provisions of the Aliens Act. 
Po 1. členu ZUSDDD so bili državljani drugih držav naslednic nekdanje SFRJ, ki so imeli 23. decembra 1990, na dan plebiscita, ali 25. junija 1991, na dan osamosvojitve, prijavljeno stalno prebivališče na slovenskem ozemlju in so dejansko prebivali tam, upravičeni do dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje ne glede na določbe Zakona o tujcih.
They had three months to submit an application. 
Prošnjo so morali vložiti v treh mesecih.
Section 3 of the Legal Status Act provided for some exceptions for those with criminal convictions. 
V 3. členu ZUSDDD so bile predvidene nekatere izjeme za tiste, ki so bili kazensko obsojeni.
Residence permits were granted ex nunc to those fulfilling the above conditions (see paragraph 210 below). 
Vsem, ki so izpolnjevali navedene pogoje (glej 210. odstavek), so bila izdana dovoljenja za prebivanje z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc).
Ruling on another constitutional challenge (U-I-295/99), on 18 May 2000 the Constitutional Court set aside one part of section 3 of the Legal Status Act as unconstitutional because it found that the requirements for the acquisition of permanent residence set forth therein were stricter than the grounds for revoking a permanent residence permit under the Aliens Act. 
Ustavno sodišče je pri razsojanju o drugi pobudi za presojo ustavnosti (U-I-295/99) 18. maja 2000 razveljavilo del 3. člena ZUSDDD zaradi protiustavnosti, ker je ugotovilo, da so v njem določene zahteve za pridobitev stalnega prebivališča strožje od pogojev za razveljavitev dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje po Zakonu o tujcih.
Relying on its leading decision of 4 February 1999 (see paragraphs 41-48 above), the Constitutional Court has given several decisions in individual cases brought by some of the &quot;erased&quot;. 
Ustavno sodišče je na podlagi svoje temeljne odločbe z dne 4. februarja 1999 (glej 41.-48. odstavek) izdalo več odločb v posameznih primerih, ki so jih predložili nekateri izbrisani.
On 1 July 1999 (Up-333/96) it examined the case of a claimant who had been refused the renewal of his driving licence because of the &quot;erasure&quot; of his name from the Register. 
1. julija 1999 (Up-333/96) je obravnavalo primer pritožnika, ki mu je bilo zavrnjeno podaljšanje vozniškega dovoljenja zaradi izbrisa njegovega imena iz registra.
The Constitutional Court noted that following its decision of 4 February 1999, the Legal Status Act had been drafted, but had not yet been passed. 
Ustavno sodišče je ugotovilo, da je bil po njegovi odločbi z dne 4. februarja 1999 pripravljen predlog ZUSDDD, ki pa še ni bil sprejet.
It decided that, until the Legal Status Act entered into force, the claimant should enjoy the status he would have had before the expiry of the time-limit set forth in the second subsection of section 81 of the Aliens Act (see paragraph 27 above). 
Odločilo je, naj pritožnik uživa status, ki bi ga imel pred potekom roka, določenega v drugem odstavku 81. člena Zakona o tujcih (glej 27. odstavek), dokler ZUSDDD ne začne veljati.
The administrative authorities were ordered to register the claimant as a permanent resident at the address where he had been living before his name was illegally deleted from the Register and to renew his driving licence. 
Upravnim organom je bilo odrejeno, da vpišejo stalno prebivališče pritožnika v register na naslovu, kjer je živel, preden je bilo njegovo ime nezakonito izbrisano iz registra, in da mu podaljšajo vozniško dovoljenje.
A similar decision (Up-60/97) was adopted on 15 July 1999 with regard to claimants who were all members of one family and citizens of one of the former SFRY republics, and had been denied permanent residence under section 16 of the Aliens Act, because the father had lost his job. 
Podobna odločba (Up-60/97) je bila sprejeta 15. julija 1999 glede pritožnikov, ki so bili vsi člani ene družine in državljani ene od republik nekdanje SFRJ ter jim je bilo zavrnjeno stalno prebivališče po 16. členu Zakona o tujcih, ker je njihov oče izgubil zaposlitev.
On 18 November 1999 (Up-20/97) and 16 December 1999 (Up-152/97), in cases concerning the payment of a military pension to two &quot;erased&quot; persons, the Constitutional Court quashed the judgment of the Supreme Court and sent the case back for re-examination. 
Ustavno sodišče je 18. novembra 1999 (Up-20/97) in 16. decembra 1999 (Up-152/97) v primerih, povezanih s plačilom vojaške pokojnine dvema izbrisanima osebama, razveljavilo sodbo vrhovnega sodišča in vrnilo zadevo v ponovno odločanje.
On 20 September 2001, in a case (Up-336/98) concerning an individual&apos;s right to a childcare allowance, the Constitutional Court quashed the decisions of the lower authorities and sent the case back for re-examination. 
Ustavno sodišče je 20. septembra 2001 v primeru (Up-336/98), povezanem s pravico osebe do preživnine, razveljavilo odločbe organov nižje stopnje in vrnilo zadevo v ponovno odločanje.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has examined a number of cases brought by &quot;erased&quot; persons concerning the conditions for acquiring Slovenian citizenship. 
Ustavno sodišče je obravnavalo tudi številne zadeve, ki so jih predložili izbrisani in so bile povezane s pogoji za pridobitev slovenskega državljanstva.
In a decision of 6 July 1995 (Up-38/93) it held that the condition of &quot;actually residing in Slovenia&quot; in section 40 of the Citizenship Act (see paragraphs 25 above and 205 below) could be fulfilled in a situation where a person&apos;s residence in Slovenia had been interrupted on justifiable grounds if there were other circumstances proving that the centre of his or her life interests was on Slovenian territory. 
V odločbi z dne 6. julija 1995 (Up-38/93) je razsodilo, da je pogoj &quot;dejanskega življenja v Sloveniji&quot; v 40. členuu Zakona o državljanstvu (glej 25. in 205. odstavek) lahko izpolnjen, kadar je bilo prebivanje osebe v Sloveniji prekinjeno zaradi opravičljivih razlogov, če so druge okoliščine dokazovale, da je bilo središče njenih življenjskih interesov na slovenskem ozemlju.
It quashed the Supreme Court&apos;s decision because there had been differential treatment of analogous cases and sent the case back for re-examination. 
Razveljavilo je odločbo vrhovnega sodišča, ker so bili podobni primeri obravnavani različno, in vrnilo zadevo v ponovno odločanje.
On 3 April 2003, ruling on a challenge to the constitutionality of the Legal Status Act in its version of 8 July 1999 in a case (U-I-246/02) brought by the Association of the &quot;Erased&quot; and by other &quot;erased&quot; persons, the Constitutional Court found the Legal Status Act unconstitutional because it did not grant retrospective permanent residence from the date of the &quot;erasure&quot;, it did not define the meaning of the words &quot;actually residing&quot; which appeared in section 1 and it failed to regulate the acquisition of permanent residence for citizens of former SFRY republics who had been forcibly removed from Slovenia pursuant to section 28 of the Aliens Act. 
Pri razsojanju o pobudi za presojo ustavnosti ZUSDDD, sprejetega 8. julija 1999, je ustavno sodišče 3. aprila 2003 v primeru (U-I-246/02), ki so ga predložili Društvo izbrisanih prebivalcev Slovenije in drugi izbrisani, odločilo, da je ZUSDDD protiustaven, ker ni priznaval stalnega prebivanja za nazaj od datuma izbrisa, ni opredelil pomena izraza &quot;dejansko življenje&quot; iz 1. člena in ni uredil pridobitve stalnega prebivališča za državljane republik nekdanje SFRJ, ki so bili prisilno izgnani iz Slovenije na podlagi 28. člena Zakona o tujcih.
Although the exact number of those deported was unknown, the Constitutional Court considered that the numbers would probably be low, since the unregulated status of the &quot;erased&quot; had generally been tolerated. 
Čeprav točno število oseb, ki so bile prisilno izgnane, ni bilo znano, je ustavno sodišče menilo, da je bilo verjetno majhno, saj se je neurejen status izbrisanih na splošno dopuščal.
It also struck down the three-month time-limit for submitting applications for permanent residence because it was unreasonably short and ordered the legislature to rectify the unconstitutional provisions of the impugned Act within six months. 
Razveljavilo je tudi trimesečni rok za vložitev prošnje za stalno prebivanje, ker je bil nerazumno kratek, in odredilo zakonodajalcu, da v šestih mesecih popravi protiustavne določbe izpodbijanega zakona.
The Constitutional Court further observed that permanent residence was important in securing certain rights and benefits, such as military pension rights, social allowances and renewals of driving licences. 
Ustavno sodišče je tudi pripomnilo, da je stalno prebivališče pomembno za zavarovanje nekaterih pravic in ugodnosti, kot so pravica do vojaške pokojnine, socialni dodatki in podaljšanje vozniškega dovoljenja.
In point no. 8 of the operative part of the decision, the Constitutional Court ordered the Ministry to issue, ex proprio motu, decisions establishing permanent residence in Slovenia ex tunc with effect from 26 February 1992, the date of the &quot;erasure&quot;, to those who already had ex nunc (non-retroactive) permits in accordance with the Legal Status Act or the Aliens Act (extracts of this decision are quoted in paragraph 215 below). 
V 8. točki izreka odločbe je ustavno sodišče odredilo ministrstvu, da iz lastnega nagiba (ex proprio motu) izda odločbe o ugotovitvi stalnega prebivanja v Sloveniji z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc) z veljavnostjo od 26. februarja 1992, dneva izbrisa, vsem, ki so že imeli dovoljenja z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc) v skladu z ZUSDDD ali Zakonom o tujcih (izvlečki iz te odločbe so navedeni v 215. odstavku).
On 25 November 2003 Parliament enacted the Act on the Application of Point No. 8 of the Constitutional Court&apos;s Decision no. U-I-246/02-28 (Zakon o izvršitvi 8. toèke odloèbe Ustavnega sodišèa Republike Slovenije št. U-I-246/02-28), also known as the &quot;Technical Act&quot;. 
Parlament je 25. novembra 2003 sprejel Zakon o izvršitvi 8. točke odločbe Ustavnega sodišča Republike Slovenije št. U-I-246/02-28, znan tudi pod imenom &quot;tehnični zakon&quot;.
This Act laid down the procedure for issuing ex tunc permanent residence permits to citizens of the former SFRY republics who had been registered as permanent residents in Slovenia on both 23 December 1990 and 25 February 1992 and who had already acquired a permanent residence permit under the Legal Status Act or the Aliens Act. 
Ta zakon je predpisal postopek za izdajo dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc) državljanom republik nekdanje SFRJ, ki so imeli 23. decembra 1990 in 25. februarja 1992 prijavljeno stalno prebivališče v Sloveniji in so že pridobili dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje po ZUSDDD ali Zakonu o tujcih.
However, a referendum on whether the Technical Act should be implemented was held on 4 April 2004. The turnout was 31.54%; 94.59% of valid votes were against its implementation, and therefore the Act never entered into force. 
Toda 4. aprila 2004 je bil referendum o tem, ali naj se tehnični zakon izvaja. Udeležba je bila 31,54-odstotna; 94,59 % veljavnih glasov je bilo proti izvajanju zakona, zato zakon nikoli ni začel veljati.
In the meantime, in a decision (U-II-3/03) handed down on 22 December 2003, the Constitutional Court specified that the legal basis for the issuance of the supplementary residence permits by the Ministry was its decision of 3 April 2003 (see paragraphs 58-60 above); the Ministry was under an obligation to implement the decision. 
Medtem je ustavno sodišče s sklepom (U-II-3/03), izdanim 22. decembra 2003, določilo svojo odločbo z dne 3. aprila 2003 (glej 58.-60. odstavek) za pravno podlago za to, da ministrstvo izda dopolnilna dovoljenja za prebivanje; ministrstvo je moralo izvesti odločbo.
Furthermore, in an individual case (Up-211/04) brought by one of the &quot;erased&quot;, claiming that his absence from Slovenia was due to the state of war, on 2 March 2006 the Constitutional Court set aside the judgments of the Supreme Court dismissing the claimant&apos;s request for a permanent residence permit under the Legal Status Act, and remitted the case to the Administrative Court. 
Poleg tega je ustavno sodišče 2. marca 2006 v posamičnem primeru (Up-211/04), ki ga je predložil eden od izbrisanih, ki je trdil, da je bil odsoten iz Slovenije zaradi vojnega stanja, razveljavilo sodbe vrhovnega sodišča, s katerimi je bila zavrnjena njegova prošnja za dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje po ZUSDDD, in vrnilo zadevo upravnemu sodišču.
It instructed the latter to make an appropriate assessment of the legal condition of &quot;actually residing on the territory of the Republic of Slovenia&quot; from 23 December 1990 onwards and of the reasons for the claimant&apos;s absence from Slovenia. 
Naročilo je upravnemu sodišču, naj ustrezno presodi pogoj &quot;dejanskega življenja na ozemlju Republike Slovenije&quot; od 23. decembra 1990 in razloge za pritožnikovo odsotnost iz Slovenije.
In particular, the Constitutional Court held that the fact that the legislature had been late in eliminating the inconsistencies did not prevent the courts from determining the case in conformity with its decision of 3 April 2003 (see paragraphs 58-60 above). 
Ustavno sodišče je zlasti presodilo, da dejstvo, da je zakonodajalec zamujal z odpravo neskladnosti, ni preprečevalo sodiščem presojanja v skladu z odločbo ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003 (glej 58.-60. odstavek).
In 2004 the Ministry issued 4,034 retroactive permits to the &quot;erased&quot;, solely on the basis of the above-mentioned Constitutional Court decision. 
Leta 2004 je ministrstvo izbrisanim izdalo 4034 dovoljenj z učinkom za nazaj zgolj na podlagi omenjene odločbe ustavnega sodišča.
The issuing of these permits by the authorities ex proprio motu was temporarily stayed and resumed in 2009, further to a change in government (see paragraph 70 below). 
Izdajanje teh dovoljenj iz lastnega nagiba (ex proprio motu) je bilo začasno prekinjeno in se je nadaljevalo leta 2009 zaradi spremembe vlade (glej 70. odstavek).