natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Even though he had not submitted a request for a permanent residence permit, he had urged the Ministry of the Interior, after the delivery of the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision in 2003, to issue a decision regulating his status and had filed a complaint alleging inaction on the part of the administrative authorities. 
Čeprav ni vložil prošnje za stalno prebivanje, je po objavi razsodbe ustavnega sodišča leta 2003 zaprosil ministrstvo, da izda odločbo za ureditev njegovega statusa, in vložil pritožbo zaradi domnevnega neukrepanja upravnih organov.
He had also submitted a request for Slovenian citizenship (see paragraphs.101-105 above), and had thus done everything that could reasonably be expected of him in order to regularise his position. 
Vložil je tudi prošnjo za slovensko državljanstvo (glej 101.-105. odstavek) in tako naredil vse, kar je bilo od njega smiselno mogoče pričakovati, da bi uredil svoj položaj.
As to Mrs, it should not be overlooked that they had been deported from Slovenia and that it would have been very difficult for them to pursue any legal remedy there. 
sta bila izgnana iz Slovenije in bi tam zelo težko uporabila katera koli pravna sredstva.
In sum, the remedies available to the three applicants did not offer them realistic chances of success. 
Skratka, pravna sredstva, ki so bila na razpolago trem pritožnikom, niso zagotavljala realnih možnosti za uspeh.
Moreover, the general climate of social and political adversity encountered by the &quot;erased&quot; should not be overlooked. 
Poleg tega je treba upoštevati splošno neugodno družbeno in politično ozračje, v katerem so se znašli izbrisani.
Since the &quot;erasure&quot; the applicants had continued to find themselves in a state of extreme vulnerability and insecurity. 
Vse od izbrisa so bili neprestano izredno ranljivi in v stalni negotovosti.
The Serbian Government and most of the other third-party interveners submitted that the legal remedies referred to by the Government had proved to be both ineffective and inadequate in the circumstances of the instant case. 
Srbska vlada in večina drugih tretjih strani, ki so sodelovale v postopku, sta izjavili, da so se pravna sredstva, na katera se sklicuje vlada, pokazala kot neučinkovita in neustrezna glede na okoliščine obravnavane zadeve.
The Chamber noted that the Constitutional Court had found the &quot;erasure&quot; unconstitutional on various occasions and that the applicants essentially complained about the lack of compliance with those decisions. 
Senat je opozoril, da je ustavno sodišče ob različnih priložnostih ugotovilo neustavnost izbrisa in da se pritožniki v bistvu pritožujejo zaradi nespoštovanja teh odločb.
Relying on the judgment in the case of Tokiæ and Others (cited above, §§.57-59), it dismissed the Government&apos;s plea of failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see paragraph 308 of the Chamber judgment). 
Sklicujoč se na sodbo v zadevi Tokić in drugi (57.-59. odstavek), je zavrnilo ugovor vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev (glej 308. odstavek sodbe senata).
The general principles on the exhaustion of domestic remedies are set out in Sejdovic v. Italy ([GC], no. 56581/00, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2006-II). 
Splošna načela glede izčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev so navedena v zadevi Sejdovic proti Italiji ([VS], št. 56581/00, 43.-46. odstavek, ESČP 2006-II).
The Court will apply these principles to the different legal avenues referred to by the Government. 
Sodišče bo uporabilo ta načela pri različnih pravnih poteh, ki jih navaja vlada.
It emphasises, at the outset, that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether the rule has been observed, it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of the individual case. 
V izhodišču poudarja, da pravilo izčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev ni niti absolutno niti se ne da uporabiti samodejno; ko se preverja, ali je bilo pravilo spoštovano, je treba nujno upoštevati posebne okoliščine posameznega primera.
This means, amongst other things, that the Court must take realistic account not only of the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the Contracting Party concerned but also of the general legal and political context in which they operate, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicants (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others, cited above, §§ 66 and 68-69; Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, §§ 105-106, 22.October 2009; and Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos..46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04, §.70, ECHR 2010). 
To med drugim pomeni, da mora Sodišče realno upoštevati ne le formalnopravna sredstva, ki so na voljo v pravnem sistemu pogodbenice, temveč tudi splošne pravne in politične danosti, v katerih delujejo, pa tudi osebne okoliščine pritožnikov (glej med drugimi zadevami Akdivar in drugi proti Turčiji, 66. in 68.-69. odstavek; Orchowski proti Poljski, št. 17885/04, 105.-106. odstavek, 22. oktober 2009; Demopoulos in drugi proti Turčiji (sklep) [VS], št. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04, 70. odstavek, ESČP 2010).
The Government cited five different grounds why in their opinion domestic remedies had not been exhausted. 
Vlada je navedla pet različnih razlogov, zakaj po njenem mnenju notranjepravna sredstva niso bila izčrpana.
First, two applicants had never properly applied for a residence permit (this plea was initially also directed against Mr, who, however, subsequently made a request under the amended Legal Status Act and was granted a residence permit - see paragraph 272 above). 
Prva dva pritožnika nista nikoli pravilno zaprosila za izdajo dovoljenja za prebivanje v Sloveniji (ta ugovor je bil sprva naravnan tudi zoper, ki pa je pozneje predložil prošnjo po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD ter mu je bilo izdano dovoljenje za prebivanje - glej 272. odstavek).
Moreover, all the applicants had failed to lodge individual constitutional complaints before the Constitutional Court, to challenge the constitutionality of the relevant legislation and to avail themselves of the more favourable provisions of the amended Legal Status Act. 
Poleg tega nobeden od pritožnikov ni vložil posamične ustavne pritožbe pri ustavnem sodišču, da bi izpodbijal skladnost ustrezne zakonodaje z ustavo ter izkoristil ugodnejše določbe spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD.
The Grand Chamber observes that in the course of the proceedings before it, six applicants obtained both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits (see paragraph 243 above). 
Veliki senat ugotavlja, da je med postopkom pred senatom šest pritožnikov dobilo dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje z veljavnostjo od dneva izdaje (ex nunc) in za nazaj (ex tunc) (glej 243. odstavek).
They are therefore in a different factual situation from that of the remaining two applicants, who never obtained such permits. 
Zato je njihovo dejansko stanje drugačno od stanja preostalih dveh pritožnikov, ki nikoli nista dobila takega dovoljenja.
The Court will therefore examine separately the Government&apos;s plea of non-exhaustion in respect of these two groups of applicants. 
Sodišče bo zaradi tega ločeno obravnavalo ugovor vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev pri teh dveh skupinah pritožnikov.
The Government objected that had failed to submit a proper request for a residence permit under the Aliens Act and the Legal Status Act (see paragraph 272 above). 
Vlada je ugovarjala, da nikoli nista pravilno zaprosila za dovoljenje za prebivanje po Zakonu o tujcih in ZUSDDD (glej 272. odstavek).
The applicants stated that they should be exempted from exhausting domestic legal remedies in view of their personal situations (see paragraph 281 above). 
Pritožniki so navajali, da bi ob upoštevanju lastnih osebnih okoliščin morali biti oproščeni obveznosti izčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev (glej 281. odstavek).
The Court observes that Mr, who left Slovenia at an unspecified date, but most probably in 1990 or 1991, and settled in Italy, where he has lived ever since, failed to submit a proper request for an ex nunc residence permit in Slovenia. 
Sodišče ugotavlja, da, ki je zapustil Slovenijo na nedoločen datum, vendar najverjetneje leta 1990 ali 1991, in se naselil v Italiji, kjer živi še danes, ni predložil ustrezne zahteve za dovoljenje za prebivanje v Sloveniji z učinkom za naprej (ex nunc).
He confined himself to urging the Ministry of the Interior to issue a supplementary, ex tunc decision regulating his status (see paragraph 101 above). 
Svojo prošnjo ministrstvu je omejil na zahtevo za izdajo dopolnilne odločbe za ureditev svojega statusa za nazaj (ex tunc - glej 101. odstavek).
This legal avenue proved to be an incorrect one and no decision was issued (see paragraphs 103-104 above). 
Ta pravna pot se je pokazala za nepravilno in odločba ni bila izdana (glej 103.-104. odstavek).
who now lives in Serbia, made no attempts after her deportation to obtain a residence permit in Slovenia, in spite of the fact that the Constitutional Court&apos;s decision of 3 April 2003 also addressed the situation of those &quot;erased&quot; persons who had been deported (see paragraphs.58-59, 128 and 215 above). 
ki živi zdaj v Srbiji, si po izgonu ni prizadevala pridobiti dovoljenja za prebivanje v Sloveniji, čeprav se je odločba ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. aprila 2003 nanašala tudi na tiste izbrisane, ki so bili izgnani (glej 58.-59., 128. in 215. odstavek).
In the Court&apos;s view, the failure by Mr to manifest in any manner their wish to reside in Slovenia, that is, to take any proper legal steps in order to regularise their residence status, shows that they did not have sufficient interest in the subject matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Neziroviæ v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 16400/06, §§ 39-41, 25.November 2008). 
Po mnenju Sodišča dejstvo, da na noben način nista izrazila želje prebivati v Sloveniji, tj. nista uporabila nobenih pravnih sredstev, da bi uredila svoj status prebivalca, kaže, da za to nista imela dovolj interesa (smiselno glej Nezirović proti Sloveniji (sklep) št. 16400/06, 39.-41. odstavek, 25. november 2008).
Although, as the Court will later establish, further domestic remedies against a refusal to grant a residence permit proved to be ineffective (see paragraphs 295-313 below), cannot be considered to be dispensed from the obligation to apply formally for a residence permit in the first place. 
Čeprav so se, kot je Sodišče ugotovilo pozneje, nadaljnja notranjepravna sredstva zoper zavrnitev dovoljenja za prebivanje pokazala za neučinkovita (glej 295.-313. odstavek), ne moreta biti razbremenjena obveznosti, da predvsem uradno zaprosita za dovoljenje za prebivanje.
Instead, they submitted their application to the Court without initiating a statutory procedure at.the national level on the basis of which the authorities could have taken action in their favour. 
Namesto tega sta predložila svoji pritožbi Sodišču, ne da bi sprožila zakonski postopek na državni ravni, na podlagi katerega bi lahko organi oblasti sprejeli ukrepe v njuno korist.
It follows that the Government&apos;s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of Mr should be upheld. 
Iz tega izhaja, da se predhodnemu ugovoru vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev v primeru ugodi.
The application in respect of those two applicants should therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 
Pritožba se v primeru teh dveh pritožnikov torej šteje kot nesprejemljiva v skladu s prvim in četrtim odstavkom 35. člena konvencije.
The Government first objected that these applicants had failed to lodge a constitutional appeal in their individual cases and pointed out that a number of other &quot;erased&quot; persons had been successful before the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 273-274 above). 
Vlada je sprva ugovarjala, da ti pritožniki posamično niso vložili ustavne pritožbe, in poudarila, da so bili številni drugi izbrisani pri ustavnem sodišču uspešni (glej 273.-274. odstavek).
The Court notes that, as regards applications lodged against Slovenia, applicants are, according to its case-law, in principle required to exhaust remedies before the domestic courts, and ultimately to lodge a constitutional appeal (see Švarc and Kavnik v. Slovenia, no. 75617/01, §§.15 and 16, 8 February 2007, and Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, nos..8673/05 and 9733/05, §§.103-107, 1 December 2009). 
Sodišče ugotavlja, da morajo pritožniki v zvezi s tožbami, vloženimi proti Sloveniji, v skladu z njegovo sodno prakso praviloma izčrpati pravna sredstva pred domačimi sodišči in nazadnje vložiti ustavno pritožbo (glej Švarc in Kavnik proti Sloveniji, št. in 16. odstavek, 8. februar 2007, in Eberhard in M. proti Sloveniji, št. 8673/05 in 9733/05, 103.-107. odstavek, 1. december 2009).
When the Constitutional Court examines an individual constitutional appeal and quashes a legal act breaching the individual&apos;s constitutional rights and freedoms (see section 60 of the Constitutional Court Act - paragraph 204 above), it may also remedy violations committed by authorities or officials. 
Kadar ustavno sodišče obravnava posamično pritožbo in razveljavi pravni akt, ki krši posameznikove ustavne pravice in svoboščine (glej 60. Zakona o ustavnem sodišču, 204. odstavek), lahko tudi odpravi kršitve, ki so jih zagrešili organi ali uradniki.
It may do so by determining a contested right or freedom, if such a procedure is necessary in order to put an end to consequences that have already occurred, or if such is the nature of the constitutional right or freedom. 
To lahko stori tako, da določi sporno pravico ali svoboščino, če je tak postopek potreben za odpravo posledic, ki so že nastale, ali če je taka narava ustavne pravice ali svoboščine.
The Slovenian constitutional appeal is thus similar to those existing in, for example, Germany, Spain or the Czech Republic which make it possible for the constitutional courts of those member States to remedy violations of fundamental rights and freedoms (see Riera Blume and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 37680/97, ECHR 1999-II; Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 49, ECHR 2003-VIII; Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 62, ECHR 2006-VII; and, by contrast, Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 42-46, ECHR 2006-XIV). 
Slovenska ustavna pritožba je tako primerljiva s tisto, ki jo poznajo npr. v Nemčiji, Španiji ali na Češkem, kar omogoča ustavnim sodiščem teh držav članic odpravo kršitev temeljnih pravic in svoboščin (glej Riera Blume in drugi proti Španiji (sklep) št. 37680/97, ESČP 1999-II, Hartman proti Češki, št. 53341/99, 49. odstavek, ESČP 2003-VIII; Sürmeli proti Nemčiji [VS], št. 75529/01, 62. odstavek, ESČP 2006-VII; in, nasprotno, Apostol proti Gruziji, št. odstavek, ESČP 2006-XIV).
In the instant case, the Constitutional Court had already adopted erga omnes decisions, finding that the legislation applicable to the applicants had breached their constitutional rights and ordering the adoption of general measures. 
V obravnavanem primeru je ustavno sodišče že sprejelo odločitve z veljavnostjo za vse (erga omnes), ker je ugotovilo, da je ustrezna zakonodaja kršila ustavne pravice tožnikov, in je odredilo sprejetje splošnih ukrepov.
In particular, on 4 February 1999 the Constitutional Court found the &quot;erasure&quot; unlawful and unconstitutional (see paragraphs.41-48 and 214 above) and on 3 April 2003 it declared certain provisions of the Legal Status Act unconstitutional (see paragraphs 58-60 and 215 above). 
Tako je 4. februarja 1999 ugotovilo, da je izbris nezakonit in protiustaven (glej 41.-48. in 214. odstavek), in 3. aprila 2003 razglasilo nekatere določbe ZUSDDD za protiustavne (glej 58.-60. in 215. odstavek).
It should therefore be ascertained whether the applicants were still under an obligation to lodge a further constitutional appeal requesting the Constitutional Court to re-enter their names in the Register of Permanent Residents. 
Zato je treba preveriti, ali morajo pritožniki še vedno vložiti tudi ustavno pritožbo s prošnjo ustavnemu sodišču, da se njihova imena ponovno vnesejo v register stalnega prebivalstva.
In this connection, it is worth noting that the applicants did not contest the Government&apos;s allegation that other &quot;erased&quot; persons had been successful in lodging such appeals. 
S tem v zvezi je treba omeniti, da pritožniki niso izpodbijali trditve vlade, da je drugim izbrisanim z vložitvijo take pritožbe uspelo.
The Court observes, however, that the applicants have taken several steps before the domestic authorities - including, for many of them, before the courts - in order to obtain permanent residence permits either under the Legal Status Act or, like Mr, under the amended Legal Status Act (see paragraph 133 above). 
Toda Sodišče ugotavlja, da so pritožniki sprožili več postopkov pri domačih organih, mnogi tudi pred sodišči, da bi pridobili dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje po ZUSDDD ali kot Tripun Ristanović po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD (glej 133. odstavek).
Unlike in the case of Mr and Mrs. the authorities can be said to have been aware of their wish to regularise their status in Slovenia. 
V nasprotju s primerom bi se lahko reklo, da so organi vedeli, da želijo pritožniki urediti svoj status v Sloveniji.
Moreover, the two leading decisions of the Constitutional Court ordering general measures were not fully complied with for eleven and seven years respectively. 
Poleg tega dve temeljni odločbi ustavnega sodišča, ki sta nalagali uvedbo splošnih ukrepov, nista bili v celoti upoštevani enajst oziroma sedem let.
In the Court&apos;s opinion, this fact undermined trust in the effectiveness and the prospects of success of further individual constitutional appeals. 
Po mnenju Sodišča je to dejstvo spodkopalo zaupanje v učinkovitost in uspeh nadaljnjih posamičnih ustavnih pritožb.
In this connection, the Court observes that in other cases where a Constitutional Court has found a general or a structural problem in a decision which was not complied with by the domestic authorities during a long period, it has viewed that conduct as undermining the authority of the judiciary and of the rule of law (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no..31443/96, § 175, ECHR 2004-V, and Orchowski, cited above, § 151). 
V zvezi s tem Sodišče ugotavlja, da se je v drugih primerih, pri katerih je ustavno sodišče ugotovilo splošni ali strukturni problem pri odločitvi, ki je domači organi dalj časa niso upoštevali, tako ravnanje razumelo kot spodkopavanje avtoritete sodstva in pravne države (glej Broniowski proti Poljski [VS], št. 31443/96, 175. odstavek, ESČP 2004-V, in Orchowski, 151. odstavek).
Furthermore, the Court observes that the Constitutional Court has, in all its subsequent decisions, referred to its two leading decisions of 1999 and 2003, holding in its decision of 10.June 2010 that the failure to implement its leading decision of 2003 entailed a fresh violation of the Constitution (see paragraph 73 above). 
Poleg tega Sodišče ugotavlja, da se je ustavno sodišče pri vseh nadaljnjih odločitvah sklicevalo na svoji dve temeljni odločbi iz let 1999 in 2003, zajeti v odločbi z dne 10. junija 2010, da je neizvajanje temeljne odločbe iz leta 2003 povzročilo novo kršitev ustave (glej 73. odstavek).
Lastly, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the applicants, who did not have any Slovenian identity documents, were left for several years in a state of legal limbo, and therefore in a situation of vulnerability and legal insecurity (see, mutatis mutandis, Tokiæ and Others, cited above, §§.57-59, and Haliloviæ v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 23968/05, § 22, 24.November 2009). 
Ne nazadnje Sodišče ne more spregledati, da so pritožnike, ki niso imeli nobenih slovenskih identifikacijskih dokumentov, več let pustili v pravni praznini ter zaradi tega ranljive in v pravni negotovosti (smiselno glej Tokić in drugi, 57.-59. odstavek, in Halilović proti Bosni in Hercegovini, št. 23968/05, 22. odstavek, 24. november 2009).
Having regard to the above considerations, and in particular to the overall duration of the administrative proceedings brought by the applicants and to the feelings of helplessness and frustration which inevitably derived from the prolonged inaction of the authorities in spite of the theoretically binding decisions of the Constitutional Court, the Court finds that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the applicants were dispensed from having to lodge individual constitutional appeals. 
Ob upoštevanju gornjih ugotovitev, zlasti pa skupnega trajanja upravnih postopkov, ki so jih sprožili pritožniki, pa tudi občutkov nemoči in frustracije kot neizogibne posledice dolgotrajnega nedelovanja organov oblasti kljub teoretično zavezujočim odločbam ustavnega sodišča Sodišče meni, da v posebnih okoliščinah tega primera pritožnikom ni bilo treba vlagati posamičnih ustavnih pritožb.
This decision is limited to the particular circumstances of the present case and must not be interpreted as a general statement to the effect that an appeal to the Constitutional Court is never a remedy which must be used in Slovenia in cases of non-compliance with decisions in which that court has laid down general measures (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v..France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 81, ECHR 1999-V, and Tokiæ and Others, cited above, § 59). 
Ta odločitev je omejena na posebne okoliščine tega primera in se ne sme razlagati kot splošna izjava o tem, da pritožba na ustavno sodišče ni nikoli sredstvo, ki se mora uporabljati v Sloveniji pri morebitni neskladnosti z odločitvami, s katerimi je to sodišče določilo splošne ukrepe (smiselno glej Selmouni proti Franciji [VS], št. 25803/94, 81. odstavek, ESČP 1999-V, in Tokić in drugi, 59. odstavek).
The Government further objected that the applicants could have filed a petition for an abstract review of the constitutionality of the legislation (see paragraph 275 above). 
Vlada je še ugovarjala, da bi pritožniki lahko vložili pobudo za presojo ustavnosti zakonodaje (glej 275. odstavek).
The applicants contested the effectiveness of that remedy. 
Pritožniki so ugovarjali učinkovitosti tega pravnega sredstva.
The Court notes that the Constitutional Court&apos;s leading decisions of 1999 and 2003 were adopted following the initiative of a number of &quot;erased&quot; persons and of the Association of the &quot;Erased&quot; (see paragraphs 40, 58 and 214-215 above), whereas none of the applicants had previously challenged the relevant provisions of the Aliens Act or of the Legal Status Act before the Constitutional Court. 
Sodišče ugotavlja, da sta bili temeljni odločbi ustavnega sodišča iz let 1999 in 2003 sprejeti na pobudo številnih izbrisanih in Društva izbrisanih prebivalcev Slovenije (glej 40., 58. in 214.-215. odstavek), medtem ko pred ustavnim sodiščem nobeden od pritožnikov pred tem ni izpodbijal določb Zakona o tujcih ali ZUSDDD.
Only Mr Ristanoviæ recently lodged a petition challenging the provisions of the amended Legal Status Act, which was joined to the petition lodged by the association Civil Initiative of the &quot;Erased&quot; and to petitions lodged by fifty-one other individuals (see paragraph 81 above). 
Samo Tripun Ristanović je pred kratkim vložil pobudo zoper določbe spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD, pridruženo pobudam, ki jih je vložilo Društvo civilna iniciativa izbrisanih prebivalcev in enainpetdeset drugih posameznikov (glej 81. odstavek).
Those proceedings are currently pending. 
Ti postopki še potekajo.
However, the Court cannot but reiterate that the Constitutional Court&apos;s leading decisions of 1999 and 2003, both ordering general measures, were not fully complied with for several years (see paragraph 298 above). 
Sodišče pa mora poudariti, da dve temeljni odločbi ustavnega sodišča iz let 1999 in 2003, ki sta zahtevali uvedbo splošnih ukrepov, vrsto let nista bili v celoti upoštevani (glej 298. odstavek).