natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The essence of the applicants&apos; complaints had, at the material time, already been addressed by those leading decisions (see, mutatis mutandis, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 122, ECHR 2007-IV). 
Bistvo pritožb pritožnikov je bilo v spornem času že obravnavano v teh temeljnih odločbah (smiselno glej D. H. in drugi proti Češki [VS], št. 57325/00, 122. odstavek, ESČP 2007-IV).
The applicants were therefore not required to lodge an additional petition for an abstract review of the constitutionality of the impugned legislation, as it would essentially have duplicated the petitions that had previously been filed and determined. 
Pritožnikom zato ni bilo treba vlagati dodatnih pobud za presojo ustavnosti izpodbijane zakonodaje, saj bi bilo to v bistvu podvajanje pobud, ki so bile pred tem že vložene in rešene.
Prior to the issuance of the residence permits to the six applicants during the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, the Government also objected that some of the applicants had failed to submit requests under the amended Legal Status Act, which was in their view a systemic instrument regulating comprehensively the status of the &quot;erased&quot; (see paragraph 276 above). 
Pred izdajo dovoljenja za prebivanje šestim pritožnikom med postopkom pred velikim senatom je vlada oporekala, da nekateri pritožniki niso vložili prošenj po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD, ki je bil po njenem mnenju sistemsko pravno sredstvo za celostno urejanje statusa izbrisanih (glej 276. odstavek).
It entered into force on 24 July 2010 (see paragraph 76 above), almost immediately after the delivery of the Chamber judgment on 13 July 2010, in which the applicants&apos; complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention were declared admissible (see paragraph 9 above). 
Začel je veljati 24. julija 2010 (glej 76. odstavek), skoraj takoj po sprejetju razsodbe senata 13. julija 2010, s katero so bile pritožbe pritožnikov po 8., 13. in 14. členu konvencije razglašene za sprejemljive (glej 9. odstavek).
According to the Court&apos;s case-law, objections of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised after an application has been declared admissible cannot be taken into account at the merits stage (see Demades v. Turkey (merits), no. 16219/90, § 20, 31 July 2003, and Lordos and Others v. Turkey (merits), no. 15973/90, § 41, 2 November 2010). 
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča se ugovori glede neizčrpanja notranjepravnih sredstev, vloženi po tem, ko je bila pritožba razglašena za sprejemljivo, ne morejo upoštevati na stopnji ugotavljanja utemeljenosti (glej Demades proti Turčiji (utemeljenost), št. 16219/90, 20. odstavek, 31. julij 2003, in Lordos in drugi proti Turčiji (utemeljenost), št. 15973/90, 41. odstavek, 2. november 2010).
In the instant case, the amended Legal Status Act entered into force after the applicants&apos; complaints had been declared admissible. 
V danem primeru je spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD začel veljati po tem, ko so bile pritožbe pritožnikov razglašene za sprejemljive.
For this reason, this part of the Government&apos;s objection cannot be upheld. 
Zato tega dela vladnega ugovora ni mogoče sprejeti.
The Government also objected that four applicants - who had submitted applications for Slovenian citizenship had failed to properly exhaust domestic legal remedies. 
Vlada je tudi ugovarjala, da štirje pritožniki - ki so predložili prošnjo za slovensko državljanstvo, niso pravilno izčrpali notranjepravnih sredstev.
The Grand Chamber observes that the applicants&apos; complaints concerning the impossibility for them to obtain Slovenian citizenship were declared incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention by the Chamber (see paragraphs 231 and 236 above). 
Veliki senat ugotavlja, da so bile pritožbe pritožnikov glede njihove nezmožnosti pridobiti slovensko državljanstvo časovno neskladne (ratione temporis) z določbami konvencije (glej 231. in 236. odstavek).
Accordingly, the Grand Chamber has jurisdiction to examine the applicants&apos; complaints only in so far as they concern their residence status in Slovenia (see paragraph 237 above). 
Veliki senat je torej pristojen, da prouči pritožbe pritožnikov samo v delu, ki se nanaša na njihov status prebivalca v Sloveniji (glej 237. odstavek).
Under these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that an application for Slovenian citizenship was not a remedy aimed at addressing the essence of the applicants&apos; complaints, as delimited by the decision on the admissibility of the application. 
V teh okoliščinah Sodišče meni, da prošnja za slovensko državljanstvo ni bila pravno sredstvo, namenjeno reševanju bistva pritožb pritožnikov, kot to razmejuje odločba o sprejemljivosti pritožbe.
Consequently, it does not need to examine whether this remedy was effective and accessible. 
Zato ni potrebno, da ugotavlja, ali je bilo to pravno sredstvo učinkovito in dostopno.
For the above reasons, the Government&apos;s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the six applicants who obtained permanent residence permits should be dismissed. 
Iz navedenih razlogov se predhodni ugovor vlade o neizčrpanju notranjepravnih sredstev šestih pritožnikov, ki so prejeli dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje, zavrne.
The applicants claimed that they had been arbitrarily deprived of the possibility of preserving their status as permanent residents in Slovenia. 
Pritožniki so trdili, da jim je bila samovoljno odvzeta možnost ohraniti status stalnega prebivalca v Sloveniji.
They invoked Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: 
Sklicevali so se na 8. člen konvencije, ki se glasi:
The applicants alleged that they had not been in a position to submit a formal request for citizenship within the short period set out in the domestic legislation. 
Pritožniki so navajali, da niso bili sposobni predložiti uradne prošnje za državljanstvo v tako kratkem roku, kot ga je določala domača zakonodaja.
As a result, on 26 February 1992 their names had been unlawfully &quot;erased&quot; from the Register. 
Posledično so bila 26. februarja 1992 njihova imena protipravno izbrisana iz registra.
The applicants and initially also were also unable to acquire citizenship of any other successor State of the SFRY and had become, de facto, stateless persons. 
Pritožniki in sprva tudi prav tako niso mogli pridobiti državljanstva katere koli druge države naslednice SFRJ in so dejansko postali osebe brez državljanstva.
Subsequently, the applicants had not been in a position to successfully apply for permanent residence in Slovenia until the entry into force of the amended Legal Status Act in 2010. 
Zato se niso mogli uspešno potegovati za stalno prebivanje v Sloveniji, dokler ni leta 2010 začel veljati spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD.
Before the Chamber, the applicants submitted that the provisions of the Aliens Act were neither accessible nor foreseeable in effect. 
Pritožniki so pred senatom trdili, da določbe Zakona o tujcih niso bile dostopne in tudi njihovi učinki niso bili predvidljivi.
With respect to accessibility, the authorities had failed to provide adequate and detailed information to all persons concerned. 
Glede dostopnosti organi oblasti niso predložili ustreznih in podrobnih informacij vsem osebam, ki jih je to zadevalo.
As to foreseeability, the Aliens Act did not expressly apply to the &quot;erased&quot; since it was designed to regulate the status of illegal aliens. 
Glede predvidljivosti Zakon o tujcih ne velja izrecno za izbrisane, saj je namenjen urejanju statusa nezakonito priseljenih tujcev.
In addition, the applicants regarded the Slovenian authorities&apos; overall conduct as arbitrary. 
Poleg tega so pritožniki menili, da je bilo splošno ravnanje slovenske oblasti samovoljno.
The interference complained of was not proportionate to the aim allegedly pursued, namely the control of the entry and residence of aliens, since the applicants had had permanent residence in Slovenia at the time of its independence. 
Poseg, nad katerim se pritožujejo, ni bil sorazmeren z zastavljenim ciljem, tj. nadzorom nad vstopom in prebivanjem tujcev, saj so pritožniki ob osamosvojitvi imeli stalno prebivališče v Sloveniji.
The applicants essentially agreed with the Chamber&apos;s findings and urged that the Government&apos;s passive attitude be stigmatised in stronger terms. 
Pritožniki so se v bistvu strinjali z ugotovitvami senata in zahtevali, da se pasivni odnos vlade označi z ostrejšimi izrazi.
They stated that they had not been properly informed about the consequences of not having successfully applied for Slovenian citizenship; public announcements and newspaper articles were not enough. 
Izjavili so, da niso bili ustrezno obveščeni o posledicah, če ne zaprosijo uspešno za slovensko državljanstvo; javne objave in časopisni članki niso bili dovolj.
The &quot;erasure&quot; had been carried out arbitrarily, without any legal basis and in secret, and had concerned 25,671 persons. 
Izbris je bil izveden samovoljno, brez vsake pravne podlage in na skrivaj, prizadel pa je 25.671 oseb.
It was only in 1999, after the decision of the Constitutional Court, that the &quot;erased&quot; had begun to discover what had really happened. 
Šele leta 1999, po odločitvi ustavnega sodišča, so izbrisani začeli ugotavljati, kaj se je v resnici zgodilo.
In the subsequent years, the Constitutional Court&apos;s decisions had been systematically and deliberately disregarded by the Government and Parliament. 
V naslednjih letih sta vlada in državni zbor sistematično in namerno prezrla odločitve ustavnega sodišča.
The new framework legislation - the amended Legal Status Act - had been passed eleven years after the first leading decision on the unlawfulness of the &quot;erasure&quot; and seven years after the second leading ruling. 
Nova okvirna zakonodaja - spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD - je bila sprejeta enajst let po prvi temeljni odločbi o nezakonitosti izbrisa in sedem let po drugi temeljni odločbi.
Contrary to the Government, the applicants submitted that no genuine change had taken place in the policy of the Slovenian authorities since that Act had been passed. 
V nasprotju z vlado so pritožniki zatrdili, da se tudi po sprejetju tega zakona politika slovenske oblasti ni bistveno spremenila.
The &quot;erased&quot; were not only denied access to Slovenian citizenship but were also bereft of any legal status conferring &quot;the right to have rights&quot;. 
Izbrisanim ni bil onemogočen le dostop do slovenskega državljanstva, temveč jim je bil odvzet tudi kateri koli pravni status, po katerem bi imeli &quot;pravico uveljavljati svoje pravice&quot;.
This was a serious encroachment on human dignity. 
To je bil resen poseg v človekovo dostojanstvo.
The &quot;erasure&quot; irremediably affected their private or family life or both under Article 8 of the Convention, which also protected the right to establish details of a person&apos;s identity as an individual human being (the applicants cited, inter alia, Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 90, ECHR 2002-VI, and Mikuliæ v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-I). 
Izbris je nepopravljivo vplival na njihovo zasebno in/ali družinsko življenje glede na 8. konvencije, po katerem se zagotavlja tudi pravica do evidentiranja podatkov, ki določajo identiteto osebe kot posameznega človeškega bitja (pritožniki so med drugim navedli primera Christine Goodwin proti Združenemu kraljestvu [VS], št. 28957/95, 90. odstavek, ESČP 2002-VI, in Mikulić proti Hrvaški, št. 53176/99, 53. odstavek, ESČP 2002-I).
From being citizens in full possession of their rights, they had become illegal aliens overnight; some of them had also become stateless, and had lived for twenty years in a most precarious situation and been seriously hindered in the full enjoyment of their basic human rights. 
Iz državljanov z vsemi pravicami so čez noč postali nezakonito priseljeni tujci; nekateri od njih so ostali tudi brez državljanstva in so dvajset let živeli v nadvse negotovih razmerah, kar jih je resno oviralo pri uresničevanju njihovih temeljnih človekovih pravic.
The difficulties the &quot;erased&quot; had to surmount were illustrated by the applicants&apos; personal histories. 
Težave, ki so jih morali premagovati izbrisani, so razvidne iz osebnih opisov življenja pritožnikov.
The Government had continued to minimise the unlawfulness and arbitrariness of the &quot;erasure&quot;. 
Vlada je še naprej podcenjevala nezakonitost in samovoljnost izbrisa.
The weakness of the Government&apos;s argument that the presence of the &quot;erased&quot; was tolerated was brought out by the fact that many had been forcibly deported from Slovenia, including five of the present applicants. 
Pomanjkljivost ugovora vlade, da so dopuščali prisotnost izbrisanih, je postala očitna ob dejstvu, da so mnoge nasilno izgnali iz Slovenije, med njimi tudi pet sedanjih pritožnikov.
The Government had also minimised the consequences ensuing from the Constitutional Court&apos;s decisions of 1999 and 2003. The prior legislative framework or its implementation or both by the competent administrative authorities were clearly inadequate. 
Vlada je tudi podcenjevala posledice odločb ustavnega sodišča iz let 1999 in 2003. Prejšnji pravni okvir oziroma njegovo izvajanje v pristojnih upravnih organih je bilo očitno neustrezno.
Most of the applicants had obtained their residence permits very recently, under the amended Legal Status Act. 
Večina pritožnikov je prejela dovoljenje za prebivanje šele pred kratkim na podlagi spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD.
In spite of that, their situation had not yet been settled in the absence of any financial redress. 
Kljub temu pa njihov položaj še ni bil urejen, ker ni bilo nikakršnega finančnega zadoščenja.
As to the amended Legal Status Act, only thirty permits had been granted so far. 
Po spremenjenem in dopolnjenem ZUSDDD je bilo doslej izdanih le trideset dovoljenj.
According to the official data, approximately 13,000 of the &quot;erased&quot; were therefore still waiting for the situation to be settled. 
Po uradnih podatkih naj bi na ureditev razmer čakalo še približno 13.000 izbrisanih.
It was therefore clear that the effects of the Court&apos;s judgment would extend well beyond the specific situations of each applicant since the judgment would concern the entire category of the &quot;erased&quot;. 
Zato je bilo jasno, da bi učinki sodbe Sodišča presegli posebni primer vsakega posameznega pritožnika, saj bi se sodba nanašala na celotno skupino izbrisanih.
As to the Government&apos;s criticism of the Chamber&apos;s findings concerning statelessness, the Chamber had in any event not ruled that the &quot;erasure&quot; as such had caused statelessness or that the violations of the applicants&apos; rights had originated from their statelessness, but had recorded an undisputable objective fact. 
V zvezi s kritiko vlade glede ugotovitev senata, ki se nanašajo na osebe brez državljanstva, senat v nobenem primeru ni presodil, da je izbris kot tak povzročil, da so osebe ostale brez državljanstva, ali da so bile kršene pravice pritožnikov zato, ker so bili brez državljanstva, temveč je samo zapisal nesporna in objektivna dejstva.
The applicants believed that the Chamber should have gone further in assessing the real impact the &quot;erasure&quot; had had on citizenship rights, taking into account the relevant substantive and procedural rules of international law concerning the avoidance of statelessness. 
Pritožniki so menili, da bi senat pri presoji dejanskih učinkov izbrisa na državljanske pravice moral iti še dlje ter upoštevati ustrezna vsebinska in postopkovna pravila mednarodnega prava o preprečevanju brezdržavljanstva.
The &quot;erasure&quot; had created a factual situation in which it was much more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for the applicants to regularise their citizenship in accordance with the relevant legislation either in Slovenia or in the other former republics of the SFRY. 
Izbris je povzročil dejansko stanje, v katerem je bilo pritožnikom veliko težje in včasih tudi nemogoče urejati državljanstvo v skladu z ustrezno zakonodajo v Sloveniji ali v drugih nekdanjih republikah SFRJ.
The Government&apos;s assumption that every former SFRY citizen should have kept his or her previous republic citizenship was not entirely correct. 
Domneva vlade, da bi moral vsak državljan nekdanje SFRJ obdržati svoje prejšnje republiško državljanstvo, ni bila popolnoma točna.
There were many reported cases showing the opposite, such as that of Mr (see paragraph 97 above). 
Številni primeri so kazali ravno nasprotno, na primer (glej 97. odstavek).
Mr had only recently, in August 2010, been issued with a Macedonian passport (see paragraph 172 above). 
Tako je šele pred kratkim, avgusta 2010, pridobil makedonski potni list (glej 172. odstavek).
The Government had failed to give any consideration at all to situations where a person had not had the citizenship of a republic. 
Vlada sploh ni upoštevala primerov, ko oseba ni imela republiškega državljanstva.
This occurred in particular where the person concerned was born in Slovenia to parents with the citizenship of another republic or with no republic citizenship at all. 
To se je zgodilo predvsem takrat, ko je bila oseba rojena v Sloveniji staršem, ki so imeli državljanstvo druge republike ali pa sploh niso imeli republiškega državljanstva.
Since 1968, the practice had been to enter one&apos;s citizenship in the registers kept in Slovenia, but the relevant data were in practice often not reported to the republic of origin in spite of the existing legislation. 
Praksa od leta 1968 je bila taka, da se je državljanstvo osebe vneslo v registre v Sloveniji, ustreznih podatkov pa kljub veljavni zakonodaji pogosto niso sporočili matični republiki.
At the time of the dissolution of the SFRY, the Government had been under an obligation to give all persons living in Slovenia a choice between obtaining Slovenian citizenship and a residence permit. 
Ko je SFRJ razpadla, bi morala vlada dati na izbiro vsem osebam, ki so živele v Sloveniji, da pridobijo slovensko državljanstvo ali pa dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje.
Before the Chamber, the Government submitted that the events in 1991 had involved the historic creation of a new State and that it had therefore been necessary, on the one hand, to establish rapidly a corpus of citizens in view of parliamentary elections and, on the other hand, to regulate the status of aliens, including that of citizens of the other former republics of the SFRY with permanent residence in Slovenia. 
Vlada je senatu predložila, da so dogodki leta 1991 vključevali zgodovinsko ustanovitev nove države in da je bilo zato treba po eni strani hitro oblikovati državljansko telo zaradi državnozborskih volitev, po drugi strani pa urediti status tujcev, vključno s statusom državljanov drugih republik nekdanje SFRJ s stalnim prebivališčem v Sloveniji.
This pivotal time for the establishment of a new State called for the quick adoption of decisions owing to the pressing social need. 
V tem prelomnem obdobju za ustanovitev nove države je bilo treba poseči po hitrih odločitvah zaradi nujnih družbenih potreb.
Under both the Statement of Good Intentions and the independence legislation (see paragraphs 21-22 and 24-25 above), the Republic of Slovenia had allowed citizens of the other former republics of the SFRY with permanent residence on its territory to acquire Slovenian citizenship by naturalisation under exceptionally favourable conditions. 
Republika Slovenija je tako z Izjavo o dobrih namenih in z osamosvojitveno zakonodajo (glej 21.-22. odstavek in 24.-25. odstavek) omogočila pridobitev slovenskega državljanstva z naturalizacijo državljanom drugih republik nekdanje SFRJ s stalnim prebivališčem v Sloveniji pod izjemno ugodnimi pogoji.
Those who had not taken advantage of this had become aliens and should have regularised their status. 
Tisti, ki tega niso izkoristili, so postali tujci in bi morali urediti svoj status.
In the sphere of immigration, the State was entitled not only to regulate the stay and residence of aliens but also to take dissuasive measures, such as deportation. 
Glede priseljevanja je bila država upravičena ne samo urediti začasno in stalno prebivanje tujcev, ampak tudi sprejeti odvračilne ukrepe, kakršen je izgon.
It had therefore been necessary to enact the appropriate legislation, which was accessible to the applicants and foreseeable in effect, in order to ensure public safety. 
Tako je bilo za zagotovitev javne varnosti treba sprejeti ustrezno zakonodajo, ki je bila dostopna pritožnikom in katere učinek je bil predvidljiv.
Such legislation was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aims pursued. 
Taka zakonodaja je bila v demokratični družbi potrebna in sorazmerna z zastavljenimi cilji.
Before the Grand Chamber, the Government acknowledged that the &quot;erasure&quot; had been illegal and had led to an unconstitutional situation. 
Vlada je pred velikim senatom potrdila, da je bil izbris nezakonit in je povzročil neustavni položaj.
They had fully complied in recent years with the Constitutional Court&apos;s decisions in order to redress the consequences of the &quot;erasure&quot;: 
V zadnjih letih je v celoti zadostila odločbam ustavnega sodišča, da bi popravila posledice izbrisa:
on 24 July 2010 the amended Legal Status Act had entered into force, and in 2009, after the change in government, the Ministry had resumed issuing ex tunc permanent residence permits. 
julija 2010 je začel veljati spremenjeni in dopolnjeni ZUSDDD, po spremembi vlade leta 2009 pa je ministrstvo nadaljevalo izdajanje dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje z učinkom za nazaj (ex tunc).
Moreover, various media had been used to provide information to the &quot;erased&quot; (for example, a brochure, the Internet and a free phone line). 
Poleg tega so bila za zagotavljanje informacij izbrisanim uporabljena različna sredstva obveščanja (npr. brošura, internet in brezplačna telefonska številka).
The Chamber judgment had failed to attach sufficient weight to these activities. 
Sodba senata tem dejavnostim ni pripisala posebne teže.
In 1991 the applicants had already been sufficiently informed, via publication in the Official Gazette and the press, about the possibility of regularising their status and the need to acquire a permanent or a temporary residence permit if they wished to continue residing in Slovenia under the general provisions of the Aliens Act (section 16). 
Leta 1991 so bili pritožniki z objavo v uradnem listu in tiskanih medijih že dovolj seznanjeni z možnostjo ureditve svojega statusa in potrebo po pridobitvi dovoljenja za začasno ali stalno prebivanje, če so želeli še naprej prebivati v Sloveniji na podlagi splošnih določb Zakona o tujcih (16. ).
Between 1992 and 1997 a total of 4,893 such permits had been issued and the relevant conditions had been interpreted favourably. 
Med letoma 1992 in 1997 je bilo izdanih skupaj 4893 takih dovoljenj in razlaga potrebnih pogojev je bila ugodna.
Approximately 12,500 permanent residence permits had been granted under both the Legal Status Act and the amended Legal Status Act (see paragraphs 67, 76 and 80 above). 
Tako je bilo na podlagi ZUSDDD ter tudi spremenjenega in dopolnjenega ZUSDDD izdanih približno 12.500 dovoljenj za stalno prebivanje (glej 67., 76. in 80. odstavek).