Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Respondent State to take individual measures;Respondent State to take measures of general character;Just satisfaction reserved

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

The first applicant , ORG , was a NORP citizen . He was born in DATE and lived in LOC . He died in the course of the proceedings before the ORG . The second applicant , Mr Mustafa Kurić , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is a stateless person . The third applicant , Mr Ljubomir Petreš , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . According to the applicant , he is a stateless person . The respondent Government claimed , however , that he was a citizen of GPE . The fourth applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a citizen of GPE . The fifth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a stateless person . The sixth applicant , PERSON , is a NORP citizen . She was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The seventh applicant , PERSON , is a NORP citizen . She was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The eighth applicant , Mr PERSON , the son of the seventh applicant , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a citizen of GPE and GPE . The ninth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE in GPE . According to the most recently available data he is a NORP citizen . The tenth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He lives in GPE and is a stateless person . The eleventh applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . According to the respondent Government , he is a NORP citizen .

NORP Before DATE , the day GPE declared independence , the applicants were citizens of both ORG ( “ the SFRY ” ) and one of its constituent GPE other than GPE . They had acquired permanent resident status in GPE as SFRY citizens , a status which they retained until DATE . On DATE they became subject to LAW ( Zakon o tujcih ) and their names were deleted from LAW ORG stalnega prebivalstva , “ the Register ” ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In DATE , further to a change in government policy , the applicants Mr Petreš and Mr Jovanović , who were already in possession of permanent residence permits valid from the date of issue in DATE , were issued supplementary residence permits awarding them residence status from CARDINAL DATE on the basis of ORG decision ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The applicant PERSON , who died on DATE , would also have been entitled to such a permit . The applicant PERSON , who is now in possession of a temporary residence permit valid until DATE , is not entitled to a supplementary residence permit .

The applicants Mr Kurić , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON have not applied for residence permits under the existing legislation .

Finally , the applicants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON have applied for residence permits and the respective proceedings are still pending .

From the First World War until DATE , the territory comprising the modern GPE was incorporated into a union of NORP nations of LOC ( mostly of LOC ) . On DATE the first union DATE ORG , NORP and NORP – joined with GPE and became GPE , NORP and NORP . In DATE the latter was renamed as GPE .

A new entity was subsequently formed during the Second World War . This common ORG first bore the name of ORG , then of ORG , which in DATE was renamed as the SFRY . It was a federal ORG composed of CARDINAL republics : GPE , GPE , GPE ( with CARDINAL autonomous regions , GPE and GPE ) , GPE , GPE and GPE .

SFRY nationals had “ dual citizenship ” for internal purposes , that is , they were citizens both of the SFRY and of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The first LAW after the Second World War was adopted in DATE . In DATE , under the new Constitutions of the SFRY and of the then GPE , the whole system of government shifted from strict centralism to greater autonomy for the constituent GPE . The preamble to LAW introduced the right of every nation to self - determination , including to secession . Until DATE , federal citizenship prevailed over republic citizenship : republic citizenship could only be held by a NORP citizen ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The regulation of citizenship was similar in all republics of the SFRY , with the basic principle of acquiring citizenship by blood ( ius sanguinis ) . In principle , a child followed his GPE citizenship ; if parents were citizens of different GPE , they jointly agreed on their child ’s citizenship . This basic principle was combined with the principle of place of birth ( ius soli ) or of residence ( ius domicilii ) , of granting of republic citizenship to a citizen of another republic upon application , of naturalisation and recognition under international agreement . Moreover , on the date of admission into the citizenship of another republic , a person ’s prior republic citizenship came to an end .

DATE a separate Register of Citizenship was kept at the level of the GPE and not at the level of the federal ORG . It follows from the documents at the ORG ’s disposal that those Registers were not always accurate , since different authorities were responsible for keeping them , the rules governing citizenship were not always strictly respected and republic citizenship was not regarded as crucial during the existence of the SFRY since all republic citizens also had SFRY citizenship . Moreover , in a limited number of cases republic citizenship was not even entered in the Register of Citizenship .

SFRY citizens had freedom of movement within the federal ORG and could register permanent residence wherever they settled on its territory . Full enjoyment of various civil , economic , social and even political rights for SFRY citizens was linked to permanent residence .

SFRY citizens living in the then GPE who were citizens of CARDINAL of the other SFRY republics , such as the applicants , registered their permanent residence there in the same way as NORP nationals . Foreign citizens could also acquire permanent residence in the ORG under a separate procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the SFRY faced a serious political and economic crisis , with many ethnic tensions which eventually led to the end of the communist regime and the break - up of the SFRY ( see , NORP and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

As a consequence of the crisis , numerous amendments to LAW were made in DATE , aimed at a peaceful dissolution of the federal ORG and the establishment of an independent democratic GPE . In particular , LAW emphasised the right of the NORP nation to self - determination and provided a legal basis for calling a plebiscite and for the secession of GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , in the course of the preparations for the plebiscite on the independence of GPE , the then ORG PERSON ORG ) adopted the so - called Statement of Good Intentions ( PERSON o dobrih namenih ) , guaranteeing that all persons with permanent residence on NORP territory would be enabled to acquire NORP citizenship if they so wished ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the plebiscite was held . The right to vote had been granted to all adult inhabitants with registered permanent residence in GPE . CARDINAL out of CARDINAL eligible voters voted . CARDINAL per cent of voters were in favour of independence and MONEY voted against .

On DATE GPE declared its independence . In order to set the legal framework of the new sovereign ORG , LAW on the Sovereignty and Independence of GPE Temeljna ustavna listina o samostojnosti in neodvisnosti PERSON ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and a series of laws termed “ the independence legislation ” ( osamosvojitvena zakonodaja ) were passed .

This included the DATE LAW relating to LAW on the Sovereignty and Independence of GPE ( PERSON za izvedbo Temeljne ustavne listine o samostojnosti in neodvisnosti PERSON , “ the DATE LAW ” ) , ORG ( Zakon o državljanstvu PERSON , “ LAW ” ) , LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , ORG ( Zakon o nadzoru državne meje ) and FAC ( Zakon o potnih listinah državljanov PERSON ) .

At the material time , in contrast with some other former ORG , the NORP population was relatively homogeneous , as MONEY of the CARDINAL residents had NORP citizenship . CARDINAL NORP residents ( or MONEY of the population ) , including the applicants , were citizens of the other former ORG . This proportion also broadly reflects the ethnic origin of the NORP population at that time .

In accordance with the Statement of Good Intentions , section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW provided that those citizens of other GPE of the former SFRY who , on DATE , the date of the plebiscite , were registered as permanent residents of GPE and in fact lived there , held equal rights and duties as the citizens of GPE , with the exception of the acquisition of property , until they acquired citizenship of GPE under section CARDINAL of LAW or until the expiry of the time - limit set out in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW , which entered into force on DATE , provided that citizens of the former SFRY republics who were not citizens of GPE ( “ citizens of the former SFRY republics ” ) could acquire NORP citizenship if they met CARDINAL requirements : they had acquired permanent resident status in GPE by DATE ( the date of the plebiscite ) , were in fact residing in GPE , and applied for citizenship within DATE after LAW entered into force ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The deadline expired on DATE .

The respondent Government maintained that it was not necessary to enclose any official documents from other former ORG when an application for citizenship was filed ; this was only necessary at a later stage of the proceedings . The applicants however maintained that in practice such documents were required from the outset .

According to the official data , CARDINAL citizens of the former SFRY republics living in GPE applied for and were granted citizenship of the new ORG under LAW of LAW . Estimations are CARDINAL persons left GPE .

Under second paragraph of LAW of LAW , citizens of the former GPE who either failed to apply for NORP citizenship within the prescribed time - limit or whose requests were not granted became aliens . The provisions of LAW became applicable to the former SFRY citizens either DATE after the expiry of the time - limit for filing the requests for citizenship under LAW CARDINAL of LAW , that is , DATE , or when a decision issued in administrative proceedings dismissing their application for citizenship became final ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On or shortly after CARDINAL DATE the municipal authorities removed those concerned by the second paragraph of LAW of LAW from LAW and , according to the respondent Government , transferred them into the Register of Aliens without a Residence Permit .

On DATE ORG ( Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve , “ the Ministry ” ) sent “ Instructions on the implementation of LAW ” to the municipal authorities , indicating that it would be necessary to regulate the legal status of the persons affected by LAW after the expiry of the time - limits in DATE . It drew attention to the fact that problems were expected to arise with regard to persons from other GPE of the former SFRY who would become aliens on DATE and had not lodged an application for citizenship . In addition , it pointed out that the papers of such persons , even if issued by the NORP authorities and formally valid , would in fact be invalid owing to the person ’s change in status ex lege . Some of those concerned would be required to leave GPE in accordance with sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

The applicants stated that persons whose names were removed from the ORG received no official notification . They pointed out that no special procedure was provided for to that effect and no official documents were issued . They only subsequently became aware that they had become aliens , when , for example , they attempted to renew their personal documents ( personal identification card , passport , driving licence ) . On the other hand , the respondent Government maintained that , in addition to the publication in ORG , the NORP population was informed about the new legislation through public media and notices . In some municipalities , personal means of notification were allegedly also used .

Until recently , according to the official data from DATE , the number of former SFRY citizens who lost their permanent residence status on CARDINAL DATE amounted to CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , of whom CARDINAL had been refused citizenship . Their names were erased , ex lege , from ORG on or shortly after CARDINAL DATE and entered into the Register of Aliens without a Residence Permit . They became known as “ the erased ” ( izbrisani ) , and included the applicants in the present case .

As a result , “ the erased ” became aliens or stateless persons illegally residing in GPE . In general , they had difficulties in keeping their jobs , driving licences and obtaining retirement pensions . Nor were they able to leave the country , because they could not re - enter without valid documents . Many families became divided , with some of their members in GPE and others in CARDINAL of the other successor GPE to the former SFRY . Among “ the erased ” were a certain number of minors . In most cases their identity papers were taken away . Some of “ the erased ” voluntarily left GPE . Finally , some were served removal orders and deported from GPE .

After the expiry of the DATE period set by section CARDINAL of LAW , the less favourable conditions for acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation provided for by its section CARDINAL became applicable also for citizens of other former LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

After DATE the registration of permanent residence of citizens of other former SFRY republics was terminated if they had not acquired a new residence permit . On the other hand , under section CARDINAL of LAW , permanent residence permits issued to foreigners with citizenship of other GPE than the former SFRY republics continued to be valid after the entry into force of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The respondent Government maintained that , in view of the large number of persons from the other GPE of the former SFRY living in GPE with non - regulated status , on DATE the ORG decided also to take into account the period before the entry into force of LAW for the purposes of calculating the required period of DATE residence in GPE for issuing a permanent residence permit under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . A total of CARDINAL permanent residence permits were thus issued in DATE .

On DATE the Convention took effect in respect of GPE .

NORP Moreover , on DATE , further to a request submitted by ORG for a referendum on the question whether or not the citizenship awarded to former SFRY citizens on the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW should be withdrawn , ORG held that the request was unconstitutional .

In DATE , several non - governmental organisations , including ORG and ORG , and ORG issued reports drawing attention to the situation of “ the erased ” .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON sodišče ) declared admissible a challenge to the constitutionality of sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL of LAW , lodged in DATE by CARDINAL individuals whose names had been removed from the ORG in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG held that section CARDINAL of LAW was unconstitutional . However , no such problems arose with section DATE ) . It ordered the legislature to regulate , within DATE , the special legal status of citizens of the former ORG who had acquired permanent residence in GPE before its independence and in fact lived in GPE , but either had not applied for NORP citizenship or had had their applications dismissed .

As a consequence , the Act on Regularisation of the Legal Status of Citizens of Other Successor States to ORG in GPE ( Zakon o urejanju statusa državljanov drugih držav naslednic nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji , “ the LAW ” ) was passed to regulate the legal status of “ the erased ” . It simplified the requirements for acquiring a permanent residence permit . In particular , LAW was no longer applicable to this group of persons . Under this LAW , residence permits were granted ex nunc to those fulfilling the conditions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

Ruling on another constitutional challenge , on CARDINAL DATE ORG set aside some of the provisions of LAW as unconstitutional because it found that the requirements for the acquisition of permanent residence set forth in these provisions were stricter than the grounds for revoking a permanent residence permit under LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

According to the respondent Government , CARDINAL applications were lodged under LAW by DATE . As a result , CARDINAL permanent residence permits were issued .

In DATE , LAW was also amended in order to enable the acquisition of NORP citizenship under more favourable conditions to all aliens who had permanent residence in GPE on DATE and had since lived uninterruptedly in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The deadline for filing of applications expired on DATE . By that time , CARDINAL applications were lodged and by DATE CARDINAL persons had acquired NORP citizenship .

On DATE , deciding on a challenge to the constitutionality of LAW , ORG ( decision no . ORG ) again found that LAW unconstitutional . It held , firstly , that it did not afford permanent residence retroactively from the date on which the name of the person concerned was removed from the ORG . Secondly , it failed to regulate the acquisition of permanent residence for citizens of former ORG who had been forcibly removed from GPE . And , thirdly , it did not define the meaning of the words “ in fact residing ” in its section CARDINAL . It also struck down the DATE time - limit for lodging an application for permanent residence . It ordered the legislature to rectify the unconstitutional provisions within DATE .

NORP In point no . CARDINAL of the operative part of the decision , ORG ordered the ORG to issue , ex proprio motu , to those who already had ( non - retroactive ) permits , supplementary decisions establishing permanent residence in GPE with effect from DATE , the date on which their names were deleted from the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . In DATE , ORG issued CARDINAL retroactive permits to the erased , solely on the basis of the above - mentioned ORG decision .

Following the Constitutional Court ’s decision of DATE , the ORG initially prepared CARDINAL Acts in order to comply with it which were eventually never enacted .

On DATE , ORG enacted the LAW on the Application of Point No . CARDINAL of ORG Decision no . ORG ( Zakon o izvršitvi CARDINAL . točke odločbe PERSON sodišča PERSON št . U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , also known as the “ LAW ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

This Act laid down the procedure for issuing permanent residence permits to citizens of the former SFRY republics who were registered as permanent residents in GPE on both DATE and CARDINAL DATE and had already acquired a permanent residence permit under LAW , LAW or LAW .

NORP However , those parliamentarians who voted against LAW sought a referendum on whether or not it should be implemented . The referendum was held on DATE . The turnout was PERCENT ; PERCENT of voters were against its implementation , and therefore the LAW never entered into force .

In addition to the “ LAW ” , an “ Act on Permanent Residence in GPE of Foreigners Having Citizenship of the Other Successor States to the SFRY who were Registered as Permanent Residents in GPE on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ” ( Zakon o stalnem prebivanju tujcev z državljanstvom drugih držav naslednic nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji , ki so imeli na dan CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL in GPE v PERSON prijavljeno stalno prebivališče ) – a so - called systemic Act – was drafted but never adopted by ORG .

In DATE the Government sent a draft LAW amending section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ORG . However , this law – subject to a heated political debate since it was regarded by the then parliamentary opposition as an attempt to overrule ORG decisions DATE was never enacted and the parliamentary procedure terminated on completion of the ORG ’s term .

Following the parliamentary elections held on DATE , a new Government was appointed in DATE . The regulation of the status of “ the erased ” in compliance with ORG decisions was established as CARDINAL of its priorities .

Further to an upgrading of the IT system , the ORG collected new data on “ the erased ” and issued a report stating that on DATE the number of the people removed from ORG on DATE amounted to CARDINAL , of whom CARDINAL had subsequently acquired NORP citizenship ; CARDINAL of them were still alive . A further CARDINAL had acquired a residence permit . CARDINAL of “ the erased ” did not have a regulated status in GPE on that date and their current residence was unknown .

On DATE the ORG started issuing ex officio supplementary decisions further to point no . CARDINAL of ORG decision of DATE to those who were already in possession of permits or had acquired NORP citizenship ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to ORG , CARDINAL such permits should have been issued . On DATE the applicants Mr Petreš and Mr Jovanović were issued with supplementary permanent residence permits ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG voted on a motion of confidence filed against the Minister of the ORG on account of the issuing of retroactive residence permits with effect from DATE . The Minister won the vote of confidence .

DATE . Subsequently , ORG prepared amendments and supplements to LAW , regulating the remaining incompatibilities between LAW and LAW , following ORG decision of DATE . On DATE the amendments and supplements to LAW were passed .

On DATE a group of parliamentarians requested that a referendum be held on the implementation of the amendments and supplements to LAW , thus postponing their entry into force . On DATE ORG held that rejecting the law in a referendum would produce unconstitutional consequences . At the time of the consideration of this judgment , LAW has not yet entered into force .

NORP The applicant PERSON was born on DATE in DATE , GPE . He was a NORP citizen . His family moved to GPE when he was DATE . He was registered as a NORP resident from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE and considered himself NORP . The applicant stated that he had worked in GPE for DATE and paid contributions to the national health insurance and pension schemes .

During the DATE war which followed the declaration of independence in DATE , Mr ORG joined the NORP defence forces . He stated that he believed that he would be granted NORP citizenship but he did not receive any communication to that effect .

As a result of the deletion of his name from the ORG on DATE , the applicant allegedly lost his job and the benefit of pension contributions . He could no longer afford to pay rent for the apartment owned by his former employer , ORG ( ORG plovba ) , a ORG - owned company , or to buy it in the privatisation process . He was evicted from the apartment in DATE , and lost all his personal possessions , including his documents . He had been living in shelters and municipal parks . His health seriously deteriorated as a result but he no longer had access to medical care .

The applicant stated that he had visited ORG enota v ORG ) several times in an attempt to regularise his status , but was repeatedly sent away .

On DATE he lodged an application for a permanent residence permit under the provisions of LAW .

On DATE ORG ( Center za socialno delo PERSON ) asked the Ministry to expedite the examination of the applicant ’s request in view of his difficult social and health condition .

DATE . On DATE the Ministry issued a residence permit to the applicant and served it on him on DATE .

According to the respondent Government , the applicant never applied for NORP citizenship .

On DATE , with the help of ORG ( Center za socialno delo PERSON ) the applicant was awarded a DATE social assistance allowance amounting to MONEY ( ORG ) .

Further to a proposal by the applicant ’s physician , on DATE ORG ( GPE za pokojninsko in invalidsko zavarovanje ORG , ORG enota PERSON ) issued a decision classifying him in category I of invalidity with a right to a DATE invalidity pension amounting to ORG CARDINAL from DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON died .

The ORG representatives first asked the applicant PERSON brother whether he wished to pursue the proceedings before ORG . The latter did not express such an intention .

On DATE his cousin , Ms Marija Ban , informed the ORG that she wished to pursue his application before it . As far as the ORG is aware , the relevant inheritance proceedings are still pending .

The applicant Mr ORG was born on DATE in GPE ( GPE ) . According to the respondent Government , he is of unknown citizenship . He moved to GPE at DATE and settled in FAC in DATE . He is a trained shoemaker . In DATE he rented a small workshop from GPE ( PERSON ) and established a private business there . He was registered as a permanent resident in GPE from DATE until DATE .

In DATE he fell seriously ill , was hospitalised for DATE , and allegedly failed for that reason to lodge an application for NORP citizenship . The respondent Government confirmed that the applicant had been hospitalised . However , he had already been released from hospital on DATE .

In DATE the applicant ’s home caught fire and he lost most of his papers . When he applied for replacement papers to GPE ( PERSON ) , he was informed that his name had been deleted from the Register .

The applicant continued with his business and was paying the rent until DATE when he started experiencing financial difficulties . Since he could no longer pay the rent , he lost the right to remain in the LOC . Without any papers , he was at risk of being expelled if he travelled outside the local community where the police tolerated his presence .

The applicant stated that at a later stage he tried on various occasions to regularise his status with ORG , including in DATE , but allegedly received no reply . On the other hand , the respondent Government maintained that Mr ORG had never applied for a residence permit in GPE .

The applicant further maintained that in DATE he had started proceedings for pension rights with ORG . On DATE the latter sent him a letter with evidence of his years of employment , requesting him to provide a certificate of citizenship . However , further to the request of the Agent of the respondent Government , on CARDINAL DATE ORG stated that the applicant had not begun any official proceedings before it .

On DATE the applicant applied for NORP citizenship as a stateless person . His request was dismissed on DATE .

According to the respondent Government , on DATE the applicant again applied for NORP citizenship under section CARDINAL of LAW . The proceedings are pending .

The applicant Mr PERSON was born on DATE in NORP ( GPE ) . He moved to GPE when he was DATE in search of work . Initially he moved around the country constantly but in DATE he settled in GPE . He was registered as a permanent resident there from DATE until CARDINAL DATE .

NORP The applicant has been registered as unemployed in GPE since DATE . He stated that he had occasionally worked in GPE and GPE from DATE until DATE .

In DATE the applicant allegedly enquired of GPE ( Občina Piran ) whether he had to apply for NORP citizenship . He was told that no application was necessary since he had his permanent residence registered there . He was alerted in DATE when he did not receive an invitation to vote in the local elections . In DATE when he sought to renew his identity card , holes were punched in it , making it invalid .

According to the applicant , after his name was removed from the ORG in DATE , he lost the right to remain in the centre where he resided . He has been homeless ever since , living in a shelter made of wood and cardboard on a piece of land owned by GPE . As he had no valid documents he was unable to travel outside GPE and could not seek work in GPE or visit his parents in GPE . He also risked expulsion if he travelled around the country . In addition , he had health problems and has been in serious need of medical assistance .

On DATE the applicant applied for NORP citizenship under section CARDINAL of LAW . On DATE the Ministry informed Mr Petreš that his application was incomplete and gave him DATE to provide the missing documents proving that he had accommodation , a permanent source of sufficient income , that he had no convictions and that no criminal proceedings were pending against him , that he had paid all his taxes , and that he had a sufficient command of the NORP language . The deadline for furnishing the missing documents was extended a number of times until DATE , when he was given DATE .

On DATE the ORG terminated the proceedings under LAW , citing the applicant ’s inactivity . The applicant stated that his failure to submit the requested documents was not due to his unwillingness or negligence but to the actual impossibility of producing evidence .

The applicant further stated that in DATE he sought in vain to obtain citizenship of GPE in GPE . Contrary to that , the respondent Government maintained that Mr Petreš was a citizen of GPE and GPE .

On DATE Mr Petreš lodged a request for permanent residence under LAW . On DATE the permanent residence permit was issued to the applicant and served on him on DATE .

In DATE , with the help of ORG ( Center za socialno delo PERSON ) the applicant was awarded a DATE social assistance allowance , in the amount of ORG CARDINAL .

Further to the inquiries of the Agent of the respondent Government , on DATE ORG stated that there were no data concerning the applicant ’s employment in their evidence , nor had he started any proceedings before it .

On DATE the President of the ORG requested the respondent Government and the applicants under LAW ( a ) to inform the ORG whether an additional residence permit , further to ORG decision of DATE , had been issued in respect of the applicant Mr Petreš .

The respondent Government confirmed that on DATE the applicant had been ex officio issued a supplementary residence permit on the basis of point no . CARDINAL of the operative part of ORG decision of DATE , awarding him residence status from CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant initially replied that no supplementary decision had been issued in respect of him . However , on DATE he confirmed the fact that he had been issued with the supplementary residence permit . Owing to impediments to serving the decision on the applicant in person , the decision was notified to him by publication on the ORG ’s notice board .

The applicant Mr Jovanović was born on DATE in PERSON ( GPE ) . He is a citizen of GPE . He moved to GPE in DATE in search of work and settled in GPE . He had his permanent residence registered in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

According to the applicant , in DATE he did not apply for NORP citizenship because he could not obtain the required documents from GPE . Subsequently , he was stopped by the police in a routine check and his passport and identity card were confiscated . The applicant has not left GPE since DATE because he would be unable to re - enter the country , as he has no papers .

The applicant worked in ORG brewery from CARDINAL DATE until DATE . Afterwards , he wished to set up a private company but his plans to pursue a private career fell through because of his lack of status . He also lost the apartment he had rented from his former employer , but acquired a new residence with his partner , ORG , who was also of NORP origin but had acquired NORP citizenship . They had a son , PERSON , who has NORP citizenship .

NORP On DATE Mr Jovanović lodged an application for NORP citizenship under section CARDINAL of LAW and an application for a permanent residence permit .

On DATE the Ministry informed him that his application for citizenship was incomplete . He was specifically requested to produce , inter alia , proof that he had sufficient income , no outstanding tax debts , and legal status as an alien .

On DATE the Ministry informed PERSON that he had not lodged the application for a permanent residence permit with the competent administrative authority on the prescribed application form . As a consequence , he was requested to pay administration fees within DATE , which he did .

According to the respondent Government , on DATE the applicant applied again for NORP citizenship under section CARDINAL of LAW .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant applied again for a permanent residence permit . On DATE he withdrew his request . On DATE ORG enota GPE ) terminated the proceedings .

On DATE a permanent residence permit in proceedings initiated previously was issued to the applicant . The decision was served on him on DATE .

On DATE his application for NORP citizenship was dismissed .

Subsequently , according to the respondent Government , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was awarded NORP citizenship by naturalisation since he is married to a NORP citizen .

Further to the request of the Agent of the respondent Government , on DATE ORG stated that the applicant ’s employment in GPE was registered in their evidence . He did not start any proceedings before ORG .

On DATE the President of the ORG requested the respondent Government and the applicants under LAW ( a ) to inform the ORG whether , further to ORG decision of DATE , a supplementary residence permit had been issued in respect of the applicant PERSON .

The respondent Government confirmed that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been ex officio issued a supplementary residence permit on the basis of point no . CARDINAL of the operative part of ORG decision of DATE , awarding him residence status from CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant initially replied that no supplementary decision had been issued in respect of him . However , on DATE he confirmed that he had been issued with the supplementary residence permit . Owing to various circumstances , however , he had previously been unaware of this fact . The decision was served on a member of PERSON family , who allegedly failed to inform him .

The applicant PERSON was born on DATE in GPE ( GPE ) . According to the respondent Government , the applicant had NORP citizenship . He was registered as a permanent resident in GPE from DATE until DATE . His parents and CARDINAL brothers were born in GPE and they , like the applicant , were removed from the ORG in DATE . The applicant ’s mother was granted NORP citizenship in DATE and his father in DATE .

The applicant stated that in DATE he had moved to GPE , but remained registered as a permanent resident in PERSON ( GPE ) until the events of DATE . He allegedly received false information from ORG . The respondent Government stated that the applicant had been living in GPE since DATE , and not only in DATE . He was therefore not resident in GPE when the plebiscite was held and when it became independent .

The applicant worked in GPE until DATE , when his old SFRY passport expired and the NORP authorities refused to extend his residence permit . He remained in GPE illegally and on DATE he was ordered to leave the country within DATE . Eventually , he was given leave to remain in GPE since he had applied for recognition of his stateless person status and the proceedings were pending .

NORP In the meantime , on DATE the applicant urged ORG to issue a decision regulating his status following the delivery of ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The respondent Government maintained that the applicant had never properly applied for a residence permit in GPE .

On DATE the applicant applied for NORP citizenship under section CARDINAL of LAW as amended in DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed an action complaining of the silence of the administrative authorities ( tožba zaradi molka upravnega organa ) in ORG of ORG ( ORG sodišče , ORG ) since he had not been issued with a supplementary decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s action was rejected by ORG .

On DATE the ORG dismissed his application for NORP citizenship because he had failed to prove that he had in fact resided in GPE for DATE and had lived there constantly for DATE .

The applicant PERSON was born on DATE in GPE ) . She is a NORP citizen . In DATE she moved to GPE ( GPE ) , where she later found work . She was registered as a permanent resident in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

According to the applicant , in DATE , after the birth of her second child , she became aware of the fact that her name had been erased from the ORG . Her employer shortened her maternity leave and made her redundant . Moreover , in DATE she was stopped by the police during a routine check . Since she had no papers , she was detained at the police station and later in a transit centre for foreigners ( prehodni dom za tujce ) , but was released after paying a fine .

Subsequently , she moved to GPE , where she met PERSON , a NORP citizen , with whom she had CARDINAL children , both of whom are NORP citizens .

On DATE PERSON lodged an application for a permanent residence permit under LAW . ORG asked her CARDINAL times to complete her application and informed her that she could also have sought a permanent residence permit under the provisions for family reunification .

On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to issue a supplementary decision under point CARDINAL of the operative part of ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant applied for NORP citizenship under section CARDINAL of the amended LAW .

On DATE the applicant attended a meeting at ORG in the framework of proceedings for a permanent residence permit . On DATE the applicant was requested to complete her application .

On DATE ORG stated that the applicant ’s employment in GPE was registered in their files .

On DATE the ORG terminated the proceedings relating to the applicant ’s request for a permanent residence permit on account of her inactivity .

In the proceedings concerning the citizenship , on DATE the Ministry gave the applicant DATE to complete her application . Among other things , she was to prove that she had in fact been resident in GPE since DATE .

On DATE the ORG dismissed her application for NORP citizenship .

On DATE the applicant applied for a temporary permit as a family member of a NORP citizen .

On DATE the applicant received a temporary residence permit valid until DATE .

NORP The applicant PERSON was born on DATE in GPE ( GPE ) . She is currently a NORP citizen . She moved to GPE ( GPE ) in DATE in search of work . She married there and on DATE her son , the applicant Mr PERSON , was born . He is a citizen of GPE . Both applicants were registered as permanent residents in GPE before the events of DATE ; PERSON from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and her son from DATE until DATE .

PERSON maintained that she believed that she would be awarded NORP citizenship automatically as a permanent resident . However , in DATE both PERSON and her son were deported from GPE . PERSON husband , who was in possession of a work permit and a temporary residence permit at the material time , remained in GPE . He later received a permanent residence permit .

According to the respondent Government , PERSON moved from her Municipality without deregistering her permanent residence and her personal card was for that reason transferred from ORG into the ORG of those “ emigrated without having deregistered ” .

In DATE PERSON acquired a NORP identity card and in DATE a NORP passport . In DATE , the authorities of GPE issued an identity card and a passport to PERSON . Since he has no NORP documents he has allegedly been living in GPE in constant fear of being deported .

The applicants PERSON and PERSON stated that they never applied for a permanent residence permit or for NORP citizenship since they did not fulfil the condition of actually living in GPE under the existing legislation .

The applicant PERSON was born on DATE in GPE ) in a GPE ethnic community . According to the respondent Government , he is a NORP citizen . He moved to GPE in DATE . He worked in a factory “ Elektrokovina ” in GPE until DATE . He was registered as a permanent resident in GPE from DATE until DATE .

In DATE he allegedly spent some time in GPE with his sick mother . This appears to have been the reason why he did not apply for NORP citizenship at that time .

NORP The applicant maintained that he was detained in DATE by the NORP border police as he re - entered the country after visiting relatives in GPE . His SFRY passport was taken away from him and he was kept in a transit centre for foreigners for DATE . On DATE he was deported to GPE ( GPE ) , allegedly without any decision . The NORP police returned the applicant to GPE because he had no passport . He was again placed in the transit centre , from which he escaped during TIME .

In DATE the applicant fled to GPE , where he received a temporary residence permit for humanitarian reasons , owing to the unstable situation in GPE at the time .

NORP On DATE he married PERSON , born in GPE , also a member of a GPE ethnic group . CARDINAL children were born DATE while the family lived in GPE and received welfare benefits there .

In DATE the NORP authorities dismissed the applicant ’s request for another extension of his residence permit because the overall situation in GPE was deemed stable enough for him to return there . He was ordered to leave GPE with his family by DATE .

At an unknown time , the applicant and his family lodged requests for asylum in GPE .

Subsequently , the applicant and his family moved to GPE .

On DATE the applicant and his family lodged an application for temporary residence permits and on DATE they lodged an application for permanent residence permits under LAW .

In addition , on DATE the applicant and his family filed asylum requests . The applicant also sought refugee status .

Further to the withdrawal of their asylum requests , on DATE the ORG terminated the proceedings . ORG also ordered that the applicant and his family should return to GPE . On DATE the removal order was issued but was not executed . On DATE a new removal order was issued , setting the date of removal for DATE . The applicant started proceedings before ORG . On DATE his request was granted .

At that time the case also received considerable attention from the local and international community owing to the efforts of ORG .

On DATE the family again applied for asylum in GPE . They were living in an asylum centre ( azilni dom ) at the time .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG , complaining of the silence of the administrative authorities in the proceedings related to the permanent residence permits for him , his wife and their CARDINAL children . Those proceedings are pending .

On DATE the NORP authorities informed the NORP authorities that GPE had jurisdiction under LAW for examining the asylum applications of the PERSON family .

On DATE the applicant ’s fifth child was born in GPE .

On DATE the ORG decided , further to the above - mentioned decision of the NORP authorities , that they did not have jurisdiction for the examination of the asylum requests of the applicant and his family and that they would be handed over to GPE . ORG had also received fresh evidence that PERSON and his family were asylum seekers in GPE , where they had received financial aid for that purpose .

On DATE the applicant and his family instituted proceedings in ORG , contesting the ORG ’s decision . On DATE they also requested that the impugned decision not be enforced and withdrew their application for asylum .

According to the applicant , on DATE the Ministry again tried to transfer the applicant and his family to GPE and on DATE ORG annulled the removal order .

On DATE ORG ( Vrhovno sodišče ) upheld the Ministry decision ’s of DATE that GPE had jurisdiction under LAW to decide on the applicant ’s request for asylum .

On DATE the applicant and his family were handed over to GPE .

Neither the applicant nor his family have applied for NORP citizenship .

On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint . The proceedings before ORG are pending .

NORP The applicant PERSON was born on DATE in GPE ( “ the former GPE ” ) in a GPE ethnic community . According to the respondent Government , he is of unknown citizenship . In DATE he moved to GPE , where he worked until DATE . He had his permanent residence registered there from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

According to the applicant , in DATE he was stopped by the police in the course of a routine check . Since he had no valid papers , he and his family were expelled to GPE . Shortly afterwards they moved to GPE , from where they re - entered GPE illegally .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for NORP citizenship with the assistance of a lawyer .

NORP The applicant later moved to GPE where he declared himself a stateless person and obtained a temporary residence permit and a passport for foreigners .

On DATE he requested the Embassy of “ the former GPE ” to issue him with a passport , but received a negative reply since he was not their citizen .

On DATE the applicant applied for a permanent residence permit under LAW . On DATE the ORG requested him to complete his application with evidence of citizenship .

On CARDINAL DATE his application was rejected on the ground that the applicant was a stateless person . ORG stated that LAW applied only to citizens of the former LAW .

On DATE the ORG replied to the applicant ’s letter seeking further examination of his application for NORP citizenship lodged in DATE . It informed him that , since he did not appear to have lived in GPE for DATE , he did not meet the requirements for NORP citizenship under the amended LAW .

On DATE his application for NORP citizenship was dismissed .

NORP On DATE the applicant again applied for a permanent residence permit under LAW . On DATE his application was rejected , again on the ground that the applicant was not a citizen of any of the former SFRY republics .

The applicant started proceedings before ORG which are pending .

The applicant now lives in GPE .

NORP The applicant PERSON was born on DATE in GPE ( GPE ) . According to the respondent Government , he is a NORP citizen . He moved to GPE with his family in DATE . He was registered as a resident in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

According to the applicant , he and his family applied for NORP citizenship under LAW . However , they missed the deadline for lodging the application by DATE , as the war in GPE had made collecting the necessary documents difficult . According to the information supplied by the respondent Government , there was no evidence that Mr Minić had applied for NORP citizenship in DATE . Finally , PERSON mother was awarded NORP citizenship in DATE and his siblings in DATE .

The respondent Government stated that it followed from his employment documents that he had been working in PERSON from DATE until DATE . He married a NORP citizen , with whom he has QUANTITY children . On the other hand , the applicant stated that he had been living in GPE in DATE .

NORP In DATE PERSON was arrested by the police in GPE because he was working without a permit . He was prosecuted , ordered to pay a fine and on DATE expelled to GPE , in spite of ORG decision of CARDINAL February CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , without any formal decision .

On DATE the applicant applied for NORP citizenship under LAW of the amended LAW .

DATE and DATE the ORG asked the applicant CARDINAL times to complete his application by providing evidence , among other things , that he had been living in GPE without interruption since DATE . When he failed to do so , he was summoned for a hearing at the Ministry .

At the hearing on DATE he confirmed the information stated in his employment record , namely that he had worked in GPE ( GPE ) from DATE to DATE and had thus not been living in GPE uninterruptedly since DATE .

On DATE his application for NORP citizenship was accordingly dismissed . That decision was served on PERSON between DATE and DATE during a trip to GPE .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings before ORG . The proceedings are pending .

On DATE the applicant applied for a permanent residence permit under LAW .

On DATE a hearing was held at the Ministry . On DATE the applicant provided supplementary documents in support of his request .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request since he did not meet the requirement of the actual residence in GPE .

In the former GPE , citizenship was regulated by different federal and individual republics’ acts on citizenship ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

Section CARDINAL of the Citizenship of the NORP LAW provided for uniformity of NORP citizenship , which comprised both federal and republic citizenship : every citizen of a republic was simultaneously a federal citizen and every federal citizen was also a republic citizen .

After the adoption of the LAW in DATE , this LAW was confirmed as the Citizenship of the Federal People ’s Republic of Yugoslavia Act .

Section CARDINAL of this Act specified that citizenship of GPE could only be held by persons who were also citizens of ORG of Yugoslavia .

Following the adoption of the DATE LAW , LAW was passed in DATE . LAW provided that the republic citizenship could only be held by a NORP citizen , thus retaining the primacy of federal citizenship . Loss of NORP citizenship entailed loss of republic citizenship .

Consequently , the new Citizenship of GPE was adopted in DATE .

The Preamble of the LAW of the SFRY read :

“ Proceeding from the right of every nation to self - determination , which also includes the right to secede , the nations of GPE have , on the basis of the freely expressed will in the common struggle of all the nations and nationalities in the national liberation war and socialist revolution , in accordance with their historical aspirations , aware that the further strengthening of brotherhood and unity is in the common interest , together with the nationalities with which they live , united into a federal republic of free and equal nations and nationalities and have created a socialist federal community of working people – ORG – in which in the interest of each nation and each nationality in particular and of all together they shall fulfill and ensure :

The working people and nations and nationalities shall fulfill their sovereign rights in the socialist GPE and in the socialist autonomous regions in accordance with their constitutional rights and – where this LAW so provides in the common interest – in ORG . ... ”

DATE LAW defined the SFRY as a federal ORG consisting of voluntarily united nations . Individual republics were defined as GPE based on national sovereignty and on the rule and self - management of the working class and all working people ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provided that SFRY citizenship was common to all residents of GPE , whereby every citizen of a republic was at the same time a citizen of the SFRY .

Following the adoption of LAW , a new LAW , the last , was enacted in DATE .

Article CARDINAL of LAW set forth the duties of the republic : ensuring and exercising sovereignty , equality and national freedom , ensuring independence and territorial integrity , ensuring human rights ; ensuring conditions for the development and progress of the NORP nation ; developing international relationships in the political , economic , cultural and other areas within the framework of foreign policy of the SFRY ; performing all other functions that are important for political , economic and cultural activities ; defence and socialist self - managing of the democratic social environment .

NORP Moreover , the same article provided that only those duties which , in the common interest of nations and nationalities and on the basis of an agreement of the GPE and autonomous regions , were so defined by LAW , were to be fulfilled within the SFRY .

In relation to citizenship , the LAW provided that every citizen of GPE was simultaneously a citizen of the SFRY .

In DATE , LAW to LAW replaced its LAW , and provided :

“ GPE exists within the composition of the SFRY on the basis of the permanent , integral and inalienable right of the NORP nation to self - determination , which also includes the right to secede . ”

Section CARDINAL of this Act provided that every citizen of GPE was simultaneously a citizen of the SFRY , thus establishing the primacy of the republic citizenship .

This Act clearly distinguished between a permit for temporary or permanent residence of an alien in the ORG territory and the temporary or permanent place of residence of a SFRY citizen , denoting the actual location of his / her residence .

This Act regulated the registration and deregistration of permanent and temporary residence and the keeping of population registers on NORP territory .

In DATE , its section CARDINAL was amended to provide :

“ The registration of permanent residence and registration of any change of address is obligatory for all inhabitants , whenever they settle permanently in a settlement or change their address . Deregistration of permanent residence is obligatory for inhabitants who move from the territory of GPE . ”

The relevant provisions of this Act provide :

“ Personal cards shall contain the following data on the inhabitant :

unique personal identification number ( enotna matična številka občana )

national affiliation , nationality or ethnic group ,

citizenship of a socialist republic ,

“ If the competent authority determines that for an individual inhabitant the reasons for being kept in the card index of permanent residents have ceased , it shall remove that person ’s card from the card index of permanent residence and shall place it in CARDINAL of the special card indexes . ”

The competent authority must harmonise and supplement the files DATE with regard to the following events :

loss of citizenship of a socialist republic and the SFRY and change in citizenship of a socialist republic ,

The purpose of the Statement of Good Intentions , adopted on DATE in the course of preparations for the plebiscite on the independence of GPE , was to express the ORG ’s commitment to certain values in pursuit of its independence . The relevant provision of this document provides :

“ ... ORG ... shall ... guarantee to all members of other nations and nationalities the right to an all - embracing development of their culture and language and to all those who have their permanent residence in GPE the right to obtain NORP citizenship if they so wish ... ”

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW on the Sovereignty and Independence of GPE , published on DATE , provide :

“ GPE guarantees the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms to all persons on the territory of GPE , regardless of their national origin and without any discrimination , in accordance with LAW and binding international agreements ... ”

The relevant provisions of the CARDINAL LAW provide :

“ Citizens of the other GPE [ of the former SFRY ] who on DATE , DATE the plebiscite on the independence of GPE was held , were registered as permanent residents in GPE and in fact live here shall until they acquire citizenship of GPE under section CARDINAL of the Citizenship of GPE or until the expiry of the time - limit set forth in section CARDINAL of LAW , have equal rights and duties as the citizens of GPE ... ”

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW provide :

“ LAW must comply with generally accepted principles of international law and with treaties that are binding on GPE . Ratified and published treaties shall be applied directly . ”

“ In GPE everyone shall be guaranteed equal human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of national origin , race , sex , language , religion , political or other conviction , material standing , birth , education , social status or any other personal circumstance .

All are equal before the law . ”

“ ORG may call a referendum on any issue which is the subject of regulation by law . ORG is bound by the result of such referendum .

ORG may call a referendum from the preceding paragraph on its own initiative , however it must call such a referendum if so required by CARDINAL of the deputies , by ORG or by CARDINAL voters ..

The right to vote in a referendum is held by all citizens who are eligible to vote in elections .

A proposal is passed in a referendum if a majority of those voting have cast votes in favour of the same .

Referendums are regulated by a law passed in ORG by a CARDINAL majority vote of deputies present . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW provide :

“ CARDINAL . ORG is the highest body of judicial authority for the protection of constitutionality , legality , human rights and basic freedoms .

In relation to other ORG bodies , ORG is an autonomous and independent state body .

Decisions of ORG are legally binding . ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall issue a decision declaring that the appeal was unfounded or shall accept the appeal and quash the act that was the subject of the appeal or declare it null and void in whole or in part , and return the matter to the competent body . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . If ORG quashes an individual act , it may also decide a contested right or freedom if such a procedure is necessary in order to put an end to consequences that have already occurred as a result of that act or if such is the nature of the constitutional right or freedom and provided that a decision can be reached on the basis of information in the record .

The decision referred to in the preceding paragraph is implemented by the authority which is competent for the implementation of the individual act which ORG abrogated or annulled and replaced by its decision . If there is no competent authority according to the regulations in force , ORG determines CARDINAL . ”

“ The competent authority may , within its discretion , admit a person requesting naturalisation if this is in compliance with the national interest . The person must fulfil the following conditions :

be DATE ;

have been released from current citizenship or prove that he / she will be released [ from such citizenship ] if he / she acquires citizenship of GPE ;

have in fact been living in GPE for DATE , of which DATE prior to the submission of the application are to have been continuous ;

have a guaranteed permanent source of income , at least in an amount that enables material and social security ;

have a command of the NORP language for the purposes of everyday communication ;

not have been sentenced to a prison sentence longer than DATE in the country of which he / she is a citizen or in GPE for a criminal offence which is prosecuted by law , provided that such an offence is punishable pursuant to the regulations of his / her country and also pursuant to the regulations of GPE ;

not have had his or her residence in GPE prohibited ;

the person ’s naturalisation must pose no threat to the public order , security or defence of the ORG ;

“ If the procedure for the establishment of citizenship or for the acquisition or loss of citizenship of GPE was introduced upon request of the person concerned and it is impossible to end the procedure without his / her cooperation , his / her silence shall be considered as the withdrawal of the request , if he / she , despite an admonition from the competent authority , does not carry out any activity within the given term , necessary to continue or end the procedure , or if it can be concluded from the omission of such deeds that he / she is no longer interested in the continuation of the procedure .

The procedure can only be ended on the basis of the reasons under the preceding paragraph after DATE have expired from the admonition . ”

“ Persons who acquired citizenship of GPE and of ORG under valid legislation shall be considered citizens of GPE under the present Act . ”

“ ORG of another republic [ of the former SFRY ] who on DATE , DATE the plebiscite on the independence of GPE was held , were registered as permanent residents in GPE and in fact live here shall acquire citizenship of GPE if they lodge , within DATE after the present Act enters into force , an application with the internal affairs authority of the municipality where they live ... ”

On DATE LAW was amended , by adding the following CARDINAL paragraphs to the above - mentioned section CARDINAL :

“ Even if the applicant meets the requirements set forth in the preceding paragraph his or her application will be dismissed , if he or she committed , after DATE , a crime ..... against GPE or other values protected by the criminal legislation in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW relating to LAW on the Sovereignty and Independence of GPE , regardless of where the crime was committed . If criminal proceedings are pending , the procedure concerning nationality shall be suspended until the decision in the aforementioned proceedings becomes final .

Even if the applicant meets the requirements for citizenship set forth in the first paragraph , his or her application may be dismissed [ if granting citizenship would be liable to undermine public order , security or defence of the ORG ] . ”

In its decision U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , ORG declared unconstitutional the provision in the latter paragraph that cited “ public order ” as a reason for denying citizenship .

NORP On DATE the Citizenship of GPE was further amended . The relevant provision reads :

“ An adult who on DATE was registered as a permanent resident on the territory of GPE and has lived there uninterruptedly since DATE , may apply for citizenship of GPE within DATE after the present Act enters into force if he or she meets the requirements set forth in ... this Act .

When deciding under the preceding paragraph whether the applicant meets the requirements set forth in ... this LAW , the competent authority may take into consideration the length of the applicant ’s stay in the ORG , his or her personal , family , business , social and other ties with GPE and the consequences a refusal of citizenship would have for the applicant .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ A foreigner who enters the territory of GPE with a valid passport may remain in it for DATE or as long as the validity of an issued visa allows him to , unless otherwise provided by an international agreement ...

A foreigner wishing to remain on the territory of GPE for longer than provided by the above paragraph for reasons of education , specialisation , employment , medical treatment , professional experience , or because they have married a citizen of GPE , have immovable property on the territory of GPE , or enjoy the rights afforded by employment in the ORG or for any other valid reason requiring their residence in the ORG , must apply ... for a temporary residence permit .

“ A residence permit may be issued as

( i ) a temporary permit ; or

( ii ) a permanent residence permit . ”

“ A permanent residence permit may be issued to a foreigner who has been living on the territory of GPE continuously for DATE on the basis of a temporary residence permit and meets the requirements set forth in section CARDINAL of this LAW for permanent residence on the territory of GPE ... ”

“ A foreigner residing on the territory of GPE on the basis of a foreign passport , a visa or an entrance permit , or an international agreement ... or who has been issued with a temporary residence permit ... may be refused leave to remain :

( i ) if reasons of public order , security or defence of the ORG so demand ;

( ii ) if he or she refuses to abide by a decision of the ORG authorities ;

( iii ) if he or she repeatedly breaches public order , national border security or the provisions of this LAW ;

( iv ) if he or she is convicted by a foreign or national court of a crime punishable by CARDINAL months’ imprisonment ;

( v ) if he or she no longer has sufficient means of subsistence and his or her subsistence is not otherwise secured ;

( vi ) for the protection of public health . ”

“ An authorised officer of the internal affairs authority may take a foreigner who fails voluntarily to leave the territory of GPE when required to do so by the competent authority or administrative body in charge of internal affairs , or who resides on the territory of GPE beyond the period provided for in section PERSON ) of this LAW or beyond the period allowed in the decision granting temporary residence , to the State border or diplomatic - consular representation of the ORG of which he or she is a citizen , and direct such person to cross the border or hand him or her over to the representative of a foreign country .

The internal affairs authority concerned shall order any foreigner who does not leave the territory of GPE in accordance with the above paragraph and can not be removed immediately for any reason , to reside in a transit centre for foreigners for a period not exceeding DATE if there exists a suspicion that he or she will seek to evade this measure .

An internal affairs authority may designate a different place of residence for a foreigner who is unable to leave the territory of GPE immediately but has sufficient means of subsistence . ”

“ Until the decision issued in the administrative proceedings concerning the request for citizenship becomes final , the provisions of this Act shall not apply to citizens of the SFRY who are citizens of other GPE and who apply for NORP citizenship in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Citizenship of GPE within DATE after it enters into force .

As regards citizens of the SFRY who are citizens of other GPE but either do not apply for citizenship of GPE within the time - limit set out in the previous paragraph or are refused citizenship , the provisions of this LAW shall apply DATE after the expiry of the time - limit within which they could have applied for citizenship or after the decision made in respect of their application became final . ”

“ ... Permanent residence permits issued in accordance with the Movement and Residence of Foreigners Act ... shall remain valid if the foreign holder of such a permit had permanent residence on the territory of GPE when this LAW came into force . ”

NORP In order to faciliate the acquisition of permanent residence permits for citizens of the other former SFRY republics who have either failed to apply for NORP citizenship or have not acquired residence permits under LAW , on DATE the Government adopted the following decision :

“ ... in examining applications for permanent residence permits for aliens referred to in LAW of LAW ... , ORG Interior shall take into account that the condition for permanent residence in the territory of GPE has been met when the alien has had permanent residence registered for DATE and was in fact living here before the provisions of LAW started applying to him . ”

In DATE section CARDINAL of LAW was amended so as to require DATE uninterrupted residence on the basis of a temporary residence permit in order for a foreigner to qualify for permanent residence .

The DATE LAW replaced LAW of DATE . Several amendments were made to the DATE LAW in DATE , DATE and DATE . The relevant provision of the amended DATE LAW provides :

“ Foreigners registered as a permanent resident in GPE and foreigners who have been living in GPE for DATE as a temporary resident and have acquired a temporary residence permit valid for DATE shall have , under the terms set forth in this LAW , a right to preservation of family and a right to family reunification ...

An application for a residence permit shall be lodged with a diplomatic - consular representation of GPE abroad or with a competent authority in GPE .

For the purposes of this LAW , the members of the foreigner ’s immediate family are :

( i ) a spouse ;

( ii ) minor unmarried children of the foreigner ;

( iii ) minor unmarried children of the spouse ;

( iv ) parents of the minor foreigner ;

( v ) foreigner ’s or spouse ’s unmarried of - age children and parents which the foreigner or the spouse are obliged to support in accordance with the legislation of the ORG of his or her citizenship .

The relevant provisions of LAW , enacted further to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , provide :

“ ORG of another successor ORG to the former SFRY ( hereinafter ‘ a foreigner’ ) who were registered as permanent residents on the territory of GPE on DATE and are in fact residing in GPE , and foreigners who were in fact resident in GPE on DATE and have been living there continuously ever since shall be issued with a permanent residence permit , regardless of the provisions of LAW ... , if they meet the requirements set forth in this LAW . ”

“ An application for permanent residence shall be filed within DATE after this LAW enters into force ...

A foreigner who has lodged an application for permanent residence pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Citizenship of GPE ... but has received a decision refusing to grant his application , may file an application under the preceding paragraph within DATE after this LAW enters into force or the decision became final , if such decision is issued after this LAW entered into force ... ”

“ A permanent residence permit shall not be issued if the applicant has :

( i ) disturbed the peace or breached public order by the use of violence since DATE ; or

( ii ) been convicted and sentenced to DATE imprisonment since DATE ; or

( iii ) been convicted and sentenced , in total , to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment since DATE ; or

The DATE amendments to this Act were made as a result of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) and replaced the original section CARDINAL with a new section which provides as follows :

“ The Ministry [ of ORG ] may refuse a permanent residence permit to a foreigner who , by a final judgment :

( i ) has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to DATE imprisonment ;

( ii ) has been convicted and sentenced to a total of PERCENT imprisonment ;

When taking a decision on the basis of the preceding paragraph , the Ministry shall take into consideration the length of the applicant ’s stay in the ORG , his personal , family , business , social and other ties with GPE and the potential consequences of a refusal of a permanent residence permit for the applicant . ”

The relevant provision of the ORG provides :

“ The record of permanent residents contains data on citizens of GPE who have registered permanent residence in the territory of the municipality .

In the record of permanent residents , the competent authority shall identify citizens of GPE who travel abroad temporarily for DATE , and persons to whom the authority has declined registration of permanent residence ... ”

The relevant provisions of this Act provide :

“ CARDINAL . During pregnancy and following childbirth , a female worker shall have the right to maternity leave and childcare leave in a total duration of DATE .

The female worker shall use the right to maternity leave in the form of absence from work of DATE , and following the expiry of maternity leave shall use the right to childcare leave in the form of absence from work of DATE or by working CARDINAL of TIME a day until the child is DATE . ”

The ORG - management Agreement on Maternity Leave ( Samoupravni sporazum o porodniškem dopustu , ORG of the ORG , no . CARDINAL , as amended ) , which previously governed maternity leave , contained similar provisions .

The transitional provision of section CARDINAL of this Act enabled the citizens of other former ORG to acquire a DATE work permit if , on DATE of the entry into force of the LAW , they were formally employed in GPE for an indefinite period with DATE of service or if they were in fixed - period employment or if they were in an employment relationship for a fixed or indefinite period as DATE migrants , or registered at ORG and receiving financial benefits in accordance with the regulations on employment and employment insurance . Any citizens of other former ORG ( with some exceptions ) who on DATE of the entry into force of the act were in an employment relationship of an indefinite period in GPE and had DATE of service were enabled to acquire a work permit for an indefinite period . Both categories were to have applied for work permits within DATE of the LAW entering into force .

The following provisions of this LAW are relevant :

Section CARDINAL

“ The pension and invalidity insurance system in GPE shall cover :

- a compulsory pension and invalidity insurance scheme on the basis of intergenerational solidarity ;

- compulsory and voluntary supplementary pension and invalidity insurance schemes ; and

- a pension and invalidity insurance scheme on the basis of personal pension savings accounts . ”

“ CARDINAL . The rights under compulsory insurance shall be as follows :

a. the right to a pension :

- old - age pension ,

- invalidity pension ,

- widow / widower ’s pension ,

- survivor ’s pension ,

- partial pension ;

“ CARDINAL . Compulsory insurance shall cover the nationals of GPE and foreign nationals , provided they fulfil the conditions stipulated by the present LAW or by a relevant treaty . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Compulsory insurance shall cover persons employed in the territory of GPE . ... ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW provides that in simple matters , where there is no need to undertake separate examination proceedings , an administrative body is obliged to give a decision within DATE of the submission of an application . In all other cases , the administrative body is obliged to give a decision within DATE .

Section CARDINAL ) entitles a party whose application has not been decided upon within the time - limits set out in subsection ( CARDINAL ) to lodge an appeal as if the application had been denied .

The relevant sections of this Act provide :

“ CARDINAL . The action must be filed within DATE of the delivery of the administrative act by means of which the procedure was concluded . The public - interest representative may file an action even if he was not a party to the proceedings in which the administrative act was issued , within the time - limit that applies to the party in favour of which the administrative act was issued .

NORP If the second - instance authority does not rule on the applicant ’s appeal against the first - instance decision within DATE or within a shorter period if any , provided by a special regulation , and fails to make an award upon a subsequent request within a further period of DATE , the applicant may then bring an administrative action , as if his request had been dismissed . ”

“ CARDINAL . An action may be filed to request :

- the annulment of the administrative act ( challenging action ) ,

-the issuing or service of the administrative act ( action due to non - response of the authority ) ,

-amendment of the administrative act ( action in a dispute of full jurisdiction ) . ”

Similar provisions were contained in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the previously valid LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL , as amended ) .

On DATE ORG declared partly admissible a challenge to the constitutionality of LAW , lodged by CARDINAL individuals whose names had been removed from the ORG in DATE .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG ) ORG declared that LAW of LAW was unconstitutional since it had not set out the conditions for acquisition of permanent residence for those subject to its second paragraph . It noted that the authorities had deleted the names of citizens of the former ORG who had not applied for NORP citizenship from the ORG and entered them ex officio in the register of foreigners , without any notification . It further found that there was no legal basis for this measure ; ORG did not provide for an ex lege deregistration .

ORG stated that the provisions of LAW were , in general , designed to regulate the status of foreigners who entered GPE after independence , not of those who were already living there . While section CARDINAL of LAW did regulate the legal status of foreigners originating from outside the former GPE , no similar provision existed in respect of people from the former SFRY . As a consequence , the latter were in a less favourable legal position than foreigners who had lived in GPE since before independence . Failing to regulate the legal status of these people was contrary to LAW .

ORG noted in this respect that a proposal had been made in the legislative process in DATE for a special provision regulating the temporary situation of former SFRY citizens living in GPE who had not applied for NORP citizenship . The legislature had maintained that their situation should not be regulated by LAW but rather by an agreement between the successor GPE to the former SFRY . Since those agreements had not been concluded , notably because of the state of war in GPE and in GPE , their situation remained unaddressed . In ORG view , in the light of modern developments in human - rights protection , the situation of persons having held the nationality of the predecessor but not of the successor ORG , with permanent residence on the territory of GPE disintegrated after DATE , had become a matter of international agreements .

Furthermore , the provisions of LAW regulating the acquisition of permanent and temporary residence ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) could not be used to remedy the status of citizens of the former SFRY republics because permanent residence and the fact of actual residence in GPE were particular circumstances requiring special consideration . Citizens of the former ORG had a reasonable expectation that the new conditions for retaining permanent residence in GPE would not be stricter than those set forth in LAW relating to LAW on the Sovereignty and Independence of GPE and section CARDINAL of LAW , and that their status would be determined in accordance with international law .

Section CARDINAL was therefore declared unconstitutional as it did not prescribe the conditions under which persons subject to this section who either failed to apply for or were denied NORP citizenship could apply for permanent residence after the expiry of the prescribed time - limit . A legal void was thus constituted and the principles of the rule of law , of legal certainty and equality breached .

The Constitutional Court further found that section CARDINAL ) of LAW was not unconstitutional , because it applied only to foreigners entering GPE after independence .

The legislature was given DATE in which to modify the unconstitutional provisions . In the meantime , ORG ruled that no citizen of the former SFRY who was registered as a permanent resident in GPE on DATE , DATE on which the plebiscite on independence was held , and was living in GPE when ORG judgment was issued , could be forcibly removed from GPE pursuant to LAW of LAW .

ORG also pointed out that the unregulated situation of citizens of the former SFRY republics who have found themselves in a precarious legal position could lead to a violation of the right to respect for family life , as protected by LAW .

ORG In a decision of DATE ( Up-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG referred to its findings in the decision of DATE and reiterated that citizens of the former SFRY republics were in a less favourable position than other foreign citizens who were living in GPE on the date of independence . It noted that following its decision of CARDINAL DATE a Bill the LAW had been drafted , but had not yet been adopted , for the purpose of addressing the issue raised by that judgment .

In the case before it , the claimant , whose name had been deleted from the ORG in DATE , had been refused the renewal of his driving licence , because he was considered a foreigner without lawful residence in GPE . ORG ordered that , until LAW entered into force , he should enjoy the status he would have had under LAW of LAW on the Sovereignty and Independence of GPE before the expiry of the time - limit set forth in LAW of the CARDINAL LAW . The authorities were ordered to register the claimant as a permanent resident at the address where he was living before his name was illegally deleted from the ORG . They were also ordered to renew his driving licence .

In a decision of DATE ( ORG ) , the claimants , who were members of the same family and citizens of CARDINAL of the former SFRY republics , were denied permanent residence under LAW of LAW , because the father had lost his job . ORG , for reasons similar to those in case no . Up-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , held that until LAW entered into force , the authorities should register them as permanent residents at the address where they were living before their names were illegally deleted from the ORG .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG set aside the first , second and third sub - paragraphs of section CARDINAL of LAW . It found that the requirements for the acquisition of permanent residence set forth in these provisions were stricter than the grounds for revoking a permanent residence permit under LAW .

It went on to hold that the legal status of citizens of the former SFRY republics should be regulated on the basis of the position the individuals concerned would have had , but did not have , because of the legislature ’s failure to regulate it . It reiterated that the legal status of citizens of the former SFRY republics should not be essentially different from that enjoyed by foreign citizens who had acquired permanent resident status in GPE before independence .

NORP In case no . U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL the Constitutional Court reiterated its ruling in its decision of CARDINAL DATE . It found LAW unconstitutional because , firstly , it did not grant retrospective permanent residence from DATE of the erasure of the names of those concerned from the ORG ; secondly , it failed to regulate the acquisition of permanent residence for citizens of former ORG who had been forcibly removed from GPE pursuant to LAW of LAW ; and , thirdly , it did not define the meaning of the words “ in fact residing ” in section CARDINAL . ORG also struck down the DATE time - limit for submitting applications for permanent residence because it was unreasonably short . It ordered the legislature to rectify the unconstitutional provisions of the impugned act within DATE .

In point no . CARDINAL of the operative part of the decision , it held that permanent residence permits already issued to citizens of the former SFRY republics in accordance with LAW , LAW or LAW would be effective from DATE , if their names had been erased from the ORG on that date . It also ordered the ORG to issue , ex proprio motu , supplementary decisions establishing the permanent residence of those concerned retrospectively , since DATE . Once this was done , those who had had permanent residential status until DATE but had not been able to enjoy certain rights after that date owing to their unregulated legal status , would be able to invoke their rights in accordance with the relevant legislation .

In addition , special provisions were needed to address the situation of those who had been forcibly removed from GPE , although ORG suspected that the numbers of individuals affected would probably be low , since the unregulated status of these people had generally been tolerated .

NORP Moreover , ORG said that , when determining a new time - limit for applications for permanent residence , assuming such a time - limit should be provided , the legislature should take into consideration personal and other circumstances that might have impeded the persons concerned from lodging their application in time . Until such a time - limit was set , those concerned could continue to lodge applications for permanent residence .

Lastly , ORG observed that by DATE CARDINAL citizens of the former SFRY republics had been granted permanent residence status on the basis of LAW , that CARDINAL applications had been dismissed or rejected , CARDINAL applications were pending and that CARDINAL citizens of former ORG republics had not applied for permanent residence . The decisions concerning the first group of persons concerned were of a constitutive nature and thus only had ex nunc effect . ORG further observed that permanent residence was important in securing certain rights and benefits . A lack of permanent residence status resulted in citizens of the former GPE being deprived of certain rights enjoyed by foreigners with permanent residence status , for example , the right to a military pension , and to certain retirement benefits and the right to renew a driving licence .

Subsequently , in a decision handed down on DATE , ORG specified that the legal basis for issuance of the supplementary residence permits by ORG was its decision of DATE and that it was bound to implement it .

In a decision of DATE , ORG set aside the judgments of the ORG and ORG dismissing the claimant ’s request for a permanent residence permit under LAW and remitted the case to ORG . It instructed the latter to appropriately assess the legal term set out in section CARDINAL of the Legal Status Act “ in fact residing on the territory of GPE ” since DATE and the reasons for the claimant ’s absence from GPE .

NORP In particular , ORG held that the fact that the legislature had been late in eliminating the inconsistency did not prevent the courts to render a decision in the case in conformity with ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) .

LAW ( the Convention determining the ORG responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of GPE of ORG , DATE ) provided for measures to ensure that applicants for asylum had their applications examined by CARDINAL of the Member GPE . Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL set out the criteria for determining the single Member ORG responsible for examining an application for asylum .

The Convention has been superseded by ORG ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of DATE establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of GPE by a third - country national ( “ Dublin II ” , hereinafter “ LAW ” ) . LAW applies to all ORG Member GPE , GPE and GPE . Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG provides for asylum applications to be examined by a single Member ORG , according to the criteria set out in LAW . If responsibility of a Member ORG can be designated on the basis of the criteria , LAW provides that the first Member ORG with which the application for asylum was lodged shall be responsible for examining it .

“ ... for periods of residence longer than DATE , the host Member ORG may require Union citizens to register with the relevant authorities . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Member GPE shall issue a residence card to family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member ORG , where the planned period of residence is for DATE .

The deadline for submitting the residence card application may not be DATE from the date of arrival .

Failure to comply with the requirement to apply for a residence card may make the person concerned liable to proportionate and non - discriminatory sanctions . ”

“ CARDINAL . The right of residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State shall be evidenced by the issuing of a document called ‘ Residence card of a family member of a Union citizen’ DATE from the date on which they submit the application . A certificate of application for the residence card shall be issued immediately .

For the residence card to be issued , Member GPE shall require presentation of the following documents :

( a ) a valid passport ;

( b ) a document attesting to the existence of a family relationship or of a registered partnership ;

( c ) the registration certificate or , in the absence of a registration system , any other proof of residence in the host Member State of the Union citizen whom they are accompanying or joining ;

( d ) in cases falling under points ( c ) and ( d ) of Article CARDINAL ) , documentary evidence that the conditions laid down therein are met ;

( e ) in cases falling under LAW ) , a document issued by the relevant authority in the country of origin or country from which they are arriving certifying that they are dependants or members of the household of the Union citizen , or proof of the existence of serious health grounds which strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen ;

( f ) in cases falling under LAW ) , proof of the existence of a durable relationship with the ORG citizen . ”

“ CARDINAL . The residence card provided for by LAW ) shall be valid for DATE from the date of issue or for the envisaged period of residence of the Union citizen , if this period is DATE .

The validity of the residence card shall not be affected by temporary absences not DATE , or by absences of a longer duration for compulsory military service or by CARDINAL absence of a maximum of DATE for important reasons such as pregnancy and childbirth , serious illness , study or vocational training , or a posting in another Member ORG or a third country . ”

“ CARDINAL . Union citizens who have resided legally for a continuous period of DATE in the host Member State shall have the right of permanent residence there . This right shall not be subject to the conditions provided for in LAW .

Paragraph CARDINAL shall apply also to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and have legally resided with the Union citizen in the host Member State for a continuous period of DATE .

Continuity of residence shall not be affected by temporary absences not exceeding a total of DATE , or by absences of a longer duration for compulsory military service , or by CARDINAL absence of a maximum of DATE for important reasons such as pregnancy and childbirth , serious illness , study or vocational training , or a posting in another Member ORG or a third country .

Once acquired , the right of permanent residence shall be lost only through absence from the host Member ORG for a period exceeding DATE . ”

“ CARDINAL . Member GPE shall issue family members who are not nationals of a Member ORG entitled to permanent residence with a permanent residence card within DATE of the submission of the application . The permanent residence card shall be renewable automatically DATE .

The application for a permanent residence card shall be submitted before the residence card expires . Failure to comply with the requirement to apply for a permanent residence card may render the person concerned liable to proportionate and non - discriminatory sanctions .

Interruption in residence not exceeding DATE shall not affect the validity of the permanent residence card . ”

The principal ORG concerning citizenship is LAW , which was adopted on DATE and entered into force on DATE . GPE has not signed this convention .

“ CARDINAL . In matters of nationality in cases of ORG succession , each ORG concerned shall respect the principles of the rule of law , the rules concerning human rights and the principles contained in ... this Convention ... , in particular in order to avoid statelessness .

In deciding on the granting or the retention of nationality in cases of ORG succession , each ORG concerned shall take account in particular of :

( a ) the genuine and effective link of the person concerned with the ORG ;

( b ) the habitual residence of the person concerned at the time of ORG succession ;

( c ) the will of the person concerned ;

( d ) the territorial origin of the person concerned .

On DATE ORG adopted the Convention on the avoidance of statelessness in relation to ORG succession . This convention entered into force on DATE . GPE has not signed this convention .

“ CARDINAL . A successor ORG shall grant its nationality to persons who , at the time of the ORG succession , had the nationality of the predecessor ORG , and who have or would become stateless as a result of the ORG succession if at that time :

( a ) they were habitually resident in the territory which has become territory of the successor ORG , or

( b ) they were not habitually resident in any ORG concerned but had an appropriate connection with the successor ORG .

For the purpose of paragraph CARDINAL , sub - paragraph b , an appropriate connection includes inter alia :

( a ) a legal bond to a territorial unit of a predecessor ORG which has become territory of the successor ORG ;

( b ) birth on the territory which has become territory of the successor ORG ;

( c ) last habitual residence on the territory of the predecessor ORG which has become territory of the successor ORG . ”

“ States concerned shall take all necessary steps to ensure that persons concerned have sufficient information about rules and procedures with regard to the acquisition of their nationality . ”

On DATE ORG on LAW adopted its second opinion concerning GPE . On DATE the respondent Government filed its written comments . The relevant part of the report states as follows :

“ Legal status of persons deleted from the list of permanent residents

Findings of the first cycle

In its first Opinion on GPE , ORG noted with concern the problematic situation of a number of former citizens of other GPE of former GPE ( SFRY ) , who found themselves foreigners in the territory they were living in and without confirmed legal status , following their removal from the register of permanent residents , in DATE .

Present situation

a ) Positive developments

ORG notes that a number of positive developments have taken place in this area . For instance , ORG has taken a stand on these issues by clearly stating the need to restore , without further delay and retrospectively , the rights of non - NORP former NORP citizens who were , according to the ORG , illegally removed from the register of permanent residents . ORG also notes that efforts have been made at the legislative level to regularise the legal status of these persons , and that most of them have been granted permanent resident status in DATE on the basis of individual decisions issued by ORG .

b ) Outstanding issues

ORG notes with concern that , despite the relevant ORG decisions , CARDINAL persons whose names were deleted from the registers of permanent residents on DATE , and automatically transferred to the registers of foreigners , are still , DATE on , awaiting clarification of their legal status . This concerns citizens of other former NORP republics , including a number of GPE , who were legally resident in GPE and , for various reasons , did not wish DATE or were unable – to obtain NORP citizenship within the short time - limit allowed by the authorities after the country ’s independence .

In many cases , the lack of citizenship or of a residence permit has had a particularly negative impact on these ORG situation . It has , in particular , paved the way for violations of their economic and social rights , with some of them having lost their homes , employment or retirement pension entitlements , and has seriously hindered the exercise of their rights to family life and freedom of movement .

ORG notes that more recent government initiatives have sought , in accordance with the relevant decisions of ORG , to restore these ORG rights retrospectively . It finds it disturbing that these initiatives have been stalled for DATE , and that the social climate in GPE has not been conducive to a speedier resolution of these matters . In the referendum held in DATE on GPE No . CARDINAL of Constitutional Court Decision no . ORG ( the so - called LAW on Erased Persons’ ) , PERCENT of participants ( representing PERCENT of voters ) expressed their opposition to LAW ( see also comments under LAW below ) .

ORG notes that the authorities are in the process of drafting , at the governmental level , a new normative text expected to provide solutions to the problems mentioned above . Insofar as this new initiative is not yet in the public domain , it is difficult to ascertain , at this stage , whether the measures envisaged – legislative or other – will be likely to resolve the situation in a comprehensive manner once and for all .

Recommendations

Without further delay , the authorities should find solutions to the problems faced by non - ORG from former GPE ( SFRY ) who have been deleted from the register of permanent residents , in connection with the regularisation of their legal status , including access to citizenship and social and economic rights .

At the same time , they should assist these persons in their efforts to overcome the difficulties arising from this situation , and facilitate their effective participation and integration in the NORP society by means of targeted measures . ”

On DATE ORG Resolution ResCMN(CARDINAL)CARDINAL on the implementation of LAW for ORG by GPE . It noted as an issue of concern the situation of those non - Slovenes from former GPE ( SFRY ) whose legal status had still not been resolved , which raised substantial problems in terms of access to social and economic rights , including educational rights , and effective participation . ORG invited the NORP authorities to find without further delay solutions to the situation of non - Slovenes from SFRY whose legal status had still not been regularised and take specific measures to assist those persons on the social and economic front .

NORP On DATE a Follow - up Report on GPE ( DATE ) was published , assessing the progress made in implementing the recommendations of ORG for Human Rights . In the relevant part it states as follows :

“ DATE . The issue of erased persons continues to be a divisive and politically charged issue in GPE and is the subject of heated debate . Regrettably , the issue has been frequently used by some political factions as a campaign tool . Especially during the period leading to the DATE general elections , many politicians made xenophobic statements when referring to the issue of the erased persons and to others considered non - NORP or otherwise different .

In a ruling of DATE , ORG declared the DATE law aimed at remedying the situation of the erased persons to be unconstitutional . The ORG ordered that those who had already acquired permanent residency on the basis of the law , be granted permanent residence permits retroactively for the period from CARDINAL DATE to the date of its formal acquisition . It also ordered the legislator to amend the law within DATE to determine a new time limit for possible new applications for permanent residence permits .

ORG decision imposed a duty on ORG to issue supplementary decisions giving retroactive effect to the residence permits to all those citizens of other former NORP Republics , who were , on CARDINAL DATE , removed from the register of permanent residents , but who had since acquired a permit for permanent residence . ORG position was made clear in a further decision issued in DATE stating that the decision of DATE could be considered as sufficient legal basis for issuing decisions on permanent residence with retroactive effect , without there being any need for specific legislation . Following ORG decisions , ORG , after some delay , started issuing permanent residence decrees with retroactive validity . CARDINAL such decrees have since been issued , but at the time of the follow - up visit , it appeared that the issuance of decisions was suspended .

DATE . According to the information received from ORG , out of the CARDINAL erased persons , CARDINAL have over time either obtained citizenship or received a permanent residence permit . All of these QUANTITY persons , according to the DATE decision of ORG , should have had their permanent residence status recognised with retroactive effect .

Regarding the enactment of the law required to regulate the status of those erased persons who had been expelled from or had left GPE , the issue is still unresolved . There has been an ongoing and heated discussion regarding this issue , which – quite apart from what the criteria for legitimate absence from GPE and the situation of the expelled should be DATE has focused also on whether the law should be enacted in the normal legislative process or adopted as a constitutional act .

Conclusions

The Commissioner urges ORG to immediately continue and finalise the issuance of supplementary decisions giving retroactive effect to the permanent residence permit of all those persons , who are entitled to it .

As regards the enactment of the law regulating and reinstating the status of the remaining erased persons , the Commissioner urges the NORP government to definitely resolve the issue in good faith and in accordance with the decisions of ORG . Whatever the appropriate legislative solution may be , the current impasse reflects poorly on the respect for the rule of law and ORG judgements in GPE .

The Commissioner is extremely concerned about the continuous public manifestations of hate speech and intolerance by some politicians . The Commissioner calls for greater responsibility of politicians and media in this regard and for the full respect of the rights and values laid down in ORG Rights and other international instruments . ”

On CARDINAL and DATE the Commissioner visited GPE and , inter alia , discussed the issue of the “ erased ” with the NORP authorities .

On DATE ORG against Racism and Intolerance ( “ ECRI ” ) published its third report on GPE , which was adopted on DATE . This report described the situation of “ the erased ” as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In its second report , ORG dealt at length with the situation of those citizens of other ex - NORP countries who were removed ex officio from the register of permanent residents of GPE in DATE and who since then , are often referred to as the ‘ GPE . As explained in that report , following the armed conflict in GPE in DATE and the ensuing independence of the country , over CARDINAL CARDINAL of the approximately QUANTITY permanent residents of GPE from other ex - NORP countries obtained NORP citizenship on the basis of the DATE citizenship law . This law allowed for a DATE window to apply for citizenship . Of the remaining QUANTITY persons , CARDINAL left GPE around that time . However , for a number of reasons , including the war between other successor GPE of the former GPE , the uncertain situation prevailing in other such GPE , and the destruction , loss or inaccessibility of personal documents , CARDINAL permanent residents did not or could not apply for NORP citizenship or applied and were rejected . As mentioned , these persons were struck off the register of permanent residents on DATE . Many of these persons DATE for the most part reportedly persons without good levels of education DATE had been living in GPE for a long time and some of them were even born in the country . However , as a result of the erasure from the registers , they became foreigners without legal status in GPE from DATE to the next , in many cases without being aware of it . Loss of legal status meant for them loss of access to fundamental rights attached to residence , including the right to work and access to healthcare and other social rights , along with the annulation of personal documents and exposure to a risk of deportation .

In its second report , ORG noted that a law had been passed in DATE to open the possibility for the ‘ GPE to apply for permanent residence . It also noted however , that the time - limit of DATE to do so and the requirement that applicants prove that they had lived in GPE since DATE without interruptions of DATE seriously limited the effectiveness of this law . ORG notes that CARDINAL people have obtained permanent residence permits on the basis of that law . However , such residence permits were not granted with effect from the date of erasure ( DATE ) , but from the date of formal acquisition of these permits , i.e. in a majority of cases , DATE .

ORG notes that in DATE , ORG declared the DATE law unconstitutional , inter alia because : it did not give retroactive effect to residence permits ; it did not regulate the obtaining of residence permits for those ‘ GPE who had been forcibly deported from GPE ; it did not prescribe criteria for the fulfilment of the requirement of continuous residence in GPE . ORG therefore established that ORG must issue supplementary administrative decisions whereby residence permits already granted were given retroactive effect from DATE to the date of formal acquisition . It also established that the DATE law must be amended within DATE to determine a new time limit for possible new applications .

Concerning the first point , ORG notes that following initial delays , ORG under the former Government started to issue supplementary administrative decisions giving residence permits retroactive effect at DATE . ORG notes however , that only approximately CARDINAL CARDINAL such decisions have been issued . The representatives of ORG under the current Government have stated that they consider that these supplementary decisions do not rest on a sufficiently strong legal basis , and that a general law establishing conditions and criteria for issuing of residence permits should be passed first . ORG notes however , that in DATE ORG made it clear that its decision of DATE constituted a sufficient legal basis for issuing such decisions and that , in fact , the CARDINAL CARDINAL administrative decisions already issued were issued on such a basis . ECRI expresses serious concern at the fact that CARDINAL of the ‘ GPE who , since DATE , have secured citizenship or permanent residence of GPE are still not in a position to see their rights linked to permanent residence restored with effect from the date of erasure .

The situation as concerns the implementation of the other parts of the decision of ORG appears very unclear and uncertain at the time of writing and is a cause for serious concern to ORG . The issue essentially relates to the enactment of a law to regulate the status of MONEY ‘ GPE who have not yet secured NORP citizenship or permanent residence permits and whose current position varies from holders of temporary permits ( CARDINAL CARDINAL persons ) and persons still living in GPE without legal status to persons who have left GPE or have been deported . The NORP authorities have reported to ORG their decision to adopt such a law in the form of a constitutional law . ORG notes that this decision has been widely criticised both within the ORG and in civil society for effectively and deliberately leading to non - implementation of ORG decision , inter alia as it entails the use of constitutional means and relative procedures ( including the need for a qualified majority in ORG ) in order to deal with matters that should be regulated through primary legislation . ORG is not aware of the exact content of the law , which is reportedly in the drafting process , nor has it been possible to clarify the envisaged timetable for adoption . In any event , ORG deplores the fact that , as a result of the non - implementation by the NORP authorities of the decision of ORG , it is still not possible for CARDINAL people to regain the rights of which they were unlawfully stripped over DATE .

More generally , ORG is deeply concerned at the tone prevailing in NORP public and political debate concerning the ‘ GPE since its last report . It regrets that this part of the NORP population has in many occasions fallen hostage to merely political considerations , including the exploitation of their situation as a vote gainer , and that the debate around the position of these persons has steadily moved away from human rights considerations . It is particularly regrettable that racism and xenophobia have been encouraged and fostered as part of this process , including through generalisations and misrepresentations concerning the loyalty of these persons to ORG or the economic burden that restoration of their rights would entail .

Recommendations

ECRI urges the NORP authorities to restore the rights of persons erased from the registers of permanent residents on DATE . To this end , it strongly recommends that the NORP authorities implement the DATE decision of ORG in good faith and without further delay . This includes the immediate resumption and finalisation of the process of issuing supplementary decisions granting retroactive permanent residence rights , and the adoption of a legal framework enabling those ‘ NORP persons who have not yet secured permanent residence or NORP citizenship to have their rights reinstated in a manner that is as fair and generous as possible .

ECRI urges the NORP authorities to take the lead in placing public debate on the situation of the ‘ GPE securely in the realm of human rights and to refrain from generalisations and misrepresentations concerning these persons which foster racism and xenophobia . ”

In DATE ORG adopted the Convention on the Reduction of Statelesness . GPE has not ratified it .

On DATE ORG on ORG issued concluding observations under LAW of all Forms of Racial Discrimination stating , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG is encouraged by the steps taken by ORG to address the long - standing issue of persons living in GPE who have not been able to obtain citizenship . It is nevertheless concerned that many of the persons who have not acquired NORP citizenship may still experience administrative difficulties in complying with the specific requirements contained in the law . The ORG recommends that the ORG party give priority to addressing this issue and , taking into account the difficulties which have arisen , ensure that the new citizenship legislation is implemented in a non - discriminatory manner .

ORG is concerned that a significant number of persons who have been living in GPE since independence without LANGUAGE citizenship may have been deprived under certain circumstances of their pensions , of apartments they were occupying , and of health care and other rights . The ORG takes note of the efforts undertaken by ORG to address these issues and requests ORG to provide , in its next periodic report , specific information on these issues and on any remedies provided . ”

On DATE ORG on the Rights of the PERSON issued concluding observations made under LAW which , in the relevant part , state as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG notes the rulings of ORG ( ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE ) that the erasure of CARDINAL people originating from other parts of the former ORG from ORG in DATE had no legal basis and that the permanent residence status should be restored to the affected persons retroactively . ORG is concerned that many children were negatively affected by this erasure , as they and their families lost their right to health care , social assistance and family benefits as a consequence of losing permanent residence status and children born in GPE after DATE became stateless .

ORG recommends that ORG proceed with the full and prompt implementation of the decisions of ORG , compensate the children affected by the negative consequence of the erasure and ensure that they enjoy all rights under LAW in the same way as other children in the State party . ”

On DATE ORG issued concluding observations to the second periodic report made under LAW which , in the relevant part , state as follows :

“ CARDINAL . While acknowledging the efforts made by ORG to grant permanent resident status in GPE or NORP nationality to citizens of other GPE of the former ORG living in GPE , the ORG remains concerned about the situation of those persons who have not yet been able to regularize their situation in ORG ( arts . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

The ORG party should seek to resolve the legal status of all the citizens of the successor GPE that formed part of the former ORG who are presently living in GPE , and should facilitate the acquisition of NORP citizenship by all such persons who wish to become citizens of GPE . ”

On DATE ORG issued concluding observations under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW stating , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . ORG is concerned that nationals of the former GPE have been ‘ GPE as their names were removed from the population registers in DATE . As a result of this , they have lost their NORP nationality and their right to reside in ORG . The ORG observes that this situation entails violations of these ORG economic and social rights , including the rights to work , social security , health care and education . Moreover , the ORG regrets the lack of information on the actual situation with regard to the enjoyment by those individuals of the rights set out in the LAW .

ORG urges ORG to take the necessary legislative and other measures to remedy the situation of nationals of GPE of former GPE who have been ‘ GPE as their names were removed from the population registers in DATE . While noting that bilateral agreements were concluded in this regard , the ORG strongly recommends that the ORG party should restore the status of permanent resident to all the individuals concerned , in accordance with the relevant decisions of ORG . These measures should allow these individuals to reclaim their rights and regain access to health services , social security , education and employment . ORG requests ORG to report to it , in its next periodic report , on progress in this regard . ”

In DATE ORG of ORG adopted the ORG on ORG in relation to ORG . Its Article CARDINAL states as follows :

“ Each ORG concerned should , without undue delay , enact legislation on nationality and other connected issues arising in relation to the succession of GPE consistent with the provisions of the present draft articles . It should take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons concerned will be apprised , within a reasonable period , of the effect of its legislation on their nationality , of any choices they may have there under , as well as of the consequences that the exercise of such choices will have on their status . ”