Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy;Continuing situation;Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae;Ratione temporis);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;General measures);Pecuniary damage - reserved;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Anatoly Kovler;Angelika Nußberger;Corneliu Bîrsan;David Thór Björgvinsson;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The first applicant , Mr Mustafa Kurić , was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) . He is a stateless person . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a stateless person . The third applicant , PERSON , is a NORP citizen . She was born in DATE and lives in LOC ( GPE ) . The fourth applicant , PERSON , is a NORP citizen . She was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The fifth applicant , Mr PERSON , the son of the fourth applicant , was born in DATE and is currently living in GPE . He is a citizen of GPE . The sixth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE in GPE . According to the most recently available data , he is a NORP citizen . He currently lives in GPE . The seventh applicant , PERSON Ilfan PERSON , was born in DATE . He lives in GPE and is now a NORP citizen . The eighth applicant , PERSON PERSON , was born in DATE . According to the Government , he is a NORP citizen .

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( “ the SFRY ” ) was a federal ORG composed of CARDINAL republics : GPE , GPE , 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 . Until DATE , federal citizenship prevailed over republic citizenship : republic citizenship could only be held by a NORP citizen .

The regulation of citizenship was similar in all republics of the SFRY , with the basic principle of acquiring citizenship by blood ( jus sanguinis ) . In principle , a child acquired his or her GPE citizenship ; if the parents were citizens of different GPE , they jointly agreed on their child ’s citizenship . On the date of acquisition of 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 . From DATE the citizenship data for newly born children were entered in the Register of Births and from DATE the entry of data in ORG ended , all citizenship data being entered in the Register of Births .

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 citizens . Foreign citizens could also acquire permanent residence in the SFRY under a separate procedure .

In the process of the dissolution of the SFRY , GPE took steps towards independence . On DATE , the then ORG of GPE adopted the “ 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 GPE declared its independence . A series of laws termed “ the independence legislation ” were passed . This included the Citizenship of GPE ( Zakon o državljanstvu PERSON CARDINAL “ the LAW ” ) , LAW ( Zakon o tujcih , 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 of the other former ORG , the NORP population was relatively homogeneous , PERCENT of the CARDINAL residents had NORP citizenship . CARDINAL NORP residents ( or PERCENT 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 .

NORP In accordance with the Statement of Good Intentions , CARDINAL of the DATE LAW provided that those citizens of other GPE of the former SFRY who , on DATE , the date of the plebiscite on the independence of GPE , were registered as permanent residents of GPE and actually lived there , held equal rights and duties to 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 ( DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and 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 actually residing in GPE , and had applied for citizenship within DATE after LAW entered into force . As indicated in paragraph CARDINAL above , this deadline expired on DATE . After that date , the less favourable conditions for acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation provided for by section CARDINAL of LAW became applicable also for citizens of other former LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

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 that CARDINAL persons left GPE .

Under the second subsection 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 ( that is , by CARDINAL DATE ) , or DATE after a decision issued in administrative proceedings rejecting their application for citizenship became final ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

After the declaration of independence , ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) sent several unpublished internal instructions ( okrožnice , navodila , depeše ) to municipal administrative authorities relating to the implementation of the independence legislation , and in particular LAW . In a circular of DATE the ORG instructed the administrative authorities that citizens of other GPE living in GPE were henceforth considered aliens in all administrative proceedings and that , in accordance with LAW , they held equal rights and duties to citizens of GPE until the expiry of the relevant time - limits ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It further gave technical instructions in the field of passports and aliens . On DATE the ORG informed the municipal administrative authorities that , further to LAW between the European Community Ministerial Troika and representatives of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , the enforcement of the independence legislation in the sphere of internal affairs had been suspended for DATE . During this period , citizens of other ORG would not be treated as aliens . CARDINAL further administrative circulars were issued on CARDINAL and DATE , drawing attention to the general problems relating to the implementation of LAW . The former circular stated that , when administering matters concerning the status of aliens , the personal documents of citizens of other LAW issued by the NORP administrative authorities should be kept and their passports revoked and destroyed .

On DATE , the date on which the second subsection of section CARDINAL of LAW became applicable , the municipal administrative authorities removed those who had not applied for or obtained NORP citizenship from ORG stalnega prebivalstva DATE “ the Register ” ) and , according to the Government , transferred them into ORG without a Residence Permit .

On DATE the Ministry indicated in its instructions to the municipal administrative authorities that it would be necessary to regulate the legal status of these persons . It drew their attention to the fact that numerous problems were expected to arise ; the legal status of the persons concerned should be regulated and , in parallel , “ the clearing of records ” should be undertaken . In addition , the ORG pointed out that the papers of such persons , even if issued by the NORP authorities and formally valid , would in fact become invalid owing to the ORG change in status ex lege . ORG also gave an interpretation of sections CARDINAL of LAW in cases of cancellation of residence and forcible removal .

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 ) . The Government , however , 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 .

According to official data from DATE , the number of former SFRY citizens who had lost their permanent residence status on CARDINAL DATE amounted to CARDINAL , of whom CARDINAL had been refused citizenship . They became known as the “ erased ” ( izbrisani ) , and included the applicants in the present case . New data on the “ erased ” were collected in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

As a result , the “ erased ” became aliens or stateless persons illegally residing in GPE . In general , they had difficulties in keeping their jobs and 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 CARDINAL minors . In most cases their identity papers were taken away . Some of the “ erased ” voluntarily left GPE . Some were served with removal orders and deported from GPE .

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 . However , under section CARDINAL of LAW , permanent residence permits issued to foreigners with citizenship of GPE other than the former SFRY republics continued to be valid after the entry into force of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the then Minister for the ORG sent a letter ( no . CARDINAL ) to the Government , informing them of the questions that remained open relating to the implementation of LAW , in view of the large number of persons from the other GPE of the former SFRY living in GPE without a regulated status . He also stated that , in his view , during the process of independence , all the rights of citizens of other LOC living in GPE , as resulting from international conventions and bilateral treaties , had been taken into account . The Government maintained that , further to this letter , they took action in order to attenuate the consequences of the “ erasure ” by interpreting the provisions of LAW in a more flexible manner ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In addition , on DATE another administrative circular with instructions on the implementation of LAW was sent to the municipal administrative authorities . It addressed a number of open questions relating to such matters as the allocation of military apartments , registration of temporary refugees from GPE , the keeping of records , transmission of personal information from the population register , and proceedings involving aliens . Personal identification cards issued to aliens by the NORP authorities were to be destroyed . In particular , as far as former SFRY citizens with permanent residence in GPE were concerned , it specified the dates to be entered in the register : either when they became NORP citizens or when they became aliens under section CARDINAL of LAW ( DATE or DATE after the date of receipt of the decision not to grant NORP citizenship ) .

On DATE the Convention took effect in respect of GPE .

ORG submitted a request for a referendum on the question whether or not citizenship granted to former SFRY citizens on the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW should be withdrawn . On DATE ORG held that the request was unconstitutional .

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

On DATE ORG declared partly admissible a challenge to the constitutionality of the first subsection of section CARDINAL and the second subsection of LAW of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , brought in DATE 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 subsection . It noted that the authorities had deleted from the ORG the names of citizens of the former ORG who had not applied for NORP citizenship and entered them ex proprio motu in the Register of Aliens , without any notification . It further found that there was no legal basis for this measure ; the Inhabitants’ Evidence of Residence and LAW did not provide for ex lege deregistration .

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

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 the relevant 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 who had held the nationality of the predecessor but not of the successor ORG , with permanent residence on the territory of GPE that had disintegrated after DATE , had become a matter governed by international agreements .

Section CARDINAL was therefore declared unconstitutional as it did not prescribe the conditions under which persons 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 had thus formed and the principles of the rule of law , legal certainty and equality had been breached .

Furthermore , the provisions of LAW regulating the acquisition of permanent and temporary residence for aliens entering GPE ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) should not be used to regulate the status of citizens of the former LAW who had a reasonable expectation that the new conditions for retaining permanent residence in GPE would not be stricter than those set forth in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and that their status would be determined in accordance with international law .

The Constitutional Court further found that section DATE ) of LAW was not unconstitutional , because it applied only to aliens 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 and was actually residing there 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 had found themselves in a precarious legal position could lead to a violation of , inter alia , the right to respect for family life , as protected by LAW ( extracts of this decision are quoted in paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

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 – “ LAW ” ) was passed on DATE to regulate the legal status of the “ erased ” by simplifying the requirements for acquiring a permanent residence permit .

Under LAW , citizens of other successor GPE to the former SFRY who were registered as permanent residents on NORP territory on DATE , the date of the plebiscite , or on DATE , the date of independence , and had been actually resident there were entitled to a permanent residence permit , regardless of the provisions of LAW . They had DATE to submit an application . Section CARDINAL of the Legal Status Act provided for some exceptions for those with criminal convictions . Residence permits were granted ex nunc to those fulfilling the above conditions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Ruling on another constitutional challenge ( U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , on CARDINAL DATE ORG set aside CARDINAL part of section CARDINAL of LAW as unconstitutional because it found that the requirements for the acquisition of permanent residence set forth therein were stricter than the grounds for revoking a permanent residence permit under LAW .

Relying on its leading decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , ORG has given several decisions in individual cases brought by some of the “ erased ” .

On DATE ( Up-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) it examined the case of a claimant who had been refused the renewal of his driving licence because of the “ erasure ” of his name from the ORG . ORG noted that following its decision of CARDINAL DATE , LAW had been drafted , but had not yet been passed . It decided that , until LAW entered into force , the claimant should enjoy the status he would have had before the expiry of the time - limit set forth in the second subsection of LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The administrative authorities were ordered to register the claimant as a permanent resident at the address where he had been living before his name was illegally deleted from the ORG and to renew his driving licence .

A similar decision ( ORG ) was adopted on DATE with regard to claimants who were all members of CARDINAL family and citizens of CARDINAL of the former SFRY republics , and had been denied permanent residence under LAW of LAW , because the father had lost his job .

On DATE ( Up-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and DATE ( ORG ) , in cases concerning the payment of a military pension to CARDINAL “ erased ” persons , ORG quashed the judgment of ORG and sent the case back for re - examination .

On DATE , in a case ( Up-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) concerning an individual ’s right to a childcare allowance , ORG quashed the decisions of the lower authorities and sent the case back for reexamination .

Furthermore , ORG has examined a number of cases brought by “ erased ” persons concerning the conditions for acquiring NORP citizenship . In a decision of DATE ( Up-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) it held that the condition of “ actually residing in GPE ” in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and QUANTITY below ) could be fulfilled in a situation where a person ’s residence in GPE had been interrupted on justifiable grounds if there were other circumstances proving that the centre of his or her life interests was on NORP territory . It quashed ORG decision because there had been differential treatment of analogous cases and sent the case back for re - examination .

On DATE , ruling on a challenge to the constitutionality of LAW in its version of DATE in a case ( ORG ) brought by ORG Erased ” and by other “ erased ” persons , ORG found LAW unconstitutional because it did not grant retrospective permanent residence from DATE of the “ erasure ” , it did not define the meaning of the words “ actually residing ” which appeared in section CARDINAL and 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 .

Although the exact number of those deported was unknown , ORG considered that the numbers would probably be low , since the unregulated status of the “ erased ” had generally been tolerated . It also struck down the DATE time - limit for submitting applications for permanent residence because it was unreasonably short and ordered the legislature to rectify the unconstitutional provisions of the impugned Act within DATE . ORG further observed that permanent residence was important in securing certain rights and benefits , such as military pension rights , social allowances and renewals of driving licences .

NORP In point no . CARDINAL of the operative part of the decision , ORG ordered the ORG to issue , ex proprio motu , decisions establishing permanent residence in GPE ex tunc with effect from DATE , the date of the “ erasure ” , to those who already had ex nunc ( non - retroactive ) permits in accordance with LAW or LAW ( extracts of this decision are quoted in paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG enacted the LAW on the Application of Point No . CARDINAL of ORG Decision no . CARDINAL ( Zakon o izvršitvi CARDINAL . točke odločbe PERSON sodišča PERSON št . U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , also known as the “ LAW ” . This Act laid down the procedure for issuing ex tunc permanent residence permits to citizens of the former SFRY republics who had been registered as permanent residents in GPE on both DATE and CARDINAL DATE and who had already acquired a permanent residence permit under LAW or LAW .

NORP However , a referendum on whether LAW should be implemented was held on DATE . The turnout was PERCENT ; PERCENT of valid votes were against its implementation , and therefore the LAW never entered into force .

In the meantime , in a decision ( U - II-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) handed down on DATE , ORG specified that the legal basis for the issuance of the supplementary residence permits by ORG was its decision of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) ; the Ministry was under an obligation to implement the decision .

Furthermore , in an individual case ( Up-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) brought by CARDINAL of the “ erased ” , claiming that his absence from GPE was due to the state of war , on DATE ORG set aside the judgments of ORG dismissing the claimant ’s request for a permanent residence permit under LAW , and remitted the case to ORG . It instructed the latter to make an appropriate assessment of the legal condition of “ actually residing on the territory of GPE ” from CARDINAL DATE and of the reasons for the claimant ’s absence from GPE .

In particular , ORG held that the fact that the legislature had been late in eliminating the inconsistencies did not prevent the courts from determining the case in conformity with its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

In DATE the ORG issued CARDINAL retroactive permits to the “ erased ” , solely on the basis of the above - mentioned ORG decision . The issuing of these permits by the authorities ex proprio motu was temporarily stayed and resumed in DATE , further to a change in government ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

According to the ORG , CARDINAL applications had been submitted under LAW by DATE . As a result , CARDINAL permanent residence permits were issued .

DATE . 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 Ministry collected new data on the “ erased ” and issued a report stating that on CARDINAL DATE the number of the people removed from the ORG 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 “ erased ” persons did not have a regulated status in GPE on that date and their current residence was unknown .

In DATE the ORG resumed the process of issuing , ex proprio motu , decisions establishing permanent residence in GPE ex tunc with effect from CARDINAL DATE under point no . CARDINAL of the operative part of ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to those who were already in possession of ex nunc permits . CARDINAL such decisions were issued .

Subsequently , ORG prepared amendments and supplements to LAW ( “ the amended LAW ” ) , regulating the incompatibilities between LAW and LAW , following ORG decision of DATE , in particular in respect of those who had been deported and those who had had to leave GPE because of other reasons related to the “ erasure ” . On DATE the amended LAW was passed .

On DATE CARDINAL parliamentarians requested that a referendum be held on the amended LAW , inter alia because it did not regulate the question of compensation for the “ erased ” ; as a result , its entry into force was postponed . On DATE ORG decided that the postponement of the entry into force of the amended LAW or its rejection in a referendum would have unconstitutional consequences and referred the matter to ORG .

In its decision of DATE ( U - II-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG relied on its previous leading decisions and found that the provisions of the amended LAW were consistent with LAW . LAW was considered to provide for a permanent solution to the status of those “ erased ” persons who had been unable to regularise their status , including that of their children , and for the issuing of special retroactive decisions to those of them who had been granted NORP citizenship , without the requirement of having a prior permanent residence permit . ORG refused to allow a referendum to be held , considering that the potential rejection of the amended LAW would lead to unconstitutional consequences . It further found that the delay in implementing its leading decision of DATE had entailed a fresh violation of the LAW .

In paragraph CARDINAL of its decision ORG held that , by passing the LAW in question , which provided for the retroactivity of permanent residence status , the legislature had introduced moral satisfaction as a particular form of reparation for the “ erased ” . If damage was caused to individuals as a result of their “ erasure ” , the question of possible ORG liability could arise on the basis of LAW if other conditions provided for by that Article and the relevant statutory conditions were met . In any event , the amended LAW on its own did not entail a new type of ORG liability for damage or a new legal basis for enforcing claims for damages . It was legitimate for the legislature to pass specific legislation limiting the ORG ’s liability , as had been done , for instance , in respect of the victims of the Second World War . ORG held that the fact that the amended LAW did not address the question of financial reparation was not unconstitutional .

On DATE the President of ORG publicly apologised to the “ erased ” ; the Minister for the ORG did the same on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the amended LAW was published in ORG . It entered into force on DATE , DATE after the delivery of the ORG judgment . Prior to its enactment , CARDINAL requests for residence permits had been submitted , of which CARDINAL had been granted .

Section CARDINAL of the amended LAW applied to aliens who had been citizens of other former LAW on DATE , had been registered as having their permanent residence in GPE on DATE or on DATE , and had actually resided there since then , regardless of the provisions of LAW . It provided for the acquisition of both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits by the “ erased ” . It also regulated the status of the children of the “ erased ” and provided for the issuing of retroactive decisions to those “ erased ” persons who had been granted NORP citizenship without having obtained a permanent residence permit .

In particular , section CARDINAL ( č ) defined the meaning of the words “ actually residing ” in GPE , which was a precondition for obtaining permanent residence status , as a situation where the person had the centre of his or her life interests in GPE , this being determined on the basis of personal , family , economic , social and other ties demonstrating the existence of actual and permanent connections between the individual and GPE .

It further indicated that the condition of “ actually residing ” could be met in cases of justifiable absence for DATE ( forced removal from GPE , absence as a consequence of the “ erasure ” or impossibility of returning because of the state of war in other successor GPE of the SFRY ) . In the case of a longer absence , the condition of “ actually residing ” could be satisfied for the period of DATE and for a further DATE only if the person had tried to return to GPE – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

According to the data submitted by the Government , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the territorial administrative units received CARDINAL applications for ex nunc permanent residence permits and CARDINAL applications for supplementary , ex tunc permits . Including the permits issued by ORG , these applications resulted in the issuing of CARDINAL ex nunc permanent residence permits and CARDINAL ex tunc permanent residence permits , in some cases by the authorities ex proprio motu . Further proceedings were still pending . The deadline for submitting requests under the amended LAW expires on DATE .

On DATE an association , ORG of the “ Erased ” , together with CARDINAL other private individuals , lodged a petition with ORG for constitutional review of the amended LAW ( U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The proceedings are currently pending .

Furthermore , CARDINAL of the “ erased ” lodged a constitutional appeal challenging the rejection by ORG of his compensation claim , amounting to GPE euros ( ORG ) for loss of work and non - pecuniary damage . As far as pecuniary damage was concerned , ORG observed that the ORG authorities had not acted unlawfully and that LAW was therefore inapplicable . On DATE ( Up-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG rejected the constitutional appeal , upholding ORG view that , in spite of the decision of ORG subsequently abrogating the impugned provision of LAW , it could not be said that administrative authorities or courts had acted unlawfully at the material time . Furthermore , since the loss of work had been related to the refusal to grant NORP citizenship to the claimant and not to the refusal to grant a permanent residence permit , the leading decisions of ORG on the subject of the “ erasure ” could not be taken into account .

On DATE the Government submitted some CARDINAL final judgments delivered by the courts of first and second instance and by ORG in compensation proceedings brought by the “ erased ” . All the compensation claims were in the end dismissed , mostly for failure to comply with the prescribed time - limits , although the courts had in some cases initially established that the compensation claims were well - founded . At that time , proceedings in CARDINAL cases brought by “ erased ” persons were pending before ORG . Finally , on DATE the ORG submitted a new decision delivered by ORG on DATE ( Up-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in a case brought by CARDINAL of the “ erased ” who had claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . In that case the first - instance court had initially held in an interim judgment that there were grounds for holding the ORG liable for damages . However , ORG upheld the second - instance decision dismissing the claim on account of the expiry of the statutory time - limit . That decision was endorsed by ORG .

Before DATE , the date on which GPE declared its independence , the applicants were citizens of both 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 , when their names were deleted from the ORG .

Further to the entry into force of the amended LAW on DATE , Mr ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON , PERSON and PERSON received both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits . PERSON and PERSON did not apply for residence permits . The following is a summary of the specific situation of each applicant .

Mr Kurić was born on DATE in GPE ( GPE ) . According to the Government , he is of unknown citizenship . After completing his elementary education , he trained as a shoemaker . He moved to GPE at DATE and settled in FAC in DATE . In DATE he rented a small workshop from GPE 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 . He stated that he had been reassured that there would be further opportunities to apply for it . The Government confirmed that the applicant had been hospitalised . However , he had already been released from hospital on DATE .

The applicant never received any official notification that he no longer had a legal status in GPE .

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

The applicant continued with his business and was paying 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 identity documents , he was at risk of being expelled if he travelled outside the local community , where the police tolerated his presence .

The applicant stated that in DATE he tried on various occasions to regularise his status with ORG but allegedly received no reply or instruction on how to proceed . In DATE he wrote a letter to ORG in which he requested to be granted NORP citizenship . He received no reply . However , the ORG maintained that Mr ORG had never applied for a residence permit in GPE .

NORP 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 an enquiry by the Agent of the 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 .

On DATE the applicant again applied for NORP citizenship under section CARDINAL of LAW . On DATE ORG dismissed his request . He did not challenge this refusal before ORG .

On DATE the applicant applied for a permanent residence permit . On DATE he was granted both ex nunc and ex tunc residence permits . They were delivered to him on DATE .

The applicant stated that even after receiving the permanent residence permit , he was still encountering many difficulties , particularly with regard to his claims for pension rights , and had serious health problems .

Mr Dabetić was born on CARDINAL DATE in GPE ( GPE ) . He is a stateless person . 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 completed elementary school and CARDINAL years’ specialised education in a secondary school for metal workers . He currently lives in GPE without any legal status .

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 Government stated that the applicant had been living in GPE since DATE , and not since DATE . He had therefore not been resident in GPE when it became independent .

The applicant alleged that when he had sought to apply to ORG , the employee had told him to submit his NORP employment record . The applicant stated that he worked in GPE on the basis of a lawful working permit and that he could not provide such a document . The employee allegedly replied that GPE and not GPE should grant citizenship to the applicant .

The applicant further stated that he had learned about the “ erasure ” later than the other applicants . In DATE , when his old SFRY passport expired , the NORP authorities had refused to extend his working residence permit ( permesso di soggiorno ) and had ordered him to return to GPE . Even though he had tried to return to GPE lawfully , he had been unable to regularise his status there . The Government maintained that the applicant had never properly applied for a residence permit in GPE .

On DATE the applicant urged the ORG to issue a supplementary , ex tunc decision regulating his status following the delivery of ORG decision of DATE , without having previously submitted a request for an ex nunc permanent residence permit .

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

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , alleging inaction on the part of the administrative authorities ( tožba zaradi molka upravnega organa ) , which had failed to issue a supplementary ex tunc decision .

On DATE the applicant ’s complaint was rejected by ORG .

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

At the same time , the applicant also applied to ORG to obtain the status of a stateless person .

NORP In DATE the applicant has been repeatedly stopped and detained by the NORP police . Moreover , 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 .

The applicant was also charged with illegal immigration into NORP territory . On DATE ORG acquitted him , on the ground that he had no citizenship and could not be expected to leave GPE voluntarily . At the time his application for stateless person status was pending . His application was eventually dismissed on the ground that an alien who was unlawfully residing in NORP territory was not entitled to the status in question .

The applicant stated that he had been living in extremely difficult conditions . He has not brought any proceedings under the amended LAW .

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 completed DATE of elementary school and 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 had 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 identity documents , 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 . The applicant considered that this arrest amounted to confirmation of the loss of her legal status .

Subsequently , she moved to GPE , where she met PERSON , a NORP citizen , with whom she had CARDINAL children , both of whom are NORP citizens . She stated that she had not started any proceedings in order to regularise her status since she clearly did not fulfil the conditions under the existing legislation .

After the entry into force of LAW , on DATE PERSON submitted an application for a permanent residence permit . The Ministry 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 reunion .

On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to issue a supplementary decision under point no . 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 she attended a meeting at ORG in the context of proceedings for a permanent residence permit . On DATE she 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 and her inability to prove that she had been actually resident in GPE since DATE .

In the proceedings concerning citizenship , on DATE the Ministry gave the applicant DATE to complete her application . Among other things , she had to prove that she had been actually 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 she received a temporary residence permit valid until DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for a permanent residence permit under the amended LAW . On DATE she was granted both ex nunc and ex tunc residence permits . They were delivered to her on DATE .

The applicant stated that even after receiving the permanent residence permit she had experienced difficulties in arranging her health insurance and social financial support . She had serious health problems .

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 fifth applicant Mr PERSON , was born . PERSON was registered as a permanent resident in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

PERSON maintained that she believed that she would be granted NORP citizenship automatically as a permanent resident . However , in DATE both PERSON and her son were deported from GPE . She stated that she learned about the “ erasure ” at that time . However , 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 records were transferred from ORG into the register of persons who had “ emigrated without having deregistered ” .

NORP The applicant stated that she had lived in GPE as a refugee and had been without any identity papers for DATE . In DATE she acquired a NORP identity card and in DATE a NORP passport . She stated that she and her son had not applied for a permanent residence permit or for NORP citizenship since for DATE they had not fulfilled the condition of actually residing in GPE under the existing legislation .

PERSON has not brought any proceedings under the amended LAW . She stated that she had serious health problems .

Mr PERSON was born on DATE in GPE ( GPE ) . He is the son of the fourth applicant , PERSON . He is a citizen of GPE . PERSON was registered as a permanent resident in GPE from DATE until DATE .

In DATE PERSON , who was a minor at the time , was deported from GPE with his mother .

He lived in GPE with his mother as a refugee for many years . In DATE the authorities of GPE issued an identity card and a passport to PERSON . Since he had no NORP documents , he had allegedly been living in GPE in constant fear of being deported .

On DATE he applied for a permanent residence permit under the amended LAW . On DATE he was granted both ex nunc and ex tunc residence permits . They were delivered to him on DATE and the applicant returned to GPE .

According to the Government , the applicant lodged a petition with ORG for constitutional review of the amended LAW . The petition was joined to those lodged by the association ORG of the “ Erased ” and by other private individuals . The proceedings are currently pending ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

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

NORP 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 .

In DATE the applicant was detained by the NORP border police when re - entering 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 . The applicant maintainted that it was then that he learned about the “ erasure ” . Moreover , on DATE he was deported to GPE ( GPE ) , allegedly without any decision . The NORP police returned the applicant to GPE because he had no valid 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 .

On DATE he married PERSON , who was born in GPE and was also a member of a GPE ethnic group . They had CARDINAL children DATE while the family were living in GPE .

NORP 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 submitted requests for asylum in GPE .

Subsequently , the applicant and his family returned to GPE .

On DATE the applicant and his family submitted an application for temporary residence permits . On DATE they also applied for permanent residence permits under LAW .

NORP Since they believed that they ran the risk of being deported , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant and his family also submitted asylum requests . In addition , the applicant 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 at the time .

On DATE the applicant brought a complaint before ORG , alleging inaction on the part of the administrative authorities in the proceedings relating to the permanent residence permits for him , his wife and their CARDINAL children .

On DATE the NORP authorities informed the NORP authorities that GPE had jurisdiction under LAW to examine the asylum requests by 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 it did not have jurisdiction to examine the asylum requests by 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 the non - enforcement of the impugned decision and withdrew their application for asylum ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

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

On DATE ORG upheld the ORG ’s decision 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 , where they have lived with “ toleration ” status ( PERSON ) .

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

In the context of asylum proceedings , on DATE ORG rejected a constitutional appeal by the applicant .

On DATE PERSON was granted both ex nunc and ex tunc residence permits further to his request lodged on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The permits were delivered to him on DATE through FAC in GPE .

The applicant , who is currently still living in GPE , stated that he was for the time being prevented from returning to GPE as his CARDINAL children and his wife did not have any legal status there and would not have fullfilled the conditions for family reunion under LAW .

On an unspecified date , the applicant filed a compensation claim with ORG , which was rejected . According to the respondent Government , he did not initiate court proceedings .

Mr Ademi was born on DATE in GPE ( “ the former GPE ” ) in a GPE ethnic community . He is now a NORP citizen . 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 missed the deadline for applying for NORP citizenship . In DATE he was stopped by the police in the course of a routine check . Since he had no valid identity documents , he and his family were expelled to GPE . The applicant maintained that he had learned about the “ erasure ” at that time . Shortly afterwards the applicant and his family moved to GPE , from where they re - entered GPE illegally .

On DATE the applicant applied for NORP citizenship with the assistance of a lawyer .

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 a citizen of that country .

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

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

NORP On DATE the ORG replied to a letter from the applicant seeking a 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 .

NORP On DATE his application for NORP citizenship was dismissed .

On DATE the applicant again applied for a permanent residence permit under LAW . On DATE the ORG rejected his application , again on the ground that he was not a citizen of any other successor ORG to the former SFRY . The applicant started proceedings before ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision by the Ministry , dismissing the applicant ’s request for a permanent residence permit . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG granted his appeal and sent the case back for re - examination . It noted that the amended LAW had been enacted in the meantime and that the applicant ’s request should now be examined in the light of the new legislation . In the course of these proceedings , the applicant submitted a NORP passport issued on DATE .

On DATE Mr Ademi was granted both ex nunc and ex tunc residence permits . They were delivered to him on DATE .

The applicant , who has serious health problems , is currently living between GPE and GPE , where his temporary status has been terminated in the meantime .

Mr Minić was born on DATE in GPE ( GPE ) . According to the Government , he is a NORP citizen . He moved to GPE with his family in DATE . The applicant completed elementary school , followed by a DATE secondary school course in cookery . He was registered as a resident in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

According to the applicant , in DATE he was visiting his grandparents in GPE . For that reason , he and his family missed the deadline for submitting the application for NORP citizenship by one month , as the war in GPE had made collecting the necessary documents difficult . According to the Government , there was no evidence that Mr Minić had applied for NORP citizenship in DATE . In addition , it followed from the applicant ’s employment documents that he had been working in PERSON from DATE until DATE . He married a NORP citizen , with whom he has CARDINAL children .

NORP The applicant stated that he had found out that he had been “ erased ” together with other members of his family when trying to regularise his status in GPE . As a result of the unbearable living conditions in GPE without any legal status , he had been compelled to move temporarily to GPE .

He returned to GPE on several occasions . In DATE the applicant 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 - CARDINAL above ) , without any formal order .

The applicant stated that he had not applied for any legal status in GPE for DATE because he did not meet the conditions for NORP citizenship or for a permanent residence permit under the legislation existing at the time . As to his family , his mother was eventually granted NORP citizenship in DATE and his siblings in DATE .

After the delivery of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the applicant applied for NORP citizenship under section CARDINAL 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 .

On DATE he applied for a permanent residence permit under LAW .

NORP 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 actual residence in GPE .

On DATE , in the context of administrative proceedings concerning the applicant ’s request for NORP citizenship , ORG dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by him .

On DATE ORG quashed the ORG ’s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and sent the case back for re - examination .

On DATE the ORG again dismissed the applicant ’s request since he did not meet the requirement of actually residing in GPE .

The applicant then initiated proceedings before ORG . He stated that he had been inextricably blocked in GPE in DATE and had since returned to GPE as often as possible , but that the war and other circumstances had prevented him from doing so to any significant extent . Moreover , he was a NORP from GPE who had been granted the status of displaced person in GPE after his house in GPE had been burnt down . He had tried on several occasions to regularise his status in GPE but had been deported in DATE . His parents , brother and CARDINAL sisters were all NORP citizens .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG and sent the case back for re - examination with an indication that his request should be dealt with under the amended LAW .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was granted both ex nunc and ex tunc residence permits . They were delivered to him on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a compensation claim with ORG . His claim was rejected owing to the expiry of the statutory time - limit , on the ground that he had found out about the damage caused to him by the “ erasure ” when he had applied for NORP citizenship or for a permanent residence permit .

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

This Act 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 an SFRY citizen , denoting the actual location of his or 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 , section CARDINAL of the Act 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 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 ... ”

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 ... ”

NORP The relevant provisions of the DATE 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 actually reside there 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 to the citizens of GPE ... ”

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 . ”

“ Everyone shall have the right to compensation for damage caused by the unlawful acts of a person or body performing a function or engaged in an activity on behalf of a ORG or local authority or as a holder of public office .

Any person suffering damage also has the right , in accordance with the law , to claim compensation directly from the person or body that has caused the damage . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW provide :

“ The Constitutional Court shall deliver a decision declaring an appeal unfounded or shall allow 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 determine a disputed 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 shall be 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 , the Constitutional Court shall determine such authority . ”

“ The competent authority may , within its discretion , accept a person ’s request for naturalisation if this is in compliance with the national interest . The person must fulfil the following conditions :

( CARDINAL ) be DATE ;

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

( CARDINAL ) have been actually resident in GPE for DATE , of which DATE immediately preceding the submission of the application must have been continuous ;

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

( CARDINAL ) have a command of the LANGUAGE language for the purposes of everyday communication ;

( CARDINAL ) not have been sentenced to a prison sentence longer than DATE in the country of which he or 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 or her country and also pursuant to the regulations of GPE ;

( CARDINAL ) not have had his or her residence in GPE prohibited ;

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

“ 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 actually reside there shall acquire citizenship of GPE if , within DATE after the present Act enters into force , they submit an application to the internal affairs authority of the municipality where they live ... ”

On DATE the Citizenship of GPE was 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 subsection 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 .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

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

A foreigner wishing to remain on the territory of GPE for longer than provided for by the preceding subsection for reasons of education , specialisation , employment , medical treatment , professional experience , or because he or she has married a citizen of GPE , has immovable property on the territory of GPE , or enjoys the rights afforded by employment in the ORG or for any other valid reason requiring his or her residence in the ORG , must apply ... for a temporary 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 the second subsection of LAW 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 preceding subsection , 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 subsection 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 facilitate the acquisition of permanent residence permits for citizens of the other former SFRY republics who had either failed to apply for NORP citizenship or had 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 consider 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 actually residing here before the provisions of LAW started applying to him . ”

The DATE LAW replaced LAW of DATE . Several amendments were made to the DATE LAW in DATE . In DATE it was replaced by a new LAW ( Official Gazette , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

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

“ ORG of another successor ORG to the former SFRY ( hereinafter ‘ ORG ) who were registered as permanent residents on the territory of GPE on DATE and are actually resident in GPE , and foreigners who were actually 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 submitted 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 submit an application under the preceding subsection within DATE after this LAW enters into force or the decision became final , if such decision is issued after this LAW entered into force ... ”

On DATE the amended LAW ( Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah PERSON o urejanju statusa državljanov drugih držav naslednic nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji , ORG no . CARDINAL ) came into force . LAW č ) of the LAW provides :

“ Actual residence in GPE for the purposes of this LAW shall mean that an individual has the centre of his or her life interests in GPE , this being determined on the basis of his or her personal , family , economic , social and other ties demonstrating the existence of actual and permanent connections between an individual and GPE . Justifiable absence from GPE because of reasons referred to in the third subsection of this section shall not mean an interruption of actual residence in GPE .

The condition of actual residence in GPE shall be met if the person left GPE and his or her continuous absence was not longer than DATE , irrespective of the reason for the absence .

The condition of actual residence in GPE shall also be met in the event that the absence was longer than DATE but was justifiable for the following reasons :

- if the person left GPE as a consequence of removal from ORG ;

- if the person left GPE because he or she was assigned to work , study or undergo medical treatment by a legal entity from GPE or , in the case of a minor , by his or her parents or guardians , or if the person was an employee on a ship with a home port in GPE , during the period of posting , study or treatment or the period of employment on the ship ;

- if the person left GPE because he or she could not acquire a residence permit in GPE owing to non - fulfilment of the relevant conditions and the application for a permit was rejected or dismissed or the procedure was terminated ;

- if the person could not return to GPE because of the state of war in other successor GPE to the former ORG , or for medical reasons ;

- if the person was expelled from GPE pursuant to LAW ... or CARDINAL of LAW ... , unless the person was an alien expelled from the country as a sanction for having committed a criminal offence ;

- if the person was refused entry to GPE , except where entry was refused because of the imposition of a secondary sanction of expulsion for having committed a criminal offence ...

If the absence for reasons referred to in the preceding subsection , except for those referred to in the second indent , lasted DATE , it shall be deemed that the condition of actual residence is satisfied for DATE and for a further period of DATE only if the conduct of the person demonstrates that , during the period of absence , the person tried to return to GPE and to continue his or her actual residence there .

For the purposes of this LAW , a permanent residence permit or a specific decision on a retroactive permanent residence permit and registered permanent residence or a supplementary decision issued pursuant to point CARDINAL of the ORG decision ... , no U-CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ... shall not mean that the condition of actual residence in GPE in proceedings initiated under LAW is met . ”

The relevant provision of the ORG provides :

“ The Register of Permanent Residents contains data on citizens of GPE who have registered permanent residence in the territory of the municipality .

In ORG , 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 ... ”

NORP The relevant provision of LAW provides :

“ If a person intends to initiate civil or other proceedings against an entity defended by the ORG Attorney , this person should first submit a proposal to ORG for resolution of the disputed relationship before the beginning of the proceedings . The ORG Attorney should as soon as possible , and not later than in DATE , act appropriately and inform the person concerned of its position . ”

The relevant parts of ORG decision of CARDINAL February CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) read as follows :

“ At the session of CARDINAL DATE concerning the proceedings for the review of constitutionality commenced on the initiative of GPE and GPE ... , ORG gave the following decision :

LAW ( Official Gazette of RS , ORG . DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) is inconsistent with the LAW in that it fails to determine the conditions for the acquisition of a permanent residence permit by the persons referred to in subsection CARDINAL of section CARDINAL upon the expiry of the period during which they had the possibility of applying for citizenship of GPE , if they did not do so , or after the date on which the decision on refusal to grant citizenship became final . ...

The inconsistency as established in paragraph CARDINAL of the operative provisions shall be eliminated by the legislature within DATE from the date of publication of this decision in ORG .

Pending the elimination of the inconsistency established in paragraph CARDINAL above , no deportation order as referred to in CARDINAL of LAW shall be made against citizens of any other republic of the former GPE if on DATE of the plebiscite of DATE they were registered as having permanent residence in , and are actually resident in , GPE .

Reasons :

The Constitutional Court finds that the provisions of subsection CARDINAL of LAW and subsection CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of LAW should not apply to citizens of other GPE who have not acquired the citizenship of GPE . Neither should the competent authorities have transferred these persons from the existing ORG to ORG ex proprio motu , without any decision or notification being addressed to the persons concerned . There was no statutory basis whatsoever for them to take such action . The Inhabitants’ Evidence of Residence and Population Registry Act , which is invoked by the Government in its explanations , does not contain any provisions on the removal of permanent residents from the Register on the basis of the LAW itself .

Neither is the Government empowered by statute to adopt individual decisions determining the manner in which statutory provisions are to be implemented . On the basis of LAW , duties and functions associated with public administration are to be conducted independently and at all times pursuant to , and in a manner consistent with , LAW and the law . When the Government found that LAW could not also be applied in practice to citizens of other GPE , it should have proposed that the legislature regulate their legal position , and should not have interfered with the legislative power by adopting a decision .

For the foregoing reasons , LAW , whose transitional provisions do not regulate the legal status of citizens of other GPE who had permanent residence in GPE and were actually resident in its territory , has violated the principles of a law - governed ORG under LAW . For this reason , the citizens of other GPE , upon the expiry of the time - limits set in subsection CARDINAL of section CARDINAL , found themselves in an insecure legal position . From the text of the transitional provisions , which specify that the provisions of LAW are to be applied , the said persons could not have grasped what their position would be as foreigners and which statutory provisions should apply to them . Accordingly , ORG concludes that , because the legal position of citizens of other GPE as foreigners has not been regulated in GPE , the principle of legal certainty as CARDINAL of the principles of a law - governed ORG has been violated .

The principle of legal certainty guarantees to the individual that the ORG will not make his or her legal position worse without justified reasons . It was quite justified that citizens of other GPE who did not opt for NORP citizenship should not expect that they would be made equal to foreigners who had only just come into GPE and that they would be deprived of permanent residence , without , moreover , being given any notice whatsoever . ... ”

NORP The relevant parts of ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) read as follows :

“ At a session held on DATE in the proceedings to examine petitions and in the proceedings to review constitutionality commenced upon petitions by ORG , and others , represented by GPE ... and ORG ... , ORG decided as follows :

The Act on Regularisation of the Legal Status of Citizens of Other Successor States to ORG in GPE ( ORG , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) is inconsistent with the LAW , as it does not recognise citizens of other GPE of the former SFRY who were removed from ORG on DATE as having permanent residence from the aforementioned date .

The Act on Regularisation of the Legal Status of Citizens of Other Successor States to ORG in GPE is inconsistent with the LAW , as it does not regulate the acquisition of a permit for permanent residence by citizens of other GPE of the former SFRY as referred to in the previous paragraph whose forcible removal as a foreigner was ordered under section CARDINAL of LAW ( Official Gazette RS , No . DATE and CARDINAL ) .

LAW on ORG to ORG in GPE is inconsistent with the LAW for the reasons mentioned in the reasoning of this decision .

Subsections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW on Regularisation of the Legal Status of Citizens of Other Successor States to ORG in GPE are abrogated in the parts in which they determine a time - limit of DATE for submitting an application for the issuance of a permit for permanent residence . ...

The legislature is obliged to remedy the unconstitutionalities established in DATE , CARDINAL of the operative provisions within DATE from the date of the publication of this decision in ORG .

The permanent residence status of citizens of other GPE of the former SFRY is hereby established from CARDINAL DATE onwards if they were removed on DATE from ORG , by means of a permit for permanent residence issued on the basis of the LAW on Regularisation of the Legal Status of Citizens of Other Successor States to ORG in GPE , LAW ( Official Gazette RS , LAW and CARDINAL ) , or LAW ( ORG , No . CARDINAL ) . ORG must as an official duty issue supplementary decisions on the establishment of their permanent residence in GPE from DATE .

R e a s o n s :

As the challenged Act does not enable citizens of other GPE to acquire permanent resident status from DATE when it was not formally recognised in their case [ that is , when such status was taken away ] , and thus only partially remedies the established unconstitutionality , it is inconsistent with the LAW . The principle of legal certainty as one of the principles of a ORG governed by the rule of law under LAW requires that the position of the persons concerned should not remain unregulated for any period of time . Permanent resident status is an important linking aspect for claiming certain rights and legal benefits which the persons concerned could not claim owing to the legally unregulated state of affairs . Their position in GPE was legally uncertain owing to the unregulated state of affairs , as by acquiring the status of foreigner they lost their permanent resident status in the territory of GPE and found themselves in an unregulated position or in an essentially worsened legal position ( for example , that of having temporary resident status ) , which has lasted , in the case of some of the adversely affected persons , for DATE . From the recommendation that ORG made in the light of the CARDINALth DATE report of ORG for DATE ( ORG , No CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , it follows that the issue of the legal position of such citizens of other GPE still calls for legal regulation . ...

On account of the fact that their permanent resident status was not recognised from DATE when their legal status was , following the gaining of independence by GPE , changed to the [ different ] status of a foreigner , citizens of other GPE were not able to assert certain rights that they would have otherwise been entitled to as foreigners permanently residing in GPE . The petitioners did not explicitly define these rights ; however , from the decisions of ORG it follows that these concerned , in particular , the right to the advance payment of a military pension , the right to social - security benefits and the ability to change one ’s driving licence . ... ”

ORG of the Conference on GPE ( commonly known as ORG , chaired by PERSON PERSON ) was a commission set up by ORG on DATE to provide the Conference on GPE with legal advice . ORG handed down CARDINAL opinions on “ major legal questions ” arising from the dissolution of the SFRY .

In its Opinion No . CARDINAL , the ORG considered how the problems of ORG succession resulting from the dissolution of the SFRY should be resolved . It ruled that they should be resolved by mutual agreement between the various successor GPE .

NORP The principal ORG instrument concerning citizenship is LAW , which was adopted on DATE and entered into force on DATE . GPE has not signed this convention , the relevant part of which reads :

“ 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 . This convention entered into force on DATE . GPE has not signed it . The relevant parts read as follows :

“ 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 . ”

NORP On DATE ORG on LAW adopted its second opinion concerning GPE and expressed concern about the problematic situation of the “ erased ” . On DATE the ORG filed their written comments ( see the relevant part of the report in ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE hereinafter referred to as “ the ORG judgment ” ) .

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 the “ erased ” .

ORG for Human Rights has addressed the issue of the “ erased ” on a number of occasions and addressed recommendations to the Government in order to remedy the situation ( see the relevant extracts of the Commissioner ’s reports in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the ORG judgment ) .

Further to his visits , during which he discussed the issue of the “ erased ” with the NORP authorities , he sent letters to the Prime Minister in office . In his letter of CARDINAL DATE he expressed appreciation of the ORG ’s determination to find a solution for “ the erased ” . He welcomed the enactment of the amended LAW . He nevertheless expressed concern that the law did not fully remedy the negative impact of the “ erasure ” . CARDINAL of the “ erased ” had submitted requests under the new law at that time and CARDINAL of them had been rejected . The fulfilment of the condition of actual residence for those who had left GPE for longer than DATE continued to be a problem in his view . He was also concerned by the non - existence of any reparation mechanism at the domestic level that would provide redress to the “ erased ” . He added that a number of the “ erased ” persons had become stateless and drew attention to ORG international - law instruments on the avoidance and the reduction of statelessness and the need for GPE to ratify them .

On CARDINAL 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 ” and made recommendations to the Government ( for the relevant extracts see paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG judgment ) .

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

In DATE ORG of ORG adopted the ORG on ORG in relation to ORG . Article CARDINAL of the ORG 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 . ”

On DATE ORG on ORG issued concluding observations stating , inter alia :

“ While taking note of the adoption in DATE of the law regulating the legal status of the ‘ NORP people , the ORG remains concerned at the situation of the non - Slovenes from the former GPE , including NORP , ethnic NORP from GPE , NORP and NORP , whose legal status remains unresolved and who are therefore facing difficulties in terms of access to social and economic rights , such as access to healthcare services , social security , education and employment . ORG is also concerned that the new law does not envisage any outreach campaign directed towards the ‘ NORP people living abroad in order to inform them of its existence ...

ORG recommends that ORG :

( a ) ORG definitely the legal status of all concerned citizens from the former ORG presently living in GPE ;

( b ) Ensure the full enjoyment of their economic and social rights including the access to health services , social security , education and employment ;

( c ) Conduct an outreach campaign to inform the ‘ GPE currently living outside GPE of the existence of the new legislative measures and the possibility of benefiting from them ; and

( d ) Grant full reparation , including restitution , satisfaction , compensation , rehabilitation and guarantees of non - repetition , to all individuals affected by the ‘ erasure’ . ”

On DATE ORG against Torture issued its concluding remarks , stating , inter alia :

“ While noting the legislative measures taken to amend LAW of citizens of Former GPE Living in GPE in order to remedy the provisions that were found to be unconstitutional , the ORG remains concerned that the ORG party failed to enforce the LAW and to restore the residency rights of persons , known as the ‘ GPE , originating from other NORP republics whose permanent residence in GPE was unlawfully revoked in DATE and already returned to other GPE of Former GPE . The ORG is concerned that the discrimination against the so called ‘ NORP persons , including against those who belong to ORG , is persistent ( arts . CARDINAL and DATE ) .

In light of its general comment No . DATE ) on implementation of LAW parties , the ORG recalls the special protection of certain minorities or marginalized individuals or groups especially at risk is part of ORG obligations under LAW . In this respect , the ORG recommends that ORG takes measures to restore the permanent resident status of the so - called ‘ NORP persons who were returned to other GPE in Former ORG . The ORG also encourages the ORG party to facilitate the full integration of the ‘ NORP persons , including of those who belong to ORG and guarantee them with fair procedures for application for citizenship . ”