ANASTASOV AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
Doc ref: 65020/13 • ECHR ID: 001-169017
Document date: October 18, 2016
- Inbound citations: 8
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 5
- •
- Outbound citations: 34
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 65020/13 Slobodan ANASTASOV and Others against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 October 2016 as a Chamber composed of:
András Sajó, President, Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Egidijus KÅ«ris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges , and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 October 2013,
Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in the case of Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (merits) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 415 , ECHR 2012, and to the decision to adjourn the examination of all similar applications pending the adoption of a domestic ad hoc compensation scheme ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. Names and personal details of the 212 applicants are indicated in the appendix.
2. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr A. Saccucci, a lawyer practising in Rome.
A. Circumstances of the case
3. The facts, as presented by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
4. Before 25 June 1991, the date on which the Republic of Slovenia declared its independence, the applicants were all nationals of both the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) and of one of its constituent republics. As nationals of the SFRY, they had acquired the status of permanent residents in Slovenia. They belong to a group of persons known as the “erased” ( izbrisani ), former nationals of the SFRY with permanent residence in Slovenia whose names had been deleted from the Register of Permanent Residents on 26 February 1992 or on subsequent dates (see paragraph 34 below).
5. They are currently nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. Some are stateless persons.
1. The general context
6. The complaints raised in this application arise out of the events and circumstances surrounding the dissolution of the SFRY, the declaration of independence of the Republic of Slovenia and the operation of the legislation enacted on that date, 25 June 1991. This independence legislation resulted in the so-called “erasure”, without any prior notification, of the applicants ’ names from the Register of Permanent Residents in Slovenia, on 26 February 1992 or on subsequent dates. According to official data, 25,671 persons were thus “erased”.
Loading citations...7. That meant in particular that the “erased” only subsequently became aware that they had become aliens, when, for example, they attempted to renew their personal documents. T hey experienced a number of adverse consequences, such as the destruction of their identity documents, the loss of job opportunities, the loss of health insurance, the impossibility of renewing identity documents or driving licences, and difficulties in securing pension rights. Some were also deported from Slovenia.
8. Further to the Constitutional Court ’ s rulings of 1999 and 2003 to the effect that the legislation on the “erasure” had been unconstitutional, the Act on the Regularisation of the Legal Status of Citizens of Other Successor States to the Former SFRY in Slovenia ( Zakon o urejanju statusa državljanov drugih držav naslednic nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji – “the Legal Status Act”) was adopted in 1999 and subsequently amended in 2010. T he deadline for filing requests for permanent residence permits under the amended Legal Status Act expired on 24 July 2013.
9. However, neither that legislation nor the practice of the Slovenian courts at the material time provided for the payment of any financial compensation to the “erased” for the damage they had suffered.
10. A more detailed account of the historical background and the relevant provisions of the Aliens Act, the Citizenship Act and the (amended) Legal Status Act, as well as other laws and the practice of Slovenian authorities, are to be found in the Court ’ s judgment in the pilot case of Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (merits) [GC], no. 26828/06, §§ 16-83, ECHR 2012.
2. The pilot judgment on the merits delivered on 26 June 2012
11. I n the above-mentioned judgment the Grand Chamber held , unanimously, that there had been a violation of the applicants ’ rights, as guaranteed by Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The violation essentially originated in the prolonged failure of the Slovenian authorities, in spite of the Constitutional Court ’ s leading judgments, to regulate the applicants ’ residential status following their “erasure” and to provide them with adequate redress in Slovenia (see paragraphs 6-8 above and Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 339-362, 369-372 and 384-396 ) . Under Article 46 of the Convention, the Grand Chamber ordered the respondent State to set up as a general measure a domestic ad hoc compensation scheme within one year of the delivery of its judgment, that is to say no later than 26 June 2013 (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 415 and point 9 of the operative part).
12. The Court also awarded 20,000 euros (EUR) to each successful applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the overall sum of EUR 30,000 in respect of costs and expenses. It reserved the applicants ’ claims for pecuniary damage for a later stage (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 424-427 and points 10 and 11 of the operative part).
3. Developments following the delivery of the judgment on the merits
(a) The “Erased” Compensation Act
13. On 21 November 2013 the Act on Compensation for Damage to Persons Erased from the Register of Permanent Residents ( Zakon o povračilu škode osebam, ki so bile izbrisane iz registra stalnega prebivalstva, ZPŠOIRSP ) (“the ‘ Erased ’ Compensation Act”) was enacted. It entered into force on 18 December 2013 and has been applicable since 18 June 2014 (see paragraphs 38-44 below).
14. Within the framework of the execution of the pilot judgment of the Court referred to above, the Act set up an ad hoc compensation scheme for the “erased”, providing for financial compensation and other forms of redress, as well as stipulating the procedure to be followed.
15. Its essential features are that it provides for financial compensation for the “erased”, to be claimed in administrative proceedings, calculated on the basis of a lump sum of EUR 50 for each completed month of “erasure”, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained.
16. Should the “erased” consider that they are entitled to additional compensation, they may lodge a claim under the general rules of the Code of Obligations ( Obligacijski zakonik , Official Gazette no. 83/2001) in the judicial proceedings. The Act removes the statute of limitations in respect of claiming damages under the Code of Obligations, as interpreted previously by the Slovenian courts (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 83) . Those “erased” who have previously had their claims for compensation dismissed or the proceedings in respect thereof stayed may lodge new claims with the courts.
17. The total amount of financial compensation, to be paid immediately or in a maximum of five installments (depending on the sum), may not exceed three times the lump sum of EUR 50 for each month of “erasure”.
18. The beneficiaries of the scheme are those “erased” who have acquired a permanent residence permit, on any legal grounds, or been granted Slovenian citizenship, and also those “erased” who made an unsuccessful application to that effect under the previous legislation (that is to say prior to the enactment of the amended Legal Status Act), subject to certain conditions.
19. Any claims for compensation will have to be lodged no later than three years after the “Erased” Compensation Act became applicable, that is by 18 June 2017, or after receipt of the decision on permanent residence or Slovenian citizenship or the final negative decision under the previous legislation. In any event, the period of “erasure” may not extend beyond the date of the Act entering into force (for further details, see Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, §§ 20-29, ECHR 2014-I).
(b) The Just Satisfaction Judgment in the Kuri ć and Others pilot case delivered on 12 March 2014
20. As to the proceedings concerning the application of Article 41 of the Convention in the pilot case, given that the respondent Government was late in adopting the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme and that the Court on 9 April and 14 May 2013 did not grant their requests for an extension of the time-limit, it decided to adjudicate on the outstanding issues under Article 41. On 12 March 2014 it handed down a just satisfaction judgment in respect of the pilot case ( ibid . , §§ 12 and 13).
21. Having regard to the inherently uncertain character of the damage arising from the violation of the Convention rights and the lapse of time since the damage had occurred, and making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Grand Chamber considered it reasonable to make a monetary award, based on the varying length of time spent by each applicant as an “erased” person, from 28 June 1994 until the date on which his or her legal status was finally restored, multiplied by a monthly lump sum of EUR 150. A monetary award to two applicants in respect of their respective children was also made, calculated on the basis of a monthly lump sum of EUR 80 for each month of “erasure” (ibid . , §§ 86-89 and 108-109). The applicants were all thus awarded sums of between EUR 29,400 and EUR 72,770 in respect of pecuniary damage and sums in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings ( ibid., point 1 of the operative part).
22. Under Article 46 of the Convention, the Grand Chamber also made a preliminary positive assessment of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme that had in the meantime been implemented (ibid . , § 140).
(c) Other developments
23. As to the subsequent court proceedings in Slovenia, following the adoption of the “Erased” Compensation Act, on 24 January 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed a petition lodged by an association of the “erased” for a constitutional review of the amended Legal Status Act and of the legal order in general, mostly in respect of the lack of financial reparation for the consequences of the “erasure” (no. U-I- 85/11 - 19 – see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 81). The Constitutional Court held that the previous legal vacuum had been filled by the enactment of the “Erased” Compensation Act and that the petitioners no longer had any legal interest in pursuing the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
24. Furthermore (according to information available on the Internet), in 2015 the Constitutional Court rendered several decisions, quashing judgments given by the lower courts and remitting cases for reconsideration. It held that in ruling on such compensation claims, special regard should be given by the courts to the special situation of the “erased”, in particular in respect of the State ’ s liability and the rules governing the statute of limitations, thus reversing the case-law established after the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 2012 ( see also Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 83, as well as paragraph 9 above). It stated that the Court ’ s judgments in the pilot case of Kuri ć and Others were of special relevance.
4. Execution of the pilot judgment and the final Resolution of the Committee of Ministers
25. On 25 May 2016 the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ ResDH( 2016)112 in the pilot case of Kurić and Others (“the 2016 CM Final Resolution”) under the terms of Article 46 § 2 of the Convention. It examined an action report provided by the respondent Government indicating the measures that would need to be taken in order to give effect to the judgment on the merits in that case.
26. In that action report, which was submitted on 18 March 2016, the respondent Government informed the Committee of Ministers that both individual and general measures had been taken in executing the merits and just-satisfaction judgments. As to general measures, s teps had been taken to ensure that the compensation scheme functioned properly and that adequate funds had been set aside to meet the claims. It was estimated that approximately EUR 129,600,000 would be needed for the purposes of pecuniary compensation. The actual amount paid in pecuniary compensation that had been claimed through administrative and judicial proceedings in 2014 and 2015 stood at EUR 3,972,128.63 and EUR 5,137,542.37, respectively. The 2016 and 2017 budgets foresee a total of EUR 7,110,200 and EUR 10,007,000 in compensation, respectively.
27. As to the statistics, from 18 June 2014, when the “Erased” Compensation Act became applicable, until 26 February 2016, 7,268 claims for financial compensation were lodged with the administrative authorities. By 26 February 2016, decisions had been adopted in respect of 7,081 claims, representing 97.5% of the claims lodged. By 26 February 2016, the total amount determined by final decisions in respect of the payment of compensation in administrative proceedings stood at EUR 21,985,500.
28. During the same period, fifty-one additional claims were lodged with the courts in judicial proceedings, while twenty-nine similar claims were addressed to the State Attorney ’ s Office in an attempt to reach a settlement. By 26 February 2016, the State Attorney ’ s Office had closed eighteen cases by dismissing the claims concerned. It had also terminated two cases, one by awarding compensation in the amount of EUR 9,854.11. As to the judicial proceedings, the first- and second-instance courts had given decisions in six cases by 26 February 2016. Three such decisions had become final; two of those decisions had ordered the payment of compensation, while third had confirmed the withdrawal of the claim in question. Other proceedings were pending.
29. The Government stated that these figures should be seen in the correct context. By July 2013, 10,046 of the 25,671 “erased” had settled their residence status (see Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 28). Furthermore, by 31 January 2016 under the amended Legal Status Act, 1,907 requests for permanent residence had been lodged (of these, 1,608 had been lodged by the “erased” themselves, seventy by their children and 229 by citizens of other successor States to the former SFRY who had not been subject to the “Erased” Compensation Act). By the same date, a total of 259 permanent residence permits had been issued (217 of these to “erased” persons), 1,395 requests for a permanent residence permit had been refused and 253 were awaiting a decision.
30. The data available as at 31 January 2016 also showed that 933 requests for a special ex tunc decision on the granting of a residence permit had been lodged with the lowest administrative authority (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 77) . Of these, 254 such requests had been lodged by the “erased”, 70 by the children of “erased”, and 609 by Slovenian nationals who had been “erased” before they had acquired Slovenian citizenship. By the same date, the administrative authorities had issued 612 such special decisions (111 of these were granted to the “erased”, 39 to their children and 462 to Slovenian nationals). 255 requests had been refused and 66 proceedings remained pending.
31. T he respondent Government considered, in view of the above ‑ mentioned figures, that most eligible beneficiaries had largely availed themselves of the possibility to claim compensation provided for under the “Erased” Compensation Act.
32. The Committee of Ministers, having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46 § 1 had been adopted, declared that it had exercised its functions under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention in the Kurić and Others case and decided to close the examination thereof.
5. The particular circumstances of the present case
33. All applicants in the present case are in an essentially similar situation to that of the successful applicants in the pilot case of Kurić and Others , who had regularised their legal status in Slovenia by the acquisition of permanent residence permits before the Grand Chamber judgment on the merits was given (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 95, 123, 133, 158, 173 and 194) .
34. Most of the applicants were “erased” from the Register on 26 February 1992, since they had failed to apply for Slovenian citizenship within the prescribed time-limit, 25 December 1991. Furthermore, some of the applicants did apply in time for Slovenian citizenship, but their requests were refused on other grounds (for instance because they did not meet the requirement that they actually be resident in Slovenia at the time of lodging their respective citizenship requests). Accordingly, they were “erased” from the Register two months after the relevant administrative decision had become final. They thus became aliens with no legal status in Slovenia (see paragraphs 4 and 6 above).
35. By means of legal instruments adopted on various dates by the Slovenian authorities under the Legal Status Act, the amended Legal Status Act, or the Citizenship Act, or further to the leading decisions of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 8 above) , the applicants regularised their legal status in Slovenia either by obtaining permanent residence permits (with or without retroactive effect) or by acquiring Slovenian citizenship. Some of the applicants, having obtained Slovenian citizenship, were granted ex tunc permanent residence from the date of their “erasure” until the date of their acquiring citizenship (for the dates of regulation of the legal status as well as periods of un regularised status in respect of individual applicants, see the appendix ).
36. None of the applicants has informed the Court that they had made use of the compensatory remedy provided for by the “Erased” Compensation Act (see paragraphs 13-19 above and 38-44 below).
B. Relevant domestic law
1. General background and laws, as applicable before the “Erased” Compensation Act came into effect
37. A detailed description of the historical, political and social background to the case and of the laws affecting and governing the status of the “erased” can be found in Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 16 ‑ 83 and 196-215.
2. Act Regulating Compensation for Damage Sustained as a Result of Erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents ( Zakon o povračilu škode osebam, ki so bile izrisane iz registra stalnega prebivalstva, Official Gazette no. 99 /2013)
38. Section 2 of this Act defines the beneficiaries of the ad hoc compensation scheme.
Section 2
“(1) A beneficiary of compensation for damage sustained as a result of erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents shall be a person who was erased from the Register of Permanent Residents and
- obtained a permanent residence permit under the Aliens Act ..., the Legal Status Act ... or the Temporary Asylum Act ... after being erased from the Register of Permanent Residents, or
- was granted citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia after being erased from the Register of Permanent Residents.
(2) A beneficiary of compensation for damage sustained as a result of erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents may also be a person erased from the Register of Permanent Residents
- who after erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents and before the enforcement of the amended Legal Status Act ... lodged an application for the issuance of a permanent residence permit under the Aliens Act ..., the Legal Status Act ... or the Temporary Asylum Act ... or an application for citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia, and
- whose application was rejected [or] dismissed or the procedure was stayed, except in the event that the application was rejected because of a threat to public order, security or the defence of the Republic of Slovenia, international relations or the prosecution of criminal offences, in compliance with the provisions of the Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act ... [or] the Aliens Act ..., or ... on grounds [specified in] Article 3 of the Legal Status Act, or if the procedure was stayed due to the non-cooperation of the party concerned during the establishment of such grounds, [provided that] the person actually lived in the Republic of Slovenia during the period between [his or her] erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents and a final decision being made under the preceding paragraph.
(3) The condition of actual residence in the Republic of Slovenia under the preceding paragraph [shall be deemed to have] been met if the person left the Republic of Slovenia and the uninterrupted absence lasted for no more than one year, irrespective of the reason for such absence. The condition of actual residence in the Republic of Slovenia shall also have been met if the absence lasted for more than one year and the absence was justified ...
(4) The right to compensation for damage sustained as a result of erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents shall not be accorded to a person who was erased from the Register of Permanent Residents and whose application for permanent residence, lodged in accordance with the act regulating the legal status of citizens of the former Yugoslavia living in the Republic of Slovenia, was rejected, dismissed or the procedure was stayed after the enactment of the amended Legal Status Act.”
39. Section 3 of this Act defines the period of “erasure”.
Section 3
“(1) [For a person not in possession of a permanent residence permit of the Republic of Slovenia prior to his or her naturalisation as a citizen of the Republic of Slovenia] the period of erasure shall be the period between the date of erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents and the date of the issuance of a permanent residence permit or the period between the date of erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents and the date of naturalisation as a citizen of the Republic of Slovenia. ...”
40. Section 4 specifies the different forms of redress available to the “erased”.
Section 4
“(1) Pecuniary compensation for damage sustained during the period of erasure as a result of deletion from the Register of Permanent Residents may be claimed by a beneficiary in an administrative procedure and shall be determined in accordance with the conditions and criteria laid down in this Act; a beneficiary shall also have the right to initiate a court action to seek pecuniary compensation.
(2) Subject to the conditions laid down in this Act, a beneficiary shall also be entitled to other forms of just satisfaction for damage sustained as a result of erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents.
(3) A beneficiary shall be entitled to claim damages under this Act if prior to the application of this Act a pecuniary compensation claim brought in judicial proceedings in respect of compensation for damage sustained as a result of erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents was finally rejected or dismissed or the procedure was stayed.”
41. The following provisions are relevant for claiming financial compensation within the framework of administrative proceedings.
Section 7
“(1) The amount of pecuniary compensation awarded to a beneficiary in the administrative procedure shall depend on the period of erasure.
(2) A beneficiary shall be entitled to a compensation payment of EUR 50 for every complete month of erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents. ...”
Section 8
“(1) The administrative procedure for determining pecuniary compensation shall be initiated by the party [concerned]. A claim for the determination of the amount of pecuniary compensation shall be lodged within three years of the date the application this Act becoming applicable.
(2) A person who has not yet been issued a final decision on an application for permanent residence permit or for citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia lodged prior to the date of this Act becoming applicable and who, on the basis of the aforementioned application, satisfies the conditions referred to in Article 2 of this Act shall have the right to lodge a claim to determine the amount of pecuniary compensation within three years of obtaining a permanent residence permit or being granted citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia or within three years of a final decision by which an application for the issuance of permanent residence or citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia was rejected [or] dismissed or of the procedure being stayed. ...”
42. The provisions concerning claims for financial compensation within the framework of judicial proceedings are the following.
Section 10
“(1) Compensation for damage caused by erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents and sustained by a beneficiary during the period of erasure may be claimed by the beneficiary in a court action for payment of compensation for damage sustained as a result of erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents (hereinafter: an action) within three years of the date of this Act becoming applicable. ...”
Section 11
“(1) When deciding on pecuniary compensation for erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents, the provisions of the act governing obligations shall be followed, unless otherwise provided by this Act.
(2) The proceedings referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the preceding Article shall not be subject to the statute of limitation in respect of claims referred to in paragraph 15 of the Code of Obligations.”
Section 12
“Total pecuniary compensation for damage sustained as a result of erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents, including statutory default interest, awarded in judicial proceedings may not exceed three times the pecuniary compensation determined for a beneficiary in administrative proceedings.”
43. Section 13 defines the payment procedures in respect of financial compensation.
Section 13
“(1) Pecuniary compensation shall be paid to a beneficiary in up to five instalments, depending on its amount.
(2) Pecuniary compensation determined in an amount up to and including EUR 1,000 shall be paid to a beneficiary in a single sum within 30 days of the final decision or judgment. ...
(6) Pecuniary compensation determined in an amount above EUR 4,000 shall be paid to a beneficiary in five equal instalments, whereby the first instalment must not be lower than EUR 1,000. The first instalment, of a minimum of EUR 1,000, shall be paid within 30 days of the final decision or judgment and the remaining amount shall be paid in four equal instalments, to be paid one year following the due date of the first or previous instalment.”
44. Section 15 provides for other forms of redress to be made to the “erased”.
Section 15
“In addition to pecuniary compensation under the conditions laid down in this Act, a beneficiary shall also be entitled to other forms of just satisfaction:
1. payment of contributions for compulsory health insurance;
2. inclusion and priority consideration in social assistance programmes;
3. facilitation of exercising rights to public funds;
4. State scholarships;
5. equal treatment in resolving housing problems;
6. access to the education system;
7. participation and priority treatment in programmes for aliens other than EU nationals aimed at assisting their integration into the cultural, economic and social life of the Republic of Slovenia.”
COMPLAINTS
45. The applicants submitted a two-part complaint under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Firstly, they complained essentially along the same lines as in the pilot case of Kurić and Others – namely that they had been arbitrarily deprived of their status as permanent residents after Slovenia declared its independence in 1991. Their situation had remained unsettled for several years – in the case of some of them for more than two decades – until they had regularised their legal status in spite of the Constitutional Court ’ s leading decisions. Secondly, they complained that the Slovenian authorities had failed to grant them prompt and adequate financial redress for the damage, pecuniary and non-pecuniary, which they had suffered as a result of the circumstances examined in the Kurić and Others judgment. They maintained in particular that the Slovenian authorities had breached their obligation to set up an ad hoc compensation scheme for the whole category of the “erased” within the deadline indicated by the Grand Chamber, that is to say by 26 June 2013 (see paragraph 11 above).
THE LAW
A. Scope of the case before the Court
1. The Court ’ s temporal jurisdiction
46. The Court finds that the repercussions of the “erasure” on 26 February 1992 or on subsequent dates, but prior to 28 June 1994, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia, still obtained on the latter date and were continuing to adversely affect the applicants (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 240-242).
47. Accordingly, the Court ’ s jurisdiction ratione temporis covers the period following the date of ratification, the facts that occurred before that date being considered only inasmuch as they have created a situation extending beyond that date or are relevant for the understanding of the situation obtaining afterwards.
2. Individual and general dimension of the case
48. The present case, lodged by 212 “erased” persons, and the remaining 55 similar adjourned cases, involving more than 600 applicants, currently on the Court ’ s docket, originated in the same structural shortcoming that was found by the Court in the Kurić and Others judgment on the merits to be at the root of its finding of a violation of Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention since “ the applicants were not awarded proper financial redress for the years during which they were in a position of vulnerability and legal insecurity and ... as matters currently stood, the possibility of obtaining compensation at the domestic level in civil proceedings or before the State Attorney ’ s Office was still remote”. In particular, the Grand Chamber found that the facts of the case disclosed the existence, within the Slovenian legal order, of a shortcoming as a consequence of which the whole category of the “erased” were at that time denied compensation for the infringement of their fundamental rights (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 412).
49. In that connection, the Court directed that “the respondent Government should, within one year of the delivery of the present judgment, set up a domestic ad hoc compensation scheme” ( ibid . , § 415 and point 9 of operative part – see also paragraph 11 above ).
50. In consequence, the Court, applying the pilot-judgment procedure within the meaning of Rule 61 of the Rules of Court in the individual applicants ’ case, not only recognised the Convention violation in respect of all actual and potential applicants who found themselves in a similar situation but also made clear that general measures at the national level were called for in the execution of the judgment and that those measures should take into account the other persons affected and remedy the systemic defect underlying the Court ’ s finding of a violation ( see Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (dec.) no. 50003/99, §§ 31-33, ECHR 2007 ‑ XIV, and Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 34, ECHR 2005-IX).
B. Application of the pilot-judgment procedure
51. The object of the Court ’ s designating a case for a “pilot-judgment procedure” is to facilitate the speediest and most effective resolution of a dysfunction affecting the protection of the Convention right in question in the national legal order (see, mutatis mutandis , Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 134, with further references therein). One of the relevant factors considered by the Court in devising and applying that procedure has been the growing threat to the Convention system resulting from large numbers of repetitive cases that derive from, among other things, the same structural or systemic problem (see Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 35).
52. The pilot-judgment procedure is primarily designed to assist the Contracting States in fulfilling their role in the Convention system by resolving problems at the national level, thereby securing to the persons concerned their Convention rights and freedoms, as required by Article 1 of the Convention, and offering to them more rapid redress but also, at the same time, making it unnecessary for the Court to adjudicate on large numbers of applications similar in substance which it would otherwise have to take to judgment (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (merits) [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 231-234, ECHR 2006 ‑ VIII; Wolkenberg and Others , decision cited above, § 34; and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź v. Poland (dec.) no. 3485/02, § 43, ECHR 2011-II (extracts)).
53. Another important aim of this procedure is to induce the respondent State to resolve large numbers of individual cases arising from the same structural problem at the domestic level, thus implementing the principle of subsidiarity, which underpins the Convention system. Indeed, the Court ’ s task, as defined by Article 19 – that is to “ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto” – is not necessarily best achieved by repeating the same findings in a large series of cases (see Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 27912/02, § 62, 3 November 2009; see also, by analogy, E.G. and 175 Other Bug River applications v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 27, ECHR 2008-IV (extracts); and, mutatis mutandis , Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 134).
54. This adjudicative approach is pursued with due respect for the Convention organs ’ respective functions. While it falls to the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the implementation of individual and general measures under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention (see Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 42; Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC] no. 35014/97, § 42, 28 April 2008; Suljagić , cited above, § 61; and Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 133), the Court, in its examination of follow-up cases after the adoption of the pilot ‑ judgment, has the power to decide whether, in view of the remedial action taken by the State, the matter giving rise to the Convention complaints in those cases “has been resolved” for the purposes of Article 37 of the Convention and whether or not it is justified to continue the pilot-judgment procedure (see Wolkenberg and Others, cited above, § 77; E.G . and 175 Bug River applications , cited above, §§ 25-29; and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 45).
55. Thus, it is inherent in the pilot-judgment procedure that the Court ’ s assessment of the situation complained of in a “pilot” case necessarily extends beyond the sole interests of the individual applicant and requires it to examine that case also from the perspective of the general measures that need to be taken in the interest of other potentially affected persons (see Hutten-Czapska (merits), cited above, § 238; Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 36; and Hutten-Czapska (friendly settlement), cited above, § 33; see also, mutatis mutandis , Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 412).
56. The same logic applies to the Court ’ s interpretation of the notion of “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto” in cases dealt with within the context of this procedure, where the Court, in determining whether it can strike the application out of its list, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, on the ground that the matter has been resolved, will have regard not only to the applicant ’ s individual situation but also to measures aimed at resolving the general underlying defect in the domestic legal order identified in the judgment on the merits as the source of the violation found (see Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, § 35, and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 46; see also, mutatis mutandis , Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, §§ 36-37, and Hutten-Czapska (friendly settlement), cited above, § 35).
57. In consequence, the ruling in the present case, chosen by the Court for the examination of the issue of whether or not it is justified to apply Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and to continue the pilot-judgment procedure initiated in the case of Kurić and Others , will have consequences for all similar adjourned cases.
C. Complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 46 of the Convention
58. The applicants alleged a violation of Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, along the same lines as in the pilot case of Kurić and Others . In addition, they complained under Article 46 of the Convention that the Slovenian authorities had breached their obligation on account of their failure to set up the ad hoc compensation scheme within the deadline indicated by the Grand Chamber, that is to say by 26 June 2013 (see paragraphs 45 above and 79-81 below).
59. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ...
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
60. Article 14 provides:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
61. Article 46 provides, in so far as relevant:
“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.
2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution. ...”
D. Application of Article 37 of the Convention
62. Article 37 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
...
(b) the matter has been resolved; ...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.
2. The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.”
1. Compatibility of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme with the Court ’ s findings
63. The Court notes that in addition to the amended Legal Status Act, which was designed to regulate the residence of the “erased” in Slovenia in response to the Constitutional Court ’ s rulings and the Court ’ s findings in the Chamber judgment (see paragraph 8 above, and Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 336-338 and 405), on 18 December 2013 the “Erased” Compensation Act entered into force, setting up a domestic ad hoc compensation scheme for the “erased”. This scheme was introduced by the respondent State further to the finding of the Grand Chamber that, after the acquisition of their permanent residence permits, the applicants lacked proper financial redress for the years during which they had been in a position of vulnerability and legal insecurity (see paragraph 11 above and Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 412).
64. The “Erased” Compensation Act introduced the possibility of claiming financial compensation on the basis of a lump sum for each completed month of “erasure”, plus additional compensation under the general rules of the Code of Obligations for those of the “erased” that fulfilled statutory conditions. It also removed the statute of limitations for claiming damages under the Code of Obligations, as applied previously by the Slovenian judiciary. Those “erased” who have previously had their claims for compensation dismissed or the proceedings stayed may lodge new claims. Furthermore, other forms of reparation are available to applicants. The Act became applicable on 18 June 2014 and any claims for compensation have to be filed by 18 June 2017 or within three years of receipt of the decision regulating the legal status of the “erased” in Slovenia (see paragraphs 13-19 and 38-44 above).
65. The Court finds that all the applicants – as “erased” persons who have acquired a permanent residence permit on various legal grounds or have been granted Slovenian citizenship – may avail themselves of the possibility of claiming financial compensation within the framework of administrative proceedings under Section 8 of the “Erased” Compensation Act. Should they consider that they are entitled to additional compensation, they may lodge a claim with the competent court, further to section 10 of the “Erased” Compensation Act (see paragraphs 38, 41 and 42 above) . However, none of the applicants has informed the Court that he or she had availed himself or herself of this possibility (see paragraph 36 above).
66. The Court observes that the Grand Chamber made a positive preliminary assessment of this legislation (which was enacted after the delivery of the judgment on the merits) in its judgment awarding just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicants in the Kurić and Others case (see paragraph 22 above), while underlining that it would be for the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention to evaluate the general measures adopted by the respondent State and their implementation as far as the supervision of the execution of the Court ’ s judgment on the merits was concerned (see Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, §§ 140 and 142) .
67. As to an approach that involved awarding lump-sum compensation in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the “erased”, the Grand Chamber considered that, given the particular difficulty in making a precise estimation of the pecuniary damage incurred by the applicants as a result of their “erasure”, that basic solution appeared to be appropriate (ibid . , § 140). Indeed, the Grand Chamber adopted the same approach in respect of pecuniary damage in the just satisfaction judgment (see paragraphs 106-109 thereof) and in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the judgment on the merits (see paragraph 425 thereof).
68. As to the level of the financial compensation available under the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme, the Court observes that according to the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation which goes with it, the amounts of compensation awarded at national level to other adversely affected persons within the context of general measures under Article 46 of the Convention are at the discretion of the respondent State, provided that they are compatible with the Court ’ s judgment ordering those measures (see Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 141).
69. In this respect the Court notes that the level of the available domestic financial compensation is inferior to the awards made to each successful applicant in the pilot judgment, where under Article 41 of the Convention the Grand Chamber awarded a lump sum of EUR 150 in respect of pecuniary damage and a lump sum of approximately EUR 100 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, totaling an average lump sum of EUR 250 for each completed month of “erasure ’ . Furthermore, a special award of a monthly lump sum of EUR 80 for each completed month of “erasure” was made in the pilot case to the children of the “erased”, where appropriate. It is further noted that, for the Court, the starting point for the calculation of the award of damage on the basis of “erasure” was 28 June 1994, when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia (ibid . , §§ 108-109, and paragraph 21 above).
70. The monthly lump sum for each completed month of “erasure” that could be claimed in administrative proceedings under the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme therefore represents approximately 20% of the sums awarded to each successful applicant in the Kurić and Others case. However, after an award in administrative proceedings, the possibility remains open to the “erased” to lodge a claim for additional compensation in judicial proceedings. The maximum amount that could be awarded within the framework of those proceedings would theoretically represent 60% of the individual award made in the pilot judgment. Finally, under the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme, an award of financial compensation would also be made for the months prior to 28 June 1994, slightly raising this percentage, depending on the situation of each “erased” person.
71. The Court observes in this respect that it has held on a number of occasions that a wider margin of appreciation should be left to the domestic authorities in assessing the amount of compensation to be paid. Such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006 ‑ V, and Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, § 39, 8 July 2014).
72 . The Court considers that in general, the amounts of financial compensation chosen by the domestic authorities, ranging approximately between 20% and 60% of the Grand Chamber ’ s individual award in the pilot case, do not appear to be unreasonable or disproportionate, considering the wide margin of appreciation accorded to them. In the Wolkenberg and Others case (decision cited above, §§ 63-66), the Court accepted compensation amounting to 20% of the value of lost property in the so-called “territories beyond the Bug River” as sufficient in the particular circumstances of that case. In the case of Bizjak ( decision cited above, §§ 37-43) , the Court took the same stance within the context of prison overcrowding in Slovenia, where compensation awarded by a domestic court represented approximately 30% of the award made by the Court in the pilot judgment Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia (nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, § 132, 20 October 2011). Finally, in Stella and Others v. Italy ((dec.), nos. 49169/09, 54908/09, 55156/09, 61443/09, 61446/09, 61457/09, 7206/10, 15313/10, 37047/10, 56614/10 and 58616/10, § 62, 16 September 2014), the Court held that the levels of compensation available domestically, although inferior to the Court ’ s awards, should not be deemed unreasonable. Furthermore , the Court emphasizes in this respect that the object of the present decision is the potential compatibility of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme, and not the question whether, in view of the sums awarded at the domestic level, the applicant has lost his or her victim status. This second type of assessment can be made, in every individual case, only after the relevant national remedy has been tried (see Bizjak , decision cited above, § 43).
73. In addition, there is currently relatively scarce established domestic case-law concerning claims for additional financial compensation (see paragraphs 24 and 28 above). It cannot therefore be concluded that there is a discernible pattern rendering the use of this domestic avenue futile. To the contrary, due note has been taken by the Court of the decisions of the Constitutional Court handed down in 2015 that lower courts should bear in mind the special features of the situation of the “erased” when deciding on their compensation claims. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, any criticism concerning the amount of domestic financial compensation should first be voiced through domestic judicial proceedings (see paragraph 24 above).
74. As to the arrangements for the payment of financial compensation awarded in the administrative proceedings, the Court notes that amounts exceeding EUR 1,000 are payable in a maximum of five instalments, over a maximum period of five years (see paragraph 43 above). The Court finds that such payment intervals do not appear to be unreasonable (see, conversely and mutatis mutandis , Đurić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos. 79867/12, 79873/12, 80027/12, 80182/12, 80203/12 and 115/13, §§ 16-17 and 47, 20 January 2015).
75. Lastly, the “Erased” Compensation Act provides for different forms of redress aimed at the reintegration of the “erased” into Slovenian society (see Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 27, and paragraph 44 above). In the Court ’ s view, in choosing these other forms of reparation the domestic authorities were better placed than the Court and had at their disposal a much wider range of measures capable of providing appropriate relief tailored to the needs of the “erased” (see, mutatis mutandis , T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź, cited above, § 86) .
76. For the purposes of the present ruling, it suffices to the Court to note that the Committee of Ministers has found that the respondent Government has taken adequate action in order to satisfactorily afford redress for their past grievances to those “erased” who have successfully regularised their legal status (see paragraph 32 above) . The preliminary positive assessment of the “Erased” Compensation Act by the Grand Chamber remains valid; likewise, within the context of this case the State ’ s remedial action aimed at resolving the systemic problem is a factor relevant to the issue of “respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto”, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
2. Redress for a violation of the Convention afforded to other persons affected at the domestic level
77. The Court notes at the outset that, within the framework of the execution of the pilot judgment, the respondent Government informed the Committee of Ministers that general measures had been taken, namely the introduction of a domestic ad hoc compensation scheme for the “erased” (see paragraphs 26-31 above). They further stated that the implementation of the amended Legal Status Act and of the “Erased” Compensation Act, as well as the practice of the domestic authorities, had secured the overall result of satisfactorily regulating the residence status of the “erased” and of providing adequate financial compensation to them.
78. The Court observes that according to the information submitted by the respondent Government , in addition to 10,046 “erased” who had regulated their legal status by July 2013, 259 further permanent residence permits had been issued. By 31 January 2016, 10,305 “erased” and their children had therefore regularised their residence status or acquired Slovenian citizenship (see paragraph 29 above). It is now open to them to seek compensation and other measures of redress under the “Erased” Compensation Act.
79. The applicants, who lodged their application with the Court when the Bill creating the ad hoc compensation scheme was still passing through Parliament, challenged the effectiveness of that scheme.
80. In particular, they complained about the level of financial compensation and the arrangements for its payment, as provided by the “Erased” Compensation Act . The then proposed lump sum of EUR 40 for each full month of “erasure” was clearly unsatisfactory and represented only 15% of the social assistance to which any permanent citizen of Slovenia would be entitled (which at the time amounted to EUR 260) (see Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 34). The proposed lump sum was to cover both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. According to applicants, in the Kurić and Others judgment on the merits, the successful applicants had been awarded approximately EUR 88 in respect of only non-pecuniary damage. Furthermore, the compensation that an “erased” person could subsequently claim in judicial proceedings had been capped at 2.5 times the amount received in administrative proceedings. The Government ’ s argument before the Parliament that the global economic crisis and the recession justified such a limitation had no acceptable legal basis. The applicants also criticised certain procedural provisions of the Bill, as well as the procedure for payment of financial compensation (payment in instalments, with the maximum total period of payment being five years).
81. Citing the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no . 40450/04, 15 October 2009 ), the applicants considered that there was no valid reason to wait any longer for the adoption of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme and that they were entitled to have their complaints addressed directly by the Court. Unlike in other cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), 56125/10, 4 June 2013), there were no special circumstances in the present case justifying an exception to the general principle that an assessment of whether domestic remedies should be exhausted was to be carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged.
82. The Court takes due note of the fact that funds have been earmarked in the respondent State ’ s budget for the operation of the ad hoc compensation scheme (see paragraph 26 above). In the period following the Act becoming applicable and 26 February 2016 – that is to say over approximately one year and eight months – 97.5% of 7,268 claims were resolved in administrative proceedings. Furthermore, eighty claims were lodged in judicial proceedings and with the State Attorney ’ s Office. Of these, in two cases decided by the courts and in one case terminated by the Attorney General compensation has to be paid to the “erased”. In eighteen other cases closed by the Attorney General, the proceedings were terminated. The Constitutional Court has also already examined such cases and remitted them for rehearing. Other proceedings are awaiting a decision (see paragraphs 24, 27 and 28 above). The Court finds these developments for the time being satisfactory.
83. As to the level of domestic financial compensation, the Court refers to its findings concerning the compatibility of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme (see paragraphs 63-76 above). In any event, it notes that in the course of the legislative process the lump sum was increased from EUR 40 to EUR 50 for each completed month of “erasure” and that the maximum level of compensation that could be sought in judicial proceedings was also raised from 2.5 to three times the amount that could be sought in administrative proceedings.
84. As to the applicants ’ argument concerning the delay in the implementation of the pilot judgment, the Court observes that it was precisely for that reason that the Grand Chamber handed down the just satisfaction judgment in the Kurić and Others case and made an award of just satisfaction to the applicants. Within the context of a pilot-judgment procedure, it is not uncommon for a decision or a judgment striking out the “pilot” application on the basis of a friendly settlement (Article 37 § 1 (b) and Article 39) or awarding just satisfaction to the applicant(s) (Article 41) to be given before any – or any adequate – general measures have been adopted by the respondent State in the execution of a pilot judgment on the merits (Article 46 of the Convention – see Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 36; Hutten-Czapska (friendly settlement), cited above, § 34; and Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 135 ).
85. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the delay of five months in the adoption of the “Erased” Compensation Act after the expiry of the deadline indicated by the Grand Chamber had no significant influence on the assessment of the adequacy of general measures recently undertaken by the Committee of Ministers (see paragraphs 25 and 32 above). This situation is therefore not comparable with that addressed by the pilot-judgment procedure in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov , cited by the applicants (see paragraph 81 above), where the authorities have so far failed to carry out the requisite general measures and to fix the national dysfunction .
86. The Court takes due note of the fact that o n 25 May 2016 the Committee of Ministers adopted the 2016 CM Final Resolution in the Kurić and Others pilot case, having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46 § 1 had been adopted (see paragraph 32 above).
87. The Court cannot but endorse these conclusions of the Committee of Ministers.
88. It follows that the Court is satisfied that the system introduced by the respondent Government (and its functioning in practice) offers to other affected “erased” persons who have regularised their legal status in Slovenia reasonable prospects of receiving compensation for the damage caused by the systemic violation of their Convention rights.
3. Whether “the matter has been resolved” for the purposes of Article 37
89. It remains for the Court to determine whether, in view of the foregoing, “the matter has been resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
90. As stated above, it is a fundamental feature of the pilot-judgment procedure that the Court ’ s assessment of whether the matter involved in the case has been resolved is not limited to relief afforded to an individual applicant and to solutions adopted in his or her case, but necessarily encompasses general measures applied by the State in order to resolve the general underlying defect in the domestic legal order identified in the pilot case as the source of the violation found (see Hutten-Czapska (merits), cited above, § 238, and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź, cited above, § 83).
91. The Court, in order to conclude that the matter raised in the pilot ‑ judgment follow-up applications “ has been resolved ” and that it is, therefore, legitimate to strike them out of its list of cases, must be satisfied that the remedial action taken by the respondent State in implementing the general measures indicated by the Court (including means of redress for the systemic violation) provided the applicants with relief at the domestic level, and that that relief renders the further examination of their cases no longer justified. In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court must also establish that there are no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, which require the continued examination of those cases. Such a conclusion by the Court is, however, without prejudice to its decision, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, to restore at any time the applications to its list of cases if the circumstances, in particular failure to achieve continued compliance with the Court ’ s pilot judgment on the part of the respondent State, so require (see Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, § 77; E.G. and 175 Bug River applications , cited above, §§ 25 and 28-29; and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 84).
92. The main issue before the Court in the present case is whether or not, given the fact that the respondent State has enacted new legislation aimed, firstly, at securing the applicants their permanent residence permits and secondly, granting the applicants who have obtained their residence permits or Slovenian citizenship compensation for damage caused by the violation of their Convention rights, the Court is able to conclude that “the matter has been resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. In its assessment, the Court will pay due regard to the 2016 CM Final Resolution (see paragraphs 25, 32 and 86 above)
93. The Court has already preliminarily held that the general solutions adopted by the respondent State in order to resolve the underlying systemic problem identified in the pilot judgment have in general addressed, in a satisfactory manner, the previous lack of legal provisions enabling the “erased” to regularise their residential status in Slovenia and seek adequate redress there. It has found that this assessment remains valid within the context of the present case (see paragraph 76 above).
94. As regards redress for past damage suffered by persons affected by the defective domestic legislation and practice, the Court reiterates that under Article 41 of the Convention it may afford just satisfaction to the party injured by a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made. However, the Court shall do so only if “necessary”.
95. The reference to the domestic system in Article 41 of the Convention reflects the subsidiarity principle on which the Convention system is founded; the national authorities have at their disposal a much wider range of legal and other measures capable of providing appropriate relief, tailored to the particular circumstances of a given case, whereas relief available in the international procedure before the Court is, in most situations, limited to a pecuniary award (see T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 86, and paragraph 71 above).
96. Within the framework of the pilot-judgment procedure – one of the essential characteristics of which is the incitement of the respondent State to introduce a remedy for all victims of a systemic violation (see paragraphs 51-53 above) – the responsibility for affording reparation is necessarily shifted back to the domestic authorities. The Court ’ s principal task, as defined by Article 19 of the Convention, is “to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto”, the adjudication on awards under Article 41 being only accessory to this task. As a consequence – and having regard to the purpose of the pilot-judgment procedure (which, as stated above, is to assist States in resolving systemic problems at national level, thereby securing to the persons concerned their Convention rights and freedoms, as required by Article 1 of the Convention) – the Court ’ s role after the delivery of the pilot judgment and after the State has taken remedial action in conformity with the Convention cannot be converted into that of providing individualised financial relief in each and every repetitive case arising from the same systemic situation (see Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, § 76, and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 87; see also paragraph 53 above).
97. Having regard in particular to the 2016 CM Final Resolution, in which the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46 § 1 had been adopted, the Court is satisfied that the “Erased” Compensation Act in principle constitutes an effective implementation of the ninth operative provision of the judgment on the merits in the Kurić and Others pilot case (see paragraphs 86-88 above).
98. In conclusion, the authorities have established a mechanism enabling the practical treatment of reparation claims for breaches of the Convention under Articles 8, 13 and 14 identified in the pilot case. This mechanism may be regarded as serving the same function as an award under Article 41 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, §§ 31 and 41; Wolkenberg, cited above, § 75; and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 88) .
99. In this context the Court notes with interest, in the light of the recommendations of the Commitee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the Declarations adopted at the Council of Europe Conferences in Interlaken, Izmir, Brighton and Brussels, that the respondent State has fulfilled its responsibilities under the Convention system by resolving this type of problem at the domestic level, thus securing to the parties concerned the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, as intended by Article 1 of the Convention . By proposing a solution for many individual cases arising from the same structural problem at the domestic level, the respondent State thus gave effect to the subsidiarity principle, which underpins the Convention system (see Stella and Others , decision cited above, § 43, and Demiroğlu , cited above).
100. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the matter giving rise to the present application and the remaining applications against Slovenia lodged by the “erased” where the applicants have regularised their legal status “has been resolved” for the purposes of Article 37 § 1(b) of the Convention and that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of these cases.
101. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which require the continued examination of the case.
102. However, the Court would stress that this conclusion does not prejudice its decision to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, the present, or any other similar application, to the list of cases if the circumstances, in particular the future functioning of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme under the “Erased” Compensation Act, justify such a course, or to deal substantively with subsequent cases if the circumstances so justify (see Wolkenberg and Others , decision cited above, § 77; E.G. and 175 Bug River applications , decision cited above, § 29; and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , decision cited above, § 84 and 90).
E. Consequences for the application of the pilot-judgment procedure
103. The Court considers that its task under Article 19 of the Convention has been essentially fulfilled. In these circumstances, the continued application of the pilot-judgment procedure initiated in the case of Kurić and Others v. Slovenia is no longer justified. Consequently, the Court closes the pilot judgment in respect of those Slovenian cases lodged by the “erased” where the applicants have regularised their legal status. In this context, the Court draws attention to the general obligation of Contracting States to solve the structural problems underlying violations (see, Broniowski v. Poland (merits) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 191, ECHR 2004-V). Particular attention should therefore be paid by the national authorities to ensure that the “Erased” Compensation Act is applied in a manner that is in conformity with the Convention standards as far as both decisions of the administrative authorities and the future case-law of the Slovenian judiciary are concerned (see, mutatis mutandis , Korenjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 463/03, § 74, 15 May 2007).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
1. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases;
2. Decides to close the pilot-judgment procedure applied in the case of Kurić and Others v. Slovenia ( no. 26828/06).
Done in English and notified in writing on 17 November 2016 .
Marialena Tsirli András Sajó Registrar President
APPENDIX
N o .
First name
LAST NAME
State of resi - dence
Date of birth
Place of birth
State of birth
Nationality
Date of erasure
Period of un regu - larised status in Slovenia
Date of permanent residence or citizenship
Slobodan
Anastasov
SVN
27/07/1959
Bosilegrad
SER
SVN
25/2/1992
9y
23/2/2001
Jelena
Anastasov
SVN
12/02/1984
Koper
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
9y
23/2/2001
Nataša
Anastasov
SVN
24/07/1988
Koper
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
9y
23/2/2001
Bogorotka
Anastasova
SVN
14/10/1961
Kočani
MAC
SVN
25/2/1992
9y
23/2/2001
Bogdan
AÅ¡anin
SVN
12/07/1951
Ljevoša Peć
SER
SER
25/2/1992
12y 7m
18/10/2004
Svetislav
AÅ¡anin
SVN
05/06/1957
Peć
RKS
SVN
26/2/1992
9y 5m
16/8/2001
Mirsad
Bajrić
SVN
20/12/1983
Zagreb
CRO
SVN
26/2/1992
10y 6m
9/9/2002
Mina
Bajrić
SVN
17/01/1966
Kozluk
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
7y 11m
24/1/2000
Sandra
Bakić
SVN
17/02/1988
Kranj
SVN
BIH
26/2/1992
21y
14/3/2013
Nedžad
Beganović
SVN
26/01/1976
Teočak
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 8m
13/11/2000
Renata
Benko
SVN
26/08/1974
Zabok
CRO
SVN
12/10/1992
3y 4m
14/2/1996
Stipo
Bilanović
SVN
13/08/1964
Kotor Varoš
BIH
CRO
26/2/1992
22y 7m
15/10/2014
Dejan
Blažević
SVN
05/10/1962
Koper
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
11y
28/2/2003
Savo
Borenović
SVN
27/01/1966
Sanskimost
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
4y 1m
1/4/1996
Zvezdana
Bošeska
( born Pajić)
SVN
17/08/1978
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/02/1992
11y 3m
2/6/2003
Mirka
Branković
SVN
04/12/1962
Trnovo
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
10y 7m
5/10/2002
Fadila
Brkić
SVN
10/07/1960
Humići
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
12y 3m
2/6/2004
Radmila
Burgić
SVN
20/03/1973
Slovenj Gradec
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
3y 7m
25/9/1995
Biserka
Cener
SVN
03/09/1960
Varaždin
CRO
CRO
25/2/1992
10y 5m
6/8/2002
Sanja
Cilenšek
( born Glušac )
SVN
02/06/1989
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 6m
10/9/1998
Goran
Cvetković
SVN
15/10/1971
Leskovac
SER
SER
26/2/1992
21y 2m
20/5/2013
Darjo
ÄŒerneka
SVN
03/06/1966
Koper
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
5y
26/2/1997
Selvedina
Ćoralić
( born Jusufagić )
SVN
19/04/1989
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
7y 11m
14/1/2000
Zoran
Ćućić
SVN
01/05/1968
Kulaši
BIH
BIH
25/2/1992
9y 6m
19/9/2001
Dragan
Ćulum
SVN
11/07/1987
Ljubljana
SVN
BIH
26/2/1992
20y 4m
20/6/2012
Dušan
Dabižljević
SVN
25/11/1961
Kuzmin
SER
SVN
26/2/1992
9y 7m
7/7/2004
Petar
Dević
SVN
28/02/1963
Donja Paklenica
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
9y 11m
28/1/2002
Velinka
Dević
SVN
14/11/1964
Gornja Paklenica
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
9y 11m
13/12/1999
Mensur
Dindić
SVN
31/12/1986
Jesenice
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 6m
24/08/1998
Mediha
Dindić
SVN
20/12/1982
Jesenice
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 6m
24/8/1998
Fatima
Dindić
SVN
24/10/1960
Sarajevo
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 6m
24/8/1998
Mesud
Dindić
SVN
22/07/1956
Dubrave
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 8m
3/5/2000
Gordana
Dinić
SVN
29/07/1953
Leskovac
SER
SVN
26/2/1992
1y 11m
26/1/1994
Ćazim
Dizdarević
SVN
28/07/1955
Bosanska Krupa
BIH
BIH
20/6/1995
17y 10m
15/4/2013
Petar
Djaković
SVN
22/09/1963
Mrkonjić Grad
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 10m
29/12/1998
Snežana
Djaković
SVN
23/05/1966
Banja Luka
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 6m
18/9/2000
Drago
Djaković
SVN
27/09/1966
Vilusi
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
8y 2m
26/4/2000
Siniša
Djaković
SVN
24/09/1989
Kranj
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 6m
18/9/2000
Jelena
Djaković
SVN
17/04/1990
Kranj
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 3m
21/5/1999
Brana
Djaković
SVN
19/07/1964
Sanskimost
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 3m
21/5/1999
Sniježana
Djukić
SVN
15/08/1970
Teslić
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 3m
26/5/1999
Gordana
Dragosavac
SVN
02/06/1965
Ključ
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 7m
12/10/2000
Halil
Duraković
SVN
31/05/1950
Trpezi
MNE
MNE
25/2/1992
10y 6m
2/9/2002
Milena
Đorđević
SVN
05/11/1959
Kladanj
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
12y 7m
18/10/2004
Dragan
Đorđević
SVN
28/10/1985
Ljubljana
SVN
SER
26/2/1992
18y 5m
11/8/2010
Stanimir
Đukić
SVN
10/07/1961
Mitrovići
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
7y
22/3/1999
Radmila
Đukić
SVN
02/08/1962
Doboj
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 1m
10/4/1998
Dalibor
Đukić
SVN
25/12/1985
Doboj
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 1m
10/4/1998
Danijel
Đukić
SVN
05/03/1984
Doboj
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 1m
10/4/1998
Almir
Felić
SVN
26/02/1985
Jesenice
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
13y 7m
9/2005
Nikola
Filipović
SVN
22/05/1948
Kobišnica
SER
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 6m
7/9/1999
Staka
Gajanić
SVN
28/02/1946
Å trpci
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
10y 9m
4/12/2002
Mara
Glamočanin
SVN
08/11/1976
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
1y 7m
15/10/1993
Milan
Glamočanin
SVN
25/09/1977
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
1y 7m
15/10/1993
Ranko
Gnjatović
SVN
27/08/1962
Ključ
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 4m
17/7/2000
Gojko
Gogić
SVN
22/08/1954
Tramošnja
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
10y 8m
25/10/2002
Samanta
Graaf
( born Sadik )
SVN
14/07/1988
Ljubljana
SVN
?
26/2/1992
19y 3m
16/5/2011
Novak
Grgur
SVN
25/01/1952
Plužine
MNE
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 8m
14/11/2000
Milan
Grgur
SVN
05/03/1988
Celje
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 8m
14/11/2000
Tanja
Grgur
SVN
05/03/1990
Celje
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 8m
14/11/2000
Ida
Halilagić ( born Toromanović )
SVN
08/06/1982
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 3m
4/6/1999
Neđad
Halilov
SVN
20/07/1973
Jesenice
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 6m
30/8/2000
Marija
Hamer
SVN
28/09/1957
Kamensko
CRO
CRO
25/2/1992
10y 1m
25/3/2002
Perina
Hvala
SVN
18/03/1965
Doboj
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 1m
10/4/1998
Ramiz
Ikanović
SVN
12/05/1956
Banovići
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
10y 3m
12/6/2002
Vukoje
Ikić
SVN
20/02/1962
Azbresnica
SER
SVN
25/2/1992
7y 11m
21/1/2000
Zoran
Ilić
SVN
21/10/1966
Zvornik
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 11m
10/2/1999
Nataša
Ilić
SVN
10/02/1965
Bijelo Polje
MNE
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 5m
23/7/1999
Robert
Ivanov
SVN
11/01/1968
Kratovo
MAC
MAC
26/2/1992
13y 7m
26/9/2005
Violeta
Jakimovski
SVN
14/12/1972
Slovenj Gradec
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
4y 4m
18/7/1996
Dušan
Jeremić
SVN
24/06/1959
Vasiljevci
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
18y 7m
2/10/2010
Marko
Josić
SVN
21/04/1962
Dragunja Donja
BIH
CRO
26/2/1992
10y 3m
20/5/2002
Perica
Josifovski
SVN
26/06/1958
Kumanovo
MAC
SVN
26/2/1992
15y 7m
26/9/2007
Slavko
Jovanović
SVN
21/04/1953
Sanjski most
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
4y 1m
9/4/1996
Vasva
Jusufagić
SVN
01/10/1970
Veliki Dubovik
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
7y 11m
14/1/2000
Rizah
Kaltak
SVN
22/11/1959
Sanskimost
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
3y 9m
11/12/1995
Hasiba
Kaltak
SVN
07/11/1958
Sanskimost
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
6y 9m
25/11/1998
Husein
Kananović
SVN
26/09/1958
Ključ
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
20y 11m
4/2/2013
Đuro
Karanović
SVN
11/09/1945
Drvar
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
9y 4m
10/7/2001
Ramko
Kazić
SVN
23/06/1956
ÄŒaplje
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
4y 3m
3/6/1996
Amela
Kazić
SVN
19/09/1990
Jesenice
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
4y 3m
3/6/1996
Alaga
Kendić
SVN
28/03/1958
Velka Kladuša
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
11y 1m
26/3/2003
Tanja
Keranović
SVN
16/03/1971
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 2m
7/5/1999
Nedeljko
Kerezović
SVN
27/11/1953
Kneževo
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
8y 2m
12/5/2000
Dobrila
Klisarić
SVN
01/11/1964
Dabovci
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
9y 1m
18/4/2001
Vitomir
Kojić
SVN
19/03/1989
Kranj
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 5m
22/7/1998
Stojanka
Kojić
SVN
02/01/1970
Ukrnica
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 5m
22/7/1998
Milorad
Kojić
SVN
11/01/1939
Klenje
SER
SVN
27/11/1994
6y 11m
1/10/1998 (certificate of permanent residence), 22/10/2001 (citizenship)
Josip
Koleš
SVN
16/01/1953
Bratovski vrh
CRO
SVN
1/12/1992
3y 2m
16/2/1996
Ivica
Koleš
SVN
16/10/1983
Brežice
SVN
SVN
1/12/1992
3y 2m
16/2/1996
Josip
Koleš
SVN
23/11/1979
Zagreb
CRO
SVN
1/12/1992
3y 2m
16/2/1996
Mirjana
Koleš
SVN
15/11/1957
Kapelski vrh
CRO
SVN
1/12/1992
3y 2m
16/2/1996
Bogdanka
Kondić
SVN
14/06/1961
Obrovac
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 7m
13/10/2000
Dragan
Kondić
SVN
04/03/1955
Sanskimost
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
0y 7m
5/10/1992
Milena
Kostić
SVN
06/04/1967
Batak
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y
25/2/2000
Jovo
Kovačević
SVN
29/09/1962
Ključ
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 4m
29/6/1998
Jelena
Kovačević
SVN
24/04/1968
Banja Luka
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
10y
27/2/2002
Slađana
Kovačević
SVN
22/03/1990
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 4m
22/6/1998
Zorka
Krejić
SVN
26/01/1953
Sokolovo
SER
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 11m 3 weeks
23/2/2000
Smail
Kudić
SVN
03/08/1951
Kudići
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
11y 9m
18/12/2003
Å efika
Kudić
SVN
01/04/1956
Todorovo
BIH
SVN
19/12/1992
11y
18/12/2003
Aladin
Kudić
SVN
13/06/1979
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
19/12/1992
11y
10/1/2003
Jelena
Kunešević
SVN
03/05/1932
Bijeljina
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
3y 10m
28/12/1995
Cvjetko
Kunešević
SVN
24/06/1936
Bijeljina
BIH
BIH , SVN
25/2/1992
2y 2m
9/5/1994
Dragan
Kutlačič
SVN
27/06/1984
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 4m
19/6/1998
Perica
Kutlačič
SVN
18/01/1976
Bijeljina
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
11y 8m
10/11/2003
Ljiljana
Kutlačič
SVN
06/09/1957
Bijeljina
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 4m
19/6/1998
Nedeljka
Kuzmanović
SVN
31/12/1967
Prnjavor
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 9m
13/12/2000
Jagoda
Lazić
SVN
10/09/1967
Ljeb
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
12y 10m
29/12/2004
Suzana
Lazić
SVN
03/02/1983
Celje
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
9y 1m
11/04/2001
Dragan
Leburić
SVN
19/01/1974
Banja Luka
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 2m
08/05/1998
Dušanka
Lesnik
SVN
28/08/1949
Dobra Kuća
CRO
SVN
24/11/1992
7y 6m
16/06/2000
Persa
Lovrić
SVN
11/08/1969
Banja Luka
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
9y 3m
18/06/2001
Nada
Makarić
SVN
25/05/1967
Imljani
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y
16/02/2000
Zlatko
Makarić
SVN
19/11/1988
Kranj
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
8y
16/02/2000
Veseljko
Makarić
SVN
22/03/1962
Imljani
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y
16/02/2000
Veseljko
Makarić
SVN
17/02/1963
Imljani
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y
09/02/2000
Stana
Marić
SVN
04/09/1961
Ključ
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
6y 9m
27/11/1998
Marinka
Marić
SVN
09/06/1983
Jesenice
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
5y 6m
20/08/1997
Stanislav
Marić
AUT
20/11/1980
Jesenice
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
5y 6m
20/08/1997
Zdravka
Marić
( born Djukić )
SVN
21/11/1974
Teslić
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 4m
17/07/2000
Djurdjija
Marković
SVN
12/05/1946
Bijeljina
BIH
SVN
17/6/1993
2y 2m
18/08/1995
Trišo
Mijatović
SVN
08/01/1959
Bijeljina
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
5y 6m
17/09/1997
Radovan
Mikača
SVN
28/01/1953
Drugovići
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
3y 1m
07/04/1995
Mile
Miljetović
SVN
10/06/1954
Kršlje
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
5y
19/03/1997
Radovan
Mišković
SVN
10/10/1957
Ključ
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 4m
14/07/2000
Zoran
Mitrović
SVN
20/12/1967
D/Lokanj
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 5m
16/08/2000
Staka
Mitrović
SVN
02/09/1964
Doboj
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 5m
16/08/2000
Mira
Muršič
SVN
21/04/1963
Prhovec
CRO
SVN
26/2/1992
5y 11m
06/01/1998
Safete
Mustafa
SVN
19/03/1970
Ljubožda
SER
SVN
5/7/1992
7y 8m
13/03/2000
Miroslav
Nikolić
SVN
14/07/1952
Niš
SER
SVN
26/2/1992
5y 5m
07/08/1997
Bojan
Obradović
SVN
07/12/1987
Kranj
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
12y 3m
17/7/2004
Nebojša
Obradović
SVN
09/08/1986
Kranj
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
12y 3m
17/7/2004
Ljubinko
Pajić
SVN
21/11/1949
Bijeljina
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 3m
29/05/2000
Milka
Pajić
SVN
07/03/1954
Bijeljina
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
14y 8m
16/11/2006
Mirko
Panić
SVN
13/10/1962
Teslić
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
6y 11m
29/01/1999
Danijela
Panić
SVN
25/04/1985
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 2m
14/05/1998
Miloš
Panić
SVN
30/08/1990
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 9m
22/12/1999
Milovan
Pantelić
SVN
12/06/1989
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
1y 8m
12/11/1993
Hašim
Pašalić
SVN
31/08/1964
Prijedor
BIH
BIH
8/11/1993
9y 11m
09/10/2003
Å emso
Pašić
SVN
25/03/1961
Bosanska nova
BIH
BIH
25/2/1992
10y 1m
15/04/2002
Senada
Paunović
SVN
01/02/1949
Bosanski Novi
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 9m
23/11/1998
Ivan
Pavešić
SVN
07/03/1938
Miholjanec
CRO
SVN
25/2/1992
6y 6m
01/07/1999
Sladjana
Pavešić
SVN
16/03/1943
Kusić
SER
SVN
25/2/1992
6y 6m
01/07/1999
Orelia
Pavlič
SVN
28/07/1956
Umag
CRO
SVN
26/2/1992
3y 11m
17/01/1996
Enisa
Pejčić ( born Bajrić )
SVN
19/05/1990
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
7y 11m
10/02/2000
Draginja
Pepić
SVN
10/12/1960
Donji Skugrić
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 3m
08/06/1998
Cvijeta
Petrović ( born Panić )
SVN
20/04/1973
Ugodnović
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 6m
13/09/2000
Slobodan
Peulić
SVN
10/09/1964
Gornji Vijačani
BIH
U nknown or state - less
25/2/1992
8y 8m
13/11/2000
Slavko
Plavšić
SVN
20/06/1964
Ključ
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 7m
06/10/2000
Snežana
Plavšić
SVN
01/08/1970
Bijeljina
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 7m
27/09/2000
Dejan
Plavšić
SVN
29/07/1988
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 7m
18/10/2000
Mileva
Praštalo
SVN
02/02/1942
Lipnik, Sanski Most
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
2y 3m
13/06/1994
Damjan
Račić
SVN
24/08/1989
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 7m
24/09/1998
Slađana
Radić
SVN
06/06/1977
Postojna
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
3y 3m
05/06/1995
Jovana
Radošević ( born Ćurguz )
SVN
02/06/1984
Ljubljana
SVN
BIH
26/2/1992
8y 5m
31/07/2000
Vinko
Ratković
SVN
25/11/1959
Banja Luka
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
21y 3m
13/06/2013
Igor
Ratković
SVN
17/09/1989
Celje
SVN
BIH
26/2/1992
13y 3m
16/06/2005
Mira
Ratković
SVN
09/01/1964
Banja Luka
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
13y 3m
16/06/2005
Emina
Redžić ( born Kazić )
AUT
07/11/1985
Jesenice
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
4y 3m
03/06/1996
Tamara
Ristić
SVN
28/03/1980
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 11m
09/02/2000
Cvetko
Ristić
SVN
05/02/1945
Sušiče (Uroševac)
RKS
SVN
26/2/1992
10y
08/03/2002
Orfej
Rudek ( born Sadik )
SVN
04/01/1971
Skopje
MAC
unknown or state - less
26/2/1992
20y 7m
17/10/2012
Kemalj
Sadik
SVN
28/12/1950
Skopje
MAC
MAC, SVN
26/2/1992
10y 1m
05/04/2002
Servet
Saiti
SVN
16/12/1962
Peč
RKS
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 9m
11/12/2000
Dušanka
Savić
SVN
08/09/1956
Å tupelj
SER
unknown or state - less
26/2/1992
20y 4m
21/06/2012
Najden
Savić
SVN
08/05/1955
Svrljig
SER
SER
26/2/1992
20y 4m
21/06/2012
Sabino
Sejdinović
SVN
15/04/1989
Slovenj Gradec
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
8y 7m
11/10/2000
Marina
Smrdel ( born Lazarević )
SVN
07/12/1986
Postojna
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 3m
10/06/1998
Pero
Srdić
SVN
19/07/1960
Popovac
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
19y 9m
25/11/2011
Milena
Stanić
SVN
20/12/1956
Mrkonjić Grad
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 3m
06/07/1998
Dragan
Stanković
SVN
25/03/1968
Jagnjilo
SER
SER
8/1/1992
18y 11m
27/12/2010
Nastja
Starčević Dević
SVN
12/10/1987
Postojna
SVN
SVN
25/2/1992
7y 9m
13/12/1999
Mara
Stojanović
SVN
15/08/1966
Kulaši
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
9y 11m
24/01/2002
Brankica
Stojanović
SVN
20/01/1990
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
9y 11m
24/01/2002
Blagoja
Stojanović
SVN
10/04/1962
Bijeljina
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
9y 11m
24/01/2002
Miloje
Stojković
SVN
12/10/1949
Peć
SER
SER
3/12/1992
16y 4m
11/03/2009
Stana
Stokanić
SVN
22/10/1955
Kotor Varoš
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
4y 3m
17/06/1996
Ragip
Šahmanović
SVN
05/03/1959
Brezojevice
MNE
SVN
26/2/1992
10y 2m
15/05/2002
Emil
Šakanović
SVN
01/05/1983
Kranj
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
10y 4m
17/07/2002
Elmedina
Šarić ( born Kazić )
SVN
20/04/1984
Jesenice
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
4y 3m
03/06/1996
Katarina
Ščavničar
SVN
29/09/1985
Kranj
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
2y 3m
01/06/1994
Tanja
Ščavničar
SVN
20/11/1980
Kranj
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
2y 3m
01/06/1994
Renata
Ščavničar
SVN
24/08/1979
Kranj
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
2y 3m
01/06/1994
Danica
Ščavničar
SVN
22/05/1953
Duga resa
CRO
SVN
26/2/1992
2y 3m
01/06/1994
Stjepan
Ščavničar
SVN
14/04/1956
ÄŒakovec
CRO
SVN
26/2/1992
2y 3m
01/06/1994
Damir
Šekić
SVN
07/11/1983
Ljubljana
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
11y 4m
02/07/2003
Slobodanka
Škorić
SVN
22/07/1965
Gornji Bušević, Bosanska Krupa
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
2y 11m
30/01/1995
Nada
Štrkić
SVN
20/03/1960
Rekavice
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
13y 6m
29/08/2005
Zoran
Šušnjar
SVN
17/07/1963
Višegrad
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
9y
14/02/2001
Mirko
Todorović
SVN
21/05/1962
Tešanj
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
21y 5m
10/07/2013
Mladenko
Tomaš
SVN
11/05/1969
Prisika
BIH
CRO, SVN
25/2/1992
8y 11m
03/01/2001
Tonči
Tomić
SVN
27/08/1955
Split
CRO
CRO
26/2/1992
14y 6m
30/08/2006
Biljana
Topić
SVN
21/04/1960
Banja Luka
BIH
SVN
16/4/1993
9y 3m
2/8/2002
Minka
Toromanović
SVN
04/08/1953
Kotor Varoš
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
7y 8m
27/10/1999
Džinka
Trako
SVN
12/08/1962
SVN
BIH
26/2/1992
19y 3m
10/06/2011
Ružica
Trivalić
SVN
05/04/1953
Vratišinec
CRO
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 8m
20/10/1998
Radosav
Tufegdžić
SVN
10/04/1949
Stabna
MNE
SVN
26/2/1992
11m
13/02/1993
Darko
Ujić
SVN
24/02/1972
Sokolac
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
10y 9m
09/12/2002
Abdulah
Varmaz
SVN
03/01/1950
Prijedor
BIH
SVN
8/1/1992
5y 9m
13/10/1997
Miladin
Vasiljević
SVN
14/12/1962
Bijeljina
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
17y 6m
10/09/2009
Božo
Vidaković
SVN
11/07/1952
Radovljica
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
1y 9m
23/11/1993
Božana
Vidović
SVN
21/10/1964
Bosanska Gradiška
BIH
SVN
26/2/1992
6y 3m
10/06/1998
Gojko
Vidović
SVN
24/09/1961
Bosanska Gradiška
BIH
BIH
26/2/1992
9y
28/02/2001
Milica
Vujić
SVN
08/11/1935
Kikinda
SER
SER
25/2/1992
8y 3m
01/06/2000
Zlatomir
Vulović
SVN
28/09/1961
Sjenica
SER
SVN
26/2/1992
5y
07/03/1997
Ekrem
Zečević
SVN
29/06/1960
Ključ
BIH
SVN
25/2/1992
7y 11m
09/02/2000
Anka
Zelenović
SVN
19/01/1956
Bijeljina
BIH
SVN, BIH
25/2/1992
0y 5m
17/07/1992
Vukašin
Zelenović
SVN
24/03/1950
Bijeljina
BIH
SVN, BIH
25/2/1992
0y 5m
17/07/1992
Egidio
Zugan
SVN
06/07/1965
Koper
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
4y 4m
01/07/1996
Miroslav
Zugan
SVN
17/01/1971
Koper
SVN
SVN
26/2/1992
4y 4m
01/07/1996
Dobrivoje
Živić
SVN
09/04/1954
Klina
RKS
SVN
25/2/1992
8y 7m
18/10/2000