CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 31 mai 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB4A4FD40 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1EFD787B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:0.05pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sC7411871 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCD097981 { font-family:Arial; background-color:#c0c0c0 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s190E29D0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:5pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s9BAE5781 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF43307A6 { width:17.2pt; display:inline-block } .sFC90F95C { width:179.73pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 26828/06 by Milan MAKUC and Others against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 31   May   2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C. Bîrsan, President,   Mr   B.M. Zupančič,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan,   Mr   E. Myjer,   Mr   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Mrs   I. Ziemele, judges, and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 July 2006, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and to inform the Contracting Party urgently of the application under Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The first applicant, Mr Milan Makuc, is a Croatian citizen. He was born in 1947 and lives in Portorož. The second applicant, Mr Ljubomir Petreš, was born in 1940 and lives in Šentjan. The third applicant, Mr   Mustafa Kurić, was born in 1935 and lives in Koper. The fourth applicant, Jovan Jovanović, was born in 1959 and lives in Ljubljana. The fifth applicant, Mr Velimir Dabetić, was born in 1969 and lives in Italy. The sixth applicant, Mrs Ana Mezga, is a Croatian citizen. She was born in 1965 and lives in Portorož. The seventh applicant, Mrs Ljubenka Ristanović, is a Serbian citizen. She was born in 1968 and lives in Serbia. The eighth applicant, Mr Tripun Ristanović, the son of the seventh applicant, was born in 1988 and lives in Serbia. He is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The ninth applicant, Mr Ali Berisha, was born in 1969 and lives in Slovenia. The tenth applicant, Mr Ilfan Sadik Ademi, was born in 1952. He lives in Germany. The eleventh applicant, Mr Zoran Minić, was born in 1972. He lives in Serbia. 2.     They are represented before the Court by Mr Anton Giulio Lana and Mr   Andrea Saccucci, lawyers practising in Rome, and Mrs Alessandra Ballerinni and Mr Marco Vano, lawyers practising in Genoa (Italy). 3.     Before 25 June 1991, the day Slovenia declared independence, the applicants were citizens of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) and one of its constituent republics other than Slovenia. They acquired permanent resident status in Slovenia which they retained until 26   February 1992, the day their names were deleted from the Register of Permanent Residents ( Register stalnega prebivalstva , “the Register”) and they became subject to the 1991 Aliens Act ( Zakon o tujcih ) (see paragraph 10 below). A.     The circumstances of the case 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     General background and context 5.     Until 25 June 1991 the SFRY was composed of six republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. Nationals of the SFRY had “dual citizenship” for internal purposes, that is to say they were citizens both of the Federation and of one of the six republics. They had freedom of movement within the federal State and could acquire permanent residence wherever they settled on its territory. Registered permanent residence was the key to full enjoyment of various economic, social and even political rights. Foreign citizens could also acquire permanent residence in the SRFY. 6.     As a result of the plebiscite held on 23 December 1990, Slovenia declared independence on 25 June 1991. In the six months preceding the declaration of independence, the Slovenian legislator passed a series of laws as part of the “independence legislation” ( osamosvojitvena zakonodaja ), in order to set the legal framework of the new sovereign State. 7.     This legislation included the Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act ( Zakon o državljanstvu Republike Slovenije , “the Citizenship Act”) and the 1991 Aliens Act, which came into force following their publication in the Official Gazette on 25 June 1991. They concerned the composition of the population of the new State. At that time, approximately 200,000   Slovenian residents or 10% of the Slovenian population, including the applicants, were citizens of the former SFRY republics other than Slovenia. 8.     Section 40 of the Citizenship Act provided that citizens of the former SFRY republics who were not citizens of Slovenia (“citizens of the former SFRY republics”) could acquire Slovenian citizenship if they met three requirements: they had acquired permanent resident status in Slovenia by 23   December 1990, were actually residing in Slovenia and applied for citizenship within six months after the Citizenship Act entered into force. Under section 81 of the 1991 Aliens Act, citizens of the former SFRY republics who failed to apply for Slovenian citizenship within the prescribed time-limit were considered aliens and were subject to the provisions of that Act. 9.     In the Instructions on the implementation of the 1991 Aliens Act, document no. 0016/04-14968, which the Ministry of Internal Affairs ( Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve , “the Ministry”) sent to the municipal authorities on 27 February 1992, the Ministry explained that it would be necessary to regulate the legal status of the persons affected by the Act after the expiry of the time-limits set out therein. It drew attention to the fact that problems were expected to arise with regard to persons who would become foreigners on 28 February 1992 and had not lodged an application for citizenship. In addition, it pointed out that the papers of such persons, even if issued by the Slovenian authorities and formally valid, would in fact be invalid owing to the person’s change in status. Some of those concerned would be required to leave Slovenia in accordance with sections 23 and 28 of the 1991 Aliens Act. Although the police had requested the administrative authorities to issue a decision formally requiring people in this category to leave, no such decision was actually needed for their forcible removal from the State. 10.     By 26 February 1992 approximately 170,000 citizens of the former SFRY republics had applied for and been granted citizenship of the new State and an additional 11,000 had left Slovenia. A considerable number of citizens of the former SFRY, who had not applied for Slovenian citizenship or whose applications had been dismissed or declared inadmissible, became subject to the provisions of the 1991 Aliens Act. According to official data from the Ministry the number of persons affected amounted to 18,305   (approximately 2,400 of whom had been refused citizenship). Their names were erased, ex lege , from the Register on or shortly after 26 February 1992 and entered in the register of foreigners without a residence permit. They became known as “the erased” ( izbrisani ). The applicants fell into this category. 11.     Some of those whose names were erased from the Register had failed to file an application because they had been unable to produce the documents required owing to the outbreak of war in their country of origin, i.e. in one of the former Federal republics, sickness or their absence from Slovenia at the material time. Others were without high levels of education and did not understand the material that was published on the subject in the media or receive any information from the administrative authorities. Some had miscalculated the speed with which the former SFRY had been disintegrating. Yet another group included people who had confused the concept of citizenship with that of ethnic origin and had not identified themselves as Slovenians, but rather as Roma, Hungarians or Bosnians. Lastly, some individuals, who had been born in Slovenia, believed that they had acquired Slovenian citizenship automatically. 12.     With their erasure from the Register these people, many of whom had been living in Slovenia for decades, became foreigners and were deprived of all the social and economic rights which permanent residence conferred. Some of those concerned became stateless. Persons whose names were removed from the Register received no notification from the authorities and only became aware that they had become foreigners later on when, for example, they attempted to renew their personal documents or sought medical assistance. 13.     As a result, many were obliged to emigrate or to apply for asylum in Slovenia. Others remained and were forced to lead a clandestine life in which they were liable to periodic detention in police stations or detention centres for illegal immigrants. In general, they were deprived of their jobs, driving licences and retirement pensions and were unable to take advantage of the privatisation process to buy the apartments they occupied under specially protected tenancy contracts. 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 Slovenia and others in one of the other successor States to the former SFRY. There were also cases of parents being unable to form legal bonds with their biological children. Many of “the erased” were detained in detention centres for illegal immigrants and deported or lost their property in Slovenia and were expelled. 14.     On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia. 15.     In the following years, several non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International and Helsinki Monitor, and the Slovenian Human Rights Ombudsman issued reports drawing the Slovenian authorities’ attention to the situation of “the erased”, which however remained unaddressed. 2.     Events following the challenge to the constitutionality of the 1991 Aliens Act 16.     On 24 June 1998 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavno sodišče ) declared admissible a challenge to the constitutionality of sections 16(1) and 81 of the 1991 Aliens Act lodged by two individuals in 1994 whose names had been removed from the Register in 1992 (see paragraphs 118 to 124 below). On 4   February 1999 the Constitutional Court held that section 81 of the 1991 Aliens Act was unconstitutional. However, no such problems arose with section 16(1). It ordered the legislator to regulate, within six months, the special legal status of citizens of the former SFRY republics who had acquired permanent residence in Slovenia before its independence and actually lived in Slovenia, but either had not applied for Slovenian citizenship or had had their applications dismissed. 17.     As a consequence, the Act on 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 passed to regulate the legal status of “the erased” (see paragraphs 115 and 116 below). Under this Act, the residence permits were granted ex nunc . 18.     According to information published by the Ministry, 12,937   applications for permanent residence were lodged pursuant to that Act. By early 2003, 10,713 permanent residence permits had been issued, effective from the date of issue. 288 applications had been dismissed and 97 declared inadmissible. In 949 cases the procedure had ended because the applicants had either been granted Slovenian citizenship or withdrawn their applications. The remaining 890 applications were undecided at that time. 19.     Although certain applications had originally been lodged under the 1991 Aliens Act, an additional 1,033 permanent residence permits were issued under the Legal Status Act because its provisions were more favourable to the applicants. Accordingly, the status of 13,970 out of the 18,305 people whose names had been removed from the Register was dealt with under the Legal Status Act. It would appear that the remaining approximately 4,300 may not in fact have lodged an application for permanent residence. 20.     On 18 May 2000 the Constitutional Court set aside some of the provisions of the Legal Status Act because it found that the requirements for the acquisition of permanent residence set forth in these provisions were stricter than the grounds for revoking a permanent residence permit under the 1991 Aliens Act (see paragraphs 128 and 129 below). The Constitutional Court’s decision of 3 April 2003 and subsequent developments 21.     Further to a challenge to the constitutionality, on 3 April 2003 the Constitutional Court (decision no. U-I-246/02) again found the Legal Status Act unconstitutional because, firstly, it did not afford permanent residence retroactively as from the date the name of the person concerned was removed from the Register. Secondly, it failed to regulate the acquisition of permanent residence for citizens of former SFRY republics who had been forcibly removed from Slovenia; and, thirdly, it did not define the meaning of the words “actually residing” in its section 1. It also struck down the three-month time-limit for lodging an application for permanent residence. It ordered the legislator to rectify the unconstitutional provisions within six months. 22.     In point no. 8 of the operative part of the decision, the Constitutional Court expressly ordered the Ministry to issue, ex proprio motu , to those who already had (non-retroactive) permits, supplementary decisions establishing permanent residence in Slovenia with effect from 26   February   1992, the date on which their names had been deleted from the Register (see paragraphs 130 to 134 below). 23.     Following the Constitutional Court’s decision of 3 April 2003, the Government prepared two Acts in order to comply with the decision. 24.     On 25 November 2003, the Parliament passed the Act on the Application of Point No. 8 of the Constitutional Court’s Decision no.   U-I-246/02-28 ( Zakon o izvršitvi 8. točke odločbe Ustavnega sodišča Republike Slovenije št. U-I-246/02-28 ), also know as the “Technical Act” (see paragraph 22 above). 25.     This Act laid down the procedure for issuing permanent residence permits to citizens of the former SFRY republics who were registered as permanent residents in Slovenia on both 23 December 1990 and 25   February 1992 and had already acquired a permanent residence permit under the Legal Status Act, the 1991 Aliens Act or the 1999 Aliens Act. 26.     However, those parliamentarians who voted against the Technical Act sought a referendum on the question whether or not it should be implemented. The referendum was held on 4   April   2004. The turnout was 31,54 % , of which 94,59 % voted against its implementation. 27.     In addition to the “Technical Act”, an Act “on Permanent Residence in Slovenia of Foreigners Having Citizenship of the Other Successor States to the SFRY who were Registered as Permanent Residents in Slovenia on 23 December 1990 and 25 February 1992” – a so-called systemic Act - was drafted. While this Act was pending before the Parliament, it was replaced by a new Act which has not yet been approved. 28.     In the meantime and up to July 2004, the Ministry issued supplementary decisions on permanent residence as the Constitutional Court had ordered in its decision of 3 April 2003. There is uncertainty over the number of people who in fact received decisions recognising their permanent residence with retrospective effect. According to information given by the Ministry to the press, either 3,327 or 4,372 supplementary decisions were issued. No other measures were taken to comply with the Constitutional Court’s decision of 3 April 2003. 29.     A general law regulating the status of “the erased” is currently in the parliamentary procedure in the form of a constitutional law. The adoption of such a law includes inter alia the need for a qualified majority in the Parliament. 3.     The individual circumstances of the applicants   (a)     Mr Milan Makuc 30.     Mr Makuc was born in 1947 in Raša, Croatia, to Slovenian parents. The family moved to Slovenia when he was seven years old. He was registered as a resident of Slovenia from 1 January 1955 to 26   February   1992 and considered himself Slovenian. He worked in Slovenia for twenty-one years and paid contributions to the national health insurance and pension schemes. 31.     A certificate ( domovnica ) issued on 20 July 2005 by the local authority of Pula (Croatia) states that the applicant is a Croatian citizen. 32.     During the ten-day war which followed the declaration of independence in 1991, Mr Makuc joined the Slovenian defence forces to defend the homeland. After this he believed that he would be granted Slovenian citizenship but he did not receive any communication on the subject. 33.     As a result of the deletion of his name from the Register, he lost his job and the benefit of twenty-one years of pension contributions. Left without an income, he could not afford to pay the rent for the apartment owned by his former employer, International Shipping and Chartering Ltd. ( Splošna plovba ), a state-owned company, or to buy the apartment in the privatisation process. He was evicted from the apartment in 1994 or 1995, and lost all his personal possessions, including his documents. He has been living in shelters and municipal parks ever since and is dependent on the goodwill and generosity of others. His health has seriously deteriorated as a result but he no longer has access to medical care. 34.     Mr Makuc visited the Piran Administrative Authority ( Upravna enota v Piranu ) several times in an attempt to regularise his status, but was repeatedly sent away. On 1 March 2006, however, he lodged an application for permanent residence under the provisions of the Legal Status Act. 35.     On 15 May 2006 the Piran Social Work Centre ( Center za socialno delo Piran ) sent a letter to the Ministry asking them to expedite the examination of his application; however, the proceedings are still pending. (b)     Mr Ljubomir Petreš 36.     Mr Petreš was born in 1940 in Jeružani (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and moved to Slovenia at the age of eighteen in search of work. Initially he moved around the country but in 1963 he settled in Piran (Slovenia) and was registered as a permanent resident there until his name was erased from the Register in 1992. From 1971 until 1992 he occasionally worked in Germany and Italy. Since 1970 he has been registered as unemployed in Slovenia. 37.     In 1991 he enquired of the Municipality of Piran ( Občina Piran ) whether he had to apply for Slovenian citizenship in order to obtain it. He was allegedly told that since he had been registered as a permanent resident of the municipality since 1963 no application was required. 38.     In early 1992 he was alerted to the possibility that there might be a problem when he did not receive an invitation to vote in the local elections. Subsequently, when he sought to renew his identity card in March 1992, holes were punched in it, making it invalid. He immediately retained a lawyer and lodged an application for Slovenian citizenship. On 29   November 1996 the Ministry informed Mr Petreš that his application was incomplete and gave him two months to provide the missing documents proving that he had accommodation, a permanent source of sufficient income, that he had no convictions and that no criminal proceedings were pending against him, that he had paid all his taxes, and that he had a sufficient command of the Slovenian language. The deadline for furnishing the missing documents was extended a number of times, on one occasion at Mr Petreš’s request, until 19   June 2000, when he was given a final three months. 39.     In 2002 Mr Petreš sought, through his sister and a friend, to obtain citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Laktaši Municipality where he was born. The application was dismissed, because he did not have permanent residence in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 40.     On 29 December 2003 Mr Petreš lodged a request for permanent residence under the Legal Status Act with the Piran Administrative Authority, but he does not appear to have received any response. 41.     After his name was removed from the Register in 1992, Mr Petreš lost the right to remain in the centre where he resided and has been homeless ever since, living in a shelter made of wood and cardboard on a piece of land owned by the Municipality and leased to a private individual who forced the applicant to work for him for free, taking advantage of the fact that he lived in constant fear of being expelled from Slovenia. 42.     As he had no valid documents he was unable to travel outside Slovenia and could not seek work in Italy or visit his parents in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although the local police knew him and left him alone, he risked expulsion if he travelled around the country. 43.     In addition, he had been experiencing serious breathing problems which may have resulted from a bout of tuberculosis he had suffered in 1970. When he sought medical assistance at Sežana Hospital in October and November 2001, he was asked to pay the costs, because he had no health insurance. Ultimately, however, the invoices were cancelled at the request of one of the hospital doctors. Owing to his condition, he had been in grave need of medical assistance, but since he was unemployed and had no medical insurance he could not have afforded to pay for it. 44.     He had a similar experience in 2003 when he sought medical attention after being hit by a car. Following the accident, proceedings were instituted against him in the court for minor offences, but he could not make a counterclaim because he did not have any papers. A few days afterwards police broke into the applicant’s shelter while he was asleep and demanded 7,000 tolars (approximately 30 euros) in respect of the fine that was imposed in those proceedings. (c)     Mr Mustafa Kurić 45.     Mr Kurić was born in 1935 in Šipovo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). He moved to Slovenia at the age of twenty and settled in Koper around 1965. Since he was a trained shoemaker, he rented a small workshop from the Koper Municipality ( Občina Koper ) and established a private business there in 1976. 46.     In 1991, during the six-month period for lodging an application for Slovenian citizenship, he fell seriously ill and was hospitalised for three months. 47.     In 1993 his home caught fire and he lost most of his papers. When he applied for replacement papers from the Koper Administrative Authority ( Upravna enota v Kopru ), he was informed that he could not be given any since his name had been erased from the Register. 48.     Mr Kurić resumed his business without the necessary papers and continued to pay rent to the municipality. In the late 1990s he started experiencing financial difficulties and was unable to continue paying the rent. He had no work and feared that the Municipality would cause him problems because of the rent arrears. 49.     After his name was removed from the Register in 1992, he lost the right to remain in the home he rented from the Municipality, because he could no longer afford to pay the rent. Since he had no papers, he was at risk of being expelled if he travelled outside the local community where the police tolerated his presence. However, once he travelled to the neighbouring town of Izola and was threatened by the police that if he failed to produce his papers he would be put on the first plane for Sarajevo. 50.     Owing to his legal status he had no income and was unable to seek free medical assistance when needed because he was afraid he would have to pay for it. At an undetermined time, for example, he declined medical services after having broken a clavicle bone in a car accident. 51.     Mr Kurić tried to regularise his status with the Koper Administrative Authority, but did not receive a reply. 52.     On 7 May 2005 he wrote a letter to the Ministry seeking Slovenian citizenship. The procedure is still pending. (d)     Mr Jovan Jovanović 53.     Mr Jovanović was born in 1959 in Peljave (Bosnia and Herzegovina). He moved to Slovenia in 1976 in search of work and settled in Ljubljana. He worked in a local brewery until 31 March 1992 when he decided to set up a private company. Owing to his status as an “erased” person, his plans to pursue a private career fell through. He also lost the apartment he had rented from his former employer, but acquired a new residence with his female partner, L.N., who was also of Bosnian origin but had acquired Slovenian citizenship. They have a son, S.J., who has Slovenian citizenship. 54.     Mr Jovanović did not apply for Slovenian citizenship in 1991 because he could not obtain the required documents from Bosnia and Herzegovina and could not leave Slovenia at the time. In any event, he did not believe Slovenia would actually obtain independence. One of his sisters and other more distant relatives had acquired Slovenian citizenship without difficulty. 55.     One day he was stopped by the police in a routine check and his passport and identity card were confiscated. Subsequently, he was repeatedly fined by the police, because he could not produce any identification. Since 1992 Mr Jovanović has not left Slovenia, not even to attend his brother’s and sister’s funerals, because without papers he would be unable to re-enter the country. 56.     On 31 March 2004 Mr Jovanović lodged an application for Slovenian citizenship under the amended Citizenship Act and an application for a permanent residence permit. 57.     On 14 April 2004 the Ministry informed him that his application for citizenship was incomplete and informed him of the requirements he must satisfy in order to acquire the status sought. They required him to amend his application within one month or to explain why he could not do so. He was specifically requested to produce, inter alia , proof that he had sufficient income, no outstanding tax debts, and legal status as a foreigner. 58.     On 18 January 2006 the Ministry informed Mr Jovanović that he had not lodged the application for a permanent residence permit with the competent administrative authority on the prescribed application form. As a consequence, he was requested to pay administration fees within fifteen days, which he did. The proceedings are still pending. (e)     Mr Velimir Dabetić 59.     Mr Dabetić was born in 1969 in Koper (Slovenia), where he also attended primary and secondary school. His parents and two brothers were born in Montenegro and they, like the applicant, were removed from the Register in 1992. Mr Dabetić’s mother was granted Slovenian citizenship in 1997 and his father in 2004. 60.     In 1991 Mr Dabetić moved to Italy, but remained registered as a permanent resident in Koper (Slovenia) until the events of 1992. He worked in Italy until 2002, when his old SFRY passport expired and the Italian authorities refused to extend his residence permit. He remained in Italy illegally, even though on 20 April 2006 he was ordered to leave the country within five days. Eventually, he was given leave to remain in Italy since, on 2   March 2006, he had applied for recognition of his stateless person status and the proceedings were still pending. 61.     On 25 November 2003 Mr Dabetić requested the Slovenian Ministry to issue a decision regulating his status in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s decision of 3 April 2003 (see paragraphs 130 to 134 below). He argued that his status should have been regularised within one month after the Constitutional Court’s decision was delivered. 62.     On 9 February 2004 Mr Dabetić lodged an administrative action in the Administrative Court ( Upravno sodišče ) in the absence of any response from the Ministry and sought a decision regularising his status, as required by the Constitutional Court’s decision. The proceedings are still pending. 63.     In 2004 Mr Dabetić applied for Slovenian citizenship. The Ministry dismissed his application on 14 November 2005 because he had failed to prove that he had actually resided in Slovenia for ten years and had lived there constantly for the last five years. The Ministry relied on the statement made by the applicant’s father that the applicant and his brothers had left Slovenia in 1993 and lived abroad since. That evidence was not contested by the applicant. (f)     Ms Ana Mezga 64.     Ms Mezga was born in 1965 in Čakovac (Croatia). In 1979 she went to live with her sister in Ljubljana (Slovenia), where she later found work and acquired permanent residence. 65.     In 1992, after the birth of her second child, she became aware of the fact that her name had been erased from the Register. Her employer shortened her maternity leave to six months instead of the expected fifteen and made her redundant. As a result, she lost her medical insurance. 66.     In March 1993 she was stopped by the police during a routine control. Since she had no papers she was detained at the police station and subsequently in a transit centre for foreigners ( prehodni dom za tujce ), but was released after paying a substantial fine. 67.     Following these events, she moved to Piran, where she met H.Š., a Slovenian citizen with whom she lived afterwards and had two children, who are both Slovenian citizens. Her first two children had lived with their grandmother in Croatia until the latter’s death and were then placed in foster care. Both for their sake and her own sake Ms Mezga acquired Croatian citizenship. 68.     In 1999 Ms Mezga lodged an application for a permanent residence permit with the Ministry in accordance with the Legal Status Act. The Ministry asked her five times, the most recent occasion being on 25   October   2004, to amend her application, as it was incomplete. It explained that the evidence she had produced – including the oral testimony of four witnesses, one of whom was her partner – was not sufficient to prove that she had resided in Slovenia both before and after she lodged her application. The Ministry also informed her that she could have sought a permanent residence permit under the provisions for family reunification, since she was the mother of two children with Slovenian citizenship. 69.     Since Ms Mezga did not reply to the letter from the Ministry, the proceedings were suspended on 6 December 2004. 70.     In the meantime she had also applied for Slovenian citizenship under the amended Citizenship Act. On 18 November 2005 the Ministry informed her that her application was incomplete and gave her two months to furnish evidence that, among other things, she had not been convicted and sentenced to more than a year’s imprisonment and that she had actually been residing in Slovenia since 23 December 1990. (g)     Mrs Ljubenka Ristanović and Mr Tripun Ristanović 71.     Mrs Ristanović was born in 1968 in Zavidivić (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and moved to Ljubljana (Slovenia) in 1986 in search of work. There she married a certain R.R., who was not a citizen of Slovenia but was registered there as a temporary resident. In 1988 their son, Tripun Ristanović, was born. 72.     Both applicants were registered as permanent residents in Ljubljana before the events of 1992. Mrs Ristanović believed that for this reason she would be awarded Slovenian citizenship automatically. However, in 1994 they were both deported to Serbia. R.R. remained in Slovenia and was issued with a permanent residence permit. 73.     In 2004 Mrs Ristanović acquired a Serbian identity card and in 2005 a Serbian passport. In 2004, Mr Tripun Ristanović was issued with an identity card and passport by Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since he has no Serbian documents he has been living in constant fear of being deported. (h)     Mr Ali Berisha 74.     Mr Berisha was born in 1969 in Peć (Kosovo) in a Roma ethnic community. He moved to Slovenia in 1985. 75.     In 1991 he spent some time in Kosovo with his sick mother. This appears to have been the reason he did not apply for Slovenian citizenship at the time. 76.     In 1993 he was detained by the border police as he re-entered the country after visiting relatives in Germany. His Yugoslav passport was taken from him and never returned. He was kept in a transit centre for foreigners for ten days and on 3 July 1993 deported to Tirana (Albania) without obtaining any decision on his residence status. The Albanian police returned the applicant to Slovenia on the same plane because he had no passport. Upon his return, he was again put in the transit centre for foreigners. He escaped overnight, after being threatened with deportation to the Czech Republic. 77.     Mr Berisha fled to Germany, where he received a temporary residence permit for humanitarian reasons, owing to the unstable situation in Kosovo at the time. 78.     On 9 August 1996 he married M.M., born in Kosovo, also a member of a Roma ethnic group. Four children were born between 1997 and 2003 while the family lived in Germany and received welfare benefits there. 79.     In 2005 the German authorities dismissed Mr Berisha’s request for another extension of his residence permit because the overall situation on Kosovo was stable enough for him to return there. He was ordered to leave Germany with his family by 30 September 2005. 80.     In July 2005 Mr Berisha lodged an application for temporary residence in Slovenia. On 22 July 2005 he also lodged an application for permanent residence under the Legal Status Act. 81.     The family returned to Slovenia where they sought asylum with the aid of a legal adviser. Mr Berisha also sought refugee status. On 26   October   2005 the Ministry declared itself incompetent to decide on his request, in accordance with the Dublin Convention on asylum seekers, since he had already lodged an application for asylum in Germany and those proceedings were still pending at the time. Since the family was bound to be deported to Germany, Mr Berisha withdrew his application for asylum in Slovenia. This resulted in the termination of the deportation proceedings on 19   October   2005. The case also received considerable attention from the local and international community owing to the efforts of Amnesty International. 82.     On 27 February 2006 the family again applied for asylum in Slovenia. They were living in an asylum centre ( azilni dom ) at the time. 83.     On 28 July 2006 the couple’s fifth child was born in Slovenia. 84.     On 30 October 2006 the Ministry again declined to examine the applications, applying the Dublin Convention. It had received fresh evidence that Mr Berisha and his family were asylum seekers in Germany, where they had received financial aid for that purpose. In addition, on 11   October 2005 and 19 July 2006 the Ministry was informed by the German authorities that Germany had jurisdiction for examining the applications for asylum of the persons concerned. 85.     On 5 November 2006 the family instituted proceedings in the Administrative Court, contesting the decision of 30 October 2006. On the same day they also requested that the impugned decision not be enforced and withdrew their application for asylum. The proceedings ended on 28   December 2006 when the Supreme Court decided that under the Dublin Convention Germany had jurisdiction to decide the applicant’s request for asylum. 86.     On 1 February 2007 the applicant and his family were deported to Germany. (i)     Mr Ilfan Sadik Ademi 87.     Mr Ademi was born in 1952 in Skopje (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) in a Roma ethnic community. In 1977 he moved to Slovenia, where he worked until 1992, when his name was removed from the Register. 88.     On 23 November 1992 his lawyer lodged an application for Slovenian citizenship on his behalf. In 1997 the Ministry started examining the application, but could not proceed because Mr Ademi had failed to inform the Slovenian authorities of his change of address. 89.     In 1993 Mr Ademi was stopped by the police in the course of a routine control. Since he had no valid papers, he and his family were expelled to Hungary. Shortly afterwards they moved to Croatia, from where they re-entered Slovenia illegally. On an unspecified date, they were again expelled to Hungary. 90.     Mr Ademi later moved to Germany where he declared himself a stateless person and obtained a temporary residence permit and a passport for foreigners. 91.     On 9 February 1999 he requested the Embassy of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to issue him with a supplementary passport, but received a negative reply since he was not a citizen of that country. 92.     On 16 February 2005 he lodged an application for permanent residence with the Ministry under the Legal Status Act. 93.     On 20 April 2005 the Ministry informed him that his application was incomplete and requested him to submit evidence of citizenship. 94.     On 26 May 2005 the application was rejected, on the ground that Mr   Ademi was a stateless person. The Ministry explained that the Legal Status Act applied only to citizens of the former SFRY republics. 95.     On 11 July 2005 the Ministry replied to Mr Ademi’s letter seeking further examination of his 1992 application for Slovenian citizenship. It informed him that, since he did not appear to have lived in Slovenia for the preceding ten years, he did not meet the requirements for Slovenian citizenship under the amended Citizenship Act. 96.     The applicant now lives in Germany. (j)     Mr Zoran Minić 97.     Mr Minić was born in 1952 in Podujevo (Kosovo) and moved to Slovenia with his family in 1977. 98.     After the declaration of independence of Slovenia and pursuant to the Citizenship Act, the applicant and his family lodged applications for Slovenian citizenship. However, they were one month late in lodging the application, as the war in Kosovo had made collecting the necessary documents difficult. Mr Minić’s mother was awarded citizenship in 2000 and his siblings in 2003. 99.     In 2002 Mr Minić was arrested by the police because he was working without a permit. He was prosecuted, ordered to pay a fine and expelled to Hungary, in spite of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 4   February 1999 (see paragraphs 118 to 124 below), without any formal decision.   Ultimately, he moved to Serbia, where he married a Serbian citizen with whom he has four children. 100.     In 2002 he lodged an application for Slovenian citizenship with the Ministry. 101.     Between 26 April and 9 October 2004 the Ministry informed him five times that his application was incomplete and gave him additional time to furnish evidence to prove, among other things, that he had been living in Slovenia without interruption since 23 December 1990. When he failed to produce the requested evidence, he was summoned for a hearing at the Ministry. 102.     At the hearing on 17 December 2004 he confirmed the information stated in his employment record, namely that he had worked in Podujevo (Kosovo) from 8 January 1992 to 6 April 1999 and had thus not been living in Slovenia since 23 December 1990. His application was accordingly dismissed on 21   February 2006. That decision was served on Mr Minić between 28   June and 2 July 2006 on a trip to Slovenia. He says that earlier in the year he was denied a visa to enter Slovenia by the Slovenian Embassy in Belgrade (Serbia).   B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Relevant domestic law 103.     On 6 December 1990, in the course of the preparations for the plebiscite on the independence of Slovenia, the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia ( Skupščina Republike Slovenije ) adopted the so-called Statement of Good Intentions ( Izjava o dobrih namenih ), which was published in the Official Gazette no. 44/90-I. Its purpose was to express the State’s commitment to certain values in pursuit of its independence. The relevant provision of this document provides as follows: “...The Slovenian state ... shall guarantee ... the right to obtain Slovenian citizenship to all those who have their permanent residence in Slovenia, if they so wish...” 104.     The relevant provisions of the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia ( Temeljna ustavna listina o samostojnosti in neodvisnosti Republike Slovenije ), Official Gazette no. 1/91 of 25 June 1991, provide as follows: Section III “The Republic of Slovenia guarantees the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms to all persons on the territory of the Republic of Slovenia, regardless of their national origin and without any discrimination, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and binding international agreements. The Italian and Hungarian national minority in the Republic of Slovenia and their members are guaranteed all the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and binding international agreements.” 105.     The relevant provisions of the   Constitutional Act relating to the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia ( Ustavni zakon za izvedbo temelje ustavne listine o samostojnosti in neodvisnosti Republike Slovenije ), Official Gazette no. 1/91 of 25 June 1991, provide as follows: Section 13 “Citizens of the other republics [of the former SFRY] who on 23 December 1990, the day the plebiscite on the independence of the Republic of Slovenia was held, were registered as permanent residents in the Republic of Slovenia and in fact live here shall until they acquire citizenship of Slovenia under section 40 of the Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act or until the expiry of the time-limit set forth in section 81 of the 1991 Aliens Act, have equal rights and duties as the citizens of the Republic of Slovenia...” 106.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia ( Ustava Republike Slovenije ), Official Gazette no. 33/91 of 28   December 1991, provide as follows: Article 8 “Statutes and regulations must comply with generally accepted principles of international law and with treaties that are binding on Slovenia. Ratified and published treaties shall be applied directly.” Article 14 “In Slovenia 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.” Article 18 “No one shall be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment...” Article 90 “The National Assembly may call a referendum on any issue which is the subject of regulation by law. The National Assembly is bound by the result of such referendum. The National Assembly may call a referendum from the preceding paragraph on its own initiative, however it must call such referendum if so required by at least one third of the deputies, by the National Council or by forty thousand voters. The right to vote in a referendum is held by all citizens who are eligible to vote in elections. A proposal is passed in a referendum if a majority of those voting have cast votes in favour of the same. Referendums are regulated by a law passed in the National Assembly by a two-thirds majority vote of deputies present.” 107.     The relevant provision of the Constitutional Court Act, Official Gazette no. 15/94, provide as follows: Section 1 “1. The Constitutional Court is the highest body of judicial authority for the protection of constitutionality, legality, human rights and basic freedoms. 2. In relation to other state bodies, the Constitutional Court is an autonomous and independent state body. 3. Decisions of the Constitutional Court are legally binding.” 108.     In preparing for the declaration of independence, the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia passed various laws that were published in the Official Gazette no. 1/91 on 25 June 1991. Among them were the 1991 Aliens Act and the Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act. The relevant provisions of the latter Act provide: Section 39 “Persons who have acquired citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia and the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia under valid legislation, shall be considered citizens of Slovenia under the present Act.” Section 40 “Citizens of another republic [of the former SFRY] who on 23 December 1990, the day the plebiscite on the independence of the Republic of Slovenia was held, were registered as permanent residents in the Republic of Slovenia and in fact live here shall acquire citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia if they lodge, within