CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA4618412 { width:3.62pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sB9F7F539 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE138E5D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sB95D6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#c00000 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFDE2A5 { width:204.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD4011C99 { width:116.72%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA8950776 { height:56.7pt } .sA4EE11AB { width:6.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s84388054 { width:9.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3C587778 { width:14.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s28BE940D { width:6.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6B9A0E3E { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBC2B8BF7 { width:9.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEC9EA3B1 { width:5.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1079C8ED { width:10.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB2D717CA { width:8.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC3940B2C { width:10.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE20D65F2 { width:6.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDFDD62A4 { margin-left:33.01pt; text-align:right; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s5EDC7B99 { width:9.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s8B3DFBE4 { width:14.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF0AA8FC7 { width:6.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDC555E47 { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s28D8CB6D { width:9.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s96F6C2BD { width:5.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBA6EB93F { width:10.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7E79DAF4 { width:8.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBA8485E7 { width:10.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEE28FFF3 { margin-left:36pt; text-align:right; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s41985D7A { height:27.95pt } .s42015D7A { height:27.25pt } .s96161229 { margin-left:36pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:right; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sE4CB1DB5 { width:25.64pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB5C0263B { height:23.8pt } .sCB8B756B { height:51.05pt }     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 Kūris,     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”. 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. They 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. The 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.     In 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 Kurić 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 Kurić 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, steps 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.     The 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 unregularised 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 The 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 The 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 The 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 Convent