CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juillet 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 132 July 2010 Kurić and Others v. Slovenia - 26828/06 Judgment 13.7.2010 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Failure to regulate residence of persons who had been “erased” from the permanent residents register following Slovenian independence: violation   Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to enact appropriate legislation regulating residence of persons who had been “erased” from the permanent residents register following Slovenian independence   Execution of judgment Individual measures Respondent State required to issue applicants retroactive residence permits   [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 21 February 2011] Facts – The applicants had previously been citizens of the former Yugoslavia and one of its constituent Republics other than Slovenia. They had acquired permanent residence in Slovenia, but, following its independence, had either not requested or not been granted Slovenian citizenship. On 26   February 1992, pursuant to the newly enacted Aliens Act, the applicants’ names were deleted from the Register of Permanent Residents and they became aliens without a residence permit. Approximately another 18,000   people were in the same situation. According to the applicants, none of them were ever notified of that decision and they only discovered what had been done later, when they sought to renew their personal documents. The erasure of their names from the register had serious and enduring negative consequences: some applicants became stateless, while others were evicted from their apartments, could not work or travel, lost all their personal possessions and lived for years in shelters and parks. Still others were detained and expelled from Slovenia. In 1999 the Constitutional Court declared certain provisions of the Aliens Act, as well as the automatic “erasure” from the register, unconstitutional, after finding that under the impugned legislation, the citizens of the former Yugoslavia had been in a less favourable legal position than other aliens who had lived in Slovenia since before its independence, in that there was no act regulating the transition of their legal status towards the status of aliens living in Slovenia. Following the Constitutional Court’s decision, a new law was adopted to regulate the situation of the so-called “erased”. In a subsequent decision of 2003, the Constitutional Court declared certain provisions of the new law unconstitutional, in particular since they failed to grant the “erased” retroactive permanent residence permits or to regulate the situation of those who had been deported. Law – Article 8: Before 26 February 1992, when their names were erased from the relevant register of permanent residents, the applicants had been lawfully residing in Slovenia for a number of years; some had even been born there. They had developed a network of personal, social, cultural and economic relations that made up the private life of every human being, and most of them had also developed a family life in Slovenia. They had therefore had a private and/or family life in Slovenia and the prolonged refusal of the authorities to regulate their situation in line with the Constitutional Court’s decisions, and in particular to issue them permanent residence permits, had constituted an interference with their rights guaranteed under Article   8. As to the justification for such interference, the Court found no reason to depart from the findings of the Constitutional Court in 1999 and 2003 that the “erasure” of the applicants had been unlawful since the relevant legislation had not regulated their legal status. Such unlawfulness had persisted for over fifteen years because, despite certain efforts on their part, the legislative and administrative authorities had failed to comply with the judicial decisions. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13: In spite of legislative and administrative efforts to comply, the Constitutional Court’s leading decisions of 1999 and 2003 had never been fully implemented. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: Reserved. Article 46: The facts of the case disclosed the existence, within the Slovenian legal order, of a shortcoming as a consequence of which the remaining group of the “erased” had been denied their rights to a private and/or family life in Slovenia and to effective remedies in that respect. Although it was in principle not for the Court to determine which remedial measures would be appropriate to satisfy Slovenia’s obligations under Article   46 of the Convention, the failure of the respondent State’s authorities to comply with the Constitutional Court’s decisions indicated by its very nature the appropriate general and individual measure to be adopted: the enactment of appropriate legislation and the regulation of the situation of the individual applicants by issuing them retroactive residence permits.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes