Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia - 65020/13 (erased people) [2016] ECHR 1013 (17 November 2016)

judgment the Grand Chamber held , unanimously, that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights, as guaranteed by Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The violation essentially originated in the prolonged failure of the Slovenian authorities, in spite of the Constitutional Court’s leading judgments, to regulate the applicants’ residential status following their “erasure” and to provide them with adequate redress in Slovenia (see paragraphs 6-8 above and Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 339-362, 369-372 and 384-396 ) . Under Article 46 of the Convention, the Grand Chamber ordered the respondent State to set up as a general measure a domestic ad hoc compensation scheme within one year of the delivery of its judgment, that is to say no later than 26 June 2013 (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 415 and point 9 of the operative part). 12. The Court also awarded 20,000 euros (EUR) to each successful applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the overall sum of EUR 30,000 in respect of costs and expenses. It reserved the applicants’ claims for pecuniary damage for a later stage (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 424-427 and points 10 and 11 of the operative part). 3. Developments following the delivery of the judgment on the merits (a) The “Erased” Compensation Act 13. On 21 November 2013 the Act on Compensation for Damage to Persons Erased from the Register of Permanent Residents ( Zakon o povračilu škode osebam, ki so bile izbrisane iz registra stalnega prebivalstva, ZPŠOIRSP ) (“the ‘Erased’ Compensation Act”) was enacted. It entered into force on 18 December 2013 and has been applicable since 18 June 2014 (see paragraphs 38-44 below). 14. Within the framework of the execution of the pilot judgment of the Court referred to above, the Act set up an ad hoc compensation scheme for the “erased”, providing for financial compensation and other forms of redress, as well as stipulating the procedure to be followed. 15. Its essential features are that it provides for financial compensation for the “erased”, to be claimed in administrative proceedings, calculated on the basis of a lump sum of EUR 50 for each completed month of “erasure”, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained. 16. Should the “erased” consider that they are entitled to additional compensation, they may lodge a claim under the general rules of the Code of Obligations ( Obligacijski zakonik , Official Gazette no. 83/2001) in the judicial proceedings. The Act removes the statute of limitations in respect of claiming damages under the Code of Obligations, as interpreted previously by the Slovenian courts (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 83) . Those “erased” who have previously had their claims for compensation dismissed or the proceedings in respect thereof stayed may lodge new claims with the courts. 17. The total amount of financial compensation, to be paid immediately or in a maximum of five installments (depending on the sum), may not exceed three times the lump sum of EUR 50 for each month of “erasure”. 18. The beneficiaries of the scheme are those “erased” who have acquired a permanent residence permit, on any legal grounds, or been granted Slovenian citizenship, and also those “erased” who made an unsuccessful application to that effect under the previous legislation (that is to say prior to the enactment of the amended Legal Status Act), subject to certain conditions. 19. Any claims for compensation will have to be lodged no later than three years after the “Erased” Compensation Act became applicable, that is by 18 June 2017, or after receipt of the decision on permanent residence or Slovenian citizenship or the final negative decision under the previous legislation. In any event, the period of “erasure” may not extend beyond the date of the Act entering into force (for further details, see Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06 , §§ 20-29, ECHR 2014-I). (b) The Just Satisfaction Judgment in the Kuri ć and Others pilot case delivered on 12 March 2014 20. As to the proceedings concerning the application of Article 41 of the Convention in the pilot case, given that the respondent Government was late in adopting the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme and that the Court on 9 April and 14 May 2013 did not grant their requests for an extension of the time-limit, it decided to adjudicate on the outstanding issues under Article 41. On 12 March 2014 it handed down a just satisfaction judgment in respect of the pilot case (ibid . , §§ 12 and 13). 21. Having regard to the inherently uncertain character of the damage arising from the violation of the Convention rights and the lapse of time since the damage had occurred, and making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Grand Chamber considered it reasonable to make a monetary award, based on the varying length of time spent by each applicant as an “erased” person, from 28 June 1994 until the date on which his or her legal status was finally restored, multiplied by a monthly lump sum of EUR 150. A monetary award to two applicants in respect of their respective children was also made, calculated on the basis of a monthly lump sum of EUR 80 for each month of “erasure” (ibid . , §§ 86-89 and 108-109). The applicants were all thus awarded sums of between EUR 29,400 and EUR 72,770 in respect of pecuniary damage and sums in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings (ibid., point 1 of the operative part). 22. Under Article 46 of the Convention, the Grand Chamber also made a preliminary positive assessment of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme that had in the meantime been implemented (ibid . , § 140). (c) Other developments 23. As to the subsequent court proceedings in Slovenia, following the adoption of the “Erased” Compensation Act, on 24 January 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed a petition lodged by an association of the “erased” for a constitutional review of the amended Legal Status Act and of the legal order in general, mostly in respect of the lack of financial reparation for the consequences of the “erasure” (no. U-I- 85/11 - - see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 81). The Constitutional Court held that the previous legal vacuum had been filled by the enactment of the “Erased” Compensation Act and that the petitioners no longer had any legal interest in pursuing the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. 24. Furthermore (according to information available on the Internet), in 2015 the Constitutional Court rendered several decisions, quashing judgments given by the lower courts and remitting cases for reconsideration. It held that in ruling on such compensation claims, special regard should be given by the courts to the special situation of the “erased”, in particular in respect of the State’s liability and the rules governing the statute of limitations, thus reversing the case-law established after the Supreme Court’s decision of 2012 ( see also Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 83, as well as paragraph 9 above). It stated that the Court’s judgments in the pilot case of Kuri ć and Others were of special relevance. 4. Execution of the pilot judgment and the final Resolution of the Committee of Ministers 25. On 25 May 2016 the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)112 in the pilot case of Kurić and Others (“the 2016 CM Final Resolution”) under the terms of Article 46 § 2 of the Convention. It examined an action report provided by the respondent Government indicating the measures that would need to be taken in order to give effect to the judgment on the merits in that case. 26. In that action report, which was submitted on 18 March 2016, the respondent Government informed the Committee of Ministers that both individual and general measures had been taken in executing the merits and just-satisfaction judgments. As to general measures, s teps had been taken to ensure that the compensation scheme functioned properly and that adequate funds had been set aside to meet the claims. It was estimated that approximately EUR 129,600,000 would be needed for the purposes of pecuniary compensation. The actual amount paid in pecuniary compensation that had been claimed through administrative and judicial proceedings in 2014 and 2015 stood at EUR 3,972,128.63 and EUR 5,137,542.37, respectively. The 2016 and 2017 budgets foresee a total of EUR 7,110,200 and EUR 10,007,000 in compensation, respectively. 27. As to the statistics, from 18 June 2014, when the “Erased” Compensation Act became applicable, until 26 February 2016, 7,268 claims for financial compensation were lodged with the administrative authorities. By 26 February 2016, decisions had been adopted in respect of 7,081 claims, representing 97.5% of the claims lodged. By 26 February 2016, the total amount determined by final decisions in respect of the payment of compensation in administrative proceedings stood at EUR 21,985,500. 28. During the same period, fifty-one additional claims were lodged with the courts in judicial proceedings, while twenty-nine similar claims were addressed to the State Attorney’s Office in an attempt to reach a settlement. By 26 February 2016, the State Attorney’s Office had closed eighteen cases by dismissing the claims concerned. It had also terminated two cases, one by awarding compensation in the amount of EUR 9,854.11. As to the judicial proceedings, the first- and second-instance courts had given decisions in six cases by 26 February 2016. Three such decisions had become final; two of those decisions had ordered the payment of compensation, while third had confirmed the withdrawal of the claim in question. Other proceedings were pending. 29. The Government stated that these figures should be seen in the correct context. By July 2013, 10,046 of the 25,671 “erased” had settled their residence status (see Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 28). Furthermore, by 31 January 2016 under the amended Legal Status Act, 1,907 requests for permanent residence had been lodged (of these, 1,608 had been lodged by the “erased” themselves, seventy by their children and 229 by citizens of other successor States to the former SFRY who had not been subject to the “Erased” Compensation Act). By the same date, a total of 259 permanent residence permits had been issued (217 of these to “erased” persons), 1,395 requests for a permanent residence permit had been refused and 253 were awaiting a decision. 30. The data available as at 31 January 2016 also showed that 933 requests for a special ex tunc decision on the granting of a residence permit had been lodged with the lowest administrative authority (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 77) . Of these, 254 such requests had been lodged by the “erased”, 70 by the children of “erased”, and 609 by Slovenian nationals who had been “erased” before they had acquired Slovenian citizenship. By the same date, the administrative authorities had issued 612 such special decisions (111 of these were granted to the “erased”, 39 to their children and 462 to Slovenian nationals). 255 requests had been refused and 66 proceedings remained pending. 31. T he respondent Government considered, in view of the above-mentioned figures, that most eligible beneficiaries had largely availed themselves of the possibility to claim compensation provided for under the “Erased” Compensation Act. 32. The Committee of Ministers, having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46 § 1 had been adopted, declared that it had exercised its functions under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention in the Kurić and Others case and decided to close the examination thereof. 5. The particular circumstances of the present case 33. All applicants in the present case are in an essentially similar situation to that of the successful applicants in the pilot case of Kurić and Others , who had regularised their legal status in Slovenia by the acquisition of permanent residence permits before the Grand Chamber judgment on the merits was given (see Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 95, 123, 133, 158, 173 and 194) . 34. Most of the applicants were “erased” from the Register on 26 February 1992, since they had failed to apply for Slovenian citizenship within the prescribed time-limit, 25 December 1991. Furthermore, some of the applicants did apply in time for Slovenian citizenship, but their requests were refused on other grounds (for instance because they did not meet the requirement that they actually be resident in Slovenia at the time of lodging their respective citizenship requests). Accordingly, they were “erased” from the Register two months after the relevant administrative decision had become final. They thus became aliens with no legal status in Slovenia (see paragraphs 4 and 6 above). 35. By means of legal instruments adopted on various dates by the Slovenian authorities under the Legal Status Act, the amended Legal Status Act, or the Citizenship Act, or further to the leading decisions of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 8 above) , the applicants regularised their legal status in Slovenia either by obtaining permanent residence permits (with or without retroactive effect) or by acquiring Slovenian citizenship. Some of the applicants, having obtained Slovenian citizenship, were granted ex tunc permanent residence from the date of their “erasure” until the date of their acquiring citizenship (for the dates of regulation of the legal status as well as periods of 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 T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź v. Poland (dec.) no. 3485/02 , § 43, ECHR 2011-II (extracts)). 53. Another important aim of this procedure is to induce the respondent State to resolve large numbers of individual cases arising from the same structural problem at the domestic level, thus implementing the principle of subsidiarity, which underpins the Convention system. Indeed, the Court’s task, as defined by Article 19 - that is to “ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto” - is not necessarily best achieved by repeating the same findings in a large series of cases (see Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 27912/02 , § 62, 3 November 2009; see also, by analogy, E. G. and 175 Other Bug River applications v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99 , § 27, ECHR 2008-IV (extracts); and, mutatis mutandis , Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 134). 54. This adjudicative approach is pursued with due respect for the Convention organs’ respective functions. While it falls to the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the implementation of individual and general measures under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention (see Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 42; Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC] no. 35014/97 , § 42, 28 April 2008; Suljagić , cited above, § 61; and Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 133), the Court, in its examination of follow-up cases after the adoption of the pilot-judgment, has the power to decide whether, in view of the remedial action taken by the State, the matter giving rise to the Convention complaints in those cases “has been resolved” for the purposes of Article 37 of the Convention and whether or not it is justified to continue the pilot-judgment procedure (see Wolkenberg and Others, cited above, § 77; E. G . and 175 Bug River applications , cited above, §§ 25-29; and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 45). 55. Thus, it is inherent in the pilot-judgment procedure that the Court’s assessment of the situation complained of in a “pilot” case necessarily extends beyond the sole interests of the individual applicant and requires it to examine that case also from the perspective of the general measures that need to be taken in the interest of other potentially affected persons (see Hutten-Czapska (merits), cited above, § 238; Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 36; and Hutten-Czapska (friendly settlement), cited above, § 33; see also, mutatis mutandis , Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 412). 56. The same logic applies to the Court’s interpretation of the notion of “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto” in cases dealt with within the context of this procedure, where the Court, in determining whether it can strike the application out of its list, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, on the ground that the matter has been resolved, will have regard not only to the applicant’s individual situation but also to measures aimed at resolving the general underlying defect in the domestic legal order identified in the judgment on the merits as the source of the violation found (see Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, § 35, and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 46; see also, mutatis mutandis , Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, §§ 36-37, and Hutten-Czapska (friendly settlement), cited above, § 35). 57. In consequence, the ruling in the present case, chosen by the Court for the examination of the issue of whether or not it is justified to apply Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and to continue the pilot-judgment procedure initiated in the case of Kurić and Others , will have consequences for all similar adjourned cases. C. Complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 46 of the Convention 58. The applicants alleged a violation of Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, along the same lines as in the pilot case of Kurić and Others . In addition, they complained under Article 46 of the Convention that the Slovenian authorities had breached their obligation on account of their failure to set up the ad hoc compensation scheme within the deadline indicated by the Grand Chamber, that is to say by 26 June 2013 (see paragraphs 45 above and 79-81 below). 59. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ... 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 60. Article 14 provides: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 61. Article 46 provides, in so far as relevant: “1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution. ...” D. Application of Article 37 of the Convention 62. Article 37 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... (b) the matter has been resolved; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires. 2. The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.” 1. Compatibility of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme with the Court’s findings 63. The Court notes that in addition to the amended Legal Status Act, which was designed to regulate the residence of the “erased” in Slovenia in response to the Constitutional Court’s rulings and the Court’s findings in the Chamber judgment (see paragraph 8 above, and Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 336-338 and 405), on 18 December 2013 the “Erased” Compensation Act entered into force, setting up a domestic ad hoc compensation scheme for the “erased”. This scheme was introduced by the respondent State further to the finding of the Grand Chamber that, after the acquisition of their permanent residence permits, the applicants lacked proper financial redress for the years during which they had been in a position of vulnerability and legal insecurity (see paragraph 11 above and Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 412). 64. The “Erased” Compensation Act introduced the possibility of claiming financial compensation on the basis of a lump sum for each completed month of “erasure”, plus additional compensation under the general rules of the Code of Obligations for those of the “erased” that fulfilled statutory conditions. It also removed the statute of limitations for claiming damages under the Code of Obligations, as applied previously by the Slovenian judiciary. Those “erased” who have previously had their claims for compensation dismissed or the proceedings stayed may lodge new claims. Furthermore, other forms of reparation are available to applicants. The Act became applicable on 18 June 2014 and any claims for compensation have to be filed by 18 June 2017 or within three years of receipt of the decision regulating the legal status of the “erased” in Slovenia (see paragraphs 13-19 and 38-44 above). 65. The Court finds that all the applicants - as “erased” persons who have acquired a permanent residence permit on various legal grounds or have been granted Slovenian citizenship - may avail themselves of the possibility of claiming financial compensation within the framework of administrative proceedings under Section 8 of the “Erased” Compensation Act. Should they consider that they are entitled to additional compensation, they may lodge a claim with the competent court, further to section 10 of the “Erased” Compensation Act (see paragraphs 38, 41 and 42 above). However, none of the applicants has informed the Court that he or she had availed himself or herself of this possibility (see paragraph 36 above). 66. The Court observes that the Grand Chamber made a positive preliminary assessment of this legislation (which was enacted after the delivery of the judgment on the merits) in its judgment awarding just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicants in the Kurić and Others case (see paragraph 22 above), while underlining that it would be for the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention to evaluate the general measures adopted by the respondent State and their implementation as far as the supervision of the execution of the Court’s judgment on the merits was concerned (see Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, §§ 140 and 142) . 67. As to an approach that involved awarding lump-sum compensation in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the “erased”, the Grand Chamber considered that, given the particular difficulty in making a precise estimation of the pecuniary damage incurred by the applicants as a result of their “erasure”, that basic solution appeared to be appropriate (ibid . , § 140). Indeed, the Grand Chamber adopted the same approach in respect of pecuniary damage in the just satisfaction judgment (see paragraphs 106-109 thereof) and in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the judgment on the merits (see paragraph 425 thereof). 68. As to the level of the financial compensation available under the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme, the Court observes that according to the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation which goes with it, the amounts of compensation awarded at national level to other adversely affected persons within the context of general measures under Article 46 of the Convention are at the discretion of the respondent State, provided that they are compatible with the Court’s judgment ordering those measures (see Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 141). 69. In this respect the Court notes that the level of the available domestic financial compensation is inferior to the awards made to each successful applicant in the pilot judgment, where under Article 41 of the Convention the Grand Chamber awarded a lump sum of EUR 150 in respect of pecuniary damage and a lump sum of approximately EUR 100 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, totaling an average lump sum of EUR 250 for each completed month of “erasure’. Furthermore, a special award of a monthly lump sum of EUR 80 for each completed month of “erasure” was made in the pilot case to the children of the “erased”, where appropriate. It is further noted that, for the Court, the starting point for the calculation of the award of damage on the basis of “erasure” was 28 June 1994, when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia (ibid . , §§ 108-109, and paragraph 21 above). 70. The monthly lump sum for each completed month of “erasure” that could be claimed in administrative proceedings under the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme therefore represents approximately 20% of the sums awarded to each successful applicant in the Kurić and Others case. However, after an award in administrative proceedings, the possibility remains open to the “erased” to lodge a claim for additional compensation in judicial proceedings. The maximum amount that could be awarded within the framework of those proceedings would theoretically represent 60% of the individual award made in the pilot judgment. Finally, under the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme, an award of financial compensation would also be made for the months prior to 28 June 1994, slightly raising this percentage, depending on the situation of each “erased” person. 71. The Court observes in this respect that it has held on a number of occasions that a wider margin of appreciation should be left to the domestic authorities in assessing the amount of compensation to be paid. Such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01 , § 80, ECHR 2006 - V, and Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12 , § 39, 8 July 2014). . The Court considers that in general, the amounts of financial compensation chosen by the domestic authorities, ranging approximately between 20% and 60% of the Grand Chamber’s individual award in the pilot case, do not appear to be unreasonable or disproportionate, considering the wide margin of appreciation accorded to them. In the Wolkenberg and Others case (decision cited above, §§ 63-66), the Court accepted compensation amounting to 20% of the value of lost property in the so-called “territories beyond the Bug River” as sufficient in the particular circumstances of that case. In the case of Bizjak ( decision cited above, §§ 37-43) , the Court took the same stance within the context of prison overcrowding in Slovenia, where compensation awarded by a domestic court represented approximately 30% of the award made by the Court in the pilot judgment Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia (nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, § 132, 20 October 2011). Finally, in Stella and Others v. Italy ((dec.), nos. 49169/09 , 54908/09, 55156/09, 61443/09, 61446/09, 61457/09, 7206/10, 15313/10, 37047/10, 56614/10 and 58616/10, § 62, 16 September 2014), the Court held that the levels of compensation available domestically, although inferior to the Court’s awards, should not be deemed unreasonable. Furthermore , the Court emphasizes in this respect that the object of the present decision is the potential compatibility of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme, and not the question whether, in view of the sums awarded at the domestic level, the applicant has lost his or her victim status. This second type of assessment can be made, in every individual case, only after the relevant national remedy has been tried (see Bizjak , decision cited above, § 43). 73. In addition, there is currently relatively scarce established domestic case-law concerning claims for additional financial compensation (see paragraphs 24 and 28 above). It cannot therefore be concluded that there is a discernible pattern rendering the use of this domestic avenue futile. To the contrary, due note has been taken by the Court of the decisions of the Constitutional Court handed down in 2015 that lower courts should bear in mind the special features of the situation of the “erased” when deciding on their compensation claims. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, any criticism concerning the amount of domestic financial compensation should first be voiced through domestic judicial proceedings (see paragraph 24 above). 74. As to the arrangements for the payment of financial compensation awarded in the administrative proceedings, the Court notes that amounts exceeding EUR 1,000 are payable in a maximum of five instalments, over a maximum period of five years (see paragraph 43 above). The Court finds that such payment intervals do not appear to be unreasonable (see, conversely and mutatis mutandis , Đurić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos. 79867/12 , 79873/12, 80027/12, 80182/12, 80203/12 and 115/13, §§ 16-17 and 47, 20 January 2015). 75. Lastly, the “Erased” Compensation Act provides for different forms of redress aimed at the reintegration of the “erased” into Slovenian society (see Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 27, and paragraph 44 above). In the Court’s view, in choosing these other forms of reparation the domestic authorities were better placed than the Court and had at their disposal a much wider range of measures capable of providing appropriate relief tailored to the needs of the “erased” (see, mutatis mutandis , T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź, cited above, § 86) . 76. For the purposes of the present ruling, it suffices to the Court to note that the Committee of Ministers has found that the respondent Government has taken adequate action in order to satisfactorily afford redress for their past grievances to those “erased” who have successfully regularised their legal status (see paragraph 32 above) . The preliminary positive assessment of the “Erased” Compensation Act by the Grand Chamber remains valid; likewise, within the context of this case the State’s remedial action aimed at resolving the systemic problem is a factor relevant to the issue of “respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto”, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. 2. Redress for a violation of the Convention afforded to other persons affected at the domestic level 77. The Court notes at the outset that, within the framework of the execution of the pilot judgment, the respondent Government informed the Committee of Ministers that general measures had been taken, namely the introduction of a domestic ad hoc compensation scheme for the “erased” (see paragraphs 26-31 above). They further stated that the implementation of the amended Legal Status Act and of the “Erased” Compensation Act, as well as the practice of the domestic authorities, had secured the overall result of satisfactorily regulating the residence status of the “erased” and of providing adequate financial compensation to them. 78. The Court observes that according to the information submitted by the respondent Government , in addition to 10,046 “erased” who had regulated their legal status by July 2013, 259 further permanent residence permits had been issued. By 31 January 2016, 10,305 “erased” and their children had therefore regularised their residence status or acquired Slovenian citizenship (see paragraph 29 above). It is now open to them to seek compensation and other measures of redress under the “Erased” Compensation Act. 79. The applicants, who lodged their application with the Court when the Bill creating the ad hoc compensation scheme was still passing through Parliament, challenged the effectiveness of that scheme. 80. In particular, they complained about the level of financial compensation and the arrangements for its payment, as provided by the “Erased” Compensation Act . The then proposed lump sum of EUR 40 for each full month of “erasure” was clearly unsatisfactory and represented only 15% of the social assistance to which any permanent citizen of Slovenia would be entitled (which at the time amounted to EUR 260) (see Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 34). The proposed lump sum was to cover both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. According to applicants, in the Kurić and Others judgment on the merits, the successful applicants had been awarded approximately EUR 88 in respect of only non-pecuniary damage. Furthermore, the compensation that an “erased” person could subsequently claim in judicial proceedings had been capped at 2.5 times the amount received in administrative proceedings. The Government’s argument before the Parliament that the global economic crisis and the recession justified such a limitation had no acceptable legal basis. The applicants also criticised certain procedural provisions of the Bill, as well as the procedure for payment of financial compensation (payment in instalments, with the maximum total period of payment being five years). 81. Citing the Court’s judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no . 40450/04, October 2009 ), the applicants considered that there was no valid reason to wait any longer for the adoption of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme and that they were entitled to have their complaints addressed directly by the Court. Unlike in other cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), 56125/10, 4 June 2013), there were no special circumstances in the present case justifying an exception to the general principle that an assessment of whether domestic remedies should be exhausted was to be carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged. 82. The Court takes due note of the fact that funds have been earmarked in the respondent State’s budget for the operation of the ad hoc compensation scheme (see paragraph 26 above). In the period following the Act becoming applicable and 26 February 2016 - that is to say over approximately one year and eight months - 97.5% of 7,268 claims were resolved in administrative proceedings. Furthermore, eighty claims were lodged in judicial proceedings and with the State Attorney’s Office. Of these, in two cases decided by the courts and in one case terminated by the Attorney General compensation has to be paid to the “erased”. In eighteen other cases closed by the Attorney General, the proceedings were terminated. The Constitutional Court has also already examined such cases and remitted them for rehearing. Other proceedings are awaiting a decision (see paragraphs 24, 27 and 28 above). The Court finds these developments for the time being satisfactory. 83. As to the level of domestic financial compensation, the Court refers to its findings concerning the compatibility of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme (see paragraphs 63-76 above). In any event, it notes that in the course of the legislative process the lump sum was increased from EUR 40 to EUR 50 for each completed month of “erasure” and that the maximum level of compensation that could be sought in judicial proceedings was also raised from 2.5 to three times the amount that could be sought in administrative proceedings. 84. As to the applicants’ argument concerning the delay in the implementation of the pilot judgment, the Court observes that it was precisely for that reason that the Grand Chamber handed down the just satisfaction judgment in the Kurić and Others case and made an award of just satisfaction to the applicants. Within the context of a pilot-judgment procedure, it is not uncommon for a decision or a judgment striking out the “pilot” application on the basis of a friendly settlement (Article 37 § 1 (b) and Article 39) or awarding just satisfaction to the applicant(s) (Article 41) to be given before any - or any adequate - general measures have been adopted by the respondent State in the execution of a pilot judgment on the merits (Article 46 of the Convention - see Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 36; Hutten-Czapska (friendly settlement), cited above, § 34; and Kurić and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 135 ). 85. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the delay of five months in the adoption of the “Erased” Compensation Act after the expiry of the deadline indicated by the Grand Chamber had no significant influence on the assessment of the adequacy of general measures recently undertaken by the Committee of Ministers (see paragraphs 25 and 32 above). This situation is therefore not comparable with that addressed by the pilot-judgment procedure in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov , cited by the applicants (see paragraph 81 above), where the authorities have so far failed to carry out the requisite general measures and to fix the national dysfunction . 86. The Court takes due note of the fact that o n 25 May 2016 the Committee of Ministers adopted the 2016 CM Final Resolution in the Kurić and Others pilot case, having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46 § 1 had been adopted (see paragraph 32 above). 87. The Court cannot but endorse these conclusions of the Committee of Ministers. 88. It follows that the Court is satisfied that the system introduced by the respondent Government (and its functioning in practice) offers to other affected “erased” persons who have regularised their legal status in Slovenia reasonable prospects of receiving compensation for the damage caused by the systemic violation of their Convention rights. 3. Whether “the matter has been resolved” for the purposes of Article 37 89. It remains for the Court to determine whether, in view of the foregoing, “the matter has been resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. 90. As stated above, it is a fundamental feature of the pilot-judgment procedure that the Court’s assessment of whether the matter involved in the case has been resolved is not limited to relief afforded to an individual applicant and to solutions adopted in his or her case, but necessarily encompasses general measures applied by the State in order to resolve the general underlying defect in the domestic legal order identified in the pilot case as the source of the violation found (see Hutten-Czapska (merits), cited above, § 238, and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź, cited above, § 83). 91. The Court, in order to conclude that the matter raised in the pilot - judgment follow-up applications “has been resolved” and that it is, therefore, legitimate to strike them out of its list of cases, must be satisfied that the remedial action taken by the respondent State in implementing the general measures indicated by the Court (including means of redress for the systemic violation) provided the applicants with relief at the domestic level, and that that relief renders the further examination of their cases no longer justified. In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court must also establish that there are no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, which require the continued examination of those cases. Such a conclusion by the Court is, however, without prejudice to its decision, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, to restore at any time the applications to its list of cases if the circumstances, in particular failure to achieve continued compliance with the Court’s pilot judgment on the part of the respondent State, so require (see Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, § 77; E. G. and 175 Bug River applications , cited above, §§ 25 and 28-29; and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 84). 92. The main issue before the Court in the present case is whether or not, given the fact that the respondent State has enacted new legislation aimed, firstly, at securing the applicants their permanent residence permits and secondly, granting the applicants who have obtained their residence permits or Slovenian citizenship compensation for damage caused by the violation of their Convention rights, the Court is able to conclude that “the matter has been resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. In its assessment, the Court will pay due regard to the 2016 CM Final Resolution (see paragraphs 25, 32 and 86 above) 93. The Court has already preliminarily held that the general solutions adopted by the respondent State in order to resolve the underlying systemic problem identified in the pilot judgment have in general addressed, in a satisfactory manner, the previous lack of legal provisions enabling the “erased” to regularise their residential status in Slovenia and seek adequate redress there. It has found that this assessment remains valid within the context of the present case (see paragraph 76 above). 94. As regards redress for past damage suffered by persons affected by the defective domestic legislation and practice, the Court reiterates that under Article 41 of the Convention it may afford just satisfaction to the party injured by a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made. However, the Court shall do so only if “necessary”. 95. The reference to the domestic system in Article 41 of the Convention reflects the subsidiarity principle on which the Convention system is founded; the national authorities have at their disposal a much wider range of legal and other measures capable of providing appropriate relief, tailored to the particular circumstances of a given case, whereas relief available in the international procedure before the Court is, in most situations, limited to a pecuniary award (see T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 86, and paragraph 71 above). 96. Within the framework of the pilot-judgment procedure - one of the essential characteristics of which is the incitement of the respondent State to introduce a remedy for all victims of a systemic violation (see paragraphs 51-53 above) - the responsibility for affording reparation is necessarily shifted back to the domestic authorities. The Court’s principal task, as defined by Article 19 of the Convention, is “to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto”, the adjudication on awards under Article 41 being only accessory to this task. As a consequence - and having regard to the purpose of the pilot-judgment procedure (which, as stated above, is to assist States in resolving systemic problems at national level, thereby securing to the persons concerned their Convention rights and freedoms, as required by Article 1 of the Convention) - the Court’s role after the delivery of the pilot judgment and after the State has taken remedial action in conformity with the Convention cannot be converted into that of providing individualised financial relief in each and every repetitive case arising from the same systemic situation (see Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, § 76, and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 87; see also paragraph 53 above). 97. Having regard in particular to the 2016 CM Final Resolution, in which the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46 § 1 had been adopted, the Court is satisfied that the “Erased” Compensation Act in principle constitutes an effective implementation of the ninth operative provision of the judgment on the merits in the Kurić and Others pilot case (see paragraphs 86-88 above). 98. In conclusion, the authorities have established a mechanism enabling the practical treatment of reparation claims for breaches of the Convention under Articles 8, 13 and 14 identified in the pilot case. This mechanism may be regarded as serving the same function as an award under Article 41 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, §§ 31 and 41; Wolkenberg, cited above, § 75; and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , cited above, § 88) . 99. In this context the Court notes with interest, in the light of the recommendations of the Commitee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the Declarations adopted at the Council of Europe Conferences in Interlaken, Izmir, Brighton and Brussels, that the respondent State has fulfilled its responsibilities under the Convention system by resolving this type of problem at the domestic level, thus securing to the parties concerned the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, as intended by Article 1 of the Convention . By proposing a solution for many individual cases arising from the same structural problem at the domestic level, the respondent State thus gave effect to the subsidiarity principle, which underpins the Convention system (see Stella and Others , decision cited above, § 43, and Demiroğlu , cited above). 100. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the matter giving rise to the present application and the remaining applications against Slovenia lodged by the “erased” where the applicants have regularised their legal status “has been resolved” for the purposes of Article 37 § 1(b) of the Convention and that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of these cases. 101. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which require the continued examination of the case. 102. However, the Court would stress that this conclusion does not prejudice its decision to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, the present, or any other similar application, to the list of cases if the circumstances, in particular the future functioning of the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme under the “Erased” Compensation Act, justify such a course, or to deal substantively with subsequent cases if the circumstances so justify (see Wolkenberg and Others , decision cited above, § 77; E. G. and 175 Bug River applications , decision cited above, § 29; and T he Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź , decision cited above, § 84 and 90). E. Consequences for the application of the pilot-judgment procedure 103. The Court considers that its task under Article 19 of the Convention has been essentially fulfilled. In these circumstances, the continued application of the pilot-judgment procedure initiated in the case of Kurić and Others v. Slovenia is no longer justified. Consequently, the Court closes the pilot judgment in respect of those Slovenian cases lodged by the “erased” where the applicants have regularised their legal status. In this context, the Court draws attention to the general obligation of Contracting States to solve the structural problems underlying violations (see, Broniowski v. Poland (merits) [GC], no. 31443/96 , § 191, ECHR 2004-V). Particular attention should therefore be paid by the national authorities to ensure that the “Erased” Compensation Act is applied in a manner that is in conformity with the Convention standards as far as both decisions of the administrative authorities and the future case-law of the Slovenian judiciary are concerned (see, mutatis mutandis , Korenjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 463/03 , § 74, 15 May 2007). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, 1. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases; 2. Decides to close the pilot-judgment procedure applied in the case of Kurić and Others v. Slovenia ( no. 26828/06 ). Done in English and notified in writing on 17 November 2016. Marialena Tsirli András Sajó Registrar President APPENDIX N o . First name LAST NAME State of resi-dence Date of birth Place of birth State of birth Nationality Date of erasure Period of un regu-larised status in Slovenia Date of permanent residence or citizenship 1. Slobodan Anastasov SVN 27/07/1959 Bosilegrad SER SVN 25/2/1992 9y 23/2/2001 2. Jelena Anastasov SVN 12/02/1984 Koper SVN SVN 25/2/1992 9y 23/2/2001 3. Nataša Anastasov SVN 24/07/1988 Koper SVN SVN 25/2/1992 9y 23/2/2001 4. Bogorotka Anastasova SVN 14/10/1961 Kočani MAC SVN 25/2/1992 9y 23/2/2001 5. Bogdan Ašanin SVN 12/07/1951 Ljevoša Peć SER SER 25/2/1992 12y 7m 18/10/2004 6. Svetislav Ašanin SVN 05/06/1957 Peć RKS SVN 26/2/1992 9y 5m 16/8/2001 7. Mirsad Bajrić SVN 20/12/1983 Zagreb CRO SVN 26/2/1992 10y 6m 9/9/2002 8. Mina Bajrić SVN 17/01/1966 Kozluk BIH SVN 25/2/1992 7y 11m 24/1/2000 9. Sandra Bakić SVN 17/02/1988 Kranj SVN BIH 26/2/1992 21y 14/3/2013 10. Nedžad Beganović SVN 26/01/1976 Teočak BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 8m 13/11/2000 11. Renata Benko SVN 26/08/1974 Zabok CRO SVN 12/10/1992 3y 4m 14/2/1996 12. Stipo Bilanović SVN 13/08/1964 Kotor Varoš BIH CRO 26/2/1992 22y 7m 15/10/2014 13. Dejan Blažević SVN 05/10/1962 Koper SVN SVN 25/2/1992 11y 28/2/2003 14. Savo Borenović SVN 27/01/1966 Sanskimost BIH SVN 26/2/1992 4y 1m 1/4/1996 15. Zvezdana Bošeska ( born Pajić) SVN 17/08/1978 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/02/1992 11y 3m 2/6/2003 16. Mirka Branković SVN 04/12/1962 Trnovo BIH BIH 26/2/1992 10y 7m 5/10/2002 17. Fadila Brkić SVN 10/07/1960 Humići BIH SVN 26/2/1992 12y 3m 2/6/2004 18. Radmila Burgić SVN 20/03/1973 Slovenj Gradec SVN SVN 26/2/1992 3y 7m 25/9/1995 19. Biserka Cener SVN 03/09/1960 Varaždin CRO CRO 25/2/1992 10y 5m 6/8/2002 20. Sanja Cilenšek ( born Glušac ) SVN 02/06/1989 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 6y 6m 10/9/1998 21. Goran Cvetković SVN 15/10/1971 Leskovac SER SER 26/2/1992 21y 2m 20/5/2013 22. Darjo Černeka SVN 03/06/1966 Koper SVN SVN 26/2/1992 5y 26/2/1997 23. Selvedina Ćoralić ( born Jusufagić ) SVN 19/04/1989 Ljubljana SVN SVN 25/2/1992 7y 11m 14/1/2000 24. Zoran Ćućić SVN 01/05/1968 Kulaši BIH BIH 25/2/1992 9y 6m 19/9/2001 25. Dragan Ćulum SVN 11/07/1987 Ljubljana SVN BIH 26/2/1992 20y 4m 20/6/2012 26. Dušan Dabižljević SVN 25/11/1961 Kuzmin SER SVN 26/2/1992 9y 7m 7/7/2004 27. Petar Dević SVN 28/02/1963 Donja Paklenica BIH SVN 25/2/1992 9y 11m 28/1/2002 28. Velinka Dević SVN 14/11/1964 Gornja Paklenica BIH SVN 25/2/1992 9y 11m 13/12/1999 29. Mensur Dindić SVN 31/12/1986 Jesenice SVN SVN 26/2/1992 6y 6m 24/08/1998 30. Mediha Dindić SVN 20/12/1982 Jesenice SVN SVN 26/2/1992 6y 6m 24/8/1998 31. Fatima Dindić SVN 24/10/1960 Sarajevo BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 6m 24/8/1998 32. Mesud Dindić SVN 22/07/1956 Dubrave BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 8m 3/5/2000 33. Gordana Dinić SVN 29/07/1953 Leskovac SER SVN 26/2/1992 1y 11m 26/1/1994 34. Ćazim Dizdarević SVN 28/07/1955 Bosanska Krupa BIH BIH 20/6/1995 17y 10m 15/4/2013 35. Petar Djaković SVN 22/09/1963 Mrkonjić Grad BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 10m 29/12/1998 36. Snežana Djaković SVN 23/05/1966 Banja Luka BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 6m 18/9/2000 37. Drago Djaković SVN 27/09/1966 Vilusi BIH BIH 26/2/1992 8y 2m 26/4/2000 38. Siniša Djaković SVN 24/09/1989 Kranj SVN SVN 26/2/1992 8y 6m 18/9/2000 39. Jelena Djaković SVN 17/04/1990 Kranj SVN SVN 26/2/1992 7y 3m 21/5/1999 40. Brana Djaković SVN 19/07/1964 Sanskimost BIH SVN 26/2/1992 7y 3m 21/5/1999 41. Sniježana Djukić SVN 15/08/1970 Teslić BIH SVN 26/2/1992 7y 3m 26/5/1999 42. Gordana Dragosavac SVN 02/06/1965 Ključ BIH SVN 25/2/1992 8y 7m 12/10/2000 43. Halil Duraković SVN 31/05/1950 Trpezi MNE MNE 25/2/1992 10y 6m 2/9/2002 44. Milena Đorđević SVN 05/11/1959 Kladanj BIH BIH 26/2/1992 12y 7m 18/10/2004 45. Dragan Đorđević SVN 28/10/1985 Ljubljana SVN SER 26/2/1992 18y 5m 11/8/2010 46. Stanimir Đukić SVN 10/07/1961 Mitrovići BIH SVN 26/2/1992 7y 22/3/1999 47. Radmila Đukić SVN 02/08/1962 Doboj BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 1m 10/4/1998 48. Dalibor Đukić SVN 25/12/1985 Doboj BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 1m 10/4/1998 49. Danijel Đukić SVN 05/03/1984 Doboj BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 1m 10/4/1998 50. Almir Felić SVN 26/02/1985 Jesenice SVN SVN 26/2/1992 13y 7m 9/2005 51. Nikola Filipović SVN 22/05/1948 Kobišnica SER SVN 26/2/1992 7y 6m 7/9/1999 52. Staka Gajanić SVN 28/02/1946 Štrpci BIH SVN 26/2/1992 10y 9m 4/12/2002 53. Mara Glamočanin SVN 08/11/1976 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 1y 7m 15/10/1993 54. Milan Glamočanin SVN 25/09/1977 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 1y 7m 15/10/1993 55. Ranko Gnjatović SVN 27/08/1962 Ključ BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 4m 17/7/2000 56. Gojko Gogić SVN 22/08/1954 Tramošnja BIH SVN 26/2/1992 10y 8m 25/10/2002 57. Samanta Graaf ( born Sadik ) SVN 14/07/1988 Ljubljana SVN ? 26/2/1992 19y 3m 16/5/2011 58. Novak Grgur SVN 25/01/1952 Plužine MNE SVN 25/2/1992 8y 8m 14/11/2000 59. Milan Grgur SVN 05/03/1988 Celje SVN SVN 25/2/1992 8y 8m 14/11/2000 60. Tanja Grgur SVN 05/03/1990 Celje SVN SVN 25/2/1992 8y 8m 14/11/2000 61. Ida Halilagić ( born Toromanović ) SVN 08/06/1982 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 7y 3m 4/6/1999 62. Neđad Halilov SVN 20/07/1973 Jesenice SVN SVN 26/2/1992 8y 6m 30/8/2000 63. Marija Hamer SVN 28/09/1957 Kamensko CRO CRO 25/2/1992 10y 1m 25/3/2002 64. Perina Hvala SVN 18/03/1965 Doboj BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 1m 10/4/1998 65. Ramiz Ikanović SVN 12/05/1956 Banovići BIH SVN 25/2/1992 10y 3m 12/6/2002 66. Vukoje Ikić SVN 20/02/1962 Azbresnica SER SVN 25/2/1992 7y 11m 21/1/2000 67. Zoran Ilić SVN 21/10/1966 Zvornik BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 11m 10/2/1999 68. Nataša Ilić SVN 10/02/1965 Bijelo Polje MNE SVN 26/2/1992 7y 5m 23/7/1999 69. Robert Ivanov SVN 11/01/1968 Kratovo MAC MAC 26/2/1992 13y 7m 26/9/2005 70. Violeta Jakimovski SVN 14/12/1972 Slovenj Gradec SVN SVN 26/2/1992 4y 4m 18/7/1996 71. Dušan Jeremić SVN 24/06/1959 Vasiljevci BIH BIH 26/2/1992 18y 7m 2/10/2010 72. Marko Josić SVN 21/04/1962 Dragunja Donja BIH CRO 26/2/1992 10y 3m 20/5/2002 73. Perica Josifovski SVN 26/06/1958 Kumanovo MAC SVN 26/2/1992 15y 7m 26/9/2007 74. Slavko Jovanović SVN 21/04/1953 Sanjski most BIH BIH 26/2/1992 4y 1m 9/4/1996 75. Vasva Jusufagić SVN 01/10/1970 Veliki Dubovik BIH SVN 25/2/1992 7y 11m 14/1/2000 76. Rizah Kaltak SVN 22/11/1959 Sanskimost BIH SVN 26/2/1992 3y 9m 11/12/1995 77. Hasiba Kaltak SVN 07/11/1958 Sanskimost BIH BIH 26/2/1992 6y 9m 25/11/1998 78. Husein Kananović SVN 26/09/1958 Ključ BIH BIH 26/2/1992 20y 11m 4/2/2013 79. Đuro Karanović SVN 11/09/1945 Drvar BIH SVN 26/2/1992 9y 4m 10/7/2001 80. Ramko Kazić SVN 23/06/1956 Čaplje BIH SVN 26/2/1992 4y 3m 3/6/1996 81. Amela Kazić SVN 19/09/1990 Jesenice SVN SVN 26/2/1992 4y 3m 3/6/1996 82. Alaga Kendić SVN 28/03/1958 Velka Kladuša BIH BIH 26/2/1992 11y 1m 26/3/2003 83. Tanja Keranović SVN 16/03/1971 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 7y 2m 7/5/1999 84. Nedeljko Kerezović SVN 27/11/1953 Kneževo BIH BIH 26/2/1992 8y 2m 12/5/2000 85. Dobrila Klisarić SVN 01/11/1964 Dabovci BIH SVN 26/2/1992 9y 1m 18/4/2001 86. Vitomir Kojić SVN 19/03/1989 Kranj SVN SVN 26/2/1992 6y 5m 22/7/1998 87. Stojanka Kojić SVN 02/01/1970 Ukrnica BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 5m 22/7/1998 88. Milorad Kojić SVN 11/01/1939 Klenje SER SVN 27/11/1994 6y 11m 1/10/1998 (certificate of permanent residence), 22/10/2001 (citizenship) 89. Josip Koleš SVN 16/01/1953 Bratovski vrh CRO SVN 1/12/1992 3y 2m 16/2/1996 90. Ivica Koleš SVN 16/10/1983 Brežice SVN SVN 1/12/1992 3y 2m 16/2/1996 91. Josip Koleš SVN 23/11/1979 Zagreb CRO SVN 1/12/1992 3y 2m 16/2/1996 92. Mirjana Koleš SVN 15/11/1957 Kapelski vrh CRO SVN 1/12/1992 3y 2m 16/2/1996 93. Bogdanka Kondić SVN 14/06/1961 Obrovac BIH SVN 25/2/1992 8y 7m 13/10/2000 94. Dragan Kondić SVN 04/03/1955 Sanskimost BIH SVN 25/2/1992 0y 7m 5/10/1992 95. Milena Kostić SVN 06/04/1967 Batak BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 25/2/2000 96. Jovo Kovačević SVN 29/09/1962 Ključ BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 4m 29/6/1998 97. Jelena Kovačević SVN 24/04/1968 Banja Luka BIH SVN 26/2/1992 10y 27/2/2002 98. Slađana Kovačević SVN 22/03/1990 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 6y 4m 22/6/1998 99. Zorka Krejić SVN 26/01/1953 Sokolovo SER SVN 26/2/1992 7y 11m 3 weeks 23/2/2000 100. Smail Kudić SVN 03/08/1951 Kudići BIH SVN 25/2/1992 11y 9m 18/12/2003 101. Šefika Kudić SVN 01/04/1956 Todorovo BIH SVN 19/12/1992 11y 18/12/2003 102. Aladin Kudić SVN 13/06/1979 Ljubljana SVN SVN 19/12/1992 11y 10/1/2003 103. Jelena Kunešević SVN 03/05/1932 Bijeljina BIH BIH 26/2/1992 3y 10m 28/12/1995 104. Cvjetko Kunešević SVN 24/06/1936 Bijeljina BIH BIH, SVN 25/2/1992 2y 2m 9/5/1994 105. Dragan Kutlačič SVN 27/06/1984 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 6y 4m 19/6/1998 106. Perica Kutlačič SVN 18/01/1976 Bijeljina BIH SVN 26/2/1992 11y 8m 10/11/2003 107. Ljiljana Kutlačič SVN 06/09/1957 Bijeljina BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 4m 19/6/1998 108. Nedeljka Kuzmanović SVN 31/12/1967 Prnjavor BIH SVN 25/2/1992 8y 9m 13/12/2000 109. Jagoda Lazić SVN 10/09/1967 Ljeb BIH SVN 26/2/1992 12y 10m 29/12/2004 110. Suzana Lazić SVN 03/02/1983 Celje SVN SVN 25/2/1992 9y 1m 11/04/2001 111. Dragan Leburić SVN 19/01/1974 Banja Luka BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 2m 08/05/1998 112. Dušanka Lesnik SVN 28/08/1949 Dobra Kuća CRO SVN 24/11/1992 7y 6m 16/06/2000 113. Persa Lovrić SVN 11/08/1969 Banja Luka BIH SVN 25/2/1992 9y 3m 18/06/2001 114. Nada Makarić SVN 25/05/1967 Imljani BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 16/02/2000 115. Zlatko Makarić SVN 19/11/1988 Kranj SVN SVN 26/2/1992 8y 16/02/2000 116. Veseljko Makarić SVN 22/03/1962 Imljani BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 16/02/2000 117. Veseljko Makarić SVN 17/02/1963 Imljani BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 09/02/2000 118. Stana Marić SVN 04/09/1961 Ključ BIH SVN 25/2/1992 6y 9m 27/11/1998 119. Marinka Marić SVN 09/06/1983 Jesenice SVN SVN 25/2/1992 5y 6m 20/08/1997 120. Stanislav Marić AUT 20/11/1980 Jesenice SVN SVN 25/2/1992 5y 6m 20/08/1997 121. Zdravka Marić ( born Djukić ) SVN 21/11/1974 Teslić BIH SVN 25/2/1992 8y 4m 17/07/2000 122. Djurdjija Marković SVN 12/05/1946 Bijeljina BIH SVN 17/6/1993 2y 2m 18/08/1995 123. Trišo Mijatović SVN 08/01/1959 Bijeljina BIH BIH 26/2/1992 5y 6m 17/09/1997 124. Radovan Mikača SVN 28/01/1953 Drugovići BIH SVN 26/2/1992 3y 1m 07/04/1995 125. Mile Miljetović SVN 10/06/1954 Kršlje BIH BIH 26/2/1992 5y 19/03/1997 126. Radovan Mišković SVN 10/10/1957 Ključ BIH SVN 25/2/1992 8y 4m 14/07/2000 127. Zoran Mitrović SVN 20/12/1967 D/Lokanj BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 5m 16/08/2000 128. Staka Mitrović SVN 02/09/1964 Doboj BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 5m 16/08/2000 129. Mira Muršič SVN 21/04/1963 Prhovec CRO SVN 26/2/1992 5y 11m 06/01/1998 130. Safete Mustafa SVN 19/03/1970 Ljubožda SER SVN 5/7/1992 7y 8m 13/03/2000 131. Miroslav Nikolić SVN 14/07/1952 Niš SER SVN 26/2/1992 5y 5m 07/08/1997 132. Bojan Obradović SVN 07/12/1987 Kranj SVN SVN 26/2/1992 12y 3m 17/7/2004 133. Nebojša Obradović SVN 09/08/1986 Kranj SVN SVN 26/2/1992 12y 3m 17/7/2004 134. Ljubinko Pajić SVN 21/11/1949 Bijeljina BIH SVN 25/2/1992 8y 3m 29/05/2000 135. Milka Pajić SVN 07/03/1954 Bijeljina BIH BIH 26/2/1992 14y 8m 16/11/2006 136. Mirko Panić SVN 13/10/1962 Teslić BIH BIH 26/2/1992 6y 11m 29/01/1999 137. Danijela Panić SVN 25/04/1985 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 6y 2m 14/05/1998 138. Miloš Panić SVN 30/08/1990 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 7y 9m 22/12/1999 139. Milovan Pantelić SVN 12/06/1989 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 1y 8m 12/11/1993 140. Hašim Pašalić SVN 31/08/1964 Prijedor BIH BIH 8/11/1993 9y 11m 09/10/2003 141. Šemso Pašić SVN 25/03/1961 Bosanska nova BIH BIH 25/2/1992 10y 1m 15/04/2002 142. Senada Paunović SVN 01/02/1949 Bosanski Novi BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 9m 23/11/1998 143. Ivan Pavešić SVN 07/03/1938 Miholjanec CRO SVN 25/2/1992 6y 6m 01/07/1999 144. Sladjana Pavešić SVN 16/03/1943 Kusić SER SVN 25/2/1992 6y 6m 01/07/1999 145. Orelia Pavlič SVN 28/07/1956 Umag CRO SVN 26/2/1992 3y 11m 17/01/1996 146. Enisa Pejčić ( born Bajrić ) SVN 19/05/1990 Ljubljana SVN SVN 25/2/1992 7y 11m 10/02/2000 147. Draginja Pepić SVN 10/12/1960 Donji Skugrić BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 3m 08/06/1998 148. Cvijeta Petrović ( born Panić ) SVN 20/04/1973 Ugodnović BIH SVN 25/2/1992 8y 6m 13/09/2000 149. Slobodan Peulić SVN 10/09/1964 Gornji Vijačani BIH Unknown or state-less 25/2/1992 8y 8m 13/11/2000 150. Slavko Plavšić SVN 20/06/1964 Ključ BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 7m 06/10/2000 151. Snežana Plavšić SVN 01/08/1970 Bijeljina BIH SVN 26/2/1992 8y 7m 27/09/2000 152. Dejan Plavšić SVN 29/07/1988 Ljubljana SVN SVN 25/2/1992 8y 7m 18/10/2000 153. Mileva Praštalo SVN 02/02/1942 Lipnik, Sanski Most BIH SVN 26/2/1992 2y 3m 13/06/1994 154. Damjan Račić SVN 24/08/1989 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 6y 7m 24/09/1998 155. Slađana Radić SVN 06/06/1977 Postojna SVN SVN 26/2/1992 3y 3m 05/06/1995 156. Jovana Radošević ( born Ćurguz ) SVN 02/06/1984 Ljubljana SVN BIH 26/2/1992 8y 5m 31/07/2000 157. Vinko Ratković SVN 25/11/1959 Banja Luka BIH BIH 26/2/1992 21y 3m 13/06/2013 158. Igor Ratković SVN 17/09/1989 Celje SVN BIH 26/2/1992 13y 3m 16/06/2005 159. Mira Ratković SVN 09/01/1964 Banja Luka BIH BIH 26/2/1992 13y 3m 16/06/2005 160. Emina Redžić ( born Kazić ) AUT 07/11/1985 Jesenice SVN SVN 26/2/1992 4y 3m 03/06/1996 161. Tamara Ristić SVN 28/03/1980 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 7y 11m 09/02/2000 162. Cvetko Ristić SVN 05/02/1945 Sušiče (Uroševac) RKS SVN 26/2/1992 10y 08/03/2002 163. Orfej Rudek ( born Sadik ) SVN 04/01/1971 Skopje MAC unknown or state-less 26/2/1992 20y 7m 17/10/2012 164. Kemalj Sadik SVN 28/12/1950 Skopje MAC MAC, SVN 26/2/1992 10y 1m 05/04/2002 165. Servet Saiti SVN 16/12/1962 Peč RKS SVN 26/2/1992 8y 9m 11/12/2000 166. Dušanka Savić SVN 08/09/1956 Štupelj SER unknown or state-less 26/2/1992 20y 4m 21/06/2012 167. Najden Savić SVN 08/05/1955 Svrljig SER SER 26/2/1992 20y 4m 21/06/2012 168. Sabino Sejdinović SVN 15/04/1989 Slovenj Gradec SVN SVN 26/2/1992 8y 7m 11/10/2000 169. Marina Smrdel ( born Lazarević ) SVN 07/12/1986 Postojna SVN SVN 26/2/1992 6y 3m 10/06/1998 170. Pero Srdić SVN 19/07/1960 Popovac BIH BIH 26/2/1992 19y 9m 25/11/2011 171. Milena Stanić SVN 20/12/1956 Mrkonjić Grad BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 3m 06/07/1998 172. Dragan Stanković SVN 25/03/1968 Jagnjilo SER SER 8/1/1992 18y 11m 27/12/2010 173. Nastja Starčević Dević SVN 12/10/1987 Postojna SVN SVN 25/2/1992 7y 9m 13/12/1999 174. Mara Stojanović SVN 15/08/1966 Kulaši BIH SVN 26/2/1992 9y 11m 24/01/2002 175. Brankica Stojanović SVN 20/01/1990 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 9y 11m 24/01/2002 176. Blagoja Stojanović SVN 10/04/1962 Bijeljina BIH SVN 26/2/1992 9y 11m 24/01/2002 177. Miloje Stojković SVN 12/10/1949 Peć SER SER 3/12/1992 16y 4m 11/03/2009 178. Stana Stokanić SVN 22/10/1955 Kotor Varoš BIH SVN 26/2/1992 4y 3m 17/06/1996 179. Ragip Šahmanović SVN 05/03/1959 Brezojevice MNE SVN 26/2/1992 10y 2m 15/05/2002 180. Emil Šakanović SVN 01/05/1983 Kranj SVN SVN 26/2/1992 10y 4m 17/07/2002 181. Elmedina Šarić ( born Kazić ) SVN 20/04/1984 Jesenice SVN SVN 26/2/1992 4y 3m 03/06/1996 182. Katarina Ščavničar SVN 29/09/1985 Kranj SVN SVN 26/2/1992 2y 3m 01/06/1994 183. Tanja Ščavničar SVN 20/11/1980 Kranj SVN SVN 26/2/1992 2y 3m 01/06/1994 184. Renata Ščavničar SVN 24/08/1979 Kranj SVN SVN 26/2/1992 2y 3m 01/06/1994 185. Danica Ščavničar SVN 22/05/1953 Duga resa CRO SVN 26/2/1992 2y 3m 01/06/1994 186. Stjepan Ščavničar SVN 14/04/1956 Čakovec CRO SVN 26/2/1992 2y 3m 01/06/1994 187. Damir Šekić SVN 07/11/1983 Ljubljana SVN SVN 26/2/1992 11y 4m 02/07/2003 188. Slobodanka Škorić SVN 22/07/1965 Gornji Bušević, Bosanska Krupa BIH SVN 26/2/1992 2y 11m 30/01/1995 189. Nada Štrkić SVN 20/03/1960 Rekavice BIH BIH 26/2/1992 13y 6m 29/08/2005 190. Zoran Šušnjar SVN 17/07/1963 Višegrad BIH SVN 26/2/1992 9y 14/02/2001 191. Mirko Todorović SVN 21/05/1962 Tešanj BIH BIH 26/2/1992 21y 5m 10/07/2013 192. Mladenko Tomaš SVN 11/05/1969 Prisika BIH CRO, SVN 25/2/1992 8y 11m 03/01/2001 193. Tonči Tomić SVN 27/08/1955 Split CRO CRO 26/2/1992 14y 6m 30/08/2006 194. Biljana Topić SVN 21/04/1960 Banja Luka BIH SVN 16/4/1993 9y 3m 2/8/2002 195. Minka Toromanović SVN 04/08/1953 Kotor Varoš BIH SVN 26/2/1992 7y 8m 27/10/1999 196. Džinka Trako SVN 12/08/1962 SVN BIH 26/2/1992 19y 3m 10/06/2011 197. Ružica Trivalić SVN 05/04/1953 Vratišinec CRO SVN 26/2/1992 6y 8m 20/10/1998 198. Radosav Tufegdžić SVN 10/04/1949 Stabna MNE SVN 26/2/1992 11m 13/02/1993 199. Darko Ujić SVN 24/02/1972 Sokolac BIH SVN 26/2/1992 10y 9m 09/12/2002 200. Abdulah Varmaz SVN 03/01/1950 Prijedor BIH SVN 8/1/1992 5y 9m 13/10/1997 201. Miladin Vasiljević SVN 14/12/1962 Bijeljina BIH BIH 26/2/1992 17y 6m 10/09/2009 202. Božo Vidaković SVN 11/07/1952 Radovljica SVN SVN 26/2/1992 1y 9m 23/11/1993 203. Božana Vidović SVN 21/10/1964 Bosanska Gradiška BIH SVN 26/2/1992 6y 3m 10/06/1998 204. Gojko Vidović SVN 24/09/1961 Bosanska Gradiška BIH BIH 26/2/1992 9y 28/02/2001 205. Milica Vujić SVN 08/11/1935 Kikinda SER SER 25/2/1992 8y 3m 01/06/2000 206. Zlatomir Vulović SVN 28/09/1961 Sjenica SER SVN 26/2/1992 5y 07/03/1997 207. Ekrem Zečević SVN 29/06/1960 Ključ BIH SVN 25/2/1992 7y 11m 09/02/2000 208. Anka Zelenović SVN 19/01/1956 Bijeljina BIH SVN, BIH 25/2/1992 0y 5m 17/07/1992 209. Vukašin Zelenović SVN 24/03/1950 Bijeljina BIH SVN, BIH 25/2/1992 0y 5m 17/07/1992 210. Egidio Zugan SVN 06/07/1965 Koper SVN SVN 26/2/1992 4y 4m 01/07/1996 211. Miroslav Zugan SVN 17/01/1971 Koper SVN SVN 26/2/1992 4y 4m 01/07/1996 212. Dobrivoje Živić SVN 09/04/1954 Klina RKS SVN 25/2/1992 8y 7m 18/10/2000 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII