natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Når dette ikke er muligt (f.eks. hvis den myndighed, der er ansvarlig for afslaget på forlængelse af en opholdstilladelse, ikke har beføjelse til at træffe afgørelse om tilbagesendelse), skal medlemsstaterne indføre hurtige og effektive procedurer, der involverer de kompetente myndigheder, for derved at sikre, at der sker en hurtig udveksling af oplysninger, og at der hurtigst muligt træffes afgørelse om tilbagesendelse, efter at der er truffet afgørelse om ophør af lovligt ophold — uden at dette berører retten til at give tilladelse eller ret til ophold i henhold til tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 6, stk. 4.
Where a Member State is considering issuing a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay to a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued by another Member State, it shall first consult the Member State having issued the entry ban and shall take account of its interests in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement.
Konkrete eksempler:
Article 25 Schengen Implementing Convention provides that:
Hvis en medlemsstat beslutter at inddrage et visum og give en tredjelandsstatsborger en frist på syv dage til frivilligt at forlade medlemsstatens område, er der da tale om en afgørelse om tilbagesendelse i henhold til tilbagesendelsesdirektivet?
Where a Member State considers issuing a residence permit, it shall systematically carry out a search in the Schengen Information System.
Eller er afgørelsen omfattet af andre EU-regler vedrørende visum?
Where a Member State considers issuing a residence permit to an alien for whom an alert has been issued for the purposes of refusing entry, it shall first consult the Member State issuing the alert and shall take account of its interests; the residence permit shall be issued for substantive reasons only, notably on humanitarian grounds or by reason of international commitments.
Sådanne afgørelser kan bestå af to dele: en afgørelse om inddragelse af et visum og en afgørelse om tilbagesendelse i henhold til tilbagesendelsesdirektivet.
Where a residence permit is issued, the Member State issuing the alert shall withdraw the alert but may put the alien concerned on its national list of alerts.
Hvis visummet inddrages med øjeblikkelig virkning, bliver personens ophold ulovligt, jf. tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 3, nr. 2), hvorfor direktivets artikel 6 (forpligtelse til at træffe en afgørelse om tilbagesendelse) finder anvendelse.
Prior to issuing an alert for the purposes of refusing entry within the meaning of Article 96, the Member States shall check their national records of long-stay visas or residence permits issued.
Der kan — samtidig — gøres indsigelse mod inddragelsen af visummet i overensstemmelse med visumreglerne i visumkodeksen [67] (denne mulighed for at træffe flere afgørelser sammen med en afgørelse om tilbagesendelse er udtrykkeligt nævnt i tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 6, stk. 6).Hvis en tredjelandsstatsborger opdages på området med det nødvendige visum, som dog ikke (eller ikke længere) opfylder betingelserne for ophold (Schengengrænsekodeksens artikel 6), skulle det være tilstrækkeligt, at medlemsstaten træffer en afgørelse om tilbagesendelse.
Where it emerges that an alert for the purposes of refusing entry has been issued for an alien who holds a valid residence permit issued by one of the Contracting Parties, the Contracting Party issuing the alert shall consult the Party which issued the residence permit in order to determine whether there are sufficient reasons for withdrawing the residence permit.
Vil en sådan afgørelse om tilbagesendelse (eventuelt ledsaget af et indrejseforbud) automatisk indebære, at visummet ikke længere er gyldigt?
If the residence permit is not withdrawn, the Contracting Party issuing the alert shall withdraw the alert but may nevertheless put the alien in question on its national list of alerts.
I visumkodeksens artikel 34, stk. 2, fastsættes det, at »et visum inddrages, hvis det bliver åbenlyst, at betingelserne (dvs. indrejsebetingelserne i Schengengrænsekodeksen) for udstedelse ikke længere er opfyldt«.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply also to long-stay visas.
De myndigheder, der træffer en afgørelse om tilbagesendelse, skal også sikre, at visummet inddrages.
Article 25 SIC is a directly applicable provision and can be applied by Member States without transposing national legislation.
Begge afgørelser kan dog træffes i ét forvaltningsdokument.
Only the Member State issuing the entry ban (Member State A) can lift the entry ban.
Det skal undgås, at der træffes en afgørelse om tilbagesendelse, og at man lader personen udrejse med et gyldigt (ensartet) visum.
If another Member State (Member State B) decides to issue a residence permit to the same person or not to withdrawn an existing one (after having carried out consultation with the Member State which had issued the entry ban), Member State A is obliged to withdraw the alert (Article 25(2) SIC), although it may put the third-country national on its national list of alerts.
Kan en afgørelse om afslag på en asylansøgning også pålægge en pligt til at vende tilbage?
The reasons underlying an existing entry ban issued by Member State A, as well as the interests of this Member State, must be considered and taken into account by Member State B before issuing a residence permit or deciding not to withdraw it (for instance for family reunification purposes).
Retsgrundlag: tilbagesendelsesdirektivet — artikel 12, stk. 1-3
In order to allow Member State B to properly take into account the underlying reasons for the entry ban, it is essential that Member State A provides the relevant information to Member State B in due time.
Afgørelser om tilbagesendelse og, hvis der er udstedt sådanne, afgørelser om indrejseforbud og afgørelser om udsendelse skal affattes skriftligt og angive de faktiske og retlige grunde samt oplyse om de retsmidler, der er til rådighed.
Those Member States which do not yet fully apply Schengen rules and therefore cannot (yet) directly apply Article 25 SIC, should nevertheless follow the spirit of Article 11(4) of the Return Directive and contact — if they become aware (through whatever source of information including information from the applicant) that a person is subject of an entry ban issued by another Member State — the authorities which issued the entry ban.
Oplysningerne om de faktiske grunde kan begrænses, hvis den nationale lovgivning tillader en begrænsning i retten til information, især for at beskytte den nationale sikkerhed, forsvaret eller den offentlige sikkerhed og forebyggelsen, efterforskningen, afsløringen og retsforfølgningen af strafbare handlinger.
Before issuing a residence permit to the person, the Member State should seek to ‘take account of the interest’ of the Member State which issued the entry ban.
En skriftlig afgørelse er den grundlæggende hjørnesten i de proceduremæssige garantier i tilbagesendelsesdirektivet.
‘Historic’ entry bans issued before 24 December 2010 have to be adapted in line with the standards fixed in Article 11 of the Return Directive — i.e. maximum of 5 year, individual assessment, obligation to withdraw/consider withdrawing in specific circumstances — if they develop effects for the period after 24 December 2010 and if they are not yet in line with the substantive safeguards of Article 11.
Dette krav kan ikke fraviges.
Adaptation should take place either upon application of the concerned person at any moment or ex officio at the earliest possible moment, and in any case not later than at the occasion of the regular (3-year) review of entry bans foreseen for SIS alerts.
Oplysningerne til personer, der skal tilbagesendes, bør dog ikke begrænse sig til henvisninger til de retsmidler, der er til rådighed: Medlemsstaterne opfordres til også at give andre oplysninger om, hvordan afgørelsen efterkommes i praksis.
In the judgment of Case C-297/12, Filev and Osmani (paragraphs 39-41 and 44), the ECJ expressly clarified: ‘In that regard, it is important to note from the outset that that directive does not include a provision providing for transitional arrangements in relation to entry-ban decisions taken before it became applicable.
Det anbefales, at personer, der skal tilbagesendes, f.eks. underrettes om, hvorvidt medlemsstaten f.eks. kan bidrage til transportomkostningerne, om de pågældende kan få støtte fra et program vedrørende frivillig tilbagevenden, og om fristen for at efterkomme afgørelsen om tilbagesendelse kan forlænges.
None the less, it follows from the Court's settled case-law that new rules apply immediately, except in the event of a derogation, to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rules […].
Personer, der skal tilbagesendes, bør også underrettes om deres forpligtelse til at forlade EU-medlemsstaternes og associerede Schengenlandes område og om konsekvenserne af ikke at overholde forpligtelsen til at vende tilbage med henblik på at tilskynde de pågældende til frivillig udrejse.
It follows that Directive 2008/115/EC is applicable to those effects which occur after the date of its applicability in the Member State concerned of entry-ban decisions taken under national rules which were applicable before that date. […] It follows that Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC precludes a continuation of the effects of entry bans of unlimited length made before the date on which Directive 2008/115/EC became applicable, […] beyond the maximum length of entry ban laid down by that provision, except where those entry bans were made against third-country nationals constituting a serious threat to public order, public security or national security’.
I henhold til artikel 6, stk. 2, andet afsnit, i direktiv 2009/52/EF om sanktioner over for arbejdsgivere skal personer, der skal tilbagesendes, informeres om deres rettigheder i henhold til direktivet til at kræve udbetaling af udestående løn fra deres arbejdsgiver og om tilgængelige klagemekanismer.
The right to good administration is a fundamental right recognised as a general principle of EU law and enshrined in the CFR, which forms an integral part of the EU legal order.
Disse oplysninger kan også angives i eller vedhæftes afgørelsen om tilbagesendelse.
This right includes the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely or which significantly affect his or her interests is taken, which is also inherent in respect for the rights of the defence, another general principle of EU law.
Medlemsstaterne tilvejebringer efter anmodning en skriftlig eller mundtlig oversættelse af de vigtigste elementer i afgørelser vedrørende tilbagesendelse som omhandlet i stk. 1, herunder oplysninger om tilgængelige retsmidler på et sprog, som tredjelandsstatsborgeren forstår eller med rimelighed kan formodes at forstå.
In the judgments of Cases C-383/13, G & R [62], and C-249/13, Boudjlida [63], the ECJ provided important clarification on the right to be heard in relation to return and detention decisions.
Anmodningen om en oversættelse kan være formuleret af den person, der skal tilbagesendes, eller den pågældendes retlige repræsentant.
These judgements imply that Member States must always comply with the safeguards below when taking decisions related to return (i.e. return decision, entry-ban decisions, removal decisions, detention order) even though this may not be expressly specified in the relevant articles of the Return Directive:(1) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;
Medlemsstaten kan frit vælge, om den vil tilvejebringe en skriftlig eller mundtlig oversættelse, idet det skal sikres, at tredjelandsstatsborgeren kan forstå sammenhængen og indholdet.
the right of every person to have access to his or her file, to analyse all the evidence relied on against him or her which serves to justify a decision by the competent national authority, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;
Der må ikke opkræves et gebyr for oversættelsen, da det ville være i strid med bestemmelsens formål, som er at give tredjelandsstatsborgeren de oplysninger, der er nødvendige for, at den pågældende fuldt ud forstår sin retlige situation og ender med at overholde afgørelsen om tilbagesendelse.
the right of every person to have recourse to a legal adviser prior to the adoption of a return decision, provided that the exercise of that right does not affect the due progress of the return procedure and does not undermine the effective implementation of the Directive; this does not entail an obligation upon Member States to bear the costs of that assistance;
Det skal fastsættes i den nationale gennemførelseslovgivning og administrative praksis, hvilket sprog tredjelandsstatsborgeren med rimelighed kan formodes at forstå.
the obligation of the administration to pay due attention to the observations by the person concerned and examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case;
Denne vurdering kan foregå på samme måde og i henhold til samme kriterier som i asylprocedurer (artikel 12 i direktiv 2013/32/EU om asylprocedurer, artikel 22 i det omarbejdede kvalifikationsdirektiv (direktiv 2011/95/EU) og artikel 5 i direktiv 2013/33/EU om modtagelsesforhold), idet der tages højde for, at kravene til oversættelse på dette område som følge af asylprocedurernes kompleksitet kan være højere end på tilbagesendelsesområdet.
the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.
I henhold til EU-retten om asyl skal medlemsstaterne gøre enhver rimelig indsats for at tilvejebringe en oversættelse til et sprog, som den pågældende person rent faktisk forstår, og manglende adgang til en tolk kan kun være en gyldig undskyldning, hvis der er tale om ekstremt sjældne sprog, inden for hvilke der er objektiv mangel på tolke.
Member States enjoy a significant margin of discretion on how to grant the right to be heard in practice: the non-respect of this right renders a decision invalid only insofar as the outcome of the procedure would have been different if the right was respected (judgment of the ECJ in Case C-383/13, G & R, paragraph 38).
At der opstår en situation, hvor der findes oversættere til de relevante sprog, men som ikke er tilgængelige af årsager internt i forvaltningen, kan ikke være en begrundelse for manglende oversættelse.
Moreover, a Member State authority may fail to hear a third-country national specifically on the subject of a return decision where, after that authority has determined that the third-country national is staying illegally in the national territory within a preceding asylum procedure which fully respected that person's right to be heard, it is contemplating the adoption of a return decision (judgment of the ECJ in Case C-166/13, Mukarubega [64]).
Muligheden for at bruge modeller for at rationalisere forvaltningens arbejde begrænser sig ikke til anvendelsesområdet for artikel 12, stk. 3 (se nedenfor).
The logic set out in Mukarubega is as follows: ‘The right to be heard before the adoption of a return decision cannot be used in order to re-open indefinitely the administrative procedure, for the reason that the balance between the fundamental right of the person concerned to be heard before the adoption of a decision adversely affecting that person and the obligation of the Member States to combat illegal immigration must be maintained’.
Så længe modellen gør det muligt at tilvejebringe en individuelt tilpasset oversættelse af afgørelsen til et sprog, som personen forstår eller med rimelighed kan formodes at forstå, er en sådan oversættelse stadig i overensstemmelse med tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 12, stk. 2, og der er ingen grund til at bruge undtagelsen i artikel 12, stk. 3.
This logic can also be applied in different case constellations, such as those mentioned in Article 6(6) of the Return Directive (decision on ending of legal stay combined with return decision) and it entails that a repetitive assessment of the risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement is not required if the respect of that principle was already assessed in previous procedures, if the assessment is final and if there is no change in the individual situation of the third-country national concerned.
Medlemsstaterne kan beslutte ikke at anvende stk. 2 på tredjelandsstatsborgere, der er indrejst ulovligt på en medlemsstats område, og som ikke efterfølgende har fået opholdstilladelse eller ret til ophold i denne medlemsstat.
In the same vein, a repetitive assessment of other elements that could be invoked in order to prevent return should be obviated.
I disse tilfælde udfærdiges afgørelser vedrørende tilbagesendelse som omhandlet i stk. 1 ved hjælp af en standardformular i henhold til national lovgivning.
Member States should take measures to avoid such repetitive assessments, for instance by merging in one procedural step, to the extent possible, the administrative hearings of the competent national authorities for different purposes (for example renewal or granting of a residence permit, determination of the right to enter the territory of a Member State, final negative decision on an application for international protection), provided that the right to be heard is fully respected.
Medlemsstaterne sørger for, at der foreligger generelle informationsskrivelser, der redegør for standardformularens vigtigste elementer, på mindst fem af de sprog, der hyppigst anvendes eller forstås af personer, der indrejser ulovligt i den pågældende medlemsstat.
In this context, innovative tools such as for instance video-conferencing could also be developed for this purpose.
Brugen af en standardformular for tilbagesendelse i henhold til tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 12, stk. 3, er en undtagelse fra de almindelige regler, som kun kan bruges i de tilfælde, hvor en tredjelandsstatsborger er indrejst ulovligt på en medlemsstats område.
Member States must ensure that the application of such measures does not result in a prejudice for the respect of procedural safeguards, and should pay particular attention to persons in need of special procedural guarantees, in particular minors (see below).
Medlemsstaterne har i sådanne tilfælde en mulighed for at bruge en standardformular.
The right to be heard includes a right to be heard on the possible application of Articles 5 and 6(2) to (5) of the Return Directive and on the detailed arrangements for return, such as the period allowed for voluntary departure and whether return is to be voluntary or forced.
Det skal bemærkes, at de tilfælde af ulovlig indrejse, der er omfattet af tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 12, stk. 3, ikke altid er de samme som de »grænsesager«, der er omhandlet i direktivets artikel 2, stk. 2, litra a), — se afsnit 2.1.
The authority must, however, not warn the third-country national, prior to the hearing, that it is contemplating adopting a return decision, or disclose information on which it intends to rely as justification for that decision, or allow a period of reflection, provided that the third-country national has the opportunity effectively to present his point of view on the subject of the illegality of his stay and the reasons which might, under national law, justify that authority refraining from adopting a return decision (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-249/13, Boudjlida).
En tredjelandsstatsborger med ulovligt ophold, der pågribes på en medlemsstats område tre måneder efter den pågældendes ulovlige indrejse, er ikke omfattet af tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 2, stk. 2, litra a), men kan stadig være omfattet af undtagelsen i artikel 12, stk. 3.
The procedural safeguards of Articles 12 and 13 of the Return Directive should be applied to all decisions related to return and must not be limited to the three types of decisions mentioned in Article 12(1) of that Directive.
Det skal bemærkes, at tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 6, stk. 2, eller artikel 6, stk. 3, kan finde anvendelse i disse specifikke tilfælde (indrejse fra en anden medlemsstat).
The minor's right to be heard in return procedures involving or affecting them must be respected.
Artikel 12, stk. 3, indeholder ingen undtagelser, hvad angår gældende retsmidler.
In accordance with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and taking into account the General Comment No 12 of the UN Committee on the rights of the child on the right of the child to be heard [65], the minors concerned must be heard, either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body; the right to express their views freely must be respected and due weight must be given to the minors' views, in accordance with their age and maturity and taking into account any communication difficulties they may have, in order to make their participation meaningful.To ensure in practice the respect of the right of the minor to be heard, the measures adopted by Member States should be guided by the following key principles:
Der skal derfor være adgang til de i tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 13, stk. 1, nævnte retsmidler, også når der anvendes en standardformular, jf. artikel 12, stk. 3.
expressing views is a choice and not an obligation,
Retsgrundlag: tilbagesendelsesdirektivet — artikel 13, stk. 1 og 2
the right to be heard should not be subject to any age limits or other arbitrary restrictions, either in law or in practice,
Den pågældende tredjelandsstatsborger skal have adgang til effektive retsmidler til at klage over eller søge prøvning af afgørelser vedrørende tilbagesendelse som omhandlet i artikel 12, stk. 1, ved en kompetent retslig eller administrativ myndighed eller et kompetent organ, sammensat af medlemmer, der er upartiske og er sikret uafhængighed.
a minor should be heard in an environment that is appropriate to his/her needs,
De retsmidler, der finder anvendelse på afgørelser om frihedsberøvelse og forlængelse af frihedsberøvelsen, reguleres nærmere i tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 15 om frihedsberøvelse (se afsnit 14).
facilitating the expression of views may require special measures for a minor in particularly vulnerable situations, including the provision of interpretation and translation services.
I overensstemmelse med denne retspraksis kan klageinstansen også være en administrativ myndighed, forudsat at denne myndighed er sammensat af medlemmer, der er upartiske og er sikret uafhængighed, og at nationale bestemmelser giver mulighed for at få afgørelsen prøvet af en domstol i overensstemmelse med de standarder, der er fastsat i artikel 47 i chartret om grundlæggende rettigheder, om retten til effektive retsmidler.
Collection of information on smuggling: in line with the priorities established in the EU Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling 2015-2020 [66], and in particular the need to improve gathering and sharing of information, the Commission recommends that Member States put in place adequate mechanisms in order to ensure systematic information gathering from third-country nationals apprehended in an irregular situation, in full respects of fundamental rights and EU asylum acquis.
Der findes flere beskyttelsesforanstaltninger, som skal imødegå risikoen for et eventuelt misbrug af muligheden for at klage: Artikel 13 indeholder ikke bestemmelser om en automatisk opsættende virkning under alle omstændigheder (stk. 2), og gratis retshjælp kan begrænses, hvis det er usandsynligt, at klagen bliver taget til følge (stk. 4).
When granting the right to be heard before adopting a return decision, Member States are encouraged to invite returnees to share the information that they may have in relation to modus operandi and routes of smuggling networks, as well as links with trafficking in human beings and other crimes, and on financial transfers.
Der bør også lægges vægt på det generelle princip i EU-retten om »res judicata«.
Information obtained in this context should be collected and exchanged between relevant (immigration, border, police) authorities and agencies, both at national and EU level in accordance with national law and best practices exchanged in relevant EU fora.