natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Forpligtelsen til at holde personer, der skal tilbagesendes, og indsatte adskilt er et absolut krav: Tilbagesendelsesdirektivet fastsætter en ubetinget forpligtelse for medlemsstaterne til at sikre, at tredjelandsstatsborgere med ulovligt ophold altid holdes adskilt fra almindelige indsatte, når en medlemsstat, undtagelsesvis, ikke kan indkvartere de pågældende tredjelandsstatsborgere i særlige faciliteter for frihedsberøvede.
However, 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 — see case C-383/13, G & R: ‘[…] European Union law, in particular Article 15(2) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the extension of a detention measure has been decided in an administrative procedure in breach of the right to be heard, the national court responsible for assessing the lawfulness of that extension decision may order the lifting of the detention measure only if it considers, in the light of all of the factual and legal circumstances of each case, that the infringement at issue actually deprived the party relying thereon of the possibility of arguing his defence better, to the extent that the outcome of that administrative procedure could have been different’ (see section 12).
Tidligere indsatte, der skal tilbagesendes: Når fængselsstraffen er afsonet, og den pågældende person under normale omstændigheder skulle have været løsladt, begynder reglerne om frihedsberøvelse med henblik på udsendelse at finde anvendelse (herunder forpligtelsen i tilbagesendelsesdirektivets artikel 16, stk. 1, om frihedsberøvelse i særlige faciliteter).
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 15(3)
Hvis forberedelsen af udsendelsen og eventuelt selve udsendelsen foregår i en periode, der fortsat er dækket af fængselsstraffen, kan indkvarteringen i et fængsel opretholdes, fordi den stadig er omfattet af straffen for den tidligere begåede lovovertrædelse.
In every case, detention shall be reviewed at reasonable intervals of time either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.
Medlemsstaterne opfordres til at indlede alle nødvendige procedurer med henblik på udsendelse i god tid, mens den pågældende stadig afsoner sin fængselsstraf i et fængsel, for at sikre, at det lykkes at tilbagesende tredjelandsstatsborgeren senest på det tidspunkt, hvor den pågældende løslades fra fængslet.
No written review decision required under Article 15(3) first sentence: this was clarified by the ECJ in the judgment of Case C-146/14, Mahdi (paragraph 47): ‘the provisions of Article 15 of Directive 2008/115/EC do not require the adoption of a written “review measure” […].
Aggressive frihedsberøvede: Aggressiv eller utilbørlig opførsel fra tredjelandsstatsborgeres side, som skal tilbagesendes, er ikke en begrundelse for at indkvartere de pågældende sammen med almindelige indsatte, medmindre en voldshandling udgør en lovovertrædelse, og en domstol har idømt den pågældende person en fængselsstraf.
The authorities which carry out the review of a third-country national's detention at regular intervals pursuant to the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the directive are therefore not obliged, at the time of each review, to adopt an express measure in writing that states the factual and legal reasons for that measure’.
Udtrykket »almindelig indsat« dækker både dømte indsatte og varetægtsfængslede: Det bekræftes i retningslinje 10, afsnit 4, i Europarådets Ministerudvalgs »Tyve retningslinjer om tvangsmæssig tilbagesendelse«, hvori det udtrykkeligt understreges, at personer, der frihedsberøves, mens de venter på at blive udsendt fra området, normalt ikke må indkvarteres sammen med almindelige indsatte, uanset om de er dømte eller varetægtsfængslede.
Member States are, however, free to adopt a written review decision in accordance with national law.
Frihedsberøvede skal derfor også adskilles fra varetægtsfængslede.
Combined review and prolongation decisions must be adopted in writing: in its judgement on case C-146/14, Mahdi, the ECJ clarified (paragraph 48): ‘In such a case, the review of the detention and the decision on the further course to take concerning the detention occur in the same procedural stage.
Det er ikke muligt at indhente samtykke fra tredjelandsstatsborgere, der skal tilbagesendes, til at blive indkvarteret sammen med indsatte: Domstolen bekræftede udtrykkeligt følgende i sin dom i sag C-474/13, Pham [79] (præmis 21 og 22): »I denne henseende er kravet i dette direktivs artikel 16, stk. 1, andet punktum, om at holde tredjelandsstatsborgere med ulovligt ophold adskilt fra almindelige indsatte mere end blot en specifik gennemførelsesbestemmelse vedrørende frihedsberøvelse af tredjelandsstatsborgere i fængsler og udgør en materiel betingelse for denne frihedsberøvelse, uden hvis opfyldelse frihedsberøvelsen principielt ikke er i overensstemmelse med direktivet.
Consequently, that decision must fulfil the requirements of Article 15(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC’.
På denne baggrund kan en medlemsstat ikke tage hensyn til den berørte tredjelandsstatsborgers vilje«.
In the case of prolonged detention periods, reviews shall be subject to the supervision of a judicial authority.
Retsgrundlag: tilbagesendelsesdirektivet — artikel 16, Europarådets retningslinje 10 om tvangsmæssig tilbagesendelse (»forhold under frihedsberøvelse inden udsendelse«), CPT-standarder og -faktablad om frihedsberøvelse af migranter, de europæiske fængselsregler, 2006
Meaning of ‘prolonged detention’: Article 15(3) second sentence of the Return Directive requires an ex officio judicial supervision in cases of ‘prolonged detention’.
Tilbagesendelsesdirektivet fastsætter i sig selv en række konkrete garantier.
This implies the need for action by judicial authorities, also in those cases in which the concerned person does not appeal.
Medlemsstaterne er forpligtet til at:
Based on a linguistic comparison of the term ‘prolonged detention’ (German: ‘Bei längerer Haftdauer’; French: ‘En cas de périodes de rétention prolongées’; Dutch: ‘In het geval van een lange periode van bewaring’; Spanish: ‘En caso de periodos de internamiento prolongados’; Italian: ‘Nel caso di periodi di trattenimento prolungati’) it is clear that this term refers in substance to a long period of detention independently of the fact that a formal decision on prolongation was already taken or not.
sikre akut lægebehandling og absolut nødvendig behandling af sygdom
The Commission considers that an interval of 6 months for exercising the first ex officio judicial supervision of the detention decision is certainly too long, whilst a three months ex officio judicial supervision may be considered at the limit of what might still be compatible with 15(3) of the Directive, provided that there is also a possibility to launch individual reviews upon application if needed.
give frihedsberøvede oplysninger, der forklarer de regler, der gælder i faciliteten, og som angiver deres rettigheder og pligter; det anbefales, at disse oplysninger gives så hurtigt som muligt og senest 24 timer efter ankomsten
The judicial authority must have the power to decide both on the facts and legal issues — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-146/14, Mahdi (paragraph 62): ‘[…] the judicial authority having jurisdiction must be able to substitute its own decision for that of the administrative authority or, as the case may be, the judicial authority which ordered the initial detention and to take a decision on whether to order an alternative measure or the release of the third-country national concerned.
give frihedsberøvede mulighed for at kontakte retlige repræsentanter, familiemedlemmer og kompetente konsulære myndigheder
To that end, the judicial authority ruling on an application for extension of detention must be able to take into account both the facts stated and the evidence adduced by the administrative authority and any observations that may be submitted by the third-country national.
give relevante og kompetente nationale, internationale og ikkestatslige organisationer og organer mulighed for at besøge faciliteter for frihedsberøvede; denne rettighed skal gives direkte til de pågældende organer uafhængigt af en invitation fra den frihedsberøvede.
Furthermore, that authority must be able to consider any other element that is relevant for its decision should it so deem necessary […]’.
For så vidt angår de spørgsmål, der ikke udtrykkeligt er reguleret i tilbagesendelsesdirektivet, skal medlemsstaterne overholde Europarådets relevante standarder, navnlig »CPT-standarderne«: Tilbagesendelsesdirektivet regulerer ikke visse materielle forhold under frihedsberøvelsen såsom værelsernes størrelse, adgang til sanitære faciliteter, adgang til frisk luft, kost osv.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 15(4)-(6)
I betragtning 17 bekræftes det dog, at frihedsberøvede tredjelandsstatsborgere bør behandles humant og værdigt under iagttagelse af deres grundlæggende rettigheder og under overholdelse af folkeretten.
When it appears that a reasonable prospect of removal no longer exists for legal or other considerations or the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 no longer exist, detention ceases to be justified and the person concerned shall be released immediately.
Når medlemsstater pålægger frihedsberøvelse med henblik på udsendelse, skal det ske i henhold til betingelserne i artikel 4 i chartret om grundlæggende rettigheder, der forbyder umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling.
Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal.
Denne forpligtelses praktiske betydning for medlemsstaterne er beskrevet nærmere, navnlig i:
Each Member State shall set a limited period of detention, which may not exceed six months.
Europarådets retningslinje 10 om tvangsmæssig tilbagesendelse (»forhold under frihedsberøvelse inden udsendelse«).
Member States may not extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 except for a limited period not exceeding a further 12 months in accordance with national law in cases where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to:
De standarder, der er fastsat af Europarådets Komité til Forebyggelse af Tortur (CPT-standarder), dokument CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 — Rev.
a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned; or
2013, faktablad om frihedsberøvelse af migranter fra Komitéen til Forebyggelse af Tortur, dokument CPT/Inf(2017)3), som navnlig vedrører de særlige behov hos frihedsberøvede irregulære migranter og deres særlige status.
delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries.
De europæiske fængselsregler fra 2006 (anbefaling Rec(2006)2 fra Europarådets Ministerkomité til medlemsstaterne) som grundlæggende minimumsstandarder vedrørende alle spørgsmål, der ikke er behandlet i førnævnte standarder.
Detention must be ended and the returnee must be released in a number of different situations, such as in particular if:
FN's minimumsstandardregler for behandling af fanger (godkendt af FN's Økonomiske og Sociale Råd i resolution 663 C (XXIV) af 31.7.1957 og 2076 (LXII) af 13.5.1977).
there is no more reasonable prospect of removal for legal or other considerations,
Disse standarder udgør en almindeligt anerkendt beskrivelse af de forpligtelser i forbindelse med frihedsberøvelse, som medlemsstaterne skal overholde i forbindelse med enhver frihedsberøvelse som et absolut minimum for at sikre iagttagelse af forpligtelserne i henhold til den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention og forpligtelserne i henhold til chartret om grundlæggende rettigheder, når EU-retten anvendes.
removal arrangements are not properly followed up by the authorities,
Europarådets retningslinje nr. 10 — Forhold under frihedsberøvelse inden udsendelse
the maximum time limits for detention have been reached.
Personer, der frihedsberøves, mens de afventer udsendelse, skal normalt indkvarteres i så kort tid som muligt i særlige faciliteter til formålet under materielle forhold og en ordning, der er tilpasset deres juridiske situation, og med tilstrækkeligt kvalificeret personale.
Furthermore an end should be given to detention on a case-by-case basis if alternatives to detention become an appropriate option.
Sådanne faciliteter skal indeholde boliger, der er tilstrækkeligt møblerede, rene og i god vedligeholdelsestilstand og med tilstrækkelig plads til det antal personer, der skal bo der.
Absence of reasonable prospect of removal: in the judgment of Case C-357/09, Kadzoev (paragraph 67), the ECJ provided a clarifying interpretation of the meaning of ‘reasonable prospect’: ‘Only a real prospect that removal can be carried out successfully, having regard to the periods laid down in Article 15(5) and (6), corresponds to a reasonable prospect of removal.
Derudover skal det i forbindelse med indretningen af lokalerne så vidt muligt undgås, at man får indtryk af at være i et »fængsel«.
That reasonable prospect does not exist where it appears unlikely that the person concerned will be admitted to a third country, having regard to those periods’.
Organiserede aktiviteter skal omfatte udendørs idræt, adgang til en opholdsstue og til radio/tv og aviser/magasiner og andre passende fritidsaktiviteter.
Absence of a ‘reasonable prospect’ is not the same as ‘impossibility to enforce’: ‘impossibility to enforce’ is a more categorical assertion and more difficult to demonstrate than ‘absence of reasonable prospect’, which refers to certain degree of likeliness only.
Personalet i sådanne faciliteter skal være nøje udvalgt og modtage passende uddannelse.
Periods of detention which should be taken into account when assessing the ‘reasonable prospect of removal’: given the emphasis put by Article 15 (as well as recital 6) of the Return Directive on a concrete individual case-by-case assessment for determining the proportionality of deprivation of liberty, regard must always be taken of the maximum detention periods for the concerned individual in the specific case.
Medlemsstaterne opfordres til så vidt muligt at give de relevante medarbejdere uddannelse, der ikke blot giver dem færdigheder inden for personlig kommunikation, men også giver dem kendskab til de frihedsberøvedes forskellige kulturer.
This means that the maximum periods laid down by national law of the concerned Member State are relevant.
Det foretrækkes, at en del af personalet har relevante sprogfærdigheder og er i stand til at genkende mulige symptomer på stressreaktioner hos de frihedsberøvede og træffe hensigtsmæssige foranstaltninger.
This also implies that a returnee should not be detained in a Member State if it appears unlikely from the beginning that the person concerned will be admitted to a third country within the maximum detention period allowed under the legislation of that Member State (in the judgment of Case C-357/09, Kadzoev, the ECJ referred to the maximum periods under the Directive, since these were the same as the maximum periods under the applicable legislation in the concerned Member State).
Personalet skal også om nødvendigt kunne trække på støtte udefra, navnlig medicinsk og social støtte.
The Commission recommends providing for a maximum initial period of detention of six months, which shall be adapted in the light of the circumstances of the case and be reviewed at reasonable intervals of time under the supervision of a judicial authority, and for the possibility to further prolong the detention until 18 months in the cases provided for in Article 15(6) of the Return Directive.
Personer, der frihedsberøves, mens de venter på at blive udsendt fra området, må normalt ikke indkvarteres sammen med almindelige indsatte, uanset om det drejer sig om dømte eller varetægtsfængslede.
Once the maximum periods of detention have been reached, Article 15(4) of the Return Directive is not applicable any more and the person must in any event be released immediately — see the judgement of the ECJ in Case C-357/09, Kadzoev (paragraphs 60 and 61): ‘It is clear that, where the maximum duration of detention provided for in Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115/EC has been reached, the question whether there is no longer a “reasonable prospect of removal” within the meaning of Article 15(4) does not arise.
Mænd og kvinder skal holdes adskilt fra det modsatte køn, hvis de ønsker det; princippet om familiens enhed skal dog respekteres, og familier skal derfor indkvarteres i overensstemmelse hermed.
In such a case the person concerned must in any event be released immediately.
De nationale myndigheder skal sikre, at de personer, der frihedsberøves i de pågældende faciliteter, har adgang til advokater, læger, ikkestatslige organisationer, familiemedlemmer og UNHCR, og at de er i stand til at kommunikere med verden udenfor i overensstemmelse med relevante nationale regler.
Article 15(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC can thus only apply if the maximum periods of detention laid down in Article 15(5) and (6) of the directive have not expired’.
Der skal desuden regelmæssigt føres tilsyn med, hvordan disse faciliteter fungerer, herunder af anerkendte uafhængige tilsynsførende.
Further clarifications:
Frihedsberøvede har ret til at indgive klager over påståede tilfælde af dårlig behandling eller undladelse af at beskytte dem mod vold fra andre frihedsberøvedes side.
Attention should be paid to the specific situation of stateless persons, who may be unable to benefit from consular assistance by third-countries in view of obtaining a valid identity or travel document.
Klagere og vidner beskyttes mod eventuel dårlig behandling eller intimidering som følge af deres klage eller beviser til støtte herfor.
In the light of the judgment of the ECJ on Case C-357/09, Kadzoev, Member States should make sure that there is a reasonable prospect of removal that justifies imposing or prolonging detention.
Frihedsberøvede skal systematisk have oplysninger, som forklarer de regler, der gælder i faciliteten, og den procedure, der finder anvendelse, og beskriver deres rettigheder og forpligtelser.
Is it legitimate to maintain detention if the third-country national for the time being is protected from removal because of the principle of non-refoulement?
Disse oplysninger skal være tilgængelige på de sprog, der oftest anvendes af de berørte personer, og der skal om nødvendigt bruges en tolk.
If removal becomes unlikely (for instance because of a likely permanent non-refoulement issue), third-country nationals must be released in accordance with Article 15(4) of the Return Directive.
Frihedsberøvede skal underrettes om, at de har ret til at henvende sig til en advokat efter eget valg, deres lands kompetente diplomatiske repræsentation, internationale organisationer såsom UNHCR og Den Internationale Organisation for Migration (IOM) og ikkestatslige organisationer.
If the non-refoulement issue is only of limited and temporary nature (for instance a credible diplomatic assurance from the country of return is likely to be issued shortly or the returnee is temporarily in need for vital medical treatment which is not available in country of return), detention may be maintained if there is still a reasonable prospect of removal.
Der skal ydes bistand i denne henseende.
Article 15(5) and (6) of the Return Directive obliges Member States to fix under national law [77] maximum time limits for detention which shall not exceed 6 months (in regular cases) or 18 months (in two qualified cases: lack of cooperation by the returnee or delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries).
CPT-standarder for frihedsberøvelse i forbindelse med indvandring — uddrag
The shorter maximum detention periods fixed by national law prevail over the 6/18 months deadline provided for by the Return Directive: in the handling of concrete cases, the maximum periods fixed by national law (in compliance withthe Return Directive) and not the maximum periods fixed by the Return Directive must be applied.
Derudover skal det i forbindelse med indretningen af lokalerne så vidt muligt undgås, at man får indtryk af at være i et »fængsel«.
This implies that a Member State which has fixed a national maximum of for example 60 days for non-cooperating returnees cannot maintain detention beyond those 60 days, even though Article 15(6) of the Return Directive provides for a frame of up to 18 months.
For så vidt angår organiserede aktiviteter, skal de omfatte udendørs idræt, adgang til en opholdsstue og til radio/tv og aviser/magasiner og andre passende fritidsaktiviteter (f.eks. brætspil, bordtennis).
National law should set a maximum period of detention that allows the competent national authorities to take all the necessary measures to enforce the return decision, hence to finalise the necessary procedures for successfully returning illegally staying third-country nationals and securing readmission in the third country of return.
Jo længere tid personerne er frihedsberøvede, jo flere aktiviteter skal de tilbydes.
The Commission recommends that Member States use the margins established by Article 15 of the Return Directive, providing for a maximum initial period of detention of six months, and for the possibility to further prolong detention until 18 months in the cases foreseen by Article 15(6) of that Directive.
For det andet vil mange frihedsberøvede personer finde det vanskeligt at acceptere, at de er blevet frihedsberøvet, når de ikke er mistænkt for en lovovertrædelse.
An absence of identity documents as such is not sufficient to justify the prolongation of detention — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-146/14, Mahdi (paragraph 73): ‘[…] the fact that the third-country national concerned has no identity documents cannot, on its own, be a ground for extending detention under Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115/EC’.
For det tredje er der en risiko for spændinger mellem frihedsberøvede af forskellige nationaliteter eller etniske grupper.
Non-cooperation in obtaining identity documents may justify the prolongation of detention if there is a causal link between the non-cooperation and non-return — see Judgment of the ECJ in Case C-146/14, Mahdi (paragraph 85): ‘[…] only if an examination of his conduct during the period of detention shows that he has not cooperated in the implementation of the removal operation and that it is likely that that operation lasts longer than anticipated because of that conduct, […]’.
Derfor lægger CPT vægt på, at tilsynspersonalet i sådanne centre udvælges nøje og modtager passende uddannelse.
Taking into account periods of detention as an asylum seeker: when calculating the period of detention for the purpose of removal, periods of detention as asylum seeker need not be taken into account, since detention for removal purposes and detention of asylum seekers fall under different legal rules and regimes — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-357/09, Kadzoev (paragraphs 45 and 48): ‘Detention for the purpose of removal governed by Directive 2008/115/EC and detention of an asylum seeker in particular under Directives 2003/9/EC and 2005/85/EC and the applicable national provisions thus fall under different legal rules.
Ud over at være i besiddelse af omfattende kvalifikationer inden for personlig kommunikation skal medarbejderne have kendskab til de frihedsberøvedes forskellige kulturer, og mindst visse af dem skal have relevante sprogfærdigheder.
Consequently, […] a period during which a person has been held in a detention centre on the basis of a decision taken pursuant to the provisions of national and Community law concerning asylum seekers may not be regarded as detention for the purpose of removal within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2008/115/EC’.