natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lõiget 1 kohaldatakse ka organisatsiooni suhtes, mis tegutseb ÜRO Pagulaste Ülemkomissari Ameti nimel liikmesriigi loa alusel.
Paragraph 1 shall also apply to an organisation which is working on behalf of the UNHCR , subject to the agreement of the Member State.
In view of the different arrangements which may be used, UNHCR suggested a different wording.
In view of the different arrangements which may be used, UNHCR suggested a different wording.
a) ei avalda otse üksikut varjupaigataotlust käsitlevat teavet ega taotluse esitamise fakti varjupaigataotleja väidetavale tagakiusajale või väidetavatele tagakiusajatele;
(a) directly disclose the information regarding individual applications for asylum, or the fact that an application has been made, to the alleged actor(s) of persecution of the applicant for asylum.
a) ei avalda üksikut varjupaigataotlust käsitlevat teavet ega taotluse esitamise fakti varjupaigataotleja väidetavale tagakiusajale või väidetavatele tagakiusajatele;
(a) disclose the information regarding individual applications for asylum, or the fact that an application has been made, to the alleged actor(s) of persecution of the applicant for asylum.
Conditions that are too random could put asylum seekers at risk.
Conditions that are too random could put asylum seekers at risk.
Artikli 22 punkt b
Article 22, point (b)
b) ei kogu teavet väidetavalt tagakiusajalt või väidetavatelt tagakiusajatelt viisil, mis teavitaks tagakiusajat või tagakiusajaid otseselt asjaolust, et kõnealune taotleja on varjupaigataotluse esitanud ning mis seaks ohtu taotleja ja ülalpeetavate füüsilise puutumatuse või taotlejate päritolumaal elavate perekonnaliikmete vabaduse ja julgeoleku.
(b) obtain any information from the alleged actor(s) of persecution in a manner that would result in such actor(s) being directly informed of the fact that an application has been made by the applicant in question, and would jeopardise the physical integrity of the applicant and his/her dependants, or the liberty and security of his/her family members still living in the country of origin .
b) ei kogu teavet väidetavalt tagakiusajalt või väidetavatelt tagakiusajatelt .
(b) obtain any information from the alleged actor(s) of persecution.
Liikmesriigid tagavad, et taotluse menetlemine lõpetatakse võimalikult kiiresti, ilma et see piiraks taotluse piisavat ja põhjalikku läbivaatamist.
Member States shall ensure that such a procedure is concluded as soon as possible, without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination.
Liikmesriigid tagavad, et taotluse menetlemine lõpetatakse võimalikult kiiresti ja hiljemalt kuue kuu jooksul ilma et see piiraks taotluse piisavat ja põhjalikku läbivaatamist.
Member States shall ensure that such a procedure is concluded as soon as possible and within no later than 6 months , without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination.
Artikli 23 lõike 2 punkt b
Article 23, paragraph 2, point (b)
b) asjaomane taotleja saab soovi korral teavet tähtaja kohta, millal on oodata tema taotlust käsitlevat otsust.
b) receive, upon his/her request, information on the time-frame within which the decision on his/her application is to be expected.
See teave ei kohusta liikmesriiki võtma otsust vastu nimetatud tähtajaks .
Such information shall not constitute an obligation for the Member State towards the applicant concerned to take a decision within that time frame .
b) asjaomane taotleja saab soovi korral teavet tähtaja kohta, millal on oodata tema taotlust käsitlevat otsust; see tähtaeg ei tohi olla pikem kui kolm kuud .
b) receive, upon his/her request, information on the time-frame within which the decision on his/her application is to be expected , which shall not exceed 3 months .
Artikli 23 lõige 3 a (uus)
Article 23, paragraph 3 a (new)
Eriti vastuvõtlike isikute suhtes, sealhulgas vanematest lahutatud laste ja isikute suhtes, kes võivad olla kogenud traumat või seksuaalset vägivalda rakendavad liikmesriigid tavamenetlust.
Member States shall apply the regular procedure to particularly vulnerable persons, including separated children and persons who may have experienced trauma or sexual violence.
Applications by particularly vulnerable persons should be treated in a regular procedure as matter of principle.
Applications by particularly vulnerable persons should be treated in a regular procedure as matter of principle.
Artikli 23 lõike 4 punkt a
Article 23, paragraph 4, point (a)
a) taotleja on taotluse ja asjaolude esitamisel tõstatanud probleeme, mis ei seostu või seostuvad minimaalselt küsimusega, kas teda saab käsitada pagulasena nõukogu direktiivi 2004/83/EÜ alusel; või
(a) the applicant in submitting his/her application and presenting the fact, has only raised issues that are not relevant or of minimal relevance to the examination of whether he/she qualifies as a refugee by virtue of Council Directive 2004/83/EC; or
a) taotleja on taotluse ja asjaolude esitamisel tõstatanud probleeme, mis ei seostu küsimusega, kas teda saab käsitada pagulasena nõukogu direktiivi 2004/83/EÜ alusel; või
(a) the applicant in submitting his/her application and presenting the fact, has only raised issues that are not relevant to the examination of whether he/she qualifies as a refugee by virtue of Council Directive 2004/83/EC; or
The concept of minimal relevance is too vague.
The concept of minimal relevance is too vague.
Artikli 23 lõike 4 punkt c
Article 23, paragraph 4, point (c)
c) varjupaigataotlust peetakse põhjendamatuks:
(c) the application for asylum is considered to be unfounded:
c) varjupaigataotlust peetakse põhjendamatuks:
(c) the application for asylum is considered to be unfounded
– kuna taotleja on pärit turvalisest päritoluriigist käesoleva direktiivi artiklite 30, 30A ja 30B tähenduses;
- because the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of Articles 30, 30A and 30B of this Directive, or
– kuna taotleja on pärit turvalisest päritoluriigist käesoleva direktiivi artiklite 30 ja 30B tähenduses;
because the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of Articles 30 and 30B of this Directive, or
– kuna riiki, mis pole liikmesriik, peetakse taotleja seisukohalt turvaliseks kolmandaks riigiks, ilma et see piiraks artikli 29 lõike 1 kohaldamist; või
- because the country which is not a Member State is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant, without prejudice to Article 29(1); or
The possibility of prioritising or accelerating of the procedure should be permitted only in cases that are clearly fraudulent or manifestly unfounded.
The possibility of prioritising or accelerating of the procedure should be permitted only in cases that are clearly fraudulent or manifestly unfounded.
Applicants who do not qualify for refugee status may nevertheless qualify for complementary/subsidiary protection.
Applicants who do not qualify for refugee status may nevertheless qualify for complementary/subsidiary protection.
Artikli 23 lõike 4 punkt d
Article 23, paragraph 4, point (d)
d) taotleja on asutusi eksitanud, esitades valeandmeid või -dokumente või jättes avaldamata tema isikut ja/või rahvust käsitlevat teavet või dokumente, millel oleks võinud otsusele negatiivne mõju olla; või
(d) the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his/her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision ; or
d) taotleja on petmiskavatsusest tingituna asutusi eksitanud, esitades tema isikut ja/või rahvust käsitlevaid valedokumente ; või
(d) the applicant , with a fraudulent intent, has misled the authorities by presenting false documents with respect to his/her identity and/or nationality; or
Artikli 23 lõike 4 punkt e
Article 23, paragraph 4, point (e)
e) taotleja on esitanud uue varjupaigataotluse uute isikuandmetega; või
(e) the applicant has filed another application for asylum stating other personal data; or
e) taotleja on petmiskavatsusest tingituna esitanud uue varjupaigataotluse uute isikuandmetega; või
(e) the applicant , with a fraudulent intent, has filed another application for asylum stating other personal data; or
See justification of Article 23, paragraph 4, point d.
See justification of Article 23, paragraph 4, point d.
Artikli 23 lõike 4 punkt f
Article 23, paragraph 4, point (f)
f) taotleja pole esitanud teavet, mille alusel oleks võimalik piisava kindlusega tuvastada tema isik või rahvus, või on tõenäoline, et taotleja on pahatahtlikult hävitanud või vabanenud isikut tõendavast dokumendist või reisidokumendist, mis oleks aidanud kindlaks teha tema isikut või rahvust; või
(f) the applicant has not produced information to establish with a reasonable degree of certainty his/her identity or nationality, or, it is likely that, in bad faith, he/she has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his/her identity or nationality; or
f) taotleja pole petmiskavatsusest tingituna esitanud teavet, mille alusel oleks võimalik piisava kindlusega tuvastada tema isik või rahvus, või on tõenäoline, et taotleja on pahatahtlikult hävitanud või vabanenud isikut tõendavast dokumendist või reisidokumendist, mis oleks aidanud kindlaks teha tema isikut või rahvust; või
(f) the applicant , with a fraudulent intent, has not produced information to establish with a reasonable degree of certainty his/her identity or nationality, or, it is likely that, in bad faith, he/she has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his/her identity or nationality; or
Artikli 23 lõike 4 punkt g
Article 23, paragraph 4, point (g)
g) taotleja on teinud ebajärjekindlaid, vastukäivaid, ebatõenäolisi või ebapiisavaid avaldusi, mis muudavad selgelt ebausutavateks tema väited, et ta on tagakiusatav nõukogu direktiivi 2004/83/EÜ tähenduses; või
(g) the applicant has made inconsistent, contradictory, unlikely or insufficient representations which make his/her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to his/her having being the object of persecution under Council Directive 2004/83/EC; or
Article 23 permits prioritization or acceleration in a wide range of cases, the consequences of which are left largely to the Member States, and may lead to considerably reduced safeguards.
Article 23 permits prioritisation or acceleration in a wide range of cases, the consequences of which are left largely to the Member States, and may lead to considerably reduced safeguards.
Amongst others, the Directive permits States to dispense with personal interviews and other significant procedural requirements.
Amongst others, the Directive permits States to dispense with personal interviews and other significant procedural requirements.
Many such claims will not fall within the definition of “clearly abusive” or “manifestly unfounded” claims, which could be dealt with through an accelerated procedure, according to the conclusions of states and international bodies.
Many such claims will not fall within the definition of “clearly abusive” or “manifestly unfounded” claims, which could be dealt with through an accelerated procedure, according to the conclusions of states and international bodies.
Artikli 23 lõike 4 punkt o
Article 23, paragraph 4, point (o)
o) taotluse esitas vallaline alaealine, kelle suhtes kohaldatakse artikli 5 lõike 4 punkti c pärast seda, kui alaealise eest vastutavate vanemate või vanema taotlus on otsusega tagasi lükatud, ning tema isikliku olukorra või tema päritoluriigis valitseva olukorra kohta pole lisatud uusi asjakohaseid asjaolusid.
(o) the application was made by an unmarried minor to whom Article 5(4)(c) applies after the application of the parents or parent responsible for the minor has been rejected by a decision and no relevant new elements were raised with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin.
o) taotluse esitas laps , kelle suhtes kohaldatakse artikli 5 lõike 4 punkti c pärast seda, kui alaealise eest vastutavate vanemate või vanema taotlus on otsusega tagasi lükatud, ning tema isikliku olukorra või tema päritoluriigis valitseva olukorra kohta pole lisatud uusi asjakohaseid asjaolusid.
(o) the application was made by a child to whom Article 5(4)(c) applies after the application of the parents or parent responsible for the minor has been rejected by a decision and no relevant new elements were raised with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin.
Artikli 23 lõige 4 a (uus)
Article 23, paragraph 4 a (new)
Vastavalt lõike 4 punktidele a kuni o võtavad liikmesriigid prioriteetsete ja kiirendatud menetluste korral arvesse vajadust täiendava kaitse järele.
Member States shall take into consideration complementary/subsidiary protection needs when the procedure has been prioritised or accelerated according to paragraph 4 (a) to (o).
Liikmesriigid võivad erandina II peatüki üldpõhimõtetest ja tagatistest ette näha järgmised erimenetlused:
Member States may moreover provide for the following specific procedures derogating from the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II:
a) esialgne menetlus IV jaos kehtestatud sätete raames käsitletavate juhtumite läbivaatamiseks;
(a) a preliminary examination for the purpose of processing cases considered within the framework of the provisions set out in Section IV;
b) menetlused V jaos kehtestatud sätete raames käsitletavate juhtumite läbivaatamiseks.
(b) procedures for the purpose of processing cases considered within the framework set out in Section V.
Liikmesriigid võivad VI jao suhtes ette näha erandeid.
Member States may also provide a derogation in respect of Section VI.
The possibilities to derogate from minimum standards may lead to breaches of international law.
The possibilities to derogate from minimum standards may lead to breaches of international law.
There is no reason for requirements associated with due process of law in asylum claims submitted at the border to be less than those submitted within the territory or in cases of subsequent claims.
There is no reason for requirements associated with due process of law in asylum claims submitted at the border to be less than those submitted within the territory or in cases of subsequent claims.
This article fails to define clearly the principles and guarantees to which exceptions may or may not be made.
This article fails to define clearly the principles and guarantees to which exceptions may or may not be made.
Such an approach is not conducive to the objective of harmonization of procedural standards, and increases the risk of refoulement.
Such an approach is not conducive to the objective of harmonisation of procedural standards, and increases the risk of refoulement.
Kõiki rahvusvahelise kaitse taotlusi hinnatakse kõigepealt vastavalt Genfi konventsioonis toodud pagulase mõistele ning ainult sel juhul, kui neid kriteeriumeid ei täideta, lähtuvalt täiendava kaitse nõuetest.
All applications for international protection will first be assessed on the basis of the refugee definition contained in the Geneva Convention and, only if these criteria are not fulfilled, on the basis of the requirements for subsidiary protection.
It is fundamental that any application first is considered under criteria of the Geneva Convention and, if these are not met, under the criteria for complementary/subsidiary protection in accordance with other legal obligations.
It is fundamental that any application first is considered under criteria of the Geneva Convention and, if these are not met, under the criteria for complementary/subsidiary protection in accordance with other legal obligations.
Artikli 25 lõike 2 sissejuhatav osa
Article 25, paragraph 2, introductory part
Liikmesriigid võivad lugeda varjupaigataotluse vastavalt käesolevale artiklile vastuvõetamatuks, kui:
Member States may consider an application for asylum as inadmissible pursuant to this Article if:
Ilma, et see piiraks lõike 1 a kohaldamist , võivad liikmesriigid lugeda varjupaigataotluse vastavalt käesolevale artiklile vastuvõetamatuks, kui:
Without prejudice to paragraph 1a, Member States may consider an application for asylum as inadmissible pursuant to this Article if:
Artikli 25 lõike 2 punkt c
Article 25, paragraph 2, point (c)
c) riiki, mis pole liikmesriik, loetakse vastavalt artiklile 27 taotleja seisukohalt turvaliseks kolmandaks riigiks;
(c) a country which is not a Member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, pursuant to Article 27;
Artikli 25 lõike 2 punkt f
Article 25, paragraph 2, point (f)
f) taotleja esitab samasuguse taotluse pärast lõpliku otsuse langetamist;
(f) the applicant has lodged an identical application after a final decision;
See justification of Article 25, paragraph 2, point c.
See justification of Article 25, paragraph 2, point c.
Artikli 25 lõike 2 punkt f a (uus)
Article 25, paragraph 2, point (f a) (new)
f a) Taotleja taotleb varjupaigaõiguse võimalust, kui teda tahetakse välja saata territooriumilt, kus ta ebaseaduslikult elab.
(fa) The applicant, when about to be expelled from the territory in which he or she is residing illegally, appeals to be given the possibility of enjoying right of asylum.
To prevent illegal immigrants who have been identified as such from declaring that they are being persecuted for political or other reasons and thus abusing the right of asylum.
To prevent illegal immigrants who have been identified as such from declaring that they are being persecuted for political or other reasons and thus abusing the right of asylum.
Artikli 27 lõike 1 sissejuhatav osa
Article 27, paragraph 1, introductory part
Liikmesriigid võivad kohaldada turvalise kolmanda riigi mõistet ainult juhul, kui pädevad asutused on veendunud, et varjupaika taotlevat isikut koheldakse asjaomases kolmandas riigis kooskõlas järgmiste põhimõtetega:
Member States may apply the safe third country concept only where the competent authorities are satisfied that a person seeking asylum will be treated in accordance with the following principles in the third country concerned:
Liikmesriigid võivad kohaldada turvalise kolmanda riigi mõistet ainult juhul , kui kolmas riik vastab järgmistele kriteeriumidele:
Member States may apply the safe third country concept only where the third country fulfils the following criteria :
On the concept of "safe country": The question of whether a particular third country is ‘safe’ for the purpose of returning an asylum-seeker cannot be answered in a generic fashion, for example by ‘national’ designation of parliament, for all asylum-seekers in all circumstances.
On the concept of "safe country": The question of whether a particular third country is ‘safe’ for the purpose of returning an asylum-seeker cannot be answered in a generic fashion, for example by ‘national’ designation of parliament, for all asylum-seekers in all circumstances.
The question of whether asylum-seekers can be sent to a third country for determination of their claim must be answered on an individual basis.
The question of whether asylum-seekers can be sent to a third country for determination of their claim must be answered on an individual basis.
If not, the risk of chain refoulement arises.
If not, the risk of chain refoulement arises.
Also third countries have a role to play in the definition of the "safety" of a country and have to follow precise criteria.
Also third countries have a role to play in the definition of the "safety" of a country and have to follow precise criteria.
a) taotleja elu ja vabadus pole ohus tema rassi, usu, rahvuse, sotsiaalsesse gruppi kuulumise või poliitiliste tõekspidamiste tõttu, ning
(a) life and liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion ; and
a) Genfi konventsiooni ja teiste rahvusvaheliste inimõigustealaste põhilepingute ratifitseerimine ja rakendamine, eelkõige mittetagasisaatmise põhimõtte järgimine , ning
(a) ratification and implementation in practice of the Geneva Convention and other international human rights treaties, in particular with reference to the principle of non-refoulement ; and
Reference to the Geneva Convention on Article 27, paragraph 1, point a (new) will cover this point as well.
Reference to the Geneva Convention on Article 27, paragraph 1, point a (new) will cover this point as well.
b) riigis austatakse välja- või tagasisaatmise lubamatuse põhimõtet vastavalt Genfi konventsioonile ning
(b) the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the Geneva Convention is respected; and
b) riigis austatakse eelkõige välja- või tagasisaatmise lubamatuse põhimõtet vastavalt Genfi konventsioonile and
(b) the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the Geneva Convention is in particular respected; and
The non-refoulement principle is fundamental but not the only one to be respected under the Geneva Convention.
The non-refoulement principle is fundamental but not the only one to be respected under the Geneva Convention.
Artikli 27 lõike 2 punkt a
Article 27, paragraph 2, point (a)
a) eeskirjad, mis nõuavad varjupaika taotleva isiku ja asjaomase kolmanda riigi vahelist sidet, mille alusel oleks nimetatud isikul mõistlik minna asjaomasesse riiki;
(a) rules requiring a connection between the person seeking asylum and the third country concerned based on which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country;
a) eeskirjad, mis nõuavad varjupaika taotleva isiku ja asjaomase kolmanda riigi vahelist olulist sidet, mille alusel oleks nimetatud isikul mõistlik minna asjaomasesse riiki;
(a) rules requiring a meaningful link between the person seeking asylum and the third country concerned based on which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country;
"Meaningful link" is more appropriate than just "connection".
"Meaningful link" is more appropriate than just "connection".
Artikli 27 lõike 2 punkt c
Article 27, paragraph 2, point (c)
c) eeskirjad, mis vastavalt rahvusvahelisele õigusele võimaldavad teha kindlaks, kas asjaomane kolmas riik on konkreetse taotleja seisukohast turvaline ning mille alusel on taotlejal õigus vaidlustada turvalise kolmanda riigi mõiste kohaldamist põhjendusel, et teda asjaomases riigis piinatakse või rakendatakse muud julma, ebainimlikku või inimväärikust alandavat kohtlemist või karistamist.
(c) rules, in accordance with international law, allowing an individual examination of whether the third country concerned is safe for a particular applicant which, as a minimum, shall permit the applicant to challenge the application of the safe third country concept on the grounds that he/she would be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
c) eeskirjad, mis vastavalt rahvusvahelisele õigusele ja konkreetselt Genfi konventsioonile võimaldavad teha kindlaks, kas asjaomane kolmas riik on konkreetse taotleja seisukohast turvaline.
(c) rules, in accordance with international law and, specifically, the Geneva Convention , allowing an individual examination of whether the third country concerned is safe for a particular applicant.
Artikli 27 lõike 2 punkt c a (uus)
Article 27, paragraph 2, point (c a) (new)
c a) tõhus võimalus varjupaigataotlejatele lükata ümber eeldus riigi turvalisusest, kaasa arvatud esimeses instantsis isegi kiirendatud menetluse korral.
(ca) the effective possibility for the applicants for asylum to rebut the presumption of safety, including in the first instance, even if on an accelerated basis.
The possibility to rebut the presumption of safety is the condition sine qua non for the acceptance of the "safe country" principle.
The possibility to rebut the presumption of safety is the condition sine qua non for the acceptance of the "safe country" principle.
The assessment of risk in the country of origin should always be conducted on an individual basis rather than on a general presumption on country-related criteria.
The assessment of risk in the country of origin should always be conducted on an individual basis rather than on a general presumption on country-related criteria.