natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Requirement of written decision also applies to prolongation decisions: the requirement to issue a written decision with reasons also applies to decisions concerning prolongation of detention.
Međutim, ako država članica odluči potonju odgovornost dodijeliti tijelima koja donose odluke, potrebno je osigurati jasno razdvajanje zadaća uključenog osoblja, na primjer, uspostavljanjem zasebnog i neovisnog odjela koji će biti zadužen samo za pružanje pravnih informacija i informacija o postupku.
In the judgment of Case C-146/14, Mahdi, the ECJ expressly clarified (paragraph 44): ‘The requirement that a decision be adopted in writing must be understood as necessarily covering all decisions concerning extension of detention, given that (i) detention and extension of detention are similar in nature since both deprive the third-country national concerned of his liberty in order to prepare his return and/or carry out the removal process; and (ii) in both cases the person concerned must be in a position to know the reasons for the decision taken concerning him’.
Uvjeti za besplatnu pravnu pomoć/zastupanje – upućivanje na članak 15. stavke od 3. do 6.
All the safeguards inherent to the respect of the right to be heard apply to detention decisions and decisions on prolongation of detention.
Direktive 2005/85/EZ: upućivanje na određene uvjete/ograničenja koje države članice mogu predvidjeti u odnosu na besplatnu pravnu pomoć predstavlja dinamično upućivanje i mora se tumačiti kao upućivanje na trenutačne članke 20. i 21.
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).
Direktive o postupcima azila koja je trenutačno na snazi i zamjenjuje Direktivu 2005/85/EZ.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 15(3)
U skladu s navedenim odredbama, države članice mogu predvidjeti da se besplatna pravna pomoć i zastupanje odobravaju samo u sljedećim slučajevima:
In every case, detention shall be reviewed at reasonable intervals of time either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio.
kada sud ili drugo nadležno tijelo smatra da žalba ima stvarne izglede za uspjeh,
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” […].
samo onim osobama koje ne raspolažu dostatnim sredstvima,
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’.
putem usluga koje pružaju pravni ili drugi savjetnici za koje je u nacionalnom pravu posebno određeno da pomažu tražiteljima i da ih zastupaju,
Member States are, however, free to adopt a written review decision in accordance with national law.
u prvostupanjskim žalbenim postupcima, ali ne za daljnje žalbe ili preispitivanja.
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.
Države članice mogu također:
Consequently, that decision must fulfil the requirements of Article 15(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC’.
odrediti novčana i/ili vremenska ograničenja pružanja besplatne pravne pomoći i zastupanja, pod uvjetom da se takvim ograničenjima arbitrarno ne ograničava pristup tom pravu,
In the case of prolonged detention periods, reviews shall be subject to the supervision of a judicial authority.
predvidjeti da, u pogledu naknada i ostalih troškova, tretman tražitelja ne bude povoljniji u odnosu na tretman koji se obično osigurava vlastitim državljanima u vezi s pravnom pomoći,
Meaning of ‘prolonged detention’: Article 15(3) second sentence of the Return Directive requires an ex officio judicial supervision in cases of ‘prolonged detention’.
zatražiti cjelokupni ili djelomični povrat odobrenih troškova ako se tražiteljeva financijska situacija znatno popravi ili ako je odluka o odobrenju te pomoći donesena na temelju lažnih informacija koje je tražitelj dao.
This implies the need for action by judicial authorities, also in those cases in which the concerned person does not appeal.
Učinkovit pravni lijek protiv odbijanja dodjele besplatne pravne pomoći: ako oduku o odbijanju besplatne pravne pomoći ili zastupanja donese tijelo koje nije sud, država članica osigurava da tražitelj ima pravo na učinkovit pravni lijek protiv te odluke pred sudom.
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.
Pravo na učinkovit pravni lijek i pošteno suđenje jedno je od temeljnih prava koja su sastavni dio pravnog poretka Europske unije i ta se prava moraju poštovati čak i kada u primjenjivom zakonodavstvu nije izričito predviđen takav postupovni zahtjev.
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.
Pravna osnova: Direktiva o vraćanju – članak 14. stavak 1.
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.
jedinstvo obitelji s članovima obitelji koji se nalaze na njihovom državnom području;
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.
da je osigurana hitna zdravstvena zaštita i osnovno liječenje;
Furthermore, that authority must be able to consider any other element that is relevant for its decision should it so deem necessary […]’.
maloljetnicima se osigurava pristup osnovnom obrazovnom sustavu, ovisno u duljini trajanja njihovog boravka;
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 15(4)-(6)
uzimaju se u obzir posebne potrebe ranjivih osoba.
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.
Povijesni podsjetnik/objašnjenje: u skladu s Direktivom o vraćanju, države članice mogu izabrati hoće li državljanima trećih zemalja s nezakonitim boravkom izdati odluke o vraćanju ili će im odobriti pravo na boravak.
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.
Takvim bi se pristupom trebalo pridonijeti uklanjanju sivih područja.
Each Member State shall set a limited period of detention, which may not exceed six months.
Druga važna prava iz Direktive o uvjetima prihvata, kao što su pristup zapošljavanju i materijalni uvjeti prihvata nisu spomenuta.
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:
Nakon pregovora, tijekom kojih je izražena zabrinutost da bi se upućivanja na Direktivu o uvjetima prihvata mogla protumačiti kao „poboljšanje” položaja nezakonitih migranata i time bi se poslala pogrešna politička poruka, uspostavljen je „neovisan” popis prava.
a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned; or
Situacije obuhvaćene člankom 14. stavkom 1. širokog su opsega: njime je obuhvaćeno vrijeme za dobrovoljni odlazak te vrijeme za koje je udaljavanje odgođeno formalno ili de facto u skladu s člankom 9.
delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries.
Direktive o vraćanju (na primjer, žalba sa suspenzivnim učinkom; moguća povreda načela zabrane prisilnog udaljenja ili vraćanja; zdravstveni razlozi; tehnički razlozi, neizvedivost udaljavanja zbog nedostatka identifikacijskih podataka).
Detention must be ended and the returnee must be released in a number of different situations, such as in particular if:
Razdoblja zadržavanja izričito su isključena, budući da su povezane zaštitne mjere drugdje uređene (vidjeti odjeljak 15.).
there is no more reasonable prospect of removal for legal or other considerations,
Pružanje hitne zdravstvene zaštite i nužno liječenje u slučaju bolesti osnovno je pravo i pristup zdravstvenoj zaštiti ne smije ovisiti o plaćanju naknada.
removal arrangements are not properly followed up by the authorities,
Pristup obrazovanju: ograničenje „ovisno u duljini trajanja njihovog boravka” trebalo bi tumačiti restriktivno.
the maximum time limits for detention have been reached.
U slučaju dvojbe o vjerojatnom trajanju boravka prije vraćanja, uvijek treba radije odobriti pristup obrazovanju nego ga ne odobriti.
Furthermore an end should be given to detention on a case-by-case basis if alternatives to detention become an appropriate option.
Prihvatljivom se može smatrati nacionalna praksa u kojoj se pristup obrazovnom sustavu odobrava samo ako je boravak dulji od 14 dana.
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.
Kad je riječ o praktičnim problemima kao što su slučajevi u kojima maloljetnik nema dokument kojim može dokazati obrazovanje koje je već stekao u drugim državama ili slučajevi u kojima maloljetnik ne govori ni jedan jezik na kojem je obrazovanje dostupno u državi članici, potrebno je pronaći odgovarajuća rješenja na nacionalnoj razini uzimajući u obzir duh Direktive i odgovarajuće instrumente međunarodnog prava kao što su Konvencija o pravima djeteta iz 1989. i Opći komentar br. 6 uz Konvenciju [72].
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’.
Pravna stečevina o azilu (posebno članak 14.
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.
Direktive o uvjetima prihvata 2013/33/EU) može poslužiti kao temelj za takva rješenja.Ostale osnovne potrebe: u presudi u predmetu C-562/13, Abdida, Sud EU-a utvrdio je da države članice moraju pokriti i druge osnovne potrebe, kako bi se mogla osigurati dostupnost hitne zdravstvene zaštite i osnovnog liječenja tijekom razdoblja u kojem država članica mora odgoditi udaljavanje.
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.
Države članice mogu utvrditi oblik u kojem će se osigurati zadovoljavanje osnovnih potreba predmetnog državljanina treće zemlje.
This means that the maximum periods laid down by national law of the concerned Member State are relevant.
Argument na koji se Sud EU-a oslonio pri utvrđivanju te obveze jest da bi zahtjev za pružanje hitne zdravstvene zaštite i osnovnog liječenja u skladu s člankom 14. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Direktive o vraćanju mogao postati besmislen ako nema usporednog zahtjeva za osiguranje zadovoljavanja osnovnih potreba predmetnog državljanina treće zemlje.
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).
Na temelju te logike koju je razvio Sud EU-a, i u svjetlu naznaka iz odgovarajuće sudske prakse ESLJP-a, može se zaključiti da uživanje drugih prava navedenih u članku 14. stavku 1.
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.
Direktive o vraćanju (kao što su posebno pristup obrazovanju i uzimanje u obzir potreba ranjivih osoba) uzrokuje i usporedni zahtjev za zadovoljavanje osnovnih potreba predmetnog državljanina treće zemlje.
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.
Iako u skladu s pravom Unije ne postoji opća zakonska obveza da se zadovolje osnovne potrebe svih državljana trećih zemalja prije vraćanja, Komisija potiče države članice da to učine u skladu s nacionalnim pravom, u cilju pružanja humanih i dostojanstvenih uvjeta života svim povratnicima.
In such a case the person concerned must in any event be released immediately.
Pravna osnova: Direktiva o vraćanju – članak 14. stavak 2.
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’.
Države članice izdaju osobama iz stavka 1. pisanu potvrdu u skladu s nacionalnim zakonodavstvom da se vrijeme za dobrovoljni odlazak produljuje u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 2. ili da se odluka o vraćanju privremeno neće izvršiti.
Further clarifications:
U uvodnoj izjavi 12.
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.
Direktive o vraćanju navedeno je sljedeće: „Takve bi osobe trebale dobiti pisanu potvrdu kako bi mogle u slučaju upravnih kontrola ili provjera dokazati svoj poseban položaj.
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.
Države bi članice trebale imati široku slobodu u odlučivanju u pogledu obrasca i oblika potvrde te bi trebale moći uključiti ga u odluke koje se odnose na povratak prema ovoj Direktivi”.
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?
Oblik pisane potvrde: Države članice imaju veliku slobodu odlučivanja.
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.
Potvrda može biti zaseban dokument koji su izdala nacionalna tijela ili dio formalne odluke povezane s vraćanjem.
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.
Važno je da se njome povratniku omogućuje da dokaže – u slučaju policijske kontrole – da je za njega već donesena odluka o vraćanju i da mu je odobreno vrijeme za dobrovoljni odlazak, službena odgoda udaljavanja ili da je za njega donesena odluka o vraćanju koja se privremeno ne može izvršiti.
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).
U potvrdi bi trebala biti navedena, ako je moguće, duljina vremena za dobrovoljni odlazak ili odgoda.
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.
U državama članicama u kojima je zahvaljujući sustavima razmjene podataka omogućena brza provjera statusa nezakonitih migranata u slučaju policijskih kontrola na temelju određenih osobnih podataka ili referentnih brojeva, zahtjev pisane potvrde može se smatrati ispunjenim ako su osobi izdani (ili ona već posjeduje) dokumenti ili isprave s tim osobnim podacima ili referentnim brojevima.
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.
Nema obveze izdavanja dozvole povratnicima koje nije moguće udaljiti: Države članice nemaju obvezu izdati dozvolu povratnicima ako je postalo jasno da više nema razumnih izgleda za udaljavanje, iako mogu odlučiti to učiniti u skladu s člankom 6. stavkom 4.
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.
Direktive o vraćanju (vidjeti odjeljak 5.6.).
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.
U tom je pogledu Sud EU-a izričito objasnio u presudi u predmetu C-146/14, Mahdi [73], (točke 87. i 88.): „[…] njena svrha nije uređivati uvjete boravka na području države članice državljana treće zemlje s nezakonitim boravkom prema kojima se odluka o vraćanju ne može ili se nije mogla izvršiti. […] Međutim, članak 6. stavak 4.
It is recalled that the actual duration of detention must be determined on a case-by-case basis and that the returnee must be released if the conditions for detention (for example, a reasonable prospect of removal) no longer exist.
Direktive 2008/115/EZ državama članicama omogućuje da izdaju neovisnu boravišnu dozvolu ili drugo odobrenje kojim se omogućuje pravo na boravak zbog suosjećanja, humanitarnih ili drugih razloga državljaninu treće zemlje koji nezakonito boravi u njihovom području”.
Examples for reasons justifying/not justifying prolonged detention under Article 15(6):
Kriteriji koje treba uzeti u obzir pri izdavanju dozvola: kako je prethodno navedeno, države članice nemaju pravnu obvezu izdavanja dozvola povratnicima koje nije moguće udaljiti i one u tome imaju široku diskreciju.
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’.
U tom kontekstu, preporučuje se da kriteriji za procjenu koje bi države članice mogle uzeti u obzir uključuju individualne (povezane sa slučajem) i horizontalne (povezane s politikom) elemente, kao što su posebno:
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, […]’.
kooperativni/nekooperativni stav povratnika,
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.
duljina stvarnog boravka povratnika u državi članici,
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’.
integracijski napori povratnika,