natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
irregular migrants apprehended in a border region, unless there is still a direct connection to the act of irregular border crossing,
To, međutim, ne smije imati negativne posljedice na one osobe koje su već mogle iskoristiti učinke Direktive o vraćanju (vidjeti presudu Suda EU-a u predmetu C-297/12, Filev i Osmani [17]: „[…] s obzirom na to da država članica još nije koristila ovu mogućnost […] nije se mogla pozivati na pravo ograničenja osobnog područja primjene ove direktive, na temelju članka 2. stavka 2. pod b) iste, u pogledu osoba na koje su već primjenjivi učinci navedene direktive.”
an irregular migrant leaving a bus coming from a third country, if the bus has already made several stops in EU territory,
Na osobe kojima je odbijen ulazak i koje se nalaze u tranzitnoj zoni ili u graničnom području države članice često se primjenjuju posebna pravila u državama članicama: na temelju „zakonskih odredbi”, za te se osobe ponekad ne smatra da „borave na državnom području predmetne države članice” i primjenjuju se posebna pravila.
irregular migrants who, having been expulsed at a previous occasion, infringe a still valid entry ban (unless they are apprehended in direct connection with irregular border crossing),
U Direktivi o vraćanju ne slijedi se taj pristup i smatra se da je svaki državljanin treće zemlje koji fizički boravi na državnom području države članice obuhvaćen njezinim područjem primjene.
irregular migrants crossing an internal border — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-47/15, Affum (paragraph 69), Article 2(2) of the Directive referring to external borders and Article 14 SBC applying at the external borders,
Međutim, države članice mogu odlučiti da neće primjenjivati Direktivu na „granične slučajeve” odnosno na državljane treće zemlje:
illegally staying third-country nationals who are leaving the territories of the Member States and of the Schengen Associated countries — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-47/15, Affum (paragraph 71).
kojima je odbijen ulazak u skladu s člankom 13.
Practical example of cases covered by the clause ‘and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member States’, to whom the derogation does not apply:
Zakonika o schengenskim granicama [18], ili
irregular entrants who have been apprehended at the external border and subsequently obtained a right to remain as asylum seeker.
koji su uhićeni ili zadržani od strane nadležnih tijela zbog nezakonitog prelaska kopnene, morske ili zračne vanjske granice države članice i koji potom nisu dobili dozvolu ili im nije priznato pravo boravka u toj državi članici.
Even if — after final rejection of the asylum application — they become again ‘illegally staying’, they must not be excluded from the scope of the Directive as ‘border case’,
Primjena ovog odstupanja može biti korisna, primjerice u slučaju najizloženijih država članica koje se suočavaju sa znatnim migracijskim pritiskom, ako to može osigurati učinkovitije postupke; u takvim slučajevima Komisija preporučuje primjenu takva odstupanja.
a third-country national who was subject of a refusal of entry and who is staying in the airport transit zone (and thus may be excluded from the scope of the Directive) is transferred to a hospital for medical reasons and given a short-term national permit (and not just a postponement of removal under Article 9(2)(a)) to cover the period of hospitalisation).
U nacionalnim postupcima za „granične slučajeve” moraju se poštovati opća načela međunarodnog prava i temeljna prava predmetnih državljana trećih zemalja, kao i zaštitne mjere iz članka 4. stavka 4.
The form, content and legal remedies of decisions issued to third-country nationals excluded from the scope of application of the Return Directive by Article 2(2)(a) are covered by national law.
Direktive o vraćanju (vidjeti odjeljak 2.2.).
Refusals of entry according to Article 14 SBC cover everybody who does not fulfil the entry conditions in accordance with Article 6(1) SBC.
Člankom 2. stavkom 2. točkom (a) podrazumijeva se izravna vremenska i prostorna veza s prelaskom vanjske granice.
Persons who are refused entry in an airport transit zone or at a border crossing point situated on Member State territory fall under the scope of the Return Directive (since they are already physically present on the territory).
On se stoga odnosi na državljane trećih zemalja koje su nadležna tijela uhitila ili zaustavila u trenutku nezakonitog prelaska vanjske granice ili nedaleko od vanjske granice nakon njezina prelaska – vidjeti presudu Suda EU-a u predmetu C-47/15, Affum (točka 72.).
However, Member States can make use of the derogation of Article 2(2)(a) stating that Member States may decide not to apply the Directive to these cases.
Sljedeće su kategorije osoba, primjerice, obuhvaćene pojmom „koji su uhićeni ili zadržani od strane nadležnih tijela zbog nezakonitog prelaska […] vanjske granice” jer još postoji IZRAVNA veza s činom nezakonitog prelaska granice:
The exceptions for border cases under Article 2(2)(a) only apply to cases of apprehension at the external borders, not at the internal borders — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-47/15, Affum.
osobe koje nezakonito dolaze brodom i koje su uhićene u trenutku dolaska ili neposredno nakon dolaska,
The temporary reintroduction of internal border controls does not re-convert internal borders to external borders.
osobe koje je uhitila policija u pokušaju prelaska granične ograde,
This situation therefore does not affect the scope of application of the Return Directive.
osobe koje su nezakonito ušle na državno područje države članice i izlaze iz vlaka/autobusa koji ih je izravno dovezao na državno područje države članice (bez prethodnog zaustavljanja na državnom području države članice).
‘Border’ and ‘border-like’ cases which may be excluded from the scope of the Directive in accordance with Article 2(2)(a) of the Directive are not the same as the cases mentioned in Article 12(3) of the same Directive (simplified procedure in case of illegal entry): illegal entry (the term used in Article 12(3)) is not synonymous with the ‘border’ and ‘border-like’ cases described in Article 2(2)(a) of the Return Directive.
Sljedeće kategorije osoba nisu obuhvaćene pojmom „koji su uhićeni ili zadržani od strane nadležnih tijela zbog nezakonitog prelaska […] vanjske granice” jer više ne postoji IZRAVNA veza s činom nezakonitog prelaska granice:
Example: an illegally staying third-country national who is apprehended in the territory of a Member State three months after his/her illegal entry is not covered by Article 2(2)(a) of the Return Directive but may be covered by Article 12(3) of the same Directive.
osobe koje nezakonito ulaze i koje su uhićene na državnom području države članice u određenom razdoblju nakon nezakonitog ulaska,
If Member States opt not to apply the Directive to border cases, they must nevertheless respect of the principle of non-refoulement and ensure — in accordance with Article 4(4) of the Return Directive — that the level of protection for affected persons is not less favourable than that set out in the Articles of the Return Directive dealing with:
nezakoniti migranti uhićeni u pograničnom području (osim ako još postoji izravna veza s činom nezakonitog prelaska granice),
limitations on use of coercive measures,
nezakoniti migrant koji napušta autobus koji dolazi iz treće zemlje, ako se autobus već nekoliko puta zaustavio na državnom području EU-a,
postponement of removal,
nezakoniti migranti koji, nakon što su prethodni put protjerani, krše još valjanu zabranu ulaska (osim ako su uhićeni neposredno u vezi s nezakonitim prelaskom granice),
emergency health care and necessary treatment of the illness, taking into account needs of vulnerable persons, and
nezakoniti migranti koji prelaze unutarnju granicu – vidjeti presudu Suda EU-a u predmetu C-47/15, Affum (točka 69.), članak 2. stavak 2.
detention conditions.
Direktive koji se odnosi na vanjske granice i članak 14.
In addition, it should be highlighted that the safeguards under the Union asylum acquis (such as in particular on access to asylum procedure) are by no means waived by the Member States' choice not to apply the Return Directive to border cases.
Zakonika o schengenskim granicama koji se primjenjuje na vanjskim granicama,
The obligations under the Union asylum acquis include in particular an obligation of the Member States to:
državljani trećih zemalja s nezakonitim boravkom koji napuštaju državno područje država članica ili država pridruženih schengenskom području – vidjeti presudu Suda EU-a u predmetu C-47/15, Affum (točka 71.).
inform third-country nationals who may wish to make an application for international protection on the possibility to do so,
Praktičan primjer slučajeva obuhvaćenih odredbom „i koji potom nisu dobili dozvolu ili im nije priznato pravo boravka u toj državi članici”, na koje se odstupanje ne primjenjuje:
ensure that border guards and other competent authorities have the relevant information and that their personnel receives the necessary level of training on how to recognise applicants and instructions to inform applicants as to where and how applications for international protection may be lodged,
osobe koje nezakonito ulaze i koje su uhićene na vanjskoj granici i naknadno stekle pravo boravka kao tražitelji azila.
make arrangements for interpretation to the extent necessary to facilitate access to the procedure,
Čak i ako – nakon konačnog odbacivanja zahtjeva za azil – ponovno „nezakonito borave”, te osobe ne smiju biti isključene iz područja primjene Direktive kao „granični slučaj”,
ensure effective access by organisations and persons providing advice and counselling to applicants present at border crossing points, including transit zones, at external borders.
državljanin treće zemlje kojem je odbijen ulazak i koji boravi u tranzitnoj zoni zračne luke (i stoga može biti isključen iz područja primjene Direktive) i prevezen je u bolnicu iz medicinskih razloga te mu je izdana kratkoročna nacionalna dozvola (a ne samo odgoda udaljavanja u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 2. točkom (a)) za razdoblje boravka u bolnici.
Practical application of this provision in case of refusal of entry at the border: there are two possibilities: either the person is physically present in the territory of a Member State after refusal of entry at the border (for instance in an airport transit zone) or the person is not physically present in the territory of a Member State (for instance a person who was refused entry at a land border and who is still physically staying on third-country territory).
Oblik, sadržaj i pravni lijekovi odluka izdanih državljanima trećih zemalja isključenim iz područja primjene Direktive o vraćanju na temelju članka 2. stavka 2. točke (a) pokriveni su nacionalnim zakonodavstvom.
In the first case, the safeguards of Article 4(4) of the Return Directive shall be applied; in the second case, Article 4(4) does not apply.
Zabranom ulaska u skladu s člankom 14.
The respect of the principle of non-refoulement recognised by Article 4(4)(b) of the Return Directive — and enshrined in Article 19(2) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘CFR’) as well as Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) — is absolute and must not be restricted under any circumstances, even if foreigners are a threat to public order or have committed a particularly serious crime.
Zakonika o schengenskim granicama obuhvaćeni su svi koji ne ispunjavaju uvjete za ulazak u skladu s člankom 6. stavkom 1.
Such persons may be excluded from refugee or subsidiary protection status, but they still cannot be returned to a place where they may be tortured or killed.
Zakonika o schengenskim granicama.
Member States are free to decide not to apply the Directive to third-country nationals who:
Direktiva o vraćanju primjenjuje se na osobe kojima je zabranjen ulazak u tranzitnoj zoni zračne luke ili na graničnom prijelazu koji se nalazi na državnom području države članice (jer se već fizički nalaze na državnom području).
are subject to return as a criminal law sanction, according to national law,
Međutim, države članice mogu iskoristiti odstupanje iz članka 2. stavka 2. točke (a) u kojem je navedeno da države članice mogu odlučiti da Direktivu neće primjenjivati na te slučajeve.
are subject to return as a consequence of a criminal law sanction, according to national law, or
Izuzeća za granične slučajeve u skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 2. točkom (a) primjenjuju samo na slučajeve uhićenja na vanjskoj granici, a ne na unutarnjim granicama – vidjeti presudu Suda EU-a u predmetu C-47/15, Affum.
are the subjects of extradition procedures.
Privremenim ponovnim uvođenjem unutarnjih graničnih kontrola unutarnje granice ne pretvaraju se ponovno u vanjske granice.
The criminal law cases envisaged by this provision are those typically considered as crime in the national legal orders of Member States.
Ta situacija stoga ne utječe na područje primjene Direktive o vraćanju.
In C-297/12, Filev and Osmani, the ECJ expressly clarified that offences against the provisions of the national law on narcotics and convictions for drug trafficking may be cases to which the derogation is applicable.
„Granični i slični” slučajevi koji bi mogli biti isključeni iz područja primjene Direktive u skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 2. točkom (a) Direktive nisu isti kao slučajevi navedeni u članku 12. stavku 3. iste Direktive (pojednostavljeni postupak u slučaju nezakonitog ulaska): nezakoniti ulazak (naziv koji se upotrebljava u članku 12. stavku 3.) nije istoznačan „graničnim i sličnim” slučajevima opisanima u članku 2. stavku 2. točki (a) Direktive o vraćanju.
In C-329/11, Achughbabian, the ECJ confirmed that this derogation cannot be used to third-country nationals who have committed only the offence of illegal staying without depriving the Return Directive of its purpose and binding effect.
Primjer: državljanin treće zemlje s nezakonitim boravkom koji je uhićen na državnom području države članice tri mjeseca nakon njegova/njezina nezakonitog ulaska nije obuhvaćen člankom 2. stavkom 2. točkom (a) Direktive o vraćanju, ali može biti obuhvaćen člankom 12. stavkom 3. iste Direktive.
Minor migration-related infringements, such as mere irregular entry or stay, cannot justify the use of this derogation.
Ako su države članice izabrale da neće primjenjivati Direktivu na granične slučajeve, one bez obzira na to moraju poštovati načelo zabrane prisilnog udaljenja ili vraćanja i osigurati – u skladu s člankom 4. stavkom 4.
Extradition procedures are not necessarily related to return procedures.
Direktive o vraćanju – da razina zaštite tih osoba nije manje povoljna nego što je propisano u člancima Direktive o vraćanju koji se odnose na:
The 1957 European Convention on Extradition [19] circumscribes extradition to surrendering ‘persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order’.
ograničenja primjene prisilnih mjera,
However, there may be overlaps and this derogation aims at making clear that Member States have the option not to apply the procedural safeguards contained in the Return Directive when carrying out return in the context of extradition procedures.
odgodu udaljavanja,
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 4
hitnu zdravstvenu zaštitu i nužno liječenje u slučaju bolesti, uzimajući u obzir potrebe ranjivih osoba, i
Even though the Return Directive aims at harmonising return procedures in Member States, it expressly leaves unaffected more favourable provisions contained in bilateral or multilateral international agreements (Article 4(1)).
uvjete zadržavanja.
The Return Directive also leaves unaffected ‘any provision which may be more favourable for the third-country national, laid down in the Community acquis relating to immigration and asylum’ (Article 4(2)) as well as ‘the right of the Member States to adopt or maintain provisions that are more favourable to persons to whom it applies provided that such provisions are compatible with this Directive’ (Article 4(3)).
Nadalje, treba istaknuti da se države članice svojom odlukom da ne primjenjuju Direktivu o vraćanju na granične slučajeve ne odriču zaštitnih mjera u skladu s pravnom stečevinom Unije o azilu (posebno u vezi s pristupom postupku azila).
Given that the Return Directive aims at providing for common minimum standards regarding the respect of fundamental rights of the individuals in return procedures, ‘more favourable’ must always be interpreted as ‘more favourable for the returnee’ and not more favourable for the expelling/removing State.
Obveze u skladu s pravnom stečevinom Unije o azilu uključuju, posebno, obvezu država članica da učine sljedeće:
Member States are not free to apply stricter standards in areas governed by the Return Directive: see the judgment of the ECJ in Case C-61/11, El Dridi [20] (paragraph 33): ‘[…] Directive 2008/115/EC […] does not however allow those States to apply stricter standards in the area that it governs.’
obavijeste državljane trećih zemalja koji žele podnijeti zahtjev za međunarodnu zaštitu da to mogu učiniti,
Imposing a fine instead of issuing a return decision: the Return Directive does not permit a mechanism being put in place which provides, in the event of third-country nationals illegally staying in the territory of a Member State, depending on the circumstances, for either a fine or removal, since the two measures are mutually exclusive (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-38/14, Zaizoune [21]).Applying parts of the Return Directive to persons excluded from its scope under Article 2(2)(a) and (b) is compatible with the Directive and can be considered as covered by Article 4(3), as such practice would be a more favourable one for the third-country national concerned.
osiguraju da granična straža i druga nadležna tijela dobiju odgovarajuće informacije i da njihovi zaposlenici dobiju nužnu razinu izobrazbe o tome kako prepoznati podnositelje zahtjeva te ih informiraju o tome gdje i kako je moguće podnijeti zahtjeve za međunarodnu zaštitu,
Legal basis: Return Directive — as interpreted by the ECJ in Cases C-61/11, El Dridi, C-329/11, Achughbabian, C-430/11, Sagor, C-297/12, Filev and Osmani, C-38/14, Zaizoune, C-290/14, Celaj, C-47/15, Affum.
osigurati tumačenje u mjeri koja je nužna za olakšavanje pristupa postupku,
Member States are free to lay down effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, including imprisonment as a criminal sanction, in relation to infringements of migration rules, provided such measures do not compromise the application of the Return Directive and ensure the full observance of fundamental rights, particularly those guaranteed by the CFR interpreted in accordance with the corresponding provisions of the ECHR.
osigurati učinkovit pristup organizacija i osoba koje daju savjete i pružaju usluge savjetovanja podnositeljima koji se nalaze na graničnim prijelazima, uključujući u tranzitnim zonama, na vanjskim granicama.
It is for national law to determine which types of infringements of migration rules are to be sanctioned.
Praktična primjena ove odredbe u slučaju zabrane ulaska na granici: postoje dvije mogućnosti: ili se osoba fizički nalazi na državnom području države članice nakon zabrane ulaska na granici (na primjer, u tranzitnoj zoni zračne luke) ili osoba nije fizički nazočna na državnom području države članice (na primjer, osoba kojoj je zabranjen ulazak na kopnenoj granici i koja još fizički boravi na državnom području treće zemlje).
Nothing prevents Member States from addressing and taking into account in their national penal law infringements of migration rules committed also in other Member States.
U prvom slučaju primjenjuju se zaštitne mjere iz članka 4. stavka 4.
Non-compliance with an entry ban: Member States can adopt criminal law sanctions against illegally staying third-country nationals who have been returned and who re-enter the territory of a Member State in breach of an entry ban.
Direktive o vraćanju; u drugom slučaju članak 4. stavak 4. ne primjenjuje se.
Such criminal sanction is admissible only on the condition that the entry ban issued against the third-country national complies with the provisions of the Directive.
Poštovanje načela zabrane prisilnog udaljenja ili vraćanja priznato člankom 4. stavkom 4. točkom (b) Direktive o vraćanju (i sadržano u članku 19. stavku 2.
Such criminal sanctions shall ensure full observance of fundamental rights and the 1951 Geneva Convention [22], notably Article 31(1) [23] (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-290/14, Celaj [24]).The Return Directive does not preclude imposing penal sanctions, following national rules of criminal procedure, in relation to third-country nationals to whom the return procedures established by the Directive have been unsuccessfully applied and who are illegally staying in the territory of a Member State without there being any justified ground for non-return.
Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima i članku 3.
Penal sanctions aimed at dissuading such returnees from remaining illegally must ensure full observance of fundamental rights, particularly those guaranteed by the ECHR (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-329/11, Achughbabian, paragraphs 48 and 49) and shall comply with the proportionality principle.
Europske konvencije o ljudskim pravima (EKLJP)) apsolutno je i ne smije biti ograničeno ni u kojem slučaju, čak i ako stranci predstavljaju prijetnju javnom redu ili su počinili posebno teško kazneno djelo.
The Commission recommends that Member States foresee effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions in national legislation (for example fines, seizure of documents, reduction/refusal of benefits/allowance, refusal of work permit) in relation to third-country nationals who intentionally obstruct the return process (for example disposing of travel document, providing false identity, preventing identification, repeated refusal to embark), provided that such sanctions do not impair achieving the objective of the Return Directive and ensure full observance of fundamental rights.
Takvim osobama može biti uskraćen izbjeglički status ili status supsidijarne zaštite, no bez obzira na to ne smiju biti vraćene tamo gdje bi mogle biti podvrgnute mučenju ili ubijene.
Criminalisation of mere illegal stay: Member States cannot impose imprisonment under national criminal law on the sole ground of illegal stay before or during carrying out return procedures since this would delay return (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-61/11, El Dridi).
Države članice mogu odlučiti da neće primjenjivati ovu Direktivu na državljane trećih zemalja:
However, the Return Directive does not prevent Member States from imposing a sentence of imprisonment to punish the commission of offences other than those stemming for the mere fact of illegal stay, including in situations where the return procedures has not yet been completed (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-47/15, Affum, paragraph 65).
koji se moraju u skladu s nacionalnim pravom vratiti radi kaznene sankcije,
Financial penalties: the imposition of a (proportionate) financial penalty for illegal stay under national criminal law is not as such incompatible with the objectives of the Return Directive since it does not prevent a return decision from being issued and implemented in full compliance with the conditions set out in the Directive (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-430/11, Sagor).
koji se moraju u skladu s nacionalnim pravom vratiti radi posljedice kaznene sankcije,
National legislation which — in the event of illegal stay — provides for either a fine or removal is incompatible with the Return Directive, since the two measures are mutually exclusive, undermining the effectiveness of the Directive (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-38/14, Zaizoune).
ili je u pogledu njih pokrenut postupak izručenja.