natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Paragraph 47 of the same judgment then adds: ‘Should it prove to be the case that no decision was taken on Mr Kadzoev's placement in the detention centre in the context of the procedures opened following his applications for asylum, referred to in paragraph 19 above, so that his detention remained based on the previous national rules on detention for the purpose of removal or on the provisions of Directive 2008/115/EC, Mr Kadzoev's period of detention corresponding to the period during which those asylum procedures were under way would have to be taken into account in calculating the period of detention for the purpose of removal mentioned in Article 15(5) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC’.
osobno ponašanje povratnika,
Taking into account periods of detention pending preparation of a Dublin transfer: the same logic as set out above in relation to periods of detention as asylum seeker applies.
obiteljske veze,
Taking into account periods of detention during which an appeal with suspensive effect is pending: such periods must be taken into account — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-357/09, Kadzoev (paragraphs 53-54): ‘The period of detention completed by the person concerned during the procedure in which the lawfulness of the removal decision is the subject of judicial review must […] be taken into account for calculating the maximum duration of detention laid down in Article 15(5) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC.
humanitarna pitanja,
If it were otherwise, the duration of detention for the purpose of removal could vary, sometimes considerably, from case to case within a Member State or from one Member State to another because of the particular features and circumstances peculiar to national judicial procedures, which would run counter to the objective pursued by Article 15(5) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC, namely to ensure a maximum duration of detention common to the Member States’.
vjerojatnost vraćanja u skoroj budućnosti,
Taking into account periods of detention for the purpose of removal spent in (another) Member State A, immediately followed by pre-removal detention in Member State B (such a situation may arise for instance in the context of the transfer of a third-country national from Member State A to Member State B under a bilateral readmission agreement covered by Article 6(3) of the Return Directive): the Commission considers that the absolute 18 months threshold of uninterrupted pre-removal detention should not be exceeded, in view of the need to respect the effet utile of the maximum time-limit fixed by Article 15(6) of the Return Directive.
potreba za izbjegavanjem nagrađivanja nezakonitog boravka,
An exchange of information between Member States on periods of detention already spent in another Member State as well as an eventual possibility for Member State B to refuse transfer from Member State A if Member State A made the request excessively late should be addressed under the relevant bilateral readmission agreements.
učinak mjera regularizacije na migracijski uzorak mogućih (nezakonitih) migranata,
Taking into account periods of detention completed before the rules in the Return Directive became applicable: such periods must be taken into account (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-357/09, Kadzoev, paragraphs 36-38).
vjerojatnost sekundarnih kretanja u schengenskom području.
The maximum period of detention prescribed by the Return Directive must not be undermined by re-detaining returnees immediately, following their release from detention.
14.
Re-detention of the same person at a later stage may only be legitimate if an important change of relevant circumstance has taken place (for instance the issuing of necessary papers by a third country or an improvement of the situation in the country of origin, allowing for safe return), if this change gives rise to a ‘reasonable prospect of removal’ in accordance with Article 15(4) of the Return Directive and if all other conditions for imposing detention under Article 15 of that Directive are fulfilled.
ZADRŽAVANJE
Less coercive measures, such as regular reporting to the authorities, deposit of an adequate financial guarantee, submission of documents or the obligation to stay at a certain place may be imposed as long as and to the extent that they can still be considered a ‘necessary measure’ to enforce return.
(obrazac i prijevod) i članka 13. (učinkovit pravni lijek i besplatna pravna pomoć) Direktive o vraćanju izričite su manifestacije temeljnih prava na dobru upravu, na saslušanje, na učinkovit pravni lijek i pošteno suđenje, koja su sva sastavni dio pravnog poretka Europske unije.
While there are no absolute maximum time limits foreseen for the application of less coercive measures, the scope and duration of such measures shall be subject to a thorough assessment as to their proportionality.
Ta se prava moraju poštovati i u vezi s odlukama o zadržavanju.
Moreover, if the nature and intensity of a less coercive measures is similar or equal to deprivation of liberty (for example the imposition of an unlimited obligation to stay at a specific facility, without possibility to leave such facility), it must be considered as a de facto continuation of detention and the time limits foreseen in Article 15(5) and (6) of the Return Directive apply.
Pored tih općih zahtjeva, u članku 15.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 16
Direktive o vraćanju utvrđeni su određeni zahtjevi koji se posebno primjenjuju na odluke o zadržavanju.
Detention shall take place as a rule in specialised detention facilities.
Pravna osnova: Direktiva o vraćanju – članak 15. stavak 1.
Where a Member State cannot provide accommodation in a specialised detention facility and is obliged to resort to prison accommodation, the third-country nationals in detention shall be kept separated from ordinary prisoners
Ako u konkretnom slučaju nije moguće primijeniti dostatne a manje prisilne mjere, države članice mogu samo zadržati državljanina treće zemlje u pogledu kojeg se provodi postupak vraćanja kako bi pripremile povratak i/ili provele postupak vraćanja, posebno kada:
Third-country nationals in detention shall be allowed — on request — to establish in due time contact with legal representatives, family members and competent consular authorities.
postoji opasnost od bijega; ili
Particular attention shall be paid to the situation of vulnerable persons.
konkretni državljanin treće zemlje izbjegava ili ometa pripreme postupka za vraćanje ili udaljavanje.
Emergency health care and essential treatment of illness shall be provided.
Svako zadržavanje može trajati ono vrijeme koje je najmanje potrebno, a trajati tako dugo koliko traje postupak udaljavanja, a treba se provesti uz dužnu pozornost.
Relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental organisations and bodies shall have the possibility to visit detention facilities, as referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent that they are being used for detaining third-country nationals in accordance with this Chapter.
Određivanje zadržavanja u svrhu udaljavanja ozbiljno je narušavanje temeljnog prava slobode osoba i stoga podliježe strogim ograničenjima.
Such visits may be subject to authorisation.
Obveza da se zadržavanje odredi samo kao krajnja mjera: Člankom 8. stavkom 1.
Third-country nationals kept in detention shall be systematically provided with information which explains the rules applied in the facility and sets out their rights and obligations.
Direktive o vraćanju države članice obvezuju se da će poduzeti „potrebne mjere” za izvršenje odluka o vraćanju.
Such information shall include information on their entitlement under national law to contact the organisations and bodies referred to in paragraph 4.
Mogućnost određivanja zadržavanja jedna je od mogućih mjera koje države članice mogu upotrebljavati kao krajnju mjeru.
Initial police arrest (apprehension) for identification purposes is covered by national law: this is expressly highlighted in recital 17 of the Return Directive: ‘Without prejudice to the initial apprehension by law-enforcement authorities,regulated by national legislation, detention should, as a rule, take place in specialised detention facilities’.
Sud EU-a u tom je kontekstu posebno naglasio u predmetu C-61/11, El Dridi, (točka 41.) da je Direktivom o vraćanju predviđeno „stupnjevanje mjera koje će se poduzimati u cilju izvršavanja odluke o vraćanju i to stupnjevanje kreće od mjere kojom se predmetnoj osobi omogućuje najviše slobode, odnosno odobravanje vremena za dobrovoljni odlazak, do mjera kojima se ta sloboda najviše ograničava, odnosno, zadržavanja u posebnom objektu”.
This clarifies that during an initial period national law may continue to apply.
Obveza država članica da primijene zadržavanje postoji stoga samo u situacijama u kojima je jasno da je uporaba zadržavanja jedini način kojim se može osigurati priprema postupka vraćanja i obavljanje postupka udaljavanja (nužnost zadržavanja).
Even though this is no legal obligation, Member States are encouraged to make sure already at this stage that third-country nationals are kept separated from ordinary prisoners.
Svako zadržavanje temelji se na pojedinačnoj procjeni i može trajati ono vrijeme koje je najmanje potrebno, odnosno trajati tako dugo koliko traje postupak udaljavanja, a treba se provesti uz dužnu pozornost (proporcionalnost zadržavanja).
Length of the initial apprehension period during which suspected irregular migrants may be kept in police custody: a brief but reasonable time for the purpose of identifying the person under constraint and researching the information enabling it to be determined whether that person is an illegally staying third-country national — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-329/11, Achughbabian (paragraph 31): ‘It should be held, in that regard, that the competent authorities must have a brief but reasonable time to identify the person under constraint and to research the information enabling it to be determined whether that person is an illegally-staying third-country national.
Razlozi za zadržavanje: jedini zakoniti cilj zadržavanja u skladu s Direktivom o vraćanju jest priprema vraćanja i/ili izvršenje postupka udaljavanja, posebno ako postoji 1) opasnost od bijega ili 2) ako povratnik izbjegava ili sprječava pripremu vraćanja ili postupak udaljavanja.
Determination of the name andnationality may prove difficult where the person concerned does not cooperate.
Ako postoje takvi razlozi za zadržavanje i ako se u određenom slučaju ne mogu učinkovito primijeniti manje prisilne mjere (krajnja mjera), države članice imaju pravo i trebaju upotrebljavati zadržavanje tijekom vremena potrebnog da se osigura da se postupci vraćanja mogu uspješno provesti u skladu s odredbama članka 8.
Verification of the existence of an illegal stay may likewise prove complicated, particularly where the person concerned invokes a status of asylum seeker or refugee.
Direktive o vraćanju.
That being so, the competent authorities are required, in order to prevent the objective of Directive 2008/115/EC, as stated in the paragraph above, from being undermined, to act with diligence and take a position without delay on the legality or otherwise of the stay of the person concerned’.
Iako je tekst Direktive o vraćanju oblikovan kao okvirni popis („posebno”), ta dva konkretna slučaja obuhvaćaju glavne scenarije slučajeva koji se susreću u praksi i kojima se opravdava zadržavanje radi pripreme i organiziranja vraćanja i/ili radi provođenja postupka udaljavanja.
Even though there is no detailed binding timeframe, the Commission encourages Member States to make sure that a transfer to a specialised detention facility for irregular migrants normally takes place within 48 hours after apprehension (exceptionally, longer periods may be admissible in case of remote geographic locations).
Postojanje posebnog razloga za zadržavanje – i nepostojanje učinkovitih i dostatnih manje prisilnih mjera – mora se pojedinačno procijeniti u svakom slučaju.
Use of specialised facilities is the general rule: returnees are no criminals and deserve treatment different from ordinary prisoners.
Odbijanje ulaska na granici, postojanje upozorenja u SIS-u za odbijanje ulaska, neposjedovanje dokumentacije, nepostojanje mjesta boravka, odbijanje suradnje i ostali odgovarajući pokazatelj/kriteriji moraju se uzeti u obzir pri procjeni opasnosti od bijega (vidjeti odjeljak 1.6.) koja može opravdati potrebu za zadržavanjem.
The use of specialised facilities is therefore the general rule foreseen by the Return Directive.
Nema zadržavanja iz razloga javnog poretka: mogućnost održavanja ili produljenja zadržavanja iz razloga javnog poretka nije obuhvaćeno tekstom Direktive o vraćanju i države članice ne smiju upotrebljavati zadržavanje imigranata u svrhu udaljavanja kao oblik „blage zatvorske kazne”.
Member States are required to detain illegally staying third-country nationals for the purpose of removal in specialised detention facilities, and not in ordinary prisons.
Glavna svrha zadržavanja u svrhu udaljavanja jest osigurati da povratnici bijegom ne ugroze izvršenje obveze vraćanja.
This implies an obligation on Member States to make sure that sufficient places in specialised detention facilities are available, therefore to bring detention capacity in line with actual needs, while ensuring adequate material detention conditions.
Svrha članka 15. nije zaštititi društvo od osoba koje predstavljaju opasnost za javni poredak ili sigurnost.
Exceptions to the general rule: the derogation foreseen in Article 16(1) of the Return Directive, which allows Member States to accommodate pre-removal detainees in exceptional cases in ordinary prisons, must be interpreted restrictively.
Prethodno ponašanje/postupanje osobe koja predstavlja rizik za javni poredak i sigurnost (na primjer, nepoštovanje upravnog prava u područjima koja nisu povezana s migracijskim pravom ili povrede kaznenog prava) može se, međutim, uzeti u obzir pri procjeni opasnosti od bijega (vidjeti odjeljak 1.6.).
This was expressly confirmed by the judgment of the ECJ in joint Cases C-473/13, Bero and C-514/13, Bouzalmate [78] (paragraph 25): ‘The second sentence of […] Article 16(1) […] lays down a derogation from that principle, which, as such, must be interpreted strictly (see, to this effect, the judgment in Kamberaj, C-571/10, EU:C:2012:233, paragraph 86)’.
Ako se na temelju prethodnog ponašanja/postupanja predmetne osobe može zaključiti da ta osoba vjerojatno neće postupati u skladu sa zakonom i da će izbjeći vraćanje, time se može opravdati odluka da postoji opasnost od bijega.
Full consideration shall be given to fundamental rights when making use of such derogation, giving due consideration to elements such as situations of overcrowding, the need to avoid repeated transfers and possible detrimental effects on the returnee's wellbeing, particularly in the case of vulnerable persons.
Obveza osiguravanja učinkovitih alternativa zadržavanju: članak 15. stavak 1. mora se tumačiti tako da se od svake države članice mora zahtijevati da u svojem nacionalnom zakonodavstvu predvidi alternative zadržavanju; to je u skladu s uvjetima iz uvodne izjave 16.
Unpredictable peaks in the number of detainees: the derogation foreseen in Article 16(1) of the Return Directive may be applied when unforeseen peaks in the number of detainees caused by unpredictable quantitative fluctuations inherent to the phenomenon of irregular migration (not yet reaching the level of an ‘emergency situation’ expressly regulated in Article 18 of the Return Directive) cause a problem to place detainees in special facilities in a Member State, which otherwise disposes of an adequate/sufficient number of places in specialised facilities.
Direktive („[…] ako primjena manje prisilnih mjera ne bi bila dovoljna”).
Aggressive detainees: in line with the relevant ECtHR case-law, Member States are under the obligation to protect returnees in detention from aggressive or inappropriate behaviour of other detainees.
U presudi u predmetu C-61/11, El Dridi (točka 39.), Sud EU-a potvrdio je sljedeće: „[…] iz uvodne izjave 16. u preambuli te direktive i iz teksta članka 15. stavka 1. može se zaključiti da države članice moraju izvršiti udaljavanje pomoću što je moguće manje prisilnih mjera.
Member States are encouraged to look for practical ways for addressing this challenge within the specialised facilities and without resorting to prison accommodation.
Samo u slučaju da postoji rizik da bi izvršenje odluke o vraćanju u obliku udaljavanja, ovisno o ocjeni svakog pojedinog slučaja, bilo ugroženo ponašanjem dotičnog državljanina država članica može potonjeg lišiti slobode na način da ga se zadrži”.
Possible solutions might include reserving certain parts/wings of detention centres to aggressive persons, or to have special detention centres reserved for this category of persons.
Međutim, to ne znači da je preduvjet za zadržavanje da je državljanin treće zemlje već bio podvrgnut manje prisilnoj mjeri.
Absence of special detention facilities in a regional part of a Member State: the absence of special detention facilities in a regional part of a Member State — while in another part of the same Member State they exist — cannot justify per se a stay in an ordinary prison.
Člankom 15. stavkom 1.
This was expressly confirmed by the judgment of the ECJ in joint Cases C-473/13, Bero and C-514/13, Bouzalmate (paragraph 32): ‘Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC must be interpreted as requiring a Member State, as a rule, to detain illegally staying third-country nationals for the purpose of removal in a specialised detention facility of that State even if the Member State has a federal structure and the federated state competent to decide upon and carry out such detention under national law does not have such a detention facility’.
Direktive o vraćanju zahtijeva se da manje prisilne mjere moraju biti „dovoljne” i da treba biti moguće „učinkovito” ih primijeniti na predmetnog državljanina treće zemlje.
Brief detention periods: the fact that detention is likely to last for a brief period only (for example 7 days or less) is not a legitimate reason to resort to prison accommodation.
To podrazumijeva da za ispunjenje obveze osiguravanja učinkovitih alternativa zadržavanju države članice moraju u nacionalnom pravu osigurati alternative zadržavanju kojima se mogu ostvariti isti ciljevi zadržavanja (tj. sprječavanje bijega, sprječavanje da državljanin treće zemlje izbjegava ili ometa vraćanje), istodobno koristeći se načinima koja manje narušavaju pravo pojedinca na slobodu.
Detention in closed medical/psychiatric institutions: pre-removal detention in closed medical/psychiatric institutions or together with persons detained on medical grounds is not envisaged by Article 16(1) of the Return Directive and would run contrary to its effet utile unless, in light of the medical condition and state of health of the person concerned, the detention in or transfer to a specialised or adapted facility appears necessary in order to provide adequate and constant specialised medical supervision, assistance and care, with a view to avoiding deterioration of the state of health.
Nacionalna tijela odgovorna za donošenje odluka povezanih sa zadržavanjem i alternativama zadržavanju moraju procijeniti bi li takve manje prisilne mjere bile dovoljne i učinkovite u svakom pojedinačnom slučaju.
Obligation to keep returnees and prisoners separated is an absolute requirement: the Return Directive provides for an unconditional obligation requiring Member States to ensure that illegally staying third-country nationals are always kept separated from ordinary prisoners when a Member State can exceptionally not provide accommodation in specialised detention facilities.
Primjeri alternativa zadržavanju uključuju ograničenja boravka, otvorena vrata za obitelji, potporu socijalnih radnika, redovito javljanje, predaju osobnih iskaznica/putnih isprava, jamčevinu i elektronički nadzor.
Ex-prisoners subject to subsequent return: once the prison sentence has come to an end and the person should have been normally released, rules on detention for the purpose of removal start applying, including the obligation under Article 16(1) of the Return Directive to carry out detention in specialised facilities.
UNHCR daje neke praktične primjere dobre prakse [75] o alternativama zadržavanju.Koristi i rizici – alternative zadržavanju
If the preparation for removal, and possibly the removal itself, is carried out in a period still covered by the prison sentence, prison accommodation can be maintained because this is still covered by the sentence for the previously committed crime.
Koristi od pružanja alternativa zadržavanju mogu uključivati više stope vraćanja (uključujući dobrovoljni odlazak), poboljšanu suradnju s povratnicima u pogledu prikupljanja nužne dokumentacije, financijske koristi (manji trošak za državu) i manje troškova za ljudske resurse (izbjegavanje opterećenja povezanih sa zadržavanjem).
Member States are encouraged to start all the necessary procedures for removal well in advance while persons are still serving their prison sentence in a prison, to ensure that the third-country national can be successfully returned at the latest at the moment in which they are released from prison.
Rizici uključuju veću vjerojatnost od bijega, moguće stvaranje privlačnih učinaka (alternativni objekti za zadržavanje kao što su obiteljske kuće mogu se smatrati privlačnima za moguće nezakonite migrante) i moguće društvene napetosti u susjedstvu otvorenih centara.
Aggressive detainees: aggressive or inappropriate behaviour of returnees does not justify detaining them together with ordinary prisoners, unless an act of aggression is qualified as crime and a related prison sentence was imposed by a court.
Preporuka: Izazov je pronaći inteligentna rješenja s odgovarajućom kombinacijom nagrada i odvraćajućih mjera.
The term ‘ordinary prisoners’ covers both convicted prisoners and prisoners on remand: this is confirmed by Guideline 10, paragraph 4 of the ‘20 Guidelines on forced return’ of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (‘CoE’), which explicitly highlights that ‘persons detained pending their removal from the territory should not normally be held together with ordinary prisoners, convicted or on remand’.
Potpuni nedostatak odvraćajućih mjera može dovesti do nedovoljnih stopa udaljavanja.
Detainees must therefore also be separated from prisoners on remand.
Istodobno, pretjerano represivan sustav sa sustavnim zadržavanjem može također biti neučinkovit jer bi povratnik imao male poticaje za suradnju u postupku vraćanja.
Agreement by returnee to be detained together with prisoners is not possible: in the judgment of Case C-474/13, Pham [79] (paragraphs 21 and 22), the ECJ expressly confirmed the following: ‘In that regard, the obligation requiring illegally staying third-country nationals to be kept separated from ordinary prisoners, laid down in the second sentence of Article 16(1) of that directive, is more than just a specific procedural rule for carrying out the detention of third-country nationals in prison accommodation and constitutes a substantive condition for that detention, without observance of which the latter would, in principle, not be consistent with the directive.
Države članice trebale bi razviti i primjenjivati širok raspon alternativa kako bi obradile različite kategorije državljana trećih zemalja.
In this context, a Member State cannot take account of the wishes of the third-country national concerned’.
Uspješnim se pokazalo prilagođeno individualno osposobljavanje kojim se povratnik potiče da preuzme kontrolu nad vlastitim vraćanjem, rano sudjelovanje i cjelovito upravljanje slučajevima usredotočeno na rješavanje slučajeva.
Return Directive — Article 16; CoE Guideline on forced return No 10 (‘conditions of detention pending removal’); CPT standards and factsheet on immigration detention; 2006 European Prison Rules
Cilj bi trebao biti sustavno horizontalno savjetovanje svih mogućih povratnika, koje uključuje savjete o mogućnostima za zakoniti boravak/azil te za dobrovoljno/prisilno vraćanje od rane faze (a ne samo nakon donošenja odluka o prisilnom udaljavanju).