natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The ECJ expressly confirmed this in its judgment of Case C-297/12, Filev and Osmani (paragraphs 27 and 34): ‘It must be noted that it clearly follows from the terms “[t]he length of the entry ban shall be determined” that Member States are under an obligation to limit the effects in time of any entry ban in principle to a maximum of five years independently of an application made for that purpose by the relevant third-country national. […] Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law […] which makes the limitation of the length of an entry ban subject to the making by the third-country national concerned of an application seeking to obtain the benefit of such a limit’.
Prikladnost prihvatnih ustanova u državi vraćanja mora se ocijeniti u svakom pojedinom slučaju, uzimajući u obzir pojedinačne okolnosti i dob vraćenog maloljetnika.
The moment at which the clock starts ticking: the Return Directive does not expressly lay down the starting point from which the period of application of the entry ban is to be calculated.
Sami prihvat granične službe u državi povratka bez nužnih mjera praćenja ili popratnih mjera ne može se smatrati „prikladnim prihvatom”.
However, the ECJ in Case C-225/16, Ouhrami [61] provided clarity on this issue.The ECJ clarified that the determination of the starting point for an entry ban cannot be left to the discretion of each Member State, as this would undermine the objective of the Return Directive and the purpose of the entry bans.
Države članice trebaju posebnu pozornost posvetiti dostupnosti odgovarajućeg smještaja, pristupa zdravstvenoj skrbi i obrazovanja u državi povratka.
The ECJ concluded that ‘it thus follows from the wording, general scheme and objective of Directive 2008/115/EC that the period of application of the entry ban does not begin to run until the date on which the person concerned has actually left the territory of the Member States’ (paragraph 53).
Države članice poštuju članak 20.
Indeed, if an entry ban were to apply before the actual departure of the third-country national, its duration would be unduly reduced.
Konvencije UN-a o pravima djeteta i potiče ih se da ispune Smjernice UN-a za alternativnu skrb o djeci [57].11.
Member States should put in place means to confirm and verify the actual date of departure of third-country nationals (see sections 6.4 and 6.6) to ensure that entry bans start applying at the moment in which they actually leave the territory of the Member States.
„Zabrana ulaska” znači upravna ili sudska odluka ili akt kojim se zabranjuju ulazak i boravak na državnom području države članice za određeno vrijeme, zajedno s odlukom o vraćanju.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 11(3)
Odlukama o vraćanju pridodaje se zabrana ulaska:
Subparagraph 1: Member States shall consider withdrawing or suspending an entry ban where a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued in accordance with paragraph 1, second subparagraph, can demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State in full compliance with a return decision.
ako nije odobreno vrijeme za dobrovoljni odlazak; ili
The possibility to suspend or withdraw an entry ban in those cases in which a returnee has left the territory of a Member State in full compliance with a return decision (notably within the granted period for voluntary departure) should be used as an incentive to encourage voluntary departure.
ako nije poštovana obveza vraćanja.
Member States shall provide for a possibility in their national legislation and administrative practice to apply for withdrawal or suspension of an entry ban in these circumstances.
U drugim se slučajevima odlukama o vraćanju može pridodati zabrana ulaska.
An effort should be made to make such procedures easily accessible for the returnee and practically operational.
Trajanje zabrane ulaska utvrđuje se u pogledu svih relevantnih okolnosti pojedinačnog slučaja i u pravilu ne prelazi pet godina.
Different possibilities exist for allowing the returnee to provide evidence as regards his/her departure from EU territory, such as: an exit stamp in the returnee's passport, data in national border data systems or reporting back of the returnee at a consular representation of a Member State in a third country.
Međutim, može biti duža od pet godina, ako državljanin treće zemlje predstavlja ozbiljnu opasnost za javni poredak, javnu sigurnost ili nacionalnu sigurnost.
Shortening of entry bans: Member States are also free to shorten an existing entry ban in the circumstances addressed by Article 11(3) of the Return Directive.
Zabrane ulaska povezane s vraćanjem koje su predviđene u Direktivi o vraćanju trebale bi imati preventivni učinak i poticati vjerodostojnost politike vraćanja Unije slanjem jasne poruke da osobama koje zanemare migracijska pravila u državama članicama EU-a neće određeno vrijeme biti dopušten ponovni ulazak u bilo koju državu članicu EU-a.
The possibility for Member States to withdraw an entry ban under Article 11(3) can be interpreted as covering also a partial withdrawal (i.e. shortening) of an entry ban.
Direktiva o vraćanju obvezuje države članice da izdaju zabranu ulaska u dva „opravdana” slučaja: i. ako nije određeno vrijeme za dobrovoljni odlazak i ii. ako nije izvršena obveza vraćanja.
Subparagraph 2: Victims of trafficking in human beings who have been granted a residence permit pursuant to Directive 2004/81/EC shall not be subject of an entry ban without prejudice to paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (b), and provided that the third-country national concerned does not represent a threat to public policy, public security or national security.
U svim drugim slučajevima odlukama o vraćanju može se pridodati zabrana ulaska.
Victims of trafficking who had been previously granted a residence permit in accordance with Directive 2004/81/EC should not receive an entry ban, unless the person concerned did not comply with an obligation to return within a period for voluntary departure or if the person concerned represents a threat to public policy.
Trajanje zabrane ulaska mora se utvrditi u odnosu na sve relevantne okolnosti pojedinačnog slučaja.
This rule only applies to periods of illegal stay immediately following a legal stay covered by Directive 2004/81/EC and it does not create a life-long exemption for previous holders of such permits.
Ono u pravilu ne bi trebalo prelaziti pet godina.
Subparagraph 3: Member States may refrain from issuing, withdraw or suspend an entry ban in individual cases for humanitarian reasons.
Zabrana ulaska može se izdati na dulje razdoblje samo u slučajevima ozbiljne opasnosti za javni poredak, javnu sigurnost ili nacionalnu sigurnost.
Member States are free not to issue entry bans in individual cases, notably in the compulsory cases foreseen by Article 11(1)(a) and (b) of the Return Directive, only for humanitarian reasons; such reasons need to be determined at national level.
Zabranom ulaska zabranjuje se ulazak na područje svih država članica: iz teksta uvodne izjave 14.
Member States are also allowed to withdraw or suspend existing entry bans for humanitarian reasons.
Direktive o vraćanju i sustavne usporedbe svih jezičnih inačica Direktive (posebno teksta na engleskom i francuskom) može se jasno utvrditi da se zabranom ulaska zabranjuje ulazak i boravak na području svih država članica.
This optional clause gives Member States the possibility to make use of it in accordance with their national legislation and administrative practice.
Danska inačica, u kojoj se upotrebljava jednina („ophold på en medlemsstats”), sadržava očitu pogrešku u prijevodu.
Subparagraph 4: Member States may withdraw or suspend an entry ban in individual cases or certain categories of cases for other reasons.
Učinak zabrane ulaska u cijelom EU-u jedna je od ključnih europskih dodanih vrijednosti Direktive.
Member States are free to withdraw or suspend existing entry bans for reasons other than humanitarian reasons, to be determined at national level.
Učinak zabrane ulaska u cijelom EU-u mora biti jasno naveden u odluci o zabrani ulaska koja je izdana državljaninu treće zemlje.
In cases of humanitarian catastrophes (such as earthquakes, other natural disasters or armed conflicts) in third countries which may lead to a mass influx of displaced persons, formal procedures for withdrawal of entry bans in individual cases may take too long and are not feasible.
Zabrane ulaska obvezujuće su za sve države članice koje obvezuje Direktiva o vraćanju, odnosno sve države članice (osim UK-a i Irske) te zemlje pridružene Schengenu (Švicarska, Norveška, Island i Lihtenštajn).
Therefore the possibility exists to provide for a horizontal suspension or withdrawal of existing entry bans related to the concerned groups of persons.
Obavješćivanje drugih država članica o izdanim zabranama ulaska: države članice moraju obavijestiti ostale države članice o svim izdanim zabranama ulaska.
A need to withdraw entry bans validly issued under the Return Directive may also arise in relation to third-country nationals who could later establish that they are enjoying the right of free movement under Union law, for example by becoming members of the family of EU/EEA/CH nationals falling under Article 21 TFEU or Directive 2004/38/EC.
Unos upozorenja o zabrani ulaska u SIS u skladu s člankom 24. stavkom 3.
Non-respect of an entry ban should be taken into consideration by Member States when considering the length of a further entry ban.
Uredbe o SIS-u II glavni je, ali ne i jedini način obavješćivanja drugih država članica o postojanju zabrane ulaska i osiguravanja njihove uspješne provedbe.
In this context, recital 14 of the Return Directive expressly provides that ‘The length of the entry ban should be determined with due regard to all relevant circumstances of an individual case and should not normally exceed five years.
Države članice stoga trebaju osigurati da se upozorenja o zabrani ulaska sustavno unose u SIS.
In this context, particular account should be taken of the fact that the third-country national concerned has already been the subject of more than one return decision or removal order or has entered the territory of a Member State during an entry ban’.
Države članice koje nemaju pristup SIS-u mogu razmjenjivati informacije drugim kanalima (na primjer, bilateralnim kontaktima).
The Return Directive allows Member States to provide for further sanctions under national administrative law (for instance, a fine), subject to the effet utile of the Directive and the relevant case-law of the ECJ in this regard.
Isključivo nacionalne zabrane ulaska: nije u skladu s Direktivom o vraćanju izdavati isključivo nacionalne zabrane ulaska povezane s migracijom.
When doing so, Member States should make no difference between entry bans issued by their own national authorities and by those issued by authorities of other Member States, as this would undermine the harmonised concept of an EU-wide entry ban established by the Return Directive.
U nacionalnom zakonodavstvu mora biti predviđeno da se zabranama ulaska koje su izdane u vezi s odlukama o vraćanju zabranjuje ulazak i boravak u svim državama članicama, primjerice, uspostavljanjem obveze sustavnog unošenja svih takvih zabrana ulaska u SIS.
Member States can adopt criminal law sanctions against illegally staying third-country nationals who did not comply with an valid entry ban following their return (judgment of the ECJ in Case C-290/14, Celaj, see section 4).
Međutim, u slučaju da državljanin treće zemlje kojem je država članica A izdala zabranu ulaska ima dozvolu boravka izdanu u državi članici B, ako država članica B ne želi ukinuti tu dozvolu i nakon savjetovanja u skladu s člankom 25.
Article 11(5) of the Return Directive clarifies that the provisions on return-related entry bans apply without prejudice to the right to international protection under EU asylum acquis: this implies that previously issued entry bans under the Return Directive cannot justify the return or penalisation of third-country nationals authorised to enter or stay in the EU as asylum seeker or as beneficiary of international protection — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-290/14, Celaj (paragraph 32).
Konvencije o provedbi Schengenskog sporazuma navedenim u članku 11. stavku 4.
Such entry bans should be suspended (pending ongoing asylum procedures) or withdrawn (once international protection has been granted).
Direktive o vraćanju, država članica A povlači zabranu ulaska u cijelom EU-u, ali može državljanina treće zemlje staviti na svoj nacionalni popis upozorenja iz članka 25. stavka 2. posljednje rečenice Konvencije o provedbi Schengenskog sporazuma (lex specialis) (vidjeti i odjeljak 11.8.).
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 11(4); Schengen Implementing Convention — Article 25
Unos zabrana ulaska u SIS: u skladu s trenutačno važećim zakonodavstvom države članice mogu unijeti u SIS upozorenja koja se odnose na zabrane ulaska izdane u skladu s Direktivom o vraćanju, ali nisu obvezne to učiniti.
Where a Member State is considering issuing a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay to a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued by another Member State, it shall first consult the Member State having issued the entry ban and shall take account of its interests in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement.
Međutim, kako bi se ostvario potpuni učinak europske dimenzije zabrana ulaska izdanih u skladu s Direktivom o vraćanju, države članice to bi trebale činiti sustavno.
Article 25 Schengen Implementing Convention provides that:
Odnos između trogodišnjeg preispitivanja upozorenja unesenih u SIS (u skladu s člankom 112.
Where a Member State considers issuing a residence permit, it shall systematically carry out a search in the Schengen Information System.
Konvencije o provedbi Schengenskog sporazuma i člankom 29.
Where a Member State considers issuing a residence permit to an alien for whom an alert has been issued for the purposes of refusing entry, it shall first consult the Member State issuing the alert and shall take account of its interests; the residence permit shall be issued for substantive reasons only, notably on humanitarian grounds or by reason of international commitments.
Uredbe o SIS-u II) i trajanja zabrane ulaska utvrđene u Direktivi o vraćanju: preispitivanje upozorenja unesenih u SIS postupovni je zahtjev čiji je cilj osigurati da se upozorenja čuvaju samo tijekom vremena potrebnog za postizanje svrhe za koju su unesena.
Where a residence permit is issued, the Member State issuing the alert shall withdraw the alert but may put the alien concerned on its national list of alerts.
To ne utječe na samostalnu odluku države članice da utvrdi trajanje zabrane ulaska u skladu s odredbama Direktive o vraćanju.
Prior to issuing an alert for the purposes of refusing entry within the meaning of Article 96, the Member States shall check their national records of long-stay visas or residence permits issued.
Ako je u trenutku trogodišnjeg preispitivanja zabrana ulaska izdana u skladu s Direktivom o vraćanju još na snazi (na primjer, zabrana je određena na razdoblje od 5 godina i nije u međuvremenu povučena), države članice mogu zadržati upozorenje u SIS-u u preostalom razdoblju od dvije godine ako je upozorenje i dalje potrebno s obzirom na primjenjive kriterije za procjenu, posebno članak 11.
Where it emerges that an alert for the purposes of refusing entry has been issued for an alien who holds a valid residence permit issued by one of the Contracting Parties, the Contracting Party issuing the alert shall consult the Party which issued the residence permit in order to determine whether there are sufficient reasons for withdrawing the residence permit.
Direktive o vraćanju u vezi s člankom 112. stavkom 4.
If the residence permit is not withdrawn, the Contracting Party issuing the alert shall withdraw the alert but may nevertheless put the alien in question on its national list of alerts.
Konvencije o provedbi Schengenskog sporazuma ili člankom 29. stavkom 4.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply also to long-stay visas.
Uredbe o SIS-u II.
Article 25 SIC is a directly applicable provision and can be applied by Member States without transposing national legislation.
Izdavanje zabrana ulaska u trenutku odlaska na granici u okviru postupka in absentia (na primjer, u slučajevima osoba koje su prekoračile razdoblje dozvoljenog boravka i koje neposredno prije odlaska prolaze graničnu kontrolu u zračnoj luci): države članice mogu pokrenuti postupak vraćanja kada dobiju saznanja o prekoračenju razdoblja dozvoljenog boravka i izdati odluku o vraćanju (vidjeti odjeljak 5.1.) kojoj se pridodaje zabrana ulaska u okviru postupka in absentia ako:
Only the Member State issuing the entry ban (Member State A) can lift the entry ban.
je u nacionalnom upravnom pravu predviđena mogućnost postupaka in absentia i
If another Member State (Member State B) decides to issue a residence permit to the same person or not to withdrawn an existing one (after having carried out consultation with the Member State which had issued the entry ban), Member State A is obliged to withdraw the alert (Article 25(2) SIC), although it may put the third-country national on its national list of alerts.
su ti nacionalni postupci u skladu s općim načelima prava Unije i s temeljnim pravima utvrđenima u Povelji o temeljnim pravima, s naglaskom na pravo da budu saslušani i pravo na učinkovit pravni lijek i pošteno suđenje.
The reasons underlying an existing entry ban issued by Member State A, as well as the interests of this Member State, must be considered and taken into account by Member State B before issuing a residence permit or deciding not to withdraw it (for instance for family reunification purposes).
Izdavanje zabrane ulaska povratnicima koji u trenutku odlaska nisu ispunili obvezu vraćanja u vremenu za dobrovoljni odlazak: zabrana ulaska određuje se u kasnijoj fazi (na primjer, u trenutku odlaska) kao pomoćni i naknadni element već izdane odluke o vraćanju ako povratnik nije ispunio obvezu vraćanja u vremenu za dobrovoljni odlazak.
In order to allow Member State B to properly take into account the underlying reasons for the entry ban, it is essential that Member State A provides the relevant information to Member State B in due time.
Nazočnost na području države članice: nezakoniti boravak osnovni je preduvjet za donošenje odluke o vraćanju i prateće zabrane ulaska.
Those Member States which do not yet fully apply Schengen rules and therefore cannot (yet) directly apply Article 25 SIC, should nevertheless follow the spirit of Article 11(4) of the Return Directive and contact — if they become aware (through whatever source of information including information from the applicant) that a person is subject of an entry ban issued by another Member State — the authorities which issued the entry ban.
Država članica ne može izdati odluku o vraćanju i prateću zabranu ulaska osobama koje ne borave na njezinu državnom području.
Before issuing a residence permit to the person, the Member State should seek to ‘take account of the interest’ of the Member State which issued the entry ban.
U situaciji kada je osoba pobjegla (na primjer, nakon odbijenog zahtjeva za azil), ali se pretpostavlja da se i dalje nalazi na području predmetne države članice, odluka o vraćanju (uključujući zabranu ulaska) može se donijeti u postupku in absentia u skladu s nacionalnim pravom.
‘Historic’ entry bans issued before 24 December 2010 have to be adapted in line with the standards fixed in Article 11 of the Return Directive — i.e. maximum of 5 year, individual assessment, obligation to withdraw/consider withdrawing in specific circumstances — if they develop effects for the period after 24 December 2010 and if they are not yet in line with the substantive safeguards of Article 11.
Nezakoniti boravak u prošlosti: Države članice ne mogu izdati odluku o vraćanju i prateću zabranu ulaska u skladu s Direktivom o vraćanju osobama koje se ne nalaze na njihovu državnom području, uključujući državljane trećih zemalja, i koje su prethodno (u prošlosti) nezakonito boravile, ali su se vratile u treću zemlju prije nego što je utvrđen njihov nezakoniti boravak.
Adaptation should take place either upon application of the concerned person at any moment or ex officio at the earliest possible moment, and in any case not later than at the occasion of the regular (3-year) review of entry bans foreseen for SIS alerts.
Ako takve osobe ponovno uđu u državu članicu i donesu se mjere u skladu s Direktivom o vraćanju (odluka o vraćanju, zabrana ulaska), prethodni nezakoniti boravak može se uzeti u obzir kao otežavajuća okolnost pri utvrđivanju trajanja zabrane ulaska.
In the judgment of Case C-297/12, Filev and Osmani (paragraphs 39-41 and 44), the ECJ expressly clarified: ‘In that regard, it is important to note from the outset that that directive does not include a provision providing for transitional arrangements in relation to entry-ban decisions taken before it became applicable.
Prethodni nezakoniti boravak u drugim državama članicama može se isto uzeti u obzir kao otežavajuća okolnost pri utvrđivanju trajanja zabrane ulaska.
None the less, it follows from the Court's settled case-law that new rules apply immediately, except in the event of a derogation, to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rules […].
Direktiva o vraćanju obvezuje države članice da izdaju zabranu ulaska u dva „opravdana” slučaja:
It follows that Directive 2008/115/EC is applicable to those effects which occur after the date of its applicability in the Member State concerned of entry-ban decisions taken under national rules which were applicable before that date. […] It follows that Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC precludes a continuation of the effects of entry bans of unlimited length made before the date on which Directive 2008/115/EC became applicable, […] beyond the maximum length of entry ban laid down by that provision, except where those entry bans were made against third-country nationals constituting a serious threat to public order, public security or national security’.
ako nije odobreno vrijeme za dobrovoljni odlazak; ili
The right to good administration is a fundamental right recognised as a general principle of EU law and enshrined in the CFR, which forms an integral part of the EU legal order.
ako nije poštovana obveza vraćanja.
This right includes the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely or which significantly affect his or her interests is taken, which is also inherent in respect for the rights of the defence, another general principle of EU law.
U svim ostalim slučajevima (sve odluke o vraćanju donesene u skladu s Direktivom o vraćanju koje nisu obuhvaćene dvama „opravdanim” slučajevima) odlukama o vraćanju može se pridodati zabrana ulaska.
In the judgments of Cases C-383/13, G & R [62], and C-249/13, Boudjlida [63], the ECJ provided important clarification on the right to be heard in relation to return and detention decisions.
To znači da zabrana ulaska može biti predviđena čak i ako je osoba dobrovoljno otišla.
These judgements imply that Member States must always comply with the safeguards below when taking decisions related to return (i.e. return decision, entry-ban decisions, removal decisions, detention order) even though this may not be expressly specified in the relevant articles of the Return Directive:(1) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;
Međutim, države članice imaju diskrecijsko pravo u tom pogledu i potiče ih se da to pravo ostvaruju na način kojim se potiče dobrovoljni odlazak.
the right of every person to have access to his or her file, to analyse all the evidence relied on against him or her which serves to justify a decision by the competent national authority, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;
Trajanje zabrane ulaska utvrđuje se u skladu s nacionalnim zakonodavstvom kojim se prenosi Direktiva o vraćanju uzimajući u obzir sve relevantne okolnosti pojedinačnog slučaja.