natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the third-country national concerned avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process.
Države članice mogu odlučiti da ne primjenjuju stavak 2. na državljane treće zemlje koji su nezakonito ušli na državno područje države članice i koji su potom dobili odobrenje ili pravo boravka u toj državi članici.
Any detention shall be for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.
U tom slučaju odluke u vezi povratka iz stavka 1., izdaju se na standardnom obrascu, sukladno nacionalnom zakonodavstvu.
Imposing detention for the purpose of removal is a serious intrusion into the fundamental right of liberty of persons and therefore subject to strict limitations.
Države članice stavljaju na raspolaganje opće informacije koje objašnjavaju glavne dijelove standardnog obrasca na najmanje pet jezika od onih koje nezakoniti migranti koji ulaze u državu članicu najčešće koriste ili razumiju.
Obligation to impose detention only as a measure of last resort: Article 8(1) of the Return Directive obliges Member States to take ‘all necessary measures’ to enforce return decisions.
Uporaba standardnog obrasca za vraćanje iz članka 12. stavka 3.
The possibility to impose detention is one of the possible measures which may be used by Member States as a measure of last resort.
Direktive o vraćanju odstupanje je od općeg pravila koje se može upotrijebiti samo u onim slučajevima u kojima je državljanin treće zemlje nezakonito ušao na državno područje države članice.
The ECJ has in this context expressly highlighted in its judgment in Case C-61/11, El Dridi (paragraph 41), that the Return Directive foresees a ‘a gradation of the measures to be taken in order to enforce the return decision, a gradation which goes from the measure which allows the person concerned the most liberty, namely granting a period for his voluntary departure, to measures which restrict that liberty the most, namely detention in a specialised facility’.
Uporaba standardnog obrasca u takvim slučajevima moguća je za države članice.
An obligation on Member States to apply detention exists only in situations in which it is clear that the use of detention is the only way to make sure that the return process can be prepared and the removal process can be carried out (necessity of detention).
Treba obratiti pažnju na činjenicu da slučajevi nezakonitog ulaska obuhvaćeni člankom 12. stavkom 3.
Any detention shall be based on an individual assessment and shall be for as short a period as possible, only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence (proportionality of detention).
Direktive o vraćanju nisu uvijek isti kao „granični slučajevi” opisani u članku 2. stavku 2. točki (a) te Direktive – vidjeti odjeljak 2.1.
Reasons for detention: the sole legitimate objective of detention under the Return Directive is to prepare the return and/or to carry out the removal process, in particular when there is: (1) a risk of absconding; or (2) avoidance or hampering of the preparation of return or the removal process by the returnee.
Državljanin treće zemlje s nezakonitim boravkom koji je uhićen na državnom području države članice tri mjeseca nakon nezakonitog ulaska nije obuhvaćen izuzećem iz članka 2. stavka 2. točke (a) Direktive o vraćanju, ali može biti obuhvaćen iznimkom iz članka 12. stavka 3.
When such reasons for detention exist, and when no less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case (last resort), Member States are entitled and should use detention for the time necessary to ensure that return procedures can be successfully carried out in compliance with the provisions of Article 8 of the Return Directive.
Nezakonito prelaženje unutarnjih granica: stavak 3. primjenjuje se na državljane treće zemlje „koji su nezakonito ušli na državno područje države članice i koji su potom dobili odobrenje ili pravo boravka u toj državi članici”.
Even though the wording of the Return Directive is phrased as an indicative listing (‘in particular’), these two concrete cases cover the main scenarios encountered in practice that justify detention in view of preparing and organising return and carrying out the removal process.
U posebnom kontekstu te odredbe Direktive o vraćanju, pojam „nezakoniti ulazak” može obuhvaćati i slučajeve u kojima je državljanin treće zemlje s nezakonitim boravkom ušao iz druge države članice protivno uvjetima ulaska i boravka koji se primjenjuju u toj državi članici.
The existence of a specific reason for detention — and the non-availability of effective and sufficient less coercive measures — must be individually assessed in each case.
Treba obratiti pozornost na činjenicu da će se u tim posebnim slučajevima (ulazak iz druge države članice) možda primjenjivati članak 6. stavak 2. ili 3.
A refusal of entry at the border, the existence of a SIS alert for refusal of entry, lack of documentation, lack of residence, absence of cooperation and other relevant indications/criteria need to be taken into account when assessing whether there is a risk of absconding (see section 1.6) that may justify the need for detention.
Direktive o vraćanju.
No detention for public order reasons: the possibility of maintaining or extending detention for public order reasons is not covered by the text of the Return Directive and Member States are not allowed to use immigration detention for the purposes of removal as a form of ‘light imprisonment’.
Članak 12. stavak 3. ne sadržava odstupanja u vezi s primjenjivim pravnim lijekovima.
The primary purpose of detention for the purposes of removal is to assure that returnees do not undermine the execution of the obligation to return by absconding.
Pravni lijekovi iz članka 13. stavka 1.
It is not the purpose of Article 15 to protect society from persons which constitute a threat to public policy or security.
Direktive o vraćanju stoga moraju biti predviđeni i kada se upotrebljava standardni obrazac iz članka 12. stavka 3.
The legitimate aim to protect the society should be addressed by other pieces of legislation, in particular criminal law, criminal administrative law and legislation covering the ending of legal stay for public order reasons.
Pravna osnova: Direktiva o vraćanju – članak 13. stavci 1. i 2.
In this respect, the ECJ stated in its judgment on Case C-357/09, Kadzoev [74] (paragraph 70): ‘The possibility of detaining a person on grounds of public order and public safety cannot be based on Directive 2008/115/EC.
Konkretni državljanin treće zemlje ima pravo na učinkovit pravni lijek žalbe ili preispitivanja odluke u vezi povratka, kako je navedeno u članku 12. stavku 1., pred nadležnim sudskim ili upravnim tijelom ili nadležnim tijelom koje je sastavljeno od članova koji su nepristrani i nezavisni.
None of the circumstances mentioned by the referring court (aggressive conduct; no means of support; no accommodation) can therefore constitute in itself a ground for detention under the provisions of that directive’.
Trebalo bi osigurati učinkovite pravne lijekove za sve odluke povezane s vraćanjem.
The past behaviour/conduct of a person posing a risk to public order and safety (for instance non-compliance with administrative law in other fields than migration law or infringements of criminal law) may, however, be taken into account when assessing whether there is a risk of absconding (see section 1.6).
Izraz „odluke u vezi povratka” trebalo bi shvaćati široko kao da obuhvaća odluke o svim pitanjima uređenima Direktivom o vraćanju, uključujući odluke o vraćanju, odluke o odobravanju ili produljenju vremena za dobrovoljni odlazak, odluke o udaljavanju, odluke o odgodi udaljavanja, odluke o zabranama ulaska te suspenziji ili ukidanju zabrana ulaska (vidjeti odjeljak 12.2.).
If the past behaviour/conduct of the person concerned allows drawing the conclusion that the person will probably not act in compliance with the law and avoid return, this may justify the decision that there is a risk of absconding.
Pravni lijekovi primjenjivi u slučaju odluka o zadržavanju i produljenja zadržavanja detaljnije su uređeni člankom 15.
Obligation to provide for effective alternatives to detention: Article 15(1) must be interpreted as requiring each Member State to provide in its national legislation for alternatives to detention; this is also consistent with the terms of recital 16 to the Directive (‘[…] if application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient’).
Direktive o vraćanju koji se odnosi na zadržavanje (vidjeti odjeljak 14.).
In the judgment of Case C-61/11, El Dridi (paragraph 39), the ECJ confirmed that ‘[…] it follows from recital 16 in the preamble to that directive and from the wording of Article 15(1) that the Member States must carry out the removal using the least coercive measures possible.
Priroda tijela koje preispituje odluke: u skladu s člancima 6. i 13.
It is only where, in the light of an assessment of each specific situation, the enforcement of the return decision in the form of removal risks being compromised by the conduct of the person concerned that the Member States may deprive that person of his liberty and detain him’.
EKLJP-a i člankom 47.
However, this does not mean that a pre-condition for detention is that a third-country national was already subject to a less coercive measure.
Povelje o temeljnim pravima, žalbeno tijelo mora u osnovi biti neovisan i nepristran sud.
Article 15(1) of the Return Directive requires that less coercive measures must be ‘sufficient’ and that it should be possible to apply them ‘effectively’ to the third-country national concerned.
Članak 13. stavak 1.
This implies that, to comply with the obligation to provide for effective alternatives to detention, Member States must provide in national law for alternatives to detention that can achieve the same objectives of detention (i.e. prevent absconding, avoid that the third-country national avoids or hampers return) while using means that are less intrusive of the right to liberty of the individual.
Direktive o vraćanju temelji se na Smjernici Vijeća Europe br. 5.1. i trebalo bi ga tumačiti u skladu s odgovarajućom sudskom praksom Europskog suda za ljudska prava (ESLJP).
National authorities responsible for taking decisions related to detention and alternatives to detention need to assess whether such less coercive measures would be sufficient and effective in each individual case.
U skladu s tom sudskom praksom, tijelo koje preispituje odluke može biti i upravno tijelo pod uvjetom da je sastavljeno od članova koji su nepristrani i čija je neovisnost zaštićena i da je u nacionalnim odredbama predviđena mogućnost da odluku preispita pravosudno tijelo, u skladu sa standardima iz članka 47.
Examples of alternatives to detention include residence restrictions, open houses for families, case-worker support, regular reporting, surrender of ID/travel documents, bail and electronic monitoring.
Povelje o temeljnim pravima o pravu na učinkovit pravni lijek.
The UNHCR provides some practical examples of good practices [75] on alternatives to detention.Benefits and risks — alternatives to detention
Postoji nekoliko zaštitnih mjera za borbu protiv rizika od eventualne zlouporabe mogućnosti žalbe: u članku 13. nije predviđen automatski suspenzivni učinak u svim okolnostima (stavak 2.) i besplatna pravna pomoć može biti ograničena ako nije vjerojatno da će žalba biti uspješna (stavak 4.).
The benefits of providing for alternatives to detention may include higher return rates (including voluntary departure), improved cooperation with returnees in obtaining necessary documentation, financial benefits (less cost for the State) and less human cost (avoidance of hardship related to detention).
Treba posvetiti pozornost i općem načelu prava Unije res judicata.
Risks include an increased likelihood of absconding, possible creation of pull factors (alternative detention facilities such as family houses may be perceived as attractive for potential irregular immigrants) and possible social tensions in the neighbourhood of open centres.
Rokovi za podnošenje žalbi na odluke povezane s vraćanjem moraju se uspostaviti nacionalnim pravom.
Recommendation: The challenge is to find intelligent solutions with an appropriate mix of rewards and deterrents.
Kako bi se izbjegle moguće zlouporabe prava i postupaka, a posebno podnošenje žalbi netom prije dogovorenog datuma udaljavanja, Komisija preporučuje da države članice osiguraju najkraći mogući rok za podnošenje žalbi na odluke o vraćanju utvrđen nacionalnim pravom u usporedivim situacijama, pod uvjetom da se njime nerazmjerno ne ugrožava pravo na učinkovit pravni lijek.
A complete absence of deterrents may lead to insufficient removal rates.
Sudske odluke trebale bi se primjenjivati bez neopravdanih odgađanja.
At the same time an overly repressive system with systematic detention may also be inefficient, since the returnee has little incentive or encouragement to cooperate in the return procedure.
Tijelo iz stavka 1. ima ovlaštenje preispitati odluke u vezi s povratkom, kako je navedeno u članku 12. stavku 1., uključujući mogućnosti privremene suspenzije njezinog izvršenja, osim ako je privremena suspenzija već u tijeku prema nacionalnom zakonodavstvu.
Member States should develop and use a wide range of alternatives to address the situation of different categories of third-country nationals.
Suspenzivni učinak: žalbeno tijelo mora imati ovlasti suspendirati izvršenje odluke o vraćanju u pojedinačnim slučajevima.
Tailored individual coaching, which empowers the returnee to take in hand his/her own return, early engagement and holistic case management focused on case resolution has proven to be successful.
U nacionalnom zakonodavstvu mora biti jasno predviđeno da samo tijelo za preispitivanje (tijelo koje preispituje odluku koja se odnosi na vraćanje) ima ovlasti suspenzije izvršenja u okvirima jednog postupka.
A systematic horizontal coaching of all potential returnees, covering advice on possibilities for legal stay/asylum as well as on voluntary/enforced return from an early stage (and not only once forced removal decisions are taken) should be aimed at.
Obveza odobravanja automatskog suspenzivnog učinka u slučaju opasnosti od prisilnog udaljenja ili vraćanja: u sudskoj praksi ESLJP-a propisan je automatski suspenzivni učinak u slučajevima u kojima postoji materijalna osnova za pretpostavku da će osoba, ako bude vraćena, biti izložena stvarnoj opasnosti od neprimjerenog postupanja iz članka 3.
Being subject of return procedures: the formal requirement to be ‘subject of return procedures’ in Article 15(1) of the Return Directive is not synonymous with ‘subject of a return decision’.
EKLJP-a (opasnost od mučenja ili nečovječnog ili ponižavajućeg postupanja nakon vraćanja) – vidjeti pravilo 39., Pravila ESLJP-a.
Detention may already be imposed — if all conditions of Article 15 are fulfilled — before a formal return decision is taken, for instance while the preparations of the return decision are under way and a return decision has not yet been issued.
Prema članku 13.
An illegally staying third-country national may hide (not disclose) his/her identity in order to avoid removal.
Direktive o vraćanju – koji se tumači zajedno s člancima 5. i 9.
Is it legitimate to maintain detention in such circumstances, in order to exercise pressure on the third-country national to cooperate and thus make removal possible?
Direktive o vraćanju – tijelo koje preispituje odluku mora odobriti ipso jure suspenzivni učinak u skladu s tim zahtjevom ako je u pitanju načelo zabrane prisilnog udaljenja ili vraćanja (non-refoulement).
This kind of detention is covered by Article 15(1)(b) of the Return Directive, which expressly mentions ‘avoids or hampers […] the removal process’ as a reason for detention.
Obveza odobravanja automatskog suspenzivnog učinka u slučaju opasnosti od teškog i nepopravljivog pogoršanja zdravstvenog stanja: u presudi u predmetu C-562/13, Abdida [68] (točka 53.), Sud EU-a potvrdio je sljedeće: „članke 5. i 13.
Article 15(6)(a) lists ‘lack of cooperation’ as one of the two cases which may justify an extension of the maximum detention period for 12 months and the overall objective and finality of this kind of detention (Beugehaft or Durchsetzungshaft) is removal, not penalisation.
Direktive 2008/115/EZ, u vezi s člankom 19. stavkom 2. i člankom 47.
Any detention for the purpose of removal must respect Article 15(4) of the Return Directive: ‘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’.
Povelje, treba tumačiti tako da im je protivno nacionalno zakonodavstvo koje ne predviđa žalbu sa suspenzivnim učinkom protiv odluke o vraćanju čije bi izvršenje moglo izložiti dotičnog državljanina treće zemlje ozbiljnoj opasnosti od naglog i nepovratnog pogoršanja njegova zdravstvenog stanja”.
This implies that in those cases in which it becomes clear that there are no more reasonable prospects of removal, detention must be ended — for instance when it becomes clear that the papers to be issued by a third country will come too late or will not be issued at all, even if the detainee would cooperate.
Komisija preporučuje da se žalbama na odluke o vraćanju odobri automatski suspenzivni učinak samo u prethodno navedenim obveznim slučajevima kako bi se postigla odgovarajuća ravnoteža između prava na učinkovit pravni lijek i potrebe osiguravanja učinkovitosti postupaka vraćanja.
Is it possible to maintain detention if a returnee submits an asylum application?
Kada se žalba odnosi na druge razloge (na primjer, nedostaci u postupku, poštovanje ujedinjenja obitelji, zaštita drugih prava ili interesa) i nema nepopravljive štete za život ili opasnosti od teškog i nepopravljivog pogoršanja zdravstvenog stanja, država članica može odlučiti da žalbama nije odobren automatski suspenzivni učinak.
Answer provided by the judgment of the ECJ in the Case C-534/11, Arslan [76] (paragraphs 49 and 63): ‘Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC […] does not apply to a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2005/85/EC during the period from the making of the application to the adoption of the decision at first instance on that application or, as the case may be, until the outcome of any action brought against that decision is known. […] Directives 2003/9/EC and 2005/85/EC do not preclude a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2005/85/EC after having been detained under Article 15 of Directive 2008/115/EC from being kept in detention on the basis of a provision of national law, where it appears, after an assessment on a case-by-case basis of all the relevant circumstances, that the application was made solely to delay or jeopardise theenforcement of the return decision and that it is objectively necessary to maintain detention to prevent the person concerned from permanently evading his return’.
Međutim, nadležna nacionalna tijela u svakom slučaju moraju zadržati ovlast za donošenje odluke o privremenoj suspenziji izvršenja odluke u pojedinačnim slučajevima kada se to smatra potrebnim iz drugih razloga (na primjer, obiteljski život, zdravstvena skrb ili najbolji interesi djeteta).
NB: the above reference to ‘national law’ relates to national rules on asylum-related detention, transposing — as the case may be — the detention-related requirements of the EU asylum acquis.
Pravna osnova: Direktiva o vraćanju – članak 13. stavci 3. i 4.; Direktiva 2013/32/EU (Direktiva o postupcima azila ) – članci 20. i 21. kojima se zamjenjuje članak 15. stavci od 3. do 6.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 15(2)
Direktive Vijeća 2005/85/EZ [69]3.
Detention shall be ordered by administrative or judicial authorities.
Konkretni državljanin treće zemlje ima pravo na pravni savjet, zastupanje te, ako je potrebno, pomoć prevođenja.
Detention shall be ordered in writing with reasons being given in fact and in law.
Jezična pomoć podrazumijeva ne samo obvezu pružanja prijevoda odluke (već obuhvaćenu člankom 12. stavkom 2.
When detention has been ordered by administrative authorities, Member States shall:
Direktive o vraćanju) već i obvezu omogućavanja pomoći usmenih prevoditelja kako bi državljanin treće zemlje mogao ostvariti postupovna prava koja su mu odobrena u skladu s člankom 13.
either provide for a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of detention to be decided on as speedily as possible from the beginning of detention;
Direktive.
or grant the third-country national concerned the right to take proceedings by means of which the lawfulness of detention shall be subject to a speedy judicial review to be decided on as speedily as possible after the launch of the relevant proceedings.
Treba podsjetiti da je u predmetu Conka protiv Belgije [70], ESLJP naveo da je dostupnost usmenih prevoditelja jedan od čimbenika koji utječu na dostupnost učinkovitog pravnog lijeka.
In such a case Member States shall immediately inform the third-country national concerned about the possibility of taking such proceedings.
Države članice osiguravaju da je omogućena potrebna pravna pomoć i/ili zastupanje na zahtjev i bez naknade u skladu s mjerodavnim nacionalnim zakonodavstvom, ili pravilima o pravnoj pomoći, te mogu odrediti da za takvu besplatnu pravnu pomoć i/ili zastupanje vrijede uvjeti iz članka 15. stavaka od 3. do 6.
The third-country national concerned shall be released immediately if the detention is not lawful.
Direktive 2005/85/EZ.
Judicial authorities may consist of judges, but need not necessarily be composed of judges.
Pravna pomoć i pravno zastupanje: u stavku 4. navedeno je u kojim slučajevima i pod kojim uvjetima države članice moraju pokriti troškove pravnog savjetovanja i zastupanja – čime se u osnovi upućuje na uvjete navedene u Direktivi o postupcima azila.
In line with relevant ECtHR case-law, they must have characteristics of independence, impartiality and offer judicial guarantees of an adversarial procedure.
Države članice moraju osigurati besplatnu pravnu pomoć i pravno zastupanje ako su ispunjeni uvjeti predviđeni u Direktivi i nacionalnom provedbenom zakonodavstvu.
Scope of judicial review: the review must assess all aspects expressly referred to in Article 15 of the Return Directive, taking into account both the questions of law (for example correctness of the detention procedure and of the decision on detention from the procedural/legal point of view) and questions of facts (for example the personal situation of the detainee, family links in the country, guarantees of the departure from the territory, reasonable prospect of removal).
Zahtjev za besplatnu pravnu pomoć i/ili pravno zastupanje može podnijeti povratnik ili njegov zastupnik u bilo kojem primjerenom trenutku u postupku.
Maximum duration of ‘speedy judicial review’: the text of the Return Directive is inspired by the wording of Article 5(4) ECHR, which requires a ‘speedy judicial review by a Court’.
Pravno savjetovanje koje pružaju upravna tijela: pravno savjetovanje u načelu mogu nuditi i upravna tijela odgovorna za izdavanje odluka o vraćanju, ako su informacije koje daju objektivne i nepristrane (effet utile).
Relevant ECtHR case-law clarifies that an acceptable maximum duration (i.e. a reasonable time) cannot be defined in the abstract.
Važno je da informacije daje osoba koja postupa nepristrano/neovisno u cilju izbjegavanja mogućeg sukoba interesa.
It must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case, taking into account the complexity of the proceedings as well as the conduct by the authorities and the applicant.
Te informacije stoga, na primjer, ne može davati osoba koja odlučuje o predmetu ili ga preispituje.
Taking a decision within less than one week can certainly be considered a good practice that is compliant with the legal requirement of speediness.
Dobra je praksa, koja se već koristi u nekim državama članicama, razlikovati između tijela koja donose odluke i onih koja pružaju pravne informacije i informacije o postupku.