natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By way of exception, Member States may, in duly justified circumstances, exceed the time limits laid down in this paragraph by a maximum of three months where necessary in order to ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application for international protection.
Izjemoma lahko države članice v ustrezno utemeljenih okoliščinah za največ tri mesece prekoračijo roke iz tega odstavka, da bi zagotovile ustrezno in celovito obravnavo prošnje za mednarodno zaščito.
Without prejudice to Articles 13 and 18 of Directive 2011/95/EU, Member States may postpone concluding the examination procedure where the determining authority cannot reasonably be expected to decide within the time-limits laid down in paragraph 3 due to an uncertain situation in the country of origin which is expected to be temporary.
Brez poseganja v člena 13 in 18 Direktive 2011/95/EU lahko države članice odložijo zaključek postopka obravnavanja, kadar se zaradi negotovih razmer v izvorni državi, za katere se predvideva, da so začasne, od organa za presojo ne more upravičeno pričakovati, da bo odločil o prošnji v rokih iz odstavka 3.
In such a case, Member States shall:
V takem primeru države članice:
conduct reviews of the situation in that country of origin at least every six months;
vsaj vsakih šest mesecev pregledajo razmere v tej izvorni državi;
inform the applicants concerned within a reasonable time of the reasons for the postponement;
zadevne prosilce v razumnem roku obvestijo o razlogih za odlog;
inform the Commission within a reasonable time of the postponement of procedures for that country of origin.
Komisijo v razumnem roku obvestijo o odložitvi postopkov za to izvorno državo.
In any event, Member States shall conclude the examination procedure within a maximum time limit of 21 months from the lodging of the application.
Države članice postopek obravnavanja v vsakem primeru zaključijo najpozneje v roku 21 mesecih od vložitve prošnje.
Member States shall ensure that, where a decision cannot be taken within six months, the applicant concerned shall:
Kadar o prošnji ni mogoče odločiti v šestih mesecih, države članice zagotovijo, da zadevni prosilec:
be informed of the delay; and
prejme obvestilo o zamudi ter
receive, upon his or her request, information on the reasons for the delay and the time-frame within which the decision on his or her application is to be expected.
na njegovo zahtevo prejme informacije o razlogih za zamudo in roku, v katerem lahko pričakuje odločbo v zvezi s svojo prošnjo.
Member States may prioritise an examination of an application for international protection in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II in particular:
Države članice lahko v skladu s temeljnimi načeli in jamstvi iz poglavja II prednostno obravnavajo prošnjo za mednarodno zaščito, zlasti:
where the application is likely to be well-founded;
kadar je verjetno, da je utemeljena;
where the applicant is vulnerable, within the meaning of Article 22 of Directive 2013/33/EU, or is in need of special procedural guarantees, in particular unaccompanied minors.
kadar jo je vložil prosilec, ki je ranljiva oseba v smislu člena 22 Direktive 2013/33/EU ali ki potrebuje posebna procesna jamstva, zlasti mladoletnik brez spremstva.
Member States may provide that an examination procedure in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II be accelerated and/or conducted at the border or in transit zones in accordance with Article 43 if:
Države članice lahko določijo, da se v skladu s temeljnimi načeli in jamstvi iz poglavja II prošnje obravnavajo pospešeno in/ali v skladu s členom 43 na meji ali v tranzitnem območju, če:
the applicant, in submitting his or her application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues that are not relevant to the examination of whether he or she qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive 2011/95/EU; or
je prosilec pri predložitvi svoje prošnje in navajanju dejstev omenil samo vprašanja, ki niso pomembna za preučitev, ali prosilec izpolnjuje pogoje kot upravičenec do mednarodne zaščite, na podlagi Direktive 2011/95/EU;
the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of this Directive; or
prosilec prihaja iz varne izvorne države v smislu te direktive;
the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision; or
je prosilec zavajal organe tako, da je dajal napačne informacije ali dokumente ali zamolčal pomembne informacije ali dokumente o svoji identiteti in/ali državljanstvu, ki bi lahko negativno vplivali na odločitev;
it is likely that, in bad faith, the applicant has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his or her identity or nationality; or
je verjetno, da je prosilec zlonamerno uničil ali odsvojil osebni dokument ali potno listino, ki bi pomagala pri ugotavljanju njegove identitete ali državljanstva;
the applicant has made clearly inconsistent and contradictory, clearly false or obviously improbable representations which contradict sufficiently verified country-of-origin information, thus making his or her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to whether he or she qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive 2011/95/EU; or
so prosilčeve navedbe očitno nedosledne in protislovne, očitno lažne ali očitno malo verjetne in v nasprotju z dovolj preverjenimi informacijami o izvorni državi, zaradi česar je njegova prošnja očitno neprepričljiva glede trditve, da prosilec izpolnjuje pogoje kot upravičenec do mednarodne zaščite, na podlagi Direktive 2011/95/EU;
the applicant is making an application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would result in his or her removal; or
je prosilec podal prošnjo samo zaradi tega, da bi odložil ali onemogočil izvršitev prejšnje ali skorajšnje odločbe, na podlagi katere bi moral biti odstranjen;
the applicant entered the territory of the Member State unlawfully or prolonged his or her stay unlawfully and, without good reason, has either not presented himself or herself to the authorities or not made an application for international protection as soon as possible, given the circumstances of his or her entry; or
je prosilec nezakonito vstopil na ozemlje države članice ali protipravno podaljšal svoje bivanje in se brez pravega razloga ni javil oblastem ali ni podal prošnje za mednarodno zaščito v najkrajšem možnem času glede na okoliščine njegovega vstopa;
the applicant refuses to comply with an obligation to have his or her fingerprints taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes [12]; or
prosilec noče izpolniti obveznosti v zvezi z oddajo prstnih odtisov v skladu z Uredbo (EU) št. 603/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 26. junija 2013 o vzpostavitvi sistema Eurodac za primerjavo prstnih odtisov zaradi učinkovite uporabe Uredbe (EU) št. 604/2013 o vzpostavitvi meril in mehanizmov za določitev države članice, odgovorne za obravnavanje prošnje za mednarodno zaščito, ki jo v eni od držav članic vloži državljan tretje države ali oseba brez državljanstva, in o zahtevah za primerjavo s podatki iz sistema Eurodac, ki jih vložijo organi kazenskega pregona držav članic in Europol zaradi kazenskega pregona [12]; ali
the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.
obstajajo tehtni razlogi za domnevo, da lahko prosilec predstavlja grožnjo za nacionalno varnost ali javni red države članice, ali če je bil prosilec zaradi tehtnih razlogov javne varnosti ali javnega reda po nacionalnem pravu prisilno izgnan.
Member States shall lay down time limits for the adoption of a decision in the procedure at first instance pursuant to paragraph 8.
Države članice določijo roke za sprejetje odločitve v postopku na prvi stopnji v skladu z odstavkom 6.
Those time limits shall be reasonable.
Ti roki so razumni.
Without prejudice to paragraphs 3 to 5, Member States may exceed those time limits where necessary in order to ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application for international protection.
Brez poseganja v odstavka 3 in 5 lahko države članice podaljšajo te roke, kadar je to potrebno za zagotovitev ustrezne in celovite obravnave prošnje za mednarodno zaščito.
Without prejudice to Article 27, Member States may only consider an application to be unfounded if the determining authority has established that the applicant does not qualify for international protection pursuant to Directive 2011/95/EU.
Brez poseganja v člen 27 lahko države članice štejejo prošnjo za neutemeljeno le, če je organ za presojo ugotovil, da prosilec ne izpolnjuje pogojev za mednarodno zaščito na podlagi Direktive 2011/95/EU.
In cases of unfounded applications in which any of the circumstances listed in Article 31(8) apply, Member States may also consider an application to be manifestly unfounded, where it is defined as such in the national legislation.
V primerih neutemeljenih prošenj, za katere se uporablja katera koli od okoliščin, ki so naštete v členu 31(8), lahko države članice prošnjo štejejo tudi za očitno neutemeljeno, če jo kot tako predvideva nacionalna zakonodaja.
In addition to cases in which an application is not examined in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, Member States are not required to examine whether the applicant qualifies for international protection in accordance with Directive 2011/95/EU where an application is considered inadmissible pursuant to this Article.
Poleg primerov, v katerih se prošnja ne preučuje v skladu z Uredbo (EU) št. 604/2013, se od držav članic ne zahteva, da preučijo, ali prosilec izpolnjuje pogoje za mednarodno zaščito v skladu z Direktivo 2011/95/EU, kadar se prošnja šteje za nedopustno v skladu s tem členom.
Member States may consider an application for international protection as inadmissible only if:
Države članice lahko štejejo prošnjo za mednarodno zaščito za nedopustno le, če:
another Member State has granted international protection;
je druga država članica priznala mednarodno zaščito;
a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant, pursuant to Article 35;
se država, ki ni država članica, šteje za prvo državo azila za prosilca na podlagi člena 35;
a country which is not a Member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, pursuant to Article 38;
se država, ki ni država članica, šteje za varno tretjo državo za prosilca na podlagi člena 38;
the application is a subsequent application, where no new elements or findings relating to the examination of whether the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive 2011/95/EU have arisen or have been presented by the applicant; or
je prošnja naknadna prošnja, ne da bi se pojavili novi elementi ali ugotovitve v zvezi z vprašanjem, ali prosilec izpolnjuje pogoje kot upravičenec do mednarodne zaščite, na podlagi Direktive 2011/95/EU, oziroma ne da bi prosilec navedel take nove elemente ali ugotovitve; ali
a dependant of the applicant lodges an application, after he or she has in accordance with Article 7(2) consented to have his or her case be part of an application lodged on his or her behalf, and there are no facts relating to the dependant’s situation which justify a separate application.
vzdrževana oseba prosilca vloži prošnjo, potem ko je v skladu s členom 7(2) soglašala, da bo njen primer del prošnje, ki je bila vložena v njenem imenu, in ne obstajajo nikakršna dejstva v zvezi z vzdrževano osebo, ki bi upravičevala ločeno prošnjo.
Special rules on an admissibility interview
Posebna pravila glede razgovora o dopustnosti
Member States shall allow applicants to present their views with regard to the application of the grounds referred to in Article 33 in their particular circumstances before the determining authority decides on the admissibility of an application for international protection.
Države članice prosilcem omogočijo, da predstavijo svoje mnenje o uporabi razlogov iz člena 33 za njihove posebne okoliščine, preden organ za presojo odloči o dopustnosti prošnje za mednarodno zaščito.
To that end, Member States shall conduct a personal interview on the admissibility of the application.
V ta namen države članice opravijo osebni razgovor o dopustnosti prošnje.
Member States may make an exception only in accordance with Article 42 in the case of a subsequent application.
Države članice lahko izjemo storijo le v skladu s členom 42, v primeru naknadne prošnje.
This paragraph shall be without prejudice to Article 4(2)(a) of this Directive and to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013.
Ta odstavek ne posega v člen 4(2)(a) te direktive in člen 5 Uredbe (EU) št. 604/2013.
Member States may provide that the personnel of authorities other than the determining authority conduct the personal interview on the admissibility of the application for international protection.
Države članice lahko določijo, da lahko osebni razgovor o dopustnosti prošnje za mednarodno zaščito vodi osebje drugih organov, ki niso organ za presojo.
In such cases, Member States shall ensure that such personnel receive in advance the necessary basic training, in particular with respect to international human rights law, the Union asylum acquis and interview techniques.
V takem primeru države članice zagotovijo, da se tako osebje pred tem udeleži osnovnega usposabljanja o mednarodnem pravu na področju človekovih pravic, pravnem redu Unije o azilu in tehnikah vodenja razgovorov.
A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant if:
Za posameznega prosilca se šteje država za prvo državo azila, če:
he or she has been recognised in that country as a refugee and he or she can still avail himself/herself of that protection; or
je bil prosilcu v tej državi priznan status begunca in se lahko še vedno sklicuje na to zaščito ali
he or she otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle of non-refoulement,
sicer v tej državi uživa zadostno zaščito, vključno z načelom nevračanja,
provided that he or she will be readmitted to that country.
pod pogojem, da bo v to državo ponovno sprejet.
In applying the concept of first country of asylum to the particular circumstances of an applicant, Member States may take into account Article 38(1).
Pri uporabi koncepta prve države azila za posebne okoliščine posameznega prosilca lahko države članice upoštevajo člen 38(1).
The applicant shall be allowed to challenge the application of the first country of asylum concept to his or her particular circumstances.
Prosilec lahko izpodbija uporabo koncepta prve države azila s sklicevanjem na svoje posebne okoliščine.
The concept of safe country of origin
Koncept varne izvorne države
A third country designated as a safe country of origin in accordance with this Directive may, after an individual examination of the application, be considered as a safe country of origin for a particular applicant only if:
Tretja država, ki je bila v skladu s to direktivo označena za varno izvorno državo, se lahko po individualnem obravnavanju prošnje šteje za določenega prosilca za varno izvorno državo le, če:
he or she has the nationality of that country; or
ima prosilec državljanstvo te države ali
he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country,
je prosilec oseba brez državljanstva in je imel prej običajno prebivališče v tej državi
and he or she has not submitted any serious grounds for considering the country not to be a safe country of origin in his or her particular circumstances and in terms of his or her qualification as a beneficiary of international protection in accordance with Directive 2011/95/EU.
ter če ni izkazal nikakršnih tehtnih razlogov, zaradi katerih bi se štelo, da ta država glede na njegove posebne okoliščine in v smislu njegovega izpolnjevanja pogojev kot upravičenca do subsidiarne zaščite, v skladu z Direktivo 2011/95/EU ni varna izvorna država.
Member States may retain or introduce legislation that allows, in accordance with Annex I, for the national designation of safe countries of origin for the purposes of examining applications for international protection.
Države članice lahko ohranijo ali sprejmejo zakonodajo, ki v skladu s Prilogo I dopušča nacionalno označitev varnih izvornih držav za namene obravnavanja prošenj za mednarodno zaščito.
Member States shall regularly review the situation in third countries designated as safe countries of origin in accordance with this Article.
Države članice redno preverjajo razmere v tretjih državah, označenih kot varne države izvora v skladu s tem členom.
The assessment of whether a country is a safe country of origin in accordance with this Article shall be based on a range of sources of information, including in particular information from other Member States, EASO, UNHCR, the Council of Europe and other relevant international organisations.
Ocenjevanje, ali je država varna izvorna država v skladu s tem členom, temelji na različnih virih informacij, vključujoč zlasti informacije iz drugih držav članic, EASO, UNHCR, Sveta Evrope in drugih ustreznih mednarodnih organizacij.
The concept of safe third country
Koncept varne tretje države
Member States may apply the safe third country concept only where the competent authorities are satisfied that a person seeking international protection will be treated in accordance with the following principles in the third country concerned:
Države članice lahko uporabijo koncept varne tretje države le, če so pristojni organi prepričani, da se z osebo, ki išče mednarodno zaščito, v zadevni tretji državi ravna v skladu z naslednjimi načeli:
life and liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;
življenje in svoboda nista ogroženi zaradi rasne, verske ali narodne pripadnosti, pripadnosti določeni družbeni skupini ali političnega prepričanja;
there is no risk of serious harm as defined in Directive 2011/95/EU;
ni tveganja resne škode, kot je opredeljena v Direktivi 2011/95/EU;
the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
mogoče je zaprositi za status begunca ter, če je ugotovljeno, da je oseba res begunec, pridobiti zaščito v skladu z Ženevsko konvencijo.
The application of the safe third country concept shall be subject to rules laid down in national law, including:
Uporaba koncepta varne tretje države je možna na podlagi pravil nacionalnega prava, kar vključuje:
rules requiring a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned on the basis of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country;
pravila, ki zahtevajo zvezo med prosilcem in zadevno tretjo državo, na podlagi katere bi bilo smiselno, da ta oseba odide v to državo;
rules on the methodology by which the competent authorities satisfy themselves that the safe third country concept may be applied to a particular country or to a particular applicant.
metodološka pravila, ki pristojnim organom omogočajo, da ugotovijo, da lahko koncept varne tretje države uporabijo za posamezno državo ali v zvezi s posameznim prosilcem.
Such methodology shall include case-by-case consideration of the safety of the country for a particular applicant and/or national designation of countries considered to be generally safe;
Takšna metodologija vključuje preučitev varnosti države od primera do primera za določenega prosilca in/ali nacionalno označitev držav, ki se na splošno štejejo za varne;
rules in accordance with international law, allowing an individual examination of whether the third country concerned is safe for a particular applicant which, as a minimum, shall permit the applicant to challenge the application of the safe third country concept on the grounds that the third country is not safe in his or her particular circumstances.
pravila, ki v skladu z mednarodnim pravom omogočajo posamično preučitev, ali je zadevna tretja država za določenega prosilca varna, in ki prosilcu omogočajo vsaj izpodbijanje uporabe koncepta varne tretje države z utemeljitvijo, da tretja država v njegovih posebnih okoliščinah ni varna.
The applicant shall also be allowed to challenge the existence of a connection between him or her and the third country in accordance with point (a).
Prosilcu se omogoči tudi, da izpodbija obstoj zveze med njim in tretjo državo v skladu s točko (a).
inform the applicant accordingly; and
o tem obvestijo prosilca in
provide him or her with a document informing the authorities of the third country, in the language of that country, that the application has not been examined in substance.
posredujejo prosilcu dokument, s katerim oblastem tretje države v jeziku te države sporočajo, da prošnja vsebinsko ni bila obravnavana.
Where the third country does not permit the applicant to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II.
Kadar tretja država zadevnemu prosilcu ne dovoli vstopa na svoje ozemlje, države članice zagotovijo dostopnost postopka v skladu s temeljnimi načeli in jamstvi iz poglavja II.
The concept of European safe third country
Koncept evropske varne tretje države
Member States may provide that no, or no full, examination of the application for international protection and of the safety of the applicant in his or her particular circumstances as described in Chapter II shall take place in cases where a competent authority has established, on the basis of the facts, that the applicant is seeking to enter or has entered illegally into its territory from a safe third country according to paragraph 2.
Države članice lahko določijo, da se, kadar pristojni organ na podlagi dejstev ugotovi, da prosilec poskuša nezakonito vstopiti ali da je nezakonito vstopil na ozemlje države članice iz varne tretje države iz odstavka 2, ne opravi obravnavanja ali ne opravi celovitega obravnavanja prošnje za mednarodno zaščito in varnosti prosilca glede na njegove posebne okoliščine, kot je navedeno v poglavju II.
A third country can only be considered as a safe third country for the purposes of paragraph 1 where:
Za namene odstavka 1 se tretja država lahko šteje za varno tretjo državo samo, kadar:
it has in place an asylum procedure prescribed by law; and
ima z zakonom predpisan azilni postopek ter
it has ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and observes its provisions, including the standards relating to effective remedies.
je ratificirala Evropsko konvencijo o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin ter spoštuje njene določbe, vključno s standardi za učinkovita pravna sredstva.
The applicant shall be allowed to challenge the application of the concept of European safe third country on the grounds that the third country concerned is not safe in his or her particular circumstances.
Prosilec lahko nasprotuje uporabi koncepta evropske varne tretje države z utemeljitvijo, da zadevna tretja država v njegovih posebnih okoliščinah ni varna.