natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to facilitate access to the examination procedure at border crossing points and in detention facilities, information should be made available on the possibility to apply for international protection.
Da bi povečali dostopnost postopka obravnave na mejnih prehodih in v ustanovah za pridržanje, bi bilo treba dati na voljo informacije o možnosti zaprositi za mednarodno zaščito.
Basic communication necessary to enable the competent authorities to understand if persons declare their wish to apply for international protection should be ensured through interpretation arrangements.
S tolmačenjem bi bilo treba zagotoviti osnovno komunikacijo, ki je potrebna, da bi pristojni organi lahko razumeli, kdaj osebe izrazijo željo po vložitvi prošnje za mednarodno zaščito.
Certain applicants may be in need of special procedural guarantees due, inter alia, to their age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, serious illness, mental disorders or as a consequence of torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence.
Določeni prosilci lahko potrebujejo posebna procesna jamstva, med drugim zaradi starosti, spola, spolne usmerjenosti, spolne identitete, invalidnosti, hude bolezni, duševnih motenj ali posledic mučenja, posilstva ali drugih hujših oblik psihološkega, fizičnega ali spolnega nasilja.
Member States should endeavour to identify applicants in need of special procedural guarantees before a first instance decision is taken.
Države članice bi si morale prizadevati, da ugotovijo, kateri prosilci potrebujejo posebna procesna jamstva, še pred izdajo odločbe na prvi stopnji.
Those applicants should be provided with adequate support, including sufficient time, in order to create the conditions necessary for their effective access to procedures and for presenting the elements needed to substantiate their application for international protection.
Tem prosilcem bi bilo treba zagotoviti ustrezno podporo, vključno z zadostnim časom, da se vzpostavijo potrebni pogoji za njihov učinkovit dostop do postopkov in možnost predstavitve elementov, potrebnih za utemeljitev njihove prošnje za mednarodno zaščito.
Where adequate support cannot be provided to an applicant in need of special procedural guarantees in the framework of accelerated or border procedures, such an applicant should be exempted from those procedures.
Kadar prosilcu, ki potrebuje posebna procesna jamstva, ni mogoče zagotoviti ustrezne podpore v postopku pospešenega obravnavanja ali postopku na meji, bi moral biti tak prosilec izvzet iz teh postopkov.
The need for special procedural guarantees of a nature that could prevent the application of accelerated or border procedures should also mean that the applicant is provided with additional guarantees in cases where his or her appeal does not have automatic suspensive effect, with a view to making the remedy effective in his or her particular circumstances.
Potreba po posebnih procesnih jamstvih, ki so take narave, da bi lahko preprečile uporabo pospešenega postopka ali postopka na meji, bi morala pomeniti, da se prosilcu zagotovijo dodatna jamstva, kadar pritožba prosilca ne zadrži izvršitve samodejno, da bi bilo pravno sredstvo v posebnih okoliščinah prosilca učinkovito.
National measures dealing with identification and documentation of symptoms and signs of torture or other serious acts of physical or psychological violence, including acts of sexual violence, in procedures covered by this Directive may, inter alia, be based on the Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol).
Nacionalni ukrepi v zvezi z odkrivanjem in dokumentiranjem simptomov in znakov mučenja ali drugih hudih dejanj fizičnega ali psihološkega nasilja, vključno z dejanji spolnega nasilja, po postopkih iz te direktive bi lahko med drugim temeljili na Priročniku o učinkovitem preiskovanju in dokumentiranju mučenja in drugih krutih, nečloveških ali poniževalnih kazni ali ravnanja (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Istanbulski protokol).
With a view to ensuring substantive equality between female and male applicants, examination procedures should be gender-sensitive.
Zaradi zagotavljanja dejanske enakosti prosilcev ženskega in moškega spola, bi morali postopki obravnavanja prošenj upoštevati razliko med spoloma.
In particular, personal interviews should be organised in a way which makes it possible for both female and male applicants to speak about their past experiences in cases involving gender-based persecution.
Zlasti osebne razgovore bi bilo treba organizirati na način, ki prosilkam in prosilcem omogoča, da spregovorijo o svojih izkušnjah v primerih preganjanja na podlagi spola.
The complexity of gender-related claims should be properly taken into account in procedures based on the concept of safe third country, the concept of safe country of origin or the notion of subsequent applications.
Kompleksnost zahtevkov, povezanih s spolom prosilcev, bi bilo treba ustrezno upoštevati v postopkih na podlagi koncepta varne tretje države, koncepta varne izvorne države ali pojma naknadnih prošenj.
Procedures for examining international protection needs should be such as to enable the competent authorities to conduct a rigorous examination of applications for international protection.
Postopki za obravnavanje potreb po mednarodni zaščiti bi morali biti taki, da pristojnim organom omogočajo temeljito obravnavanje prošenj za mednarodno zaščito.
When, in the framework of an application being processed, the applicant is searched, that search should be carried by a person of the same sex.
Kadar se v okviru obravnavanja prošnje prosilca preišče, bi morala to preiskavo opraviti oseba istega spola.
This should be without prejudice to a search carried out, for security reasons, on the basis of national law.
To ne bi smelo posegati v preiskave, ki se v skladu z nacionalnim pravom opravijo iz varnostnih razlogov.
Where an applicant makes a subsequent application without presenting new evidence or arguments, it would be disproportionate to oblige Member States to carry out a new full examination procedure.
Kadar prosilec poda naknadno prošnjo, ne da bi predložil nove dokaze ali navedbe, bi bila zahteva, da države članice izpeljejo nov celoten postopek, nesorazmerna.
In those cases, Member States should be able to dismiss an application as inadmissible in accordance with the res judicata principle.
V teh primerih bi morale imeti države članice možnost, da v skladu z načelom pravnomočnosti prošnjo zavržejo kot nedopustno.
With respect to the involvement of the personnel of an authority other than the determining authority in conducting timely interviews on the substance of an application, the notion of ‘timely’ should be assessed against the time limits provided for in Article 31.
Kadar osebje organa, ki ni organ za presojo, sodeluje pri izvajanju pravočasnih razgovorov o vsebini prošnje, bi bilo treba pojem „pravočasno“ presojati glede na roke, določene v členu 31.
Many applications for international protection are made at the border or in a transit zone of a Member State prior to a decision on the entry of the applicant.
Številne prošnje za mednarodno zaščito so podane na meji ali v tranzitnem območju države članice, preden se odloči, ali se bo prosilcu dovolil vstop ali ne.
Member States should be able to provide for admissibility and/or substantive examination procedures which would make it possible for such applications to be decided upon at those locations in well-defined circumstances.
Državam članicam bi bilo treba omogočiti, da izvajajo postopke presojanja dopustnosti in/ali vsebinske preučitve, v katerih bi lahko v natančno določenih okoliščinah odločili o takih prošnjah na kraju samem.
In determining whether a situation of uncertainty prevails in the country of origin of an applicant, Member States should ensure that they obtain precise and up-to-date information from relevant sources such as EASO, UNHCR, the Council of Europe and other relevant international organisations.
Pri presoji, ali so v izvorni državi prosilca razmere negotove, bi morale države članice poskrbeti, da pridobijo točne in ažurne informacije iz ustreznih virov, kot so EASO, UNHCR, Svet Evrope in druge ustrezne mednarodne organizacije.
Member States should ensure that any postponement of conclusion of the procedure fully complies with their obligations under Directive 2011/95/EU and Article 41 of the Charter, without prejudice to the efficiency and fairness of the procedures under this Directive.
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da je vsaka odložitev končanja postopka povsem v skladu z njihovimi obveznostmi iz Direktive 2011/95/EU ter členom 41 Listine, brez poseganja v učinkovitost in pravičnost postopkov iz te direktive.
A key consideration for the well-foundedness of an application for international protection is the safety of the applicant in his or her country of origin.
Bistveno vodilo pri ocenjevanju utemeljenosti posamezne prošnje za mednarodno zaščito je varnost prosilca v njegovi izvorni državi.
Where a third country can be regarded as a safe country of origin, Member States should be able to designate it as safe and presume its safety for a particular applicant, unless he or she presents counter-indications.
Kadar je možno tretjo državo šteti za varno izvorno državo, bi bilo treba državam članicam omogočiti, da jo označijo za varno in da domnevajo, da je varna tudi za posameznega prosilca, razen če prosilec predloži nasprotne dokaze.
Given the level of harmonisation achieved on the qualification of third-country nationals and stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, common criteria should be established for designating third countries as safe countries of origin.
Glede na doseženo raven harmoniziranosti pogojev, ki jih morajo izpolnjevati državljani tretjih držav in osebe brez državljanstva kot upravičenci do mednarodne zaščite, bi bilo treba določiti skupna merila za označitev tretjih držav za varne izvorne države.
By its very nature, the assessment underlying the designation can only take into account the general civil, legal and political circumstances in that country and whether actors of persecution, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are subject to sanction in practice when found liable in that country.
Ocena, na kateri temelji takšna označitev, lahko že zaradi svoje narave upošteva le splošne državljanske, pravne in politične okoliščine v tej državi ter to, ali so v tej državi subjekti, spoznani za krive preganjanja, mučenja ali nečloveškega ali ponižujočega ravnanja ali kaznovanja dejansko podvrženi sankcijam.
For this reason, it is important that, where an applicant shows that there are valid reasons to consider the country not to be safe in his or her particular circumstances, the designation of the country as safe can no longer be considered relevant for him or her.
Zato je pomembno, da se označitev zadevne države za varno ne uporablja za prosilca, ki izkaže, da ob upoštevanju njegovih posebnih okoliščin obstajajo tehtni razlogi zoper štetje te države za varno.
Member States should examine all applications on the substance, i.e. assess whether the applicant in question qualifies for international protection in accordance with Directive 2011/95/EU, except where this Directive provides otherwise, in particular where it can reasonably be assumed that another country would do the examination or provide sufficient protection.
Države članice bi morale preučiti vsebinsko utemeljenost vseh prošenj, tj. oceniti, ali zadevni prosilec izpolnjuje pogoje za mednarodno zaščito v skladu z Direktivo 2011/95/EU, razen če ta direktiva določa drugače, še zlasti kadar se lahko upravičeno domneva, da bo zadevo preučila ali zagotovila zadostno zaščito druga država.
In particular, Member States should not be obliged to assess the substance of an application for international protection where a first country of asylum has granted the applicant refugee status or otherwise sufficient protection and the applicant will be readmitted to that country.
Predvsem pa države članice ne bi smele biti zavezane, da preučijo vsebinsko utemeljenost prošnje za mednarodno zaščito, kadar je pred tem prva država azila prosilcu že dodelila status begunca ali mu sicer zagotovila zadostno zaščito in bo prosilec ponovno sprejet v to državo.
Member States should not be obliged to assess the substance of an application for international protection where the applicant, due to a sufficient connection to a third country as defined by national law, can reasonably be expected to seek protection in that third country, and there are grounds for considering that the applicant will be admitted or readmitted to that country.
Države članice ne bi smele biti zavezane, da presojajo o vsebinski utemeljenosti prošnje za mednarodno zaščito, če je mogoče upravičeno domnevati, da bo prosilec zaradi zadostne zveze s tretjo državo, kot je opredeljena v nacionalnem pravu iskal zaščito v tej tretji državi, in obstajajo razlogi za prepričanje, da bo prosilec sprejet ali ponovno sprejet v to državo.
Member States should only proceed on that basis where that particular applicant would be safe in the third country concerned.
Države članice bi morale na tej podlagi ukrepati le, kadar bi bil ta posamezni prosilec v zadevni tretji državi varen.
In order to avoid secondary movements of applicants, common principles should be established for the consideration or designation by Member States of third countries as safe.
Da bi se izognili sekundarnemu gibanju prosilcev, bi bilo treba oblikovati skupna načela, da države članice tretje države obravnavajo kot ali označijo za varne.
Furthermore, with respect to certain European third countries, which observe particularly high human rights and refugee protection standards, Member States should be allowed to not carry out, or not to carry out full examination of, applications for international protection regarding applicants who enter their territory from such European third countries.
Poleg tega bi bilo treba glede evropskih tretjih držav, ki izpolnjujejo posebno visoke standarde varstva človekovih pravic in varstva beguncev, državam članicam dovoliti, da jim ni treba preučevati ali da jim ni treba celovito preučevati prošenj za mednarodno zaščito prosilcev, ki vstopijo na njihovo ozemlje iz takih evropskih tretjih držav.
Where Member States apply safe country concepts on a case-by-case basis or designate countries as safe by adopting lists to that effect, they should take into account, inter alia, the guidelines and operating manuals and the information on countries of origin and activities, including EASO Country of Origin Information report methodology, referred to in Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 establishing a European Asylum Support Office [6], as well as relevant UNHCR guidelines.
Kadar se države članice o uporabi konceptov varne države odločajo v vsakem primeru posebej ali če s seznami določijo države, ki jih označijo za varne, bi morale pri tem med drugim upoštevati smernice in operativne priročnike ter informacije o državah izvora in dejavnostih,vključno z metodologijo poročila EASO o informacijah o državah izvora, iz Uredbe (EU) št. 439/2010 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 19. maja 2010 o ustanovitvi Evropskega azilnega podpornega urada [6], ter ustrezne smernice UNHCR.
In order to facilitate the regular exchange of information about the national application of the concepts of safe country of origin, safe third country and European safe third country as well as a regular review by the Commission of the use of those concepts by Member States, and to prepare for a potential further harmonisation in the future, Member States should notify or periodically inform the Commission about the third countries to which the concepts are applied.
Da bi pospešili redno izmenjavo informacij o nacionalni uporabi konceptov varne izvorne države, varne tretje države in evropske varne tretje države, pa tudi, da bi Komisija lažje redno pregledovala, kako države članice uporabljajo te koncepte, ter omogočili morebitno nadaljnjo harmonizacijo v prihodnosti, bi morale države članice Komisijo uradno obvestiti, za katere tretje države se ti koncepti uporabljajo, ali jo redno obveščati o tretjih državah, za katere se ti koncepti uporabljajo.
The Commission should regularly inform the European Parliament on the result of its reviews.
Komisija bi morala o rezultatih njenih pregledov redno obveščati Evropski parlament.
With respect to the withdrawal of refugee or subsidiary protection status, Member States should ensure that persons benefiting from international protection are duly informed of a possible reconsideration of their status and have the opportunity to submit their point of view before the authorities can take a reasoned decision to withdraw their status.
Glede odvzema statusa begunca ali subsidiarne zaščite bi morale države članice zagotoviti, da so osebe, ki uživajo mednarodno zaščito, ustrezno obveščene o možnosti ponovne preučitve njihovega statusa in da imajo možnost izraziti svoje stališče, preden pristojni organi z obrazloženo odločbo odločijo o odvzemu njihovega statusa.
It reflects a basic principle of Union law that the decisions taken on an application for international protection, the decisions concerning a refusal to reopen the examination of an application after its discontinuation, and the decisions on the withdrawal of refugee or subsidiary protection status are subject to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal.
V skladu s temeljnim načelom prava Unije je, da je zoper odločbe v zvezi s prošnjami za mednarodno zaščito, odločbe o zavrnitvi ponovne uvedbe postopka obravnavanja prošnje po njegovi prekinitvi in odločbe o odvzemu statusa begunca ali subsidiarne zaščite na razpolago učinkovito pravno sredstvo pred sodiščem.
In accordance with Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), this Directive does not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
V skladu s členom 72 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) ta direktiva ne vpliva na izpolnjevanje obveznosti, ki jih imajo države članice v zvezi z vzdrževanjem javnega reda in miru ter varovanjem notranje varnosti.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [7] governs the processing of personal data carried out in the Member States pursuant to this Directive.
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 95/46/ES z dne 24. oktobra 1995 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov [7] ureja obdelavo osebnih podatkov, ki jo izvajajo države članice v skladu s to direktivo.
This Directive does not deal with procedures between Member States governed by Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 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 [8].
Ta direktiva ne zadeva postopkov med državami članicami, ki jih ureja Uredba (EU) št. 604/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 26. junija 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 [8].
This Directive should apply to applicants to whom Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 applies, in addition and without prejudice to the provisions of that Regulation.
Ta direktiva bi se morala uporabljati za prosilce, za katere se uporablja Uredba (EU) št. 604/2013, hkrati z in brez poseganja v določbe navedene uredbe.
The implementation of this Directive should be evaluated at regular intervals.
Izvajanje te direktive bi bilo treba redno ocenjevati.
Since the objective of this Directive, namely to establish common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Directive, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
Ker cilja te direktive, namreč določiti skupne postopke za priznanje in odvzem mednarodne zaščite, države članice ne morejo zadovoljivo doseči in ker se ta cilj zaradi obsega in učinkov te direktive lažje doseže na ravni Unije, lahko Unija sprejme ukrepe v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti iz člena 5 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji (PEU).
In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents of 28 September 2011 [9], Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments.
V skladu s Skupno politično izjavo z dne 28. septembra 2011 držav članic in Komisije o obrazložitvenih dokumentih [9] se države članice zavezujejo, da bodo v upravičenih primerih obvestilu o ukrepih za prenos priložile en ali več dokumentov, v katerih se pojasni razmerje med sestavnimi elementi direktive in ustrezajočimi deli nacionalnih instrumentov za prenos.
In accordance with Articles 1, 2 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom and Ireland are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.
V skladu s členoma 1 in 2 ter členom 4a(1) Protokola (št. 21) o stališču Združenega kraljestva in Irske glede območja svobode, varnosti in pravice, ki je priložen PEU in PDEU, in brez poseganja v člen 4 navedenega protokola Združeno kraljestvo in Irska ne sodelujeta pri sprejetju te direktive, ki zato zanju ni zavezujoča in se v njiju ne uporablja.
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
V skladu s členoma 1 in 2 Protokola (št. 22) o stališču Danske, ki je priložen PEU in PDEU, Danska ne sodeluje pri sprejetju te direktive, ki zato zanjo ni zavezujoča in se v njej ne uporablja.
This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter.
Ta direktiva spoštuje temeljne pravice in upošteva načela, ki so priznana z Listino.
In particular, this Directive seeks to ensure full respect for human dignity and to promote the application of Articles 1, 4, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 47 of the Charter and has to be implemented accordingly.
Namen te direktive je zlasti zagotoviti dosledno spoštovanje človeškega dostojanstva in spodbujati uporabo členov 1, 4, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 in 47 Listine ter jo je treba temu ustrezno izvajati.
The obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with Directive 2005/85/EC.
Obveznost prenosa te direktive v nacionalno pravo bi morala biti omejena na tiste določbe, ki pomenijo vsebinsko spremembo v primerjavi z Direktivo 2005/85/ES.
This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limit for transposition into national law of Directive 2005/85/EC set out in Annex II, Part B,
Ta direktiva ne bi smela posegati v obveznosti držav članic glede rokov za prenos Direktive 2005/85/ES v nacionalno pravo, ki so določeni v delu B Priloge II –