natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission recommends to mention the country of return in the separate removal decision (two-step procedure), or to mention the country to which the person will be removed in the case of non-compliance with the obligation to return in the combined return and removal decision (one-step procedure), or to inform the third-country national through another decision or act.
V tej sodbi je Sodišče razsodilo, da morajo biti taka objektivna merila jasno določena v splošnih zavezujočih določbah in da ustaljena nacionalna sodna praksa, s katero je potrjena ustaljena upravna praksa, ne zadostuje.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 3(7), recital 6
Sodišče je tudi ugotovilo, da je, če taka merila niso navedena v splošnih pravno zavezujočih določbah, pridržanje treba razglasiti za nezakonito.
The existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria defined by law to believe that a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond.
Države članice imajo sicer veliko svobode pri določanju teh meril, vendar bi morale kot pokazatelj, da bi nezakonito prebivajoči državljan tretje države lahko pobegnil, ustrezno upoštevati naslednja merila:
The existence (or absence) of a ‘risk of absconding’ is a decisive element for determining whether a period for voluntary departure shall be granted or not, as well as for deciding on the need of detention.
pomanjkanje dokumentacije;
Member States must base their assessment on whether there is a risk of absconding on objective criteria fixed in national legislation.
neobstoj prebivališča, stalnega prebivališča ali zanesljivega naslova;
The ECJ judgment in Case C-528/15, Al Chodor [11], related to the definition of ‘risk of absconding’ in Article 2(n) [12] of the Dublin Regulation, which text is in essence identical to the definition of Article 3(7) of the Return Directive, indirectly confirms this.
izogibanje javljanju ustreznim organom;
In this judgment, the ECJ established that such objective criteria must be clearly set in binding provisions of general application and that settled national case-law confirming a consistent administrative practice cannot suffice.
izrecno izjavo o nameri neizpolnitve ukrepov v zvezi z vrnitvijo (na primer odločbe o vrnitvi, ukrepov za preprečevanje pobega);
The ECJ also concluded that, in the absence of such criteria in legally binding provisions of general application, detention must be declared unlawful.
obstoj obsodbe za kaznivo dejanje, tudi za hudo kaznivo dejanje v drugi državi članici [13];tekoče kazenske preiskave in kazenski postopki;
While Member States enjoy a wide discretion in determining such criteria, they should take into due account the following ones as an indication that an illegally staying third-country national may abscond:
nespoštovanje odločbe o vrnitvi, vključno z neizpolnjevanjem obveznosti vrnitve v obdobju za prostovoljni odhod;
lack of documentation,
predhodno vedenje (npr. pobeg);
lack of residence, fixed abode or reliable address,
pomanjkanje finančnih virov;
failing to report to relevant authorities,
odločba o vrnitvi, ki jo je izdala druga država članica za določeno osebo;
explicit expression of intent of non-compliance with return-related measures (for instance return decision, measures for preventing absconding),
nespoštovanje zahteve za odhod na ozemlje druge države članice, ki je izdala veljavno dovoljenje za prebivanje ali drugo dovoljenje, ki daje pravico do prebivanja;
existence of conviction for a criminal offence, including for a serious criminal offence in another Member State [13],ongoing criminal investigations and proceedings,
nedovoljen vstop na ozemlje držav članic EU in pridruženih schengenskih držav.
non-compliance with a return decision, including with an obligation to return within the period for voluntary departure,
V nacionalni zakonodaji se lahko določijo druga objektivna merila za ugotavljanje nevarnosti pobega.
prior conduct (i.e. escaping),
V skladu s splošnimi načeli prava Unije, zlasti z načelom sorazmernosti, je treba vse odločbe, izdane v skladu z direktivo o vračanju, sprejeti na podlagi posamezne ocene vsakega primera.
lack of financial resources,
Navedeni seznam meril bi se moral upoštevati v vseh fazah postopka vračanja kot sestavni del celovite ocene vsakega posameznega primera, ne more pa biti edina podlaga za to, da se samodejno domneva nevarnost pobega, saj je podlaga za sklepanje o obstoju take nevarnosti pogosto kombinacija več zgoraj navedenih meril.
being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State,
Samodejnim sklepom, na primer da nedovoljen vstop ali pomanjkanje dokumentov pomeni nevarnost pobega, se je treba izogibati.
non-compliance with the requirement to go to the territory of another Member State that granted a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay,
Taka posamezna ocena mora upoštevati vse pomembne dejavnike, vključno s starostjo ter zdravstvenim in socialnim stanjem zadevnih oseb, ki lahko neposredno vplivajo na nevarnost pobega državljana tretje države, na njeni podlagi pa se lahko v določenih primerih ugotovi, da nevarnosti pobega ni, čeprav so izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji iz nacionalne zakonodaje.
illegal entry into the territory of the EU Member States and of the Schengen Associated countries.
Poleg zgoraj navedenih meril, ki lahko kažejo na obstoj nevarnosti pobega, in brez poseganja v pravico zadevnih državljanov tretjih držav, da se izjasnijo, in pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva se lahko v nacionalni zakonodaji opredelijo tudi določene objektivne okoliščine, ki predstavljajo izpodbojno domnevo, da obstaja nevarnost pobega (tj. državljan tretje države bi moral izpodbiti domnevo in dokazati, da ne glede na obstoj spodaj navedenih okoliščin taka nevarnost ne obstaja), na primer:
National legislation may establish other objective criteria to determine the existence of a risk of absconding.
zavrnitev sodelovanja v postopku identifikacije, uporaba lažnih ali ponarejenih osebnih dokumentov, uničenje ali kakršna koli drugačna odstranitev obstoječih dokumentov ter zavrnitev odvzema prstnih odtisov;
According to general principles of Union law, in particular the principle of proportionality, all decisions taken under the Return Directive must be adopted on the basis of an individual assessment of each case.
nasilno ali goljufivo nasprotovanje operaciji vračanja;
The above list of criteria should be taken into account at any stage during the return procedure as an element in the overall assessment of each individual situation, but it cannot be the sole basis for assuming automatically a risk of absconding, as frequently it will be a combination of several of the above-listed criteria that will provide a basis for concluding the existence of such a risk.
nespoštovanje ukrepa za preprečevanje pobega (glej oddelek 6.2);
Any automatic conclusion, such as that illegal entry or lack of documents mean the existence of a risk of absconding, must be avoided.
nespoštovanje veljavne prepovedi vstopa;
Such individual assessment must take into account all relevant factors, including the age and the health and social conditions of the persons concerned that may be directly affecting the risk that the third-country national may abscond, and may in certain cases lead to the conclusion that there is no risk of absconding even though one or more of the criteria fixed in national law are fulfilled.
nedovoljeno sekundarno gibanje v drugo državo članico.
In addition to the criteria mentioned above that may indicate the existence of a risk of absconding, and without prejudice to the rights of third-country nationals concerned to be heard and to an effective remedy, national legislation may also qualify certain objective circumstances as constituting a rebuttable presumption that there is a risk of absconding (i.e. the third-country national should rebut that, notwithstanding the existence of the circumstances below, such risk does not exist), such as:
Komisija priporoča, da se take izpodbojne domneve določijo v nacionalni zakonodaji.
refusing to cooperate in the identification process, using false or forged identity documents, destroying or otherwise disposing of existing documents, or refusing to provide fingerprints;
Pravna podlaga: direktiva o vračanju – člen 3(8)
opposing violently or fraudulently the return operation;
Izpolnitev obveznosti vrnitve v roku, ki je bil za to določen v odločbi o vrnitvi.
not complying with a measure aimed at preventing absconding (see section 6.2),
Prostovoljni odhod v okviru pravnega reda Unije na področju vračanja se nanaša na prostovoljno izpolnitev obveznosti vrnitve v tretjo državo.
not complying with an existing entry ban,
Izraz „prostovoljni odhod“ ne zajema primerov, v katerih se zakonito prebivajoči državljani tretjih držav sami odločijo vrniti v domačo državo.
engaging in unauthorised secondary movement to another Member State.
Taka „resnično“ prostovoljna vrnitev (primer 1 na spodnji sliki) ne sodi na področje uporabe direktive o vračanju, saj se uporablja za zakonito prebivajoče državljane tretjih držav.
The Commission recommends providing for such rebuttable presumptions in national legislation.
Odhod nezakonito prebivajočih državljanov tretjih držav, ki še niso bili odkriti ali prijeti (na primer osebe, ki prekoračijo dovoljeni čas bivanja), je mogoče obravnavati, kot da je zajet v opredelitev pojma „prostovoljni odhod“.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 3(8)
Za te osebe že velja „abstraktna“ obveznost vrnitve v skladu z direktivo o vračanju in lahko prejmejo odločbo o vrnitvi ter prepoved vstopa, ko bodo organi izvedeli za njihovo nezakonito prebivanje (najpozneje ob izstopni kontroli – glej oddelka 5.1 in 11.3).
Compliance with the obligation to return within the time-limit fixed for that purpose in the return decision.
Direktiva o vračanju zato zajema samo primera 2 in 3 spodaj:
Voluntary departure in the context of the Union return acquis refers to the voluntary compliance with an obligation to return to a third country.
ODSTRANITEV: prisilna izpolnitev obveznosti vrnitve nezakonito prebivajočih državljanov tretjih držav
The term ‘voluntary departure’ does not cover cases in which legally staying third-country nationals decide to go back to their home country based on their own decision.
2 + 3 = „Vrnitev“ (v smislu člena 3(3) direktive o vračanju)
Such ‘truly’ voluntary return (scenario 1 in the below picture) falls outside the scope of the Return Directive, because it concerns legally staying third-country nationals.
PROSTOVOLJNI ODHOD: prostovoljna izpolnitev obveznosti vrnitve nezakonito prebivajočih državljanov tretjih držav
The departure of illegally staying third-country nationals who have not been detected or apprehended yet (for instance, overstayers) can be considered as covered by the definition of ‘voluntary departure’.
PROSTOVOLJNA VRNITEV: prostovoljna vrnitev zakonito prebivajočih državljanov tretjih držav
These persons are already under an ‘abstract’ obligation to return under the Return Directive and may receive a return decision as well as an entry ban once the authorities obtain knowledge of their illegal stay (at the latest upon exit check — see sections 5.1 and 11.3).
Odhoda z nacionalnega ozemlja ene države članice na ozemlje druge države članice v skladu s členom 6(2) (glej oddelek 5.4 v nadaljevanju) ni mogoče obravnavati kot prostovoljni odhod.
The Return Directive therefore covers only scenarios 2 and 3 below:
Pri opredelitvi pojma prostovoljnega odhoda ta vedno pomeni odhod v tretjo državo.
2 + 3 = ‘Return’ (within the meaning of Article 3(3) Return Directive)
Posebna pravila o tranzitu po kopnem po ozemljih drugih držav članic v okviru prostovoljnega odhoda so opredeljena v oddelku 6.4 v nadaljevanju.
REMOVAL: enforced compliance with an obligation to return of illegally staying third-country nationals
Pravna podlaga: direktiva o vračanju – člen 3(9)
VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE: voluntary compliance with an obligation to return of illegally staying third-country nationals
Mladoletniki, mladoletniki brez spremstva, invalidi, starejši ljudje, nosečnice, starši samohranilci z mladoletnimi otroki in osebe, ki so bile izpostavljene mučenju, posilstvu ali drugim resnim oblikam psihološkega, fizičnega ali spolnega nasilja.
VOLUNTARY RETURN: voluntary return of legally staying third-country nationals
Potreba po tem, da se posebna pozornost nameni položaju ranljivih oseb, ne bi smela biti omejena na primere, ki so izrecno navedeni v direktivi o vračanju (med obdobjem za prostovoljni odhod, med odloženo vrnitvijo in med pridržanjem).
Going from the national territory of one Member State to the territory of another Member State in accordance with Article 6(2) (see below section 5.4) cannot be considered as voluntary departure.
Komisija torej priporoča, naj države članice namenijo pozornost potrebam ranljivih oseb v vseh fazah postopka vrnitve, in sicer v okviru ocene okoliščin posameznega primera.
The definition of voluntary departure always requires departure to a third country.
2.
Specific rules on transit by land through territories of other Member States in the context of voluntary departure are set out in section 6.4 below.
PODROČJE UPORABE
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 3(9)
Pravna podlaga: direktiva o vračanju – člen 2 in člen 4(4) Področje uporabe direktive o vračanju je široko in zajema vsakega državljana tretje države, ki na ozemlju države članice prebiva nezakonito.
The need to pay specific attention to the situation of vulnerable persons and their specific needs in the return context is, however, not limited to the categories of vulnerable persons expressly enumerated in Article 3(9).
Za obveščanje o taki odločitvi ni posebnih formalnih zahtev.
The Commission recommends that Member States should also pay attention to other special situations of vulnerability, such as those mentioned in the asylum acquis — being a victim of human trafficking or of female genital mutilation, being a person with serious illness or with mental disorders.
Je pa pomembno, da je iz nacionalne zakonodaje – eksplicitno ali implicitno – jasno razvidno, ali država članica uporablja odstopanje in v kolikšnem obsegu.
The need to pay specific attention to the situation of vulnerable persons should not be limited to the situations expressly referred to by the Return Directive (during the period for voluntary departure, during postponed return and during detention).
Če država članica svoje odločitve o uporabi odstopanj v skladu s členom 2(2)(a) ali (b) direktive o vračanju ni objavila vnaprej, teh določb ne more uporabiti kot utemeljitev, da direktive o vračanju pozneje ne uporabi v posameznih primerih.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Articles 2 and 4(4)
Države članice se lahko za uporabo odstopanja odločijo pozneje, po začetnem prenosu direktive o vračanju v nacionalno zakonodajo.
Member States may decide not to apply the Directive to certain categories of third-country nationals:
jim je bil zavrnjen vstop v skladu s členom 13 Zakonika o schengenskih mejah [18] ali
The decision of a Member State to make use of the derogation and not to apply the Directive to ‘border cases’ or ‘criminal law cases’ must be made clear, in advance, in the national implementing legislation [16], otherwise it can develop no legal effects.
Komisija v takih primerih priporoča uporabo takega odstopanja.
There are no specific formal requirements for making known such decision.
Nacionalni postopki za „primere v zvezi s prestopom meje“ morajo spoštovati splošna načela mednarodnega prava in temeljne pravice zadevnih državljanov tretjih držav ter upoštevati varovalne ukrepe iz člena 4(4) direktive o vračanju (glej oddelek 2.2).
It is, however, important that it clearly derives — explicitly or implicitly — from the national legislation if and to which extent a Member State makes use of the derogation.
Člen 2(2)(a) pomeni neposredno časovno in prostorsko povezavo s prestopom zunanje meje.
If a Member State has not made public, in advance, its decision to use the derogations under Article 2(2)(a) or (b) of the Return Directive, these provisions cannot be used as a justification for not applying the Return Directive subsequently in individual cases.
Zato zadeva tudi državljane tretjih držav, ki so jih pristojni organi prijeli ali prestregli v samem trenutku nezakonitega prestopa zunanje meje ali po tem prestopu v bližini te meje – glej sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Affum, C-47/15, točka 72.
Nothing prevents Member States from limiting the use of the derogation of Article 2(2)(a) or 2(2)(b) of the Return Directive to certain categories of persons (for example, only refusals of entry at air borders or sea borders), provided that this is made clear in the implementing national legislation.
Opredelitev oseb, ki „so jih pristojni organi prijeli ali prestregli pri nezakonitem prestopu […] zunanje meje“, ker še vedno obstaja NEPOSREDNA povezava z dejanjem nezakonitega prestopa meje, zajema na primer naslednje kategorije:
Member States can decide to make use of the derogation at a later stage following the initial transposition of the Return Directive into national law.
osebe, ki so prispele nezakonito s čolnom in so prijete ob prihodu ali kmalu po tem,
This must, however, not have disadvantageous consequences with regard to those persons who were already able to avail themselves of the effects of the Return Directive (see the judgment of the ECJ in Case C-297/12, Filev and Osmani [17]: ‘[…] in so far as a Member State has not yet made use of that discretion […] it may not avail itself of the right to restrict the scope of the persons covered by that directive pursuant to Article 2(2)(b) thereof with regard to those persons who were already able to avail themselves of the effects of that directive’).
osebe, ki jih pridrži policija po tem, ko so preplezale ograjo na meji,
Persons who have been refused entry and who are present in a transit zone or in a border area of a Member State are frequently subject to special rules in Member States: by virtue of a ‘legal fiction’, these persons are sometimes not considered to be ‘staying in the territory of the Member State’ concerned and specific rules are applied.
osebe, ki nezakonito vstopijo na ozemlje države članice in zapuščajo vlak/avtobus, ki jih je pripeljal neposredno na ozemlje države članice (brez predhodnega postanka na ozemlju države članice).
The Return Directive does not follow this approach and it considers any third-country national physically staying on Member State territory as covered by its scope.
Opredelitev oseb, ki „so jih pristojni organi prijeli ali prestregli pri nezakonitem prestopu […] zunanje meje“, ker NEPOSREDNE povezave z dejanjem nezakonitega prestopa meje ni več, ne zajema naslednjih kategorij:
Member States are, however, free to decide not to apply the Directive to ‘border cases’, defined as third-country nationals who:
osebe, ki nezakonito vstopijo na ozemlje države članice in so na tem ozemlju prijete v določenem obdobju po nezakonitem vstopu,
are subject to a refusal of entry in accordance with Article 13 of the Schengen Borders Code [18], or
migranti brez urejenega statusa, ki so prijeti v obmejni regiji, razen če še vedno obstaja neposredna povezava z dejanjem nezakonitega prestopa meje,
are apprehended or intercepted by the competent authorities in connection with the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the external border of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State.
migrant brez urejenega statusa, ki zapušča avtobus iz tretje države, če se je avtobus že večkrat ustavil na ozemlju EU,
The use of this derogation can be useful, for instance, in the case of frontline Member States experiencing significant migratory pressure, when this can provide for more effective procedures; in such cases, the Commission recommends making use of such derogation.
migranti brez urejenega statusa, ki so že bili izgnani in kršijo še vedno veljavno prepoved vstopa (razen če niso bili prijeti v neposredni povezavi z nezakonitim prestopom meje),
National procedures for ‘border cases’ must respect the general principles of international law and the fundamental rights of the third-country nationals concerned, as well as the safeguards set by Article 4(4) of the Return Directive (see section 2.2).
migranti brez urejenega statusa, ki prestopajo notranjo mejo –glej sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Affum, C-47/15, točka 69, člen 2(2) direktive, ki se nanaša na zunanje meje, in člen 14 Zakonika o schengenskih mejah, ki se uporablja na zunanjih mejah,
Article 2(2)(a) implies a direct temporal and spatial link with the crossing of the external border.
nezakonito prebivajoči državljani tretjih držav, ki zapuščajo ozemlje držav članic in pridruženih schengenskih držav – glej sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Affum, C-47/15, točka 71.
It therefore concerns third-country nationals who have been apprehended or intercepted by the competent authorities at the very time of the irregular crossing of the external border or near that external border after it has been crossed — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-47/15, Affum (paragraph 72).
Praktični primeri oseb, ki so zajeti v določbo „in po tem niso pridobili dovoljenja ali pravice do prebivanja v tej državi članici“ in za katere se odstopanje ne uporablja:
The following categories of persons are for instance covered by the term ‘apprehended or intercepted by the competent authorities in connection with the irregular crossing […] of the external border’ because there is still a DIRECT connection to the act of irregular border crossing:
osebe, ki so nezakonito vstopile na ozemlje države članice, bile prijete na zunanji meji in nato pridobile pravico ostati na ozemlju države članice na podlagi statusa prosilca za azil.
persons arriving irregularly by boat who are apprehended upon or shortly after arrival,
Tudi če te osebe – po dokončni zavrnitvi prošnje za azil – znova začnejo „prebivati nezakonito“, se ne smejo izključiti s področja uporabe direktive v okviru „primera v zvezi s prestopom meje“,
persons arrested by the police after having climbed a border fence,
državljan tretje države, ki mu je bil zavrnjen vstop in se je zadrževal na tranzitnem območju na letališču (in se torej lahko izključi s področja uporabe direktive) ter je bil iz zdravstvenih razlogov premeščen v bolnišnico, zanj pa je bilo zagotovljeno kratkoročno nacionalno dovoljenje (in ne samo odlog odstranitve v skladu s členom 9(2)(a) za čas bivanja v bolnišnici).
irregular entrants who are leaving the train/bus that brought them directly into the territory of a Member State (without previous stopover in Member State territory).
Oblika, vsebina in pravna sredstva odločb, izdanih za državljane tretjih držav, ki so izključeni s področja uporabe direktive o vračanju na podlagi člena 2(2)(a), so zajeti v nacionalno zakonodajo.
The following categories of persons are not covered by the term ‘apprehended or intercepted by the competent authorities in connection with the irregular crossing […] of the external border’ because there is no more DIRECT connection to the act of irregular border crossing:
Zavrnitve vstopa v skladu s členom 14 Zakonika o schengenskih mejah zajemajo vse osebe, ki ne izpolnjujejo pogojev za vstop v skladu s členom 6(1) tega zakonika.
irregular entrants who are apprehended within the Member State's territory, within a certain period after irregular entry,
Osebe, ki jim je zavrnjen vstop v tranzitnem območju na letališču ali na mejnem prehodu na ozemlju države članice, sodijo na področje uporabe direktive o vračanju (saj so že fizično prisotne na ozemlju).
irregular migrants apprehended in a border region, unless there is still a direct connection to the act of irregular border crossing,
Vendar lahko države članice uporabijo odstopanje iz člena 2(2)(a), ki določa, da se države članice lahko odločijo, da v teh primerih ne bodo uporabile navedene direktive.
an irregular migrant leaving a bus coming from a third country, if the bus has already made several stops in EU territory,
Izjeme za primere v zvezi s prestopom meje v skladu s členom 2(2)(a) se uporabljajo samo za primere prijetja na zunanjih mejah, ne pa tudi na notranjih mejah – glej sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Affum, C-47/15.