natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following negotiations, in the course of which concerns were expressed that references to the Reception Conditions Directive might be perceived as an ‘upgrading’ of the situation of irregular migrants and thus send a wrong policy message, a ‘self-standing’ list of rights was established.
Pridržanje temelji na oceni posameznega primera, obdobje pridržanja pa je kar se da kratko in traja le toliko časa, kolikor trajajo postopki za ureditev odstranitve, ti pa se izvedejo skrbno (sorazmernost pridržanja).
The scope of situations covered by Article 14(1) is broad: it covers the period for voluntary departure as well as any period for which removal has been formally or de facto postponed in accordance with Article 9 of the Return Directive (for example appeal with suspensive effect, possible violation of non-refoulement principle, health reasons, technical reasons, failure of removal efforts due to lack of identification).
Razlogi za pridržanje: edini zakoniti cilj pridržanja na podlagi direktive o vračanju je pripraviti vrnitev in/ali izvesti postopek odstranitve, zlasti (1) če obstaja nevarnost pobega ali (2) če se oseba v postopku vračanja izogiba ali ovira pripravo vrnitve ali postopek odstranitve.
Periods spent in detention are expressly excluded, since the related safeguards are regulated elsewhere (see section 15).
Kadar obstajajo taki razlogi za pridržanje in kadar se v določenem primeru ne morejo učinkovito uporabiti manj prisilni ukrepi (skrajni ukrep), so države članice upravičene in bi morale uporabiti pridržanje za čas, ki je potreben za zagotovitev uspešne izvedbe postopkov vračanja v skladu z določbami člena 8 direktive o vračanju.
The provision of emergency healthcare and necessary treatment of the illness is a basic minimum right and access to it must not be made dependent on the payment of fees.
Čeprav je besedilo direktive o vračanju oblikovano kot okvirni seznam (z besedo „zlasti“), ta dva konkretna primera obsegata najbolj verjetne scenarije, ki se pojavljajo v praksi in upravičujejo pridržanje z namenom priprave in organizacije vrnitve ter izvedbe postopka odstranitve.
Access to education: the limitation of ‘subject to the length of their stay’ should be interpreted restrictively.
V vsakem posameznem primeru je treba posebej presoditi, ali obstaja specifičen razlog za pridržanje in ali uporaba učinkovitih in zadostnih milejših prisilnih ukrepov ni mogoča.
In cases of doubt about the likely length of stay before return, access to education should be granted rather than not.
Pri presoji, ali obstaja nevarnost pobega (glej oddelek 1.6), ki bi upravičevala potrebo po pridržanju, je treba upoštevati zavrnitev vstopa na meji, obstoj razpisa ukrepa v SIS za zavrnitev vstopa, pomanjkanje dokumentacije, neobstoj prebivališča, nesodelovanje in druge pomembne znake ali merila.
A national practice where access to the education system is normally only established if the length of the stay is more than fourteen days may be considered acceptable.
Pridržanje se ne sme uporabiti iz razlogov javnega reda: možnost nadaljevanja ali podaljšanja pridržanja iz razlogov javnega reda ni zajeta v besedilu direktive o vračanju, države članice pa pridržanja priseljencev z namenom odstranitve ne smejo uporabiti kot obliko „mile zaporne kazni“.
As regards practical problems, such as cases in which the minor does not have a document proving the education already obtained in other countries or cases in which the minor does not speak any language in which education can be provided in the Member State, appropriate answers need to be found at national level, taking into account the spirit of the Directive and relevant international law instruments such as the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comment No 6 thereto [72].
Glavni namen pridržanja z namenom odstranitve je zagotoviti, da osebe v postopku vračanja izvajanja obveznosti vrnitve ne ogrozijo s pobegom.
Inspiration may also be drawn from the asylum acquis (in particular Article 14 of the Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/EU).
Člen 15 ni namenjen zaščiti družbe pred osebami, ki ogrožajo javni red ali varnost.
Other basic needs: in its judgement in Case C-562/13, Abdida, the ECJ found that Member States are obliged to also cover other basic needs to ensure that emergency healthcare and essential treatment of illness are in fact made available during the period in which that Member State is required to postpone removal.
Če je mogoče na podlagi preteklega obnašanja/ravnanja zadevne osebe sklepati, da bo oseba verjetno kršila pravo in se izogibala vrnitvi, lahko to utemelji sklep, da obstaja nevarnost pobega.
It is for the Member States to determine the form in which such provision for the basic needs of the third-country national concerned is to be made.
Obveznost zagotovitve učinkovitih alternativ pridržanju: člen 15(1) je treba razlagati tako, da od vsake države članice zahteva, da v svoji nacionalni zakonodaji zagotovi alternative pridržanju, kar je tudi v skladu s pogoji iz uvodne izjave 16 direktive („[…] če uporaba milejših prisilnih ukrepov ni zadostna“).
The logic upon which the ECJ relied to establish this obligation was that the requirement to provide emergency healthcare and essential treatment of illness under Article 14(1)(b) of the Return Directive may be rendered meaningless if there were not also a concomitant requirement to make provision for the basic needs of the third-country national concerned.
Člen 15(1) direktive o vračanju določa, da morajo biti manj prisilni ukrepi „zadostni“ in da jih je možno „učinkovito“ uporabiti za zadevnega državljana tretje države.
Based on this logic developed by the ECJ, and in light of the indications provided for in relevant case-law of the ECtHR, it can be derived that enjoyment of the other rights enumerated in Article 14(1) of the Return Directive (such as in particular access to education and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons) also give rise to a concomitant requirement to make provision for the basic needs of the third-country national concerned.
To pomeni, da morajo države članice za izpolnitev obveznosti zagotovitve učinkovitih alternativ pridržanju v nacionalni zakonodaji zagotoviti alternative pridržanju, s katerimi se lahko dosežejo isti cilji pridržanja (tj. preprečevanje pobega, preprečevanje, da se državljan tretje države izogiba ali ovira vrnitev), z uporabo sredstev, ki manj posegajo v pravico posameznika do svobode.
Even though there is no general legal obligation under Union law to make provision for the basic needs of all third-country nationals pending return, the Commission encourages Member States to do so under national law, in order to assure humane and dignified conditions of life for returnees.
Nacionalni organi, pristojni za sprejemanje odločb v zvezi s pridržanjem in alternativami pridržanju, morajo oceniti, ali bi bili taki manj prisilni ukrepi zadostni in učinkoviti v vsakem posameznem primeru.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 14(2)
Primeri alternativ pridržanju vključujejo omejitve glede bivanja, odprte hiše za družine, podporo socialnih delavcev, redno poročanje, predajo osebnih/potovalnih dokumentov, varščino in elektronsko spremljanje.
Member States shall provide the persons referred to in paragraph 1 with a written confirmation in accordance with national legislation that the period for voluntary departure has been extended in accordance with Article 7(2) or that the return decision will temporarily not be enforced.
UNHCR navaja nekaj praktičnih primerov dobre prakse [75] o alternativah pridržanju.Prednosti in tveganja – alternative pridržanju
Recital 12 of the Return Directive specifies: ‘In order to be able to demonstrate their specific situation in the event of administrative controls or checks, such persons should be provided with written confirmation of their situation.
Prednosti zagotovitve alternativ pridržanju lahko vključujejo višje stopnje vračanja (vključno s prostovoljnim odhodom), boljše sodelovanje z osebami v postopku vračanja pri pridobitvi potrebne dokumentacije, finančne koristi (manj stroškov za državo) in manjše posledice za posameznike (preprečitev stiske, povezane s pridržanjem).
Member States should enjoy wide discretion concerning the form and format of the written confirmation and should also be able to include it in decisions related to return adopted under this Directive’.
Tveganja vključujejo večjo verjetnost pobega, morebitni pojav spodbujevalnih dejavnikov (alternativni objekti za pridržanje, kot so hiše za družine, so lahko privlačni za morebitne migrante brez urejenega statusa) in morebitne družbene napetosti v okolici odprtih centrov.
Form of the written confirmation: Member States enjoy wide discretion.
Priporočilo: izziv je najti pametne rešitve z ustrezno kombinacijo nagrad in odvračilnih sredstev.
The confirmation can either be a separate paper issued by the national authorities or part of a formal decision related to return.
Popolna odsotnost odvračilnih sredstev bi lahko povzročila nezadostno stopnjo odstranitev.
It is important that it allows the returnee to clearly demonstrate — in case of a police control — that he/she is already subject of a pending return decision and that he/she benefits from a period for voluntary departure, a formal postponement of removal or that he/she is subject of a return decision which can temporarily not be enforced.
Hkrati bi lahko bil preveč represiven sistem s sistematično uporabo pridržanja prav tako neučinkovit, saj bi imele osebe v postopku vračanja le malo spodbud za sodelovanje v postopku vračanja.
The confirmation should specify, if possible, the length of the period for voluntary departure or the postponement.
Države članice bi morale razviti in uporabljati širok nabor alternativ za obravnavo različnih kategorij državljanov tretjih držav.
In Member States in which data exchange systems allow for the quick verification of the status of irregular migrants in case of police controls on the basis of certain personal data or reference numbers, the written confirmation requirement can be considered as fulfilled if the person is provided with (or already owns) documents or papers containing these personal data or reference numbers.
Prilagojeno individualno svetovanje, ki osebi v postopku vračanja omogoča, da odloča o svoji vrnitvi, zgodnje posredovanje in celostna obravnava primera, osredotočena na rešitev primera, so se izkazali za uspešne.
No obligation to grant a permit to non-removable returnees: Member States are not obliged to grant a permit to returnees once it becomes clear that there is no more reasonable prospect of removal, although they may decide to do so in application of Article 6(4) of the Return Directive (see section 5.6).
Prizadevati si je treba za sistematično horizontalno svetovanje vsem morebitnim osebam v postopku vračanja, ki bi že v zgodnji fazi (in ne šele po sprejetju odločbe o prisilni odstranitvi) zajemalo nasvete o možnostih za zakonito bivanje ali azil ter o prostovoljni ali prisilni vrnitvi.
In this regard, the ECJ expressly clarified in the judgment of Case C-146/14, Mahdi [73] (paragraphs 87 and 88): ‘[…] the purpose of the directive is not to regulate the conditions of residence on the territory of a Member State of third-country nationals who are staying illegally and in respect of whom it is not, or has not been, possible to implement a return decision. […] However, Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC enables the Member States to grant an autonomous residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons to a third-country national staying illegally on their territory’.
biti v postopku vračanja: formalna zahteva v členu 15(1) direktive o vračanju glede osebe, ki „je v postopku vračanja“, ne pomeni, da je ta oseba „predmet odločbe o vrnitvi“.
Criteria to take into account for granting permits: as highlighted above, there is no legal obligation to issue permits to non-removable returnees and Member States enjoy broad discretion.
Če so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz člena 15, se lahko pridržanje odredi že pred sprejetjem formalne odločbe o vrnitvi, na primer med pripravo odločbe o vrnitvi, ki še ni bila izdana.
In this context, it is recommended that the assessment criteria that could be taken into account by Member States include both individual (case-related) as well as horizontal (policy-related) elements such as in particular:
Državljan tretje države, ki nezakonito prebiva v državi članici, lahko skriva svojo identiteto (je ne razkrije), da bi se izognil odstranitvi.
the cooperative/non-cooperative attitude of the returnee,
Ali je v takih okoliščinah nadaljevanje pridržanja upravičeno kot pritisk na državljana tretje države, da se ta spodbudi k sodelovanju in se s tem omogoči odstranitev?
the length of factual stay of the returnee in the Member State,
Taka vrsta pridržanja je zajeta v členu 15(1)(b) direktive o vračanju, ki izrecno navaja „izogiba[nje] ali ovira[nje] […] postop[ka] odstranitve“ kot razlog za pridržanje.
integration efforts made by the returnee,
Člen 15(6)(a) navaja „nezadostno sodelovanje“ kot enega od dveh primerov, ki lahko upravičita podaljšanje najdaljšega mogočega obdobja pridržanja za 12 mesecev, splošni cilj in končni rezultat take vrste pridržanja (Beugehaft ali Durchsetzungshaft) pa je odstranitev in ne kaznovanje.
personal conduct of the returnee,
Ali je mogoče nadaljevati pridržanje, če oseba v postopku vračanja vloži prošnjo za azil?
family links,
Pravna podlaga: direktiva o vračanju – člen 15(2)
humanitarian considerations,
Pridržanje odredijo upravni ali sodni organi.
the likelihood of return in the foreseeable future,
Odredba mora biti pisna, v njej morajo biti navedeni dejanski in pravni razlogi.
need to avoid rewarding irregularity,
Če so pridržanje odredili upravni organi, države članice:
impact of regularisation measures on migration pattern of prospective (irregular) migrants,
zagotovijo hiter sodni pregled zakonitosti pridržanja, o kateri odločijo kar se da hitro po začetku pridržanja;
likelihood of secondary movements within Schengen area.
ali zadevnemu državljanu tretje države zagotovijo pravico, da začne postopek, s katerim se zakonitost pridržanja hitro pregleda kar se da hitro po sprožitvi ustreznega postopka.
The procedural safeguards listed in Articles 12 (form and translation) and Article 13 (effective remedy and free legal aid) of the Return Directive are express manifestations of the fundamental rights to good administration, to be heard, to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, all forming an integral part of the European Union legal order.
V tem primeru države članice nemudoma obvestijo zadevnega državljana tretje države o možnosti uvedbe takega postopka.
Observance of those rights is thus required also with regard to detention decisions.
Če je pridržanje nezakonito, se zadevnega državljana tretje države nemudoma izpusti.
Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when:
Obseg sodnega pregleda: v okviru pregleda je treba oceniti vse vidike, izrecno navedene v členu 15 direktive o vračanju, pri tem pa upoštevati pravna vprašanja (na primer pravilnost postopka pridržanja in odločbe o pridržanju s postopkovnega/pravnega vidika) in dejanska vprašanja (na primer osebni položaj pridržane osebe, družinske vezi v državi, jamstva glede izstopa z ozemlja, upravičeno pričakovanje odstranitve).
there is a risk of absconding; or
Najdaljše trajanje „hitrega sodnega pregleda“: besedilo direktive o vračanju temelji na besedilu člena 5(4) EKČP, ki zahteva, da „sodišče hitro odloči o zakonitosti“.
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.
Sprejetje odločbe v manj kot enem tednu se lahko vsekakor šteje za dobro prakso, ki je v skladu z zakonskimi zahtevami glede hitrosti.
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.
Zahteva po izdaji pisne odločbe velja tudi za odločbe o podaljšanju: zahteva po izdaji pisne odločbe, ki navaja razloge, velja tudi za odločbe v zvezi s podaljšanjem pridržanja.
The possibility to impose detention is one of the possible measures which may be used by Member States as a measure of last resort.
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Mahdi, C-146/14 (točka 44), izrecno pojasnilo: „To zahtevo po sprejetju pisne odločbe je treba razlagati tako, da se nanaša na vsako odločbo o podaljšanju pridržanja, saj sta, po eni strani, pridržanje in njegovo podaljšanje analogna, saj se z obema zadevnemu državljanu tretje države odvzame prostost, da se pripravi njegova vrnitev in/ali izvede njegova odstranitev, po drugi strani pa mora biti navedenemu državljanu v obeh primerih omogočeno, da se seznani z razlogi za odločitev, sprejeto zoper njega.“
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’.
Za odločbe o pridržanju in odločbe o podaljšanju pridržanja se uporabljajo vsa jamstva, povezana s spoštovanjem pravice osebe, da se izjasni.
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).
Vendar nespoštovanje te pravice pomeni razveljavitev odločbe le v primeru, da bi bil izid postopka drugačen, če bi se navedena pravica spoštovala – glej sodbo v zadevi G. in R., C-383/13: „Pravo Unije, podrobneje člen 15(2) in (6) Direktive 2008/115/ES […], je treba razlagati tako, da če se pri podaljšanju ukrepa pridržanja v okviru upravnega postopka krši pravica osebe, da se izjasni, nacionalno sodišče, pristojno za presojo zakonitosti te odločbe, ukrep pridržanja odpravi le, če ugotovi, da je, glede na vse dejanske in pravne okoliščine vsakega posameznega primera, ta kršitev osebi, ki se nanjo sklicuje, dejansko odvzela možnost boljše obrambe in to v taki meri, da bi lahko imel ta upravni postopek drugačen rezultat.“
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).
Pravna podlaga: direktiva o vračanju – člen 15(3)
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.
V vsakem primeru se na zahtevo zadevnega državljana tretje države ali po uradni dolžnosti pridržanje pregleda v razumnih časovnih presledkih.
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.
Združene odločbe o pregledu in podaljšanju je treba sprejeti v pisni obliki: Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Mahdi, C-146/14 (točka 48), pojasnilo: „V takem primeru namreč pregled pridržanja in sprejetje odločbe v zvezi s pridržanjem potekata v isti procesni fazi.
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.
Zato mora ta odločba izpolnjevati zahteve iz člena 15(2) Direktive 2008/115/ES.“
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.
V primeru podaljšanja pridržanja pregled nadzira sodni organ.
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.
Pomen pojma „podaljšano pridržanje“: drugi stavek člena 15(3) direktive o vračanju zahteva nadzor sodnega organa po uradni dolžnosti v primeru „podaljšanja pridržanja“.
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’.
To pomeni, da morajo sodni organi ukrepati, tudi če se zadevna oseba ne pritoži.
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.
Na podlagi jezikovne primerjave izraza „podaljšano pridržanje“ (nemščina: „Bei längerer Haftdauer“; francoščina: „En cas de périodes de rétention prolongées“; nizozemščina: „In het geval van een lange periode van bewaring“; španščina: „En caso de periodos de internamiento prolongados“; italijanščina: „Nel caso di periodi di trattenimento prolungati“) je jasno, da se ta izraz v bistvu nanaša na dolgo obdobje pridržanja ne glede na to, ali je bila uradna odločba o podaljšanju že sprejeta ali ne.
It is not the purpose of Article 15 to protect society from persons which constitute a threat to public policy or security.
Komisija meni, da je šestmesečni časovni presledek do prvega sodnega pregleda odločbe o pridržanju po uradni dolžnosti vsekakor predolg, za trimesečni časovni presledek pa bi se lahko štelo, da je na meji tega, kar je še lahko združljivo s členom 15(3) direktive, če obstaja tudi možnost, da se na prošnjo začnejo posamezni pregledi, če je to potrebno.
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.
Pristojnost nadzornega sodnega organa: mehanizem pregleda, ki proučuje samo pravna vprašanja, ne pa dejanskih vprašanj, ni ustrezen.
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.
Sodni organ mora biti pristojen za odločanje o dejstvih in pravnih vprašanjih – glej sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Mahdi, C-146/14 (točka 62): „[…] mora biti pristojnemu sodnemu organu omogočeno, da odločitev upravnega organa ali, v ustreznem primeru, sodnega organa, ki je odredil začetno pridržanje, nadomesti s svojo, in da odloči o možnosti odreditve nadomestnega ukrepa ali izpustitve zadevnega državljana tretje države.
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’.
Zato mora biti sodnemu organu, ki odloča o predlogu za podaljšanje pridržanja, omogočeno, da upošteva tako dejstva in dokaze, na katere se sklicuje upravni organ, ki je odredil začetno pridržanje, kot vse morebitne pripombe zadevnega državljana tretje države.