natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission considers that an interval of 6 months for exercising the first ex officio judicial supervision of the detention decision is certainly too long, whilst a three months ex officio judicial supervision may be considered at the limit of what might still be compatible with 15(3) of the Directive, provided that there is also a possibility to launch individual reviews upon application if needed.
Zato je uporaba posebnih centrov splošno pravilo, ki ga predvideva direktiva o vračanju.
The judicial authority must have the power to decide both on the facts and legal issues — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-146/14, Mahdi (paragraph 62): ‘[…] the judicial authority having jurisdiction must be able to substitute its own decision for that of the administrative authority or, as the case may be, the judicial authority which ordered the initial detention and to take a decision on whether to order an alternative measure or the release of the third-country national concerned.
To pomeni, da morajo države članice zagotoviti, da je v specializiranih centrih za pridržanje dovolj prostora, torej uskladiti zmogljivosti za pridržanje z dejanskimi potrebami, obenem pa zagotoviti ustrezne materialne pogoje pridržanja.
To that end, the judicial authority ruling on an application for extension of detention must be able to take into account both the facts stated and the evidence adduced by the administrative authority and any observations that may be submitted by the third-country national.
Izjeme od splošnega pravila: izjemo, predvideno v členu 16(1) direktive o vračanju, ki državam članicam omogoča, da osebe v postopku vračanja pred odstranitvijo v izjemnih primerih nastanijo v običajne zapore, je treba razlagati ozko.
Furthermore, that authority must be able to consider any other element that is relevant for its decision should it so deem necessary […]’.
Nepredvidljiva hitra povečanja števila pridržanih oseb: odstopanje iz člena 16(1) direktive o vračanju se lahko uporabi, če nepričakovano hitro povečanje števila pridržanih oseb, ki je posledica nepredvidljivih količinskih nihanj, neločljivo povezanih s pojavom nedovoljenih migracij (pri čemer število teh oseb še ni doseglo ravni „nujnih razmer“, ki jih izrecno ureja člen 18 direktive o vračanju), otežuje namestitev pridržanih oseb v posebne centre v državi članici, ki sicer razpolaga z ustreznim/zadostnim številom mest v posebnih centrih.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 15(4)-(6)
Agresivne pridržane osebe: v skladu z upoštevno sodno prakso ESČP morajo države članice pridržane osebe v postopku vračanja zaščititi pred agresivnim ali neprimernim vedenjem drugih pridržanih oseb.
When it appears that a reasonable prospect of removal no longer exists for legal or other considerations or the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 no longer exist, detention ceases to be justified and the person concerned shall be released immediately.
Države članice se spodbujajo, da poiščejo praktične načine za reševanje tega izziva v okviru posebnih centrov in brez uporabe nastanitve v zaporih.
Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal.
Morebitne rešitve lahko vključujejo ukrepe, s katerimi se nekateri deli ali krila centrov za pridržanje rezervirajo za agresivne osebe ali pa se za to kategorijo oseb rezervirajo posebni centri za pridržanje.
Each Member State shall set a limited period of detention, which may not exceed six months.
Neobstoj posebnih centrov za pridržanje v regionalnem delu države članice: če v regionalnem delu države članice ni posebnih centrov za pridržanje, to samo po sebi ne more upravičiti nastanitve v običajnem zaporu, če so taki centri v drugem delu iste države.
Member States may not extend the period referred to in paragraph 5 except for a limited period not exceeding a further 12 months in accordance with national law in cases where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to:
Sodišče je to izrecno potrdilo v sodbi v združenih zadevah Bero, C-473/13, in Bouzalmate, C-514/13 (točka 32): „[…] člen 16(1) Direktive 2008/115/ES [je treba] razlagati tako, da mora država članica nezakonito prebivajoče državljane tretjih držav, pridržane zaradi odstranitve, praviloma nastaniti v posebnem centru za pridržanje v tej državi, čeprav ima navedena država zvezno ureditev in zvezna dežela, ki je na podlagi nacionalnega prava pristojna za določanje in izvrševanje take nastanitve, takega centra za pridržanje nima.“
a lack of cooperation by the third-country national concerned; or
Kratka obdobja pridržanja: dejstvo, da bo pripor verjetno trajal kratek čas (na primer 7 dni ali manj), ni utemeljen razlog za nastanitev v zaporu.
delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries.
Pridržanje v zaprtih zdravstvenih/psihiatričnih ustanovah: pridržanje pred odstranitvijo v zaprtih zdravstvenih/psihiatričnih ustanovah ali skupaj z osebami, ki so pridržane iz zdravstvenih razlogov, v členu 16(1) direktive o vračanju ni predvideno in bi bilo v nasprotju z njegovim polnim učinkom, razen če se glede na bolezensko in zdravstveno stanje zadevne osebe zdi, da je pridržanje v specializiranih ali prilagojenih prostorih ali premestitev vanje nujna za to, da se taki osebi nudijo ustrezni in stalni specializirani zdravstveni nadzor, pomoč in oskrba, da bi se izognilo poslabšanju njenega zdravja.
Detention must be ended and the returnee must be released in a number of different situations, such as in particular if:
Obveznost ločitve oseb v postopku vračanja in zapornikov je absolutna zahteva: direktiva o vračanju določa brezpogojno obveznost, da države članice zagotovijo, da so nezakonito prebivajoči državljani tretjih držav vedno ločeni od navadnih zapornikov, če država članica izjemoma ne more zagotoviti nastanitve v posebnih centrih za pridržanje.
there is no more reasonable prospect of removal for legal or other considerations,
Nekdanji zaporniki, ki so v postopku poznejše vrnitve: ko oseba odsluži zaporno kazen in bi se morala običajno izpustiti, začnejo veljati pravila o pridržanju z namenom odstranitve, vključno z obveznostjo iz člena 16(1) direktive o vračanju, da se pridržanje izvaja v posebnih centrih.
removal arrangements are not properly followed up by the authorities,
Če se priprava odstranitve in morda tudi odstranitev sama izvedeta v obdobju, v katerem naj bi oseba še vedno prestajala zaporno kazen, lahko ta oseba ostane nastanjena v zaporu, saj to obdobje sovpada s prestajanjem kazni za predhodno storjeno kaznivo dejanje.
the maximum time limits for detention have been reached.
Države članice se spodbujajo, da vse postopke, ki so potrebni za odstranitev, začnejo vnaprej, ko osebe še vedno prestajajo zaporno kazen v zaporu, da se zagotovi, da bo državljan tretje države uspešno vrnjen najpozneje v trenutku, ko bo izpuščen iz zapora.
Furthermore an end should be given to detention on a case-by-case basis if alternatives to detention become an appropriate option.
Agresivne pridržane osebe: agresivno ali neprimerno vedenje oseb v postopku vračanja ne upravičuje pridržanja teh oseb skupaj z navadnimi zaporniki, razen če je agresivno dejanje opredeljeno kot kaznivo dejanje in če je sodišče v zvezi s tem izreklo zaporno kazen.
Absence of reasonable prospect of removal: in the judgment of Case C-357/09, Kadzoev (paragraph 67), the ECJ provided a clarifying interpretation of the meaning of ‘reasonable prospect’: ‘Only a real prospect that removal can be carried out successfully, having regard to the periods laid down in Article 15(5) and (6), corresponds to a reasonable prospect of removal.
Izraz „navadni zaporniki“ zajema obsojene in pridržane zapornike: to potrjuje četrti odstavek smernice št. 10 „Dvajsetih smernic o prisilnem vračanju“ Odbora ministrov Sveta Evrope, ki izrecno poudarja, da „osebe, pridržane pred odstranitvijo z ozemlja, običajno ne bi smele biti nastanjene skupaj z navadnimi obsojenimi ali pridržanimi zaporniki“.
That reasonable prospect does not exist where it appears unlikely that the person concerned will be admitted to a third country, having regard to those periods’.
Zato morajo biti pridržane osebe ločene tudi od pridržanih zapornikov.
Absence of a ‘reasonable prospect’ is not the same as ‘impossibility to enforce’: ‘impossibility to enforce’ is a more categorical assertion and more difficult to demonstrate than ‘absence of reasonable prospect’, which refers to certain degree of likeliness only.
Z osebo v postopku vračanja se ni mogoče dogovoriti o pridržanju skupaj z zaporniki: Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Pham, C-474/13 [79] (točki 21 in 22), izrecno potrdilo: „S tega vidika obveznost ločitve nezakonito prebivajočih državljanov tretjih držav od navadnih zapornikov, določena v členu 16(1), drugi stavek, te direktive, presega okvire načina posebne izvršitve nastanitve državljanov tretjih držav, ki so zaradi odstranitve pridržani v zavodu za prestajanje kazni, in pomeni vsebinsko zahtevo za tako nastanitev, brez izpolnitve katere ta nastanitev načeloma ni v skladu z navedeno direktivo.
Periods of detention which should be taken into account when assessing the ‘reasonable prospect of removal’: given the emphasis put by Article 15 (as well as recital 6) of the Return Directive on a concrete individual case-by-case assessment for determining the proportionality of deprivation of liberty, regard must always be taken of the maximum detention periods for the concerned individual in the specific case.
V teh okoliščinah država članica ne sme upoštevati volje zadevnega državljana tretje države.“
This means that the maximum periods laid down by national law of the concerned Member State are relevant.
Direktiva o vračanju – člen 16; Smernica Sveta Evrope o prisilnem vračanju št. 10 („pogoji pridržanja pred odstranitvijo“); standardi Evropskega odbora za preprečevanje mučenja in informativni pregled o pridržanju priseljencev; evropska zaporniška pravila iz leta 2006
This also implies that a returnee should not be detained in a Member State if it appears unlikely from the beginning that the person concerned will be admitted to a third country within the maximum detention period allowed under the legislation of that Member State (in the judgment of Case C-357/09, Kadzoev, the ECJ referred to the maximum periods under the Directive, since these were the same as the maximum periods under the applicable legislation in the concerned Member State).
Direktiva o vračanju sama zagotavlja več konkretnih varovalnih ukrepov.
The Commission recommends providing for a maximum initial period of detention of six months, which shall be adapted in the light of the circumstances of the case and be reviewed at reasonable intervals of time under the supervision of a judicial authority, and for the possibility to further prolong the detention until 18 months in the cases provided for in Article 15(6) of the Return Directive.
Države članice morajo:
Once the maximum periods of detention have been reached, Article 15(4) of the Return Directive is not applicable any more and the person must in any event be released immediately — see the judgement of the ECJ in Case C-357/09, Kadzoev (paragraphs 60 and 61): ‘It is clear that, where the maximum duration of detention provided for in Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115/EC has been reached, the question whether there is no longer a “reasonable prospect of removal” within the meaning of Article 15(4) does not arise.
zagotoviti nujno zdravstveno oskrbo in osnovno zdravljenje,
In such a case the person concerned must in any event be released immediately.
nameniti posebno pozornost položaju ranljivih oseb, kar pomeni tudi, splošneje, zagotoviti ustrezno upoštevanje elementov, kot so starost, invalidnost in zdravstveno stanje zadevne osebe (vključno z duševnim zdravjem),
Article 15(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC can thus only apply if the maximum periods of detention laid down in Article 15(5) and (6) of the directive have not expired’.
pridržanim osebam zagotoviti informacije, ki pojasnjujejo pravila v centru ter določajo njihove pravice in obveznosti; priporočljivo je, da se te informacije zagotovijo čim prej in najpozneje 24 ur po prihodu,
Further clarifications:
pridržanim osebam dovoliti, da vzpostavijo stik z zakonitimi zastopniki, družinskimi člani in pristojnimi konzularnimi organi, ter
Attention should be paid to the specific situation of stateless persons, who may be unable to benefit from consular assistance by third-countries in view of obtaining a valid identity or travel document.
ustreznim in pristojnim nacionalnim, mednarodnim in nevladnim organizacijam ter organom dati možnost, da obiščejo centre za pridržanje; to pravico je treba odobriti neposredno zadevnim organom, neodvisno od povabila pridržane osebe.
In the light of the judgment of the ECJ on Case C-357/09, Kadzoev, Member States should make sure that there is a reasonable prospect of removal that justifies imposing or prolonging detention.
V zvezi z vprašanji, ki niso izrecno urejena z direktivo o vračanju, morajo države članice upoštevati ustrezne standarde Sveta Evrope, zlasti standarde Evropskega odbora za preprečevanje mučenja: direktiva o vračanju ne ureja nekaterih materialnih pogojev pridržanja, kot so velikost sob, dostop do sanitarij, dostop do odprtih prostorov, prehrana med pridržanjem.
Is it legitimate to maintain detention if the third-country national for the time being is protected from removal because of the principle of non-refoulement?
Vendar uvodna izjava 17 potrjuje, da je treba s pridržanimi osebami ravnati humano in dostojanstveno, ob spoštovanju njihovih temeljnih pravic in v skladu z mednarodnim pravom.
If removal becomes unlikely (for instance because of a likely permanent non-refoulement issue), third-country nationals must be released in accordance with Article 15(4) of the Return Directive.
Ko države članice odredijo pridržanje z namenom odstranitve, morajo to storiti pod pogoji v skladu s členom 4 Listine, ki prepoveduje nečloveško ali ponižujoče ravnanje.
If the non-refoulement issue is only of limited and temporary nature (for instance a credible diplomatic assurance from the country of return is likely to be issued shortly or the returnee is temporarily in need for vital medical treatment which is not available in country of return), detention may be maintained if there is still a reasonable prospect of removal.
Praktične posledice te obveznosti za države članice so podrobneje določene zlasti v:
This implies that a Member State which has fixed a national maximum of for example 60 days for non-cooperating returnees cannot maintain detention beyond those 60 days, even though Article 15(6) of the Return Directive provides for a frame of up to 18 months.
2013; informativni pregled CPT o pridržanju priseljencev, dokument CPT/Inf(2017)3) in ki obravnavajo zlasti posebne potrebe in status pridržanih migrantov brez urejenega statusa;
It is recalled that the actual duration of detention must be determined on a case-by-case basis and that the returnee must be released if the conditions for detention (for example, a reasonable prospect of removal) no longer exist.
Ti standardi so splošno priznan opis obveznosti v zvezi s pridržanjem, ki jih morajo države članice upoštevati kot absolutni minimum pri kakršnem koli pridržanju, da se zagotovi skladnost z obveznostmi iz EKČP in obveznostmi, ki izhajajo iz Listine, pri uporabi prava EU.
Examples for reasons justifying/not justifying prolonged detention under Article 15(6):
Smernica Sveta Evrope št. 10 – pogoji pridržanja pred odstranitvijo
An absence of identity documents as such is not sufficient to justify the prolongation of detention — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-146/14, Mahdi (paragraph 73): ‘[…] the fact that the third-country national concerned has no identity documents cannot, on its own, be a ground for extending detention under Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115/EC’.
Osebe, pridržane pred odstranitvijo, bi bilo treba običajno čim prej nastaniti v posebnih centrih, zasnovanih za ta namen, ki nudijo ustrezne materialne pogoje in hišni red, primeren pravnemu položaju pridržanih oseb, v njih pa mora biti zaposleno ustrezno usposobljeno osebje.
Non-cooperation in obtaining identity documents may justify the prolongation of detention if there is a causal link between the non-cooperation and non-return — see Judgment of the ECJ in Case C-146/14, Mahdi (paragraph 85): ‘[…] only if an examination of his conduct during the period of detention shows that he has not cooperated in the implementation of the removal operation and that it is likely that that operation lasts longer than anticipated because of that conduct, […]’.
Taki centri bi morali zagotavljati primerno opremljene in čiste prostore za nastanitev, ki so v dobrem stanju in nudijo dovolj življenjskega prostora za število ljudi, ki so v njih nastanjeni.
Taking into account periods of detention as an asylum seeker: when calculating the period of detention for the purpose of removal, periods of detention as asylum seeker need not be taken into account, since detention for removal purposes and detention of asylum seekers fall under different legal rules and regimes — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-357/09, Kadzoev (paragraphs 45 and 48): ‘Detention for the purpose of removal governed by Directive 2008/115/EC and detention of an asylum seeker in particular under Directives 2003/9/EC and 2005/85/EC and the applicable national provisions thus fall under different legal rules.
Nadalje, posebna pozornost bi morala biti posvečena zasnovi in načrtovanju tovrstnih centrov, pri čemer se je treba čim bolj izogibati vtisu prisilnega okolja.
Taking into account periods of detention pending preparation of a Dublin transfer: the same logic as set out above in relation to periods of detention as asylum seeker applies.
Države članice se spodbujajo, da zadevnemu osebju v okviru možnosti zagotovijo usposabljanje, ki bo izboljšalo njihove sposobnosti medosebne komunikacije in jih seznanilo z različnimi kulturami pridržanih oseb.
Taking into account periods of detention during which an appeal with suspensive effect is pending: such periods must be taken into account — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-357/09, Kadzoev (paragraphs 53-54): ‘The period of detention completed by the person concerned during the procedure in which the lawfulness of the removal decision is the subject of judicial review must […] be taken into account for calculating the maximum duration of detention laid down in Article 15(5) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC.
Po možnosti bi morali imeti nekateri uslužbenci potrebno znanje tujih jezikov, znati pa bi morali prepoznati morebitne simptome stresnih reakcij pridržanih oseb in ustrezno ukrepati.
If it were otherwise, the duration of detention for the purpose of removal could vary, sometimes considerably, from case to case within a Member State or from one Member State to another because of the particular features and circumstances peculiar to national judicial procedures, which would run counter to the objective pursued by Article 15(5) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC, namely to ensure a maximum duration of detention common to the Member States’.
Uslužbenci bi morali imeti tudi možnost, da se po potrebi oprejo na zunanjo podporo, zlasti zdravstveno in socialno podporo.
Taking into account periods of detention for the purpose of removal spent in (another) Member State A, immediately followed by pre-removal detention in Member State B (such a situation may arise for instance in the context of the transfer of a third-country national from Member State A to Member State B under a bilateral readmission agreement covered by Article 6(3) of the Return Directive): the Commission considers that the absolute 18 months threshold of uninterrupted pre-removal detention should not be exceeded, in view of the need to respect the effet utile of the maximum time-limit fixed by Article 15(6) of the Return Directive.
Osebe, pridržane pred odstranitvijo z ozemlja, običajno ne bi smele biti nastanjene skupaj z navadnimi obsojenimi ali pridržanimi zaporniki.
An exchange of information between Member States on periods of detention already spent in another Member State as well as an eventual possibility for Member State B to refuse transfer from Member State A if Member State A made the request excessively late should be addressed under the relevant bilateral readmission agreements.
Moški in ženske bi morali biti ločeni od nasprotnega spola, če to želijo; vendar bi bilo treba upoštevati načelo ohranjanja enotnosti družine, zato bi bilo treba družine nastaniti v skladu s tem.
Taking into account periods of detention completed before the rules in the Return Directive became applicable: such periods must be taken into account (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-357/09, Kadzoev, paragraphs 36-38).
Nacionalni organi bi morali v skladu z ustreznimi nacionalnimi predpisi zagotoviti, da imajo osebe, pridržane v teh centrih, dostop do odvetnikov, zdravnikov, nevladnih organizacij, svojih družinskih članov in Visokega komisariata Združenih narodov za begunce ter da lahko komunicirajo z zunanjim svetom.
The maximum period of detention prescribed by the Return Directive must not be undermined by re-detaining returnees immediately, following their release from detention.
Poleg tega bi bilo treba redno spremljati delovanje teh centrov, vključno s spremljanjem s strani priznanih neodvisnih nadzornikov.
Re-detention of the same person at a later stage may only be legitimate if an important change of relevant circumstance has taken place (for instance the issuing of necessary papers by a third country or an improvement of the situation in the country of origin, allowing for safe return), if this change gives rise to a ‘reasonable prospect of removal’ in accordance with Article 15(4) of the Return Directive and if all other conditions for imposing detention under Article 15 of that Directive are fulfilled.
Pridržane osebe imajo pravico vložiti pritožbe o domnevnih primerih slabega ravnanja ali neustrezni zaščiti pred nasiljem drugih pridržanih oseb.
Less coercive measures, such as regular reporting to the authorities, deposit of an adequate financial guarantee, submission of documents or the obligation to stay at a certain place may be imposed as long as and to the extent that they can still be considered a ‘necessary measure’ to enforce return.
Pritožnikom in pričam se zagotovi zaščita pred morebitnim slabim ravnanjem ali ustrahovanjem, ki je posledica njihove pritožbe ali dokazov, ki so jih zagotovili v podporo pritožbi.
While there are no absolute maximum time limits foreseen for the application of less coercive measures, the scope and duration of such measures shall be subject to a thorough assessment as to their proportionality.
Pridržanim osebam bi bilo treba sistematično zagotoviti informacije o pravilih, ki veljajo v centru, postopku, ki se uporablja zanje, ter njihovih pravicah in obveznostih.
Moreover, if the nature and intensity of a less coercive measures is similar or equal to deprivation of liberty (for example the imposition of an unlimited obligation to stay at a specific facility, without possibility to leave such facility), it must be considered as a de facto continuation of detention and the time limits foreseen in Article 15(5) and (6) of the Return Directive apply.
Te informacije naj bodo na voljo v jezikih, ki jih zadevne osebe najpogosteje uporabljajo, po potrebi pa naj se zagotovijo storitve tolmača.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 16
Pridržane osebe bi bilo treba seznaniti z njihovo pravico do dostopa do odvetnika po njihovi lastni izbiri, pristojnim diplomatskim predstavništvom njihove države, mednarodnimi organizacijami, kot sta UNHCR in Mednarodna organizacija za migracije (IOM), ter nevladnimi organizacijami.
Detention shall take place as a rule in specialised detention facilities.
V zvezi s tem bi bilo treba zagotoviti pomoč.
Where a Member State cannot provide accommodation in a specialised detention facility and is obliged to resort to prison accommodation, the third-country nationals in detention shall be kept separated from ordinary prisoners
Standardi CPT o pridržanju priseljencev – izvlečki