natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the Commission recommends that third-country nationals in an irregular situation who wish to access public services premises which register international protection applications or applications for statelessness status should not be apprehended at or next to such facilities.
izda novo odločbo o vrnitvi v skladu s členom 6(1) direktive o vračanju, ali
Special cases:
vrne osebo v državo članico B na podlagi obstoječega dvostranskega sporazuma v skladu s členom 6(3) direktive o vračanju, ali
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 6
prizna odločbo o vrnitvi, ki jo je izdala država članica B, v skladu z Direktivo 2001/40/ES.
A return decision may in certain circumstances also be adopted if an illegally staying third-country national is apprehended at the EU external border when leaving the EU territory, following a case-by-case analysis and taking into account the principle of proportionality.
Če država članica A prizna odločbo o vrnitvi, ki jo je izdala država članica B, v skladu z Direktivo 2001/40/ES, mora še vedno uporabiti varovalne ukrepe, povezane z izvršitvijo vrnitve (odstranitev), ki je predvidena v direktivi o vračanju v primeru izvrševanja priznane odločbe o vrnitvi.
This could be justified in cases in which a significant overstay or illegal stay is detected during exit checks.
Vzajemno priznavanje odločb o vrnitvi lahko v določenih okoliščinah pomeni precejšnjo dodano vrednost, zlasti v okviru tranzita oseb v postopku vračanja po kopnem (glej oddelek 6.4 v nadaljevanju).
In such cases, Member States could launch a return procedure when acquiring knowledge about the illegal stay and continue the procedure leading to the issuing of a return decision accompanied by an entry-ban in an ‘in absentia’ procedure, respecting the procedural safeguards set out in sections 11.3 and 12 below.
Komisija spodbuja države članice, da uporabijo možnost vzajemnega priznavanja, kadar koli ta pospeši postopke vrnitve in zmanjša upravno breme.
Even though in such a specific situation the person is anyhow about to leave the EU, the issuing of a return decision can make sense, since it allows Member States to also issue an entry ban and thus prevent further entry and possible risk of illegal stay.
Pravna podlaga: Uredba (EU) št. 604/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [28] (dublinska uredba) – člena 19 in 24Člen 6 direktive o vračanju ne navaja izrecno primera, v katerem druga država članica uporabi možnost, ki ji je na voljo v skladu z dublinsko uredbo, in prosi prvo državo članico, naj ponovno sprejme nezakonito prebivajočega državljana tretje države.
The Commission calls on Member States to establish procedures for issuing return decisions and — if applicable — entry bans directly at the airport, at other external border crossing points or, for entry bans, in absentia (see section 11.3) for such specific cases.
Dobesedna razlaga člena 6, ki bi v takem primeru zahtevala od (druge) države članice, ki prosi za predajo, da tudi izda celotno odločbo o vrnitvi v skladu z Direktivo 2008/115/ES, bi zadevnim dublinskim pravilom odvzela dodano vrednost.
If a third-country national has overstayed his/her visa or permit in a first Member State and leaves the Union via a second/transit Member State, the return decision and entry ban will have to be issued by the second Member State (the ‘overstayer’ will normally also be ‘illegally staying’ within the meaning of the Return Directive in the second Member State).
Besedilo dublinske uredbe izrecno obravnava to vprašanje in zagotavlja jasna pravila, ki urejajo uporabo direktive o vračanju in dublinske uredbe.
Legal basis: Council Directive 2001/40/EC [27]Reminder/explanation: The effect of a return decision issued by one Member State in another Member State had been subject of a separate chapter V of the 2005 Commission proposal for the Return Directive (‘Apprehension in other Member States’).
Primeri, v katerih je državljan tretje države zaprosil za azil in pridobil pravico do prebivanja kot prosilec za azil v drugi državi članici, ne sodijo na področje uporabe direktive o vračanju, saj ima državljan tretje države pravico do prebivanja kot prosilec za azil in se torej ne more obravnavati kot nezakonito prebivajoči v drugi državi članici.
This chapter, as well as Article 20 of the Commission proposal which foresaw to delete Directive 2001/40/EC was, however, removed during negotiations and Directive 2001/40/EC remained in force.
Po drugi strani primeri, v katerih državljan tretje države ni zaprosil za azil in ni pridobil pravice do prebivanja kot prosilec za azil v drugi državi članici, sodijo na področje uporabe direktive o vračanju.
Directive 2001/40/EC expressly enables the recognition of a return decision issued by a competent authority in one Member State against a third-country national present within the territory of another Member State.
Predvideti je mogoče naslednje razmere [29]:
Article 6 of the Return Directive does not expressly mention the case that a second Member State recognises a return decision issued by a first Member State in accordance with Directive 2001/40/EC.
Državljan tretje države ima status prosilca za azil v prvi državi članici (postopek še ni končan, odločba ni dokončna): na podlagi temeljnega načela, da mora ena država članica celovito oceniti potrebe po mednarodni zaščiti vsakega državljana tretje države, ki vlaga prošnjo za azil v eni od držav članic, se uporablja dublinska uredba.
A literal interpretation of Article 6 which would require in such a case the recognising Member State to also issue a full second return decision in accordance with Directive 2008/115/EC would deprive Directive 2001/40/EC of any added value.
Država članica ne more vrniti tega državljana tretje države v tretjo državo, ampak ga lahko pošlje v državo članico, ki je v skladu z dublinsko uredbo odgovorna za proučitev njegove prošnje.
In order to give an effet utile to the continued existence of Directive 2001/40/EC, it was necessary to look for an interpretation which gives a useful meaning to the continued co-existence of the two Directives.
Državljan tretje države je umaknil svojo prošnjo za azil v prvi državi članici: če je bila posledica umika prošnje zavrnitev prošnje (na podlagi člena 27 ali 28 prenovljene direktive o azilnih postopkih), se lahko uporabijo pravila, opisana v točki (c) v nadaljevanju (izbira med uporabo dublinskih pravil ali direktive o vračanju).
If Member State A apprehends a person who is already subject of a return decision issued by Member State B, Member State A has the choice of either:
Če posledica umika prošnje ni bila zavrnitev prošnje, se uporablja dublinska uredba (kot lex specialis), in sicer na podlagi temeljnega načela, da mora ena država članica celovito oceniti potrebe po mednarodni zaščiti vsakega državljana tretje države, ki vlaga prošnjo za azil v eni od držav članic.
issuing a new return decision under Article 6(1) of the Return Directive; or
Državljan tretje države prejme v prvi državi članici dokončno odločbo, s katero je bila zavrnjena njegova prošnja za azil: odločiti se je mogoče za uporabo dublinske uredbe ali direktive o vračanju.
passing back the person to Member State B under an existing bilateral agreement in compliance with Article 6(3) of the Return Directive; or
V dublinski uredbi je ta izbira jasno opredeljena v členu 24(4) in dodano je pojasnilo, da se od trenutka, ko se organi odločijo izvesti zahtevo v skladu z dublinskimi pravili, direktiva o vračanju in postopki vrnitve ne uporabljajo več, ampak se uporabljajo samo dublinska pravila (to posega tudi v pravila o pridržanju in pravnih sredstvih).
recognising the return decision issued by Member State B in accordance with Directive 2001/40/EC.
Državljan tretje države je že bil uspešno vrnjen/odstranjen (po zavrnitvi ali umiku prošnje za azil) iz prve države članice v tretjo državo: če bi državljan tretje države znova vstopil na ozemlje EU, dublinska uredba v členu 19(3) opredeljuje, da prva država članica ne more biti več odgovorna za državljana tretje države, zato ni mogoče predvideti predaje v to državo članico.
If Member State A recognises the return decision issued by Member State B in accordance with Directive 2001/40/EC, it is still obliged to apply the safeguards related to enforcement of return (removal) foreseen in the Return Directive when enforcing the recognised return decision.
Zato se uporablja direktiva o vračanju.
The mutual recognition of return decisions may provide for significant added value in certain constellations — notably in the context of transit of returnees by land (see section 6.4 below).
Praktični primeri:
The Commission encourages Member States to make use of the option of mutual recognition, whenever it helps to speed up return procedures and to reduce administrative burden.
Prosilec za mednarodno zaščito v državi članici A je brez pravice odpotoval v sosednjo državo članico B (prestopil je notranjo mejo), kjer ga je prijela policija.
Legal basis: Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [28] (the ‘Dublin Regulation’) — Articles 19 and 24 Article 6 of the Return Directive does not expressly mention the case in which a second Member State makes use of the possibility offered under the Dublin Regulation to ask a first Member State to take back an illegally staying third-country national.
Ker zanj velja dublinska uredba, je iz države članice B predan državi članici A. Ali bi v tem primeru morala država članica B tej osebi izdati odločbo o vrnitvi zaradi nezakonitega prebivanja na njenem ozemlju?
A literal interpretation of Article 6 which would require in such a case that the requesting (second) Member State also issue a full return decision in accordance with Directive 2008/115/EC would deprive the relevant Dublin rules of their added value.
Prevladajo dublinska pravila.
The wording of the Dublin Regulation expressly addresses this issue and provides for clear rules articulating the application of the Return Directive and the Dublin Regulation.
Država članica B ne more izdati odločbe o vrnitvi.
The cases in which the third-country national has applied for asylum and obtained a right to stay as asylum seeker in the second Member State fall outside the scope of the Return Directive, since the third-country national has a right to stay as asylum seeker and cannot therefore be considered as staying illegally in the second Member State.
Ali lahko država članica A (v zgoraj opisanem primeru) izda odločbo o vrnitvi (skupaj s prepovedjo vstopa, ki bo odložena do zaključka azilnega postopka)?
On the other hand, the cases in which the third-country national has not applied for asylum and has not obtained a right to stay as asylum seeker in the second Member State fall within the scope of the Return Directive.
Ne.
The following situations [29] could be envisaged:
Dokler ima oseba pravico do prebivanja kot prosilec za azil v državi članici A, njeno prebivanje v tej državi ni nezakonito v smislu direktive o vračanju, zato država članica A ne more izdati odločbe o vrnitvi.
The third-country national has a status as asylum seeker in the first Member State (on-going procedure, not yet a final decision): the Dublin Regulation applies on the basis of the underlying principle that every third-country national lodging an application for asylum in one of the Member States should have his/her needs for international protection fully assessed by one Member State.
Državljan tretje države, za katerega je država članica A odobrila mednarodno zaščito, nezakonito prebiva v državi članici B (na primer prekorači obdobje dovoljenega bivanja za 90 dni).
A Member State cannot return that third-country national to a third country; instead, it may send him/her to the Member State responsible under Dublin Regulation in order to have his/her claim examined.
Ali se v takih primerih uporablja direktiva o vračanju?
The third-country national has withdrawn his/her asylum application in the first Member State: if the withdrawal of the application has led to a rejection of the application (on the basis of Article 27 or 28 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive), the rules described below under point (c) (choice between applying Dublin rules or the Return Directive) can be applied.
Kakšni bodo postopki, če se oseba ne bo želela prostovoljno vrniti v prvo državo članico, ki je odobrila zaščito?
If the withdrawal of the application has not led to a rejection of the application, the Dublin Regulation applies (as lex specialis), on the basis of the underlying principle that every third-country national lodging an application for asylum in one of the Member States should have his/her needs for international protection fully assessed by one Member State.
Dublinska uredba ne zajema pravil o ponovnem sprejemu upravičencev do mednarodne zaščite.
The third-country national has a final decision in the first Member State, rejecting his/her asylum application: a choice can be made between applying the Dublin Regulation or the Return Directive.
Zato se uporablja „splošna ureditev“ iz člena 6(2) direktive o vračanju.
In the Dublin Regulation, this choice is clearly stipulated in Article 24(4) and the clarification is added that from the moment in which authorities decide to make a Dublin request, the application of the Return Directive and return procedures are suspended and only Dublin rules apply (this also affects rules on detention and on legal remedies).
To pomeni, da bo morala država članica B prositi to osebo, da se vrne v državo članico A, če pa oseba tega ne bo izpolnila prostovoljno, bo morala država članica B obravnavati izdajo odločbe o vrnitvi, pri tem pa upoštevati vse varovalne ukrepe, ki jih zagotavlja direktiva o vračanju, vključno predvsem z načelom nevračanja.
The third-country national had already been subject to successful return/removal (following rejection or withdrawal of an asylum application) from the first Member State to a third country: should the third-country national re-enter EU territory, the Dublin Regulation stipulates at Article 19(3) that the first Member State can no longer be responsible for the third-country national — therefore no transfer can be foreseen to this Member State.
V določenih primerih, ko vrnitev/odstranitev v tretjo državo ni mogoča, „vrnitev“ v drugo državo članico pa je mogoče opredeliti kot ugodnejši ukrep (glej oddelek 3), lahko država članica B prisilno „vrne“ osebo v državo članico A. Postopke v zvezi z „vrnitvijo“ nezakonito prebivajočih državljanov tretjih držav v drugo državo članico ureja nacionalna zakonodaja.
The Return Directive will therefore apply.
Državljan tretje države, ki so mu bili odvzeti prstni odtisi po nezakonitem vstopu v državo članico A in ki v tej državi ni zaprosil za azil, je nato prijet v državi članici B. Ali lahko država članica B v skladu z dublinskimi pravili preda to osebo nazaj državi članici A?
Practical examples:
Ne.
An applicant for international protection in Member State A travels without an entitlement to a neighbouring Member State B (crossing internal borders) where he/she is apprehended by the police.
Ker ni nobene povezave z azilnim postopkom, se dublinska uredba ne uporablja.
As a subject to the Dublin Regulation, he/she is transferred back from Member State B to Member State A. Should Member State B in this situation issue a return decision to this person for illegal stay in the territory?
Pravna podlaga: direktiva o vračanju – člen 6(2)
Dublin rules prevail.
Državljani tretje države, ki nezakonito prebivajo na ozemlju države članice in imajo veljavno dovoljenje za prebivanje ali drugo dovoljenje, ki jim daje pravico do prebivanja, ki ga je izdala druga država članica, morajo takoj oditi na ozemlje te druge države članice.
No return decision can be issued by Member State B.
Če zadevni državljan tretje države ne izpolni te zahteve ali če se njegov takojšnji odhod zahteva zaradi javnega reda ali državne varnosti, se uporabi odstavek 1.
Is Member State A (in the scenario described above) allowed to issue a return decision itself (together with an entry ban that will be postponed until the completion of the asylum procedure)?
Ta določba, ki nadomešča podobno pravilo iz člena 23(2) in (3) Konvencije o izvajanju Schengenskega sporazuma [30], predvideva, da za nezakonito prebivajočega državljana tretje države, ki ima veljavno dovoljenje za prebivanje v drugi državi članici, ni treba izdati odločbe o vrnitvi.
No.
V takih primerih se mora državljan tretje države najprej takoj vrniti v državo članico, v kateri ima pravico do prebivanja.
As long as the person enjoys the right to stay as an asylum seeker in Member State A, his/her stay is not illegal in that Member State within the meaning of the Return and no return decision can be issued by Member State A.
Odločba o vrnitvi se sprejme samo, če oseba te zahteve ne izpolni ali v primerih ogrožanja javnega reda ali nacionalne varnosti.Dodatno pojasnilo:
A third-country national granted international protection by Member State A is illegally staying in Member State B (for example overstaying 90 days).
Oblika izdaje zahteve „takoj oditi na ozemlje te druge države članice“ bi morala biti določena v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo.
Is the Return Directive applicable in such cases?
Priporočeno je, da se odločbe izdajajo v pisni obliki in z utemeljitvami.
What will be the procedures if the person refuses to go back voluntary to the first Member State that granted protection?
Zaradi jasnosti naj odločba ne bo označena z „odločba o vrnitvi“.
The Dublin Regulation does not contain rules on taking back beneficiaries of international protection.
Obdobje za vrnitev v drugo državo članico: v zvezi z obdobjem, ki bi moralo miniti od zahteve za odhod na ozemlje druge države članice do izdaje odločbe o vrnitvi v skladu s členom 6(1), ni mogoče zagotoviti nobene splošne navedbe.
Therefore the ‘general regime’ foreseen in Article 6(2) of the Return Directive will apply.
Izbrati je treba ustrezni časovni okvir v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo, pri tem pa upoštevati posamezne okoliščine, načelo sorazmernosti in dejstvo, da je v pravni določbi uporabljen izraz „takoj“.
This implies that Member State B will have to ask the person to go back to Member State A and — if the person does not comply voluntarily — Member State B has to consider issuing a return decision, taking into account all safeguards provided by the Return Directive, including in particular the principle of non-refoulement.
Obdobje od zahteve za odhod v drugo državo članico do izdaje odločbe o vrnitvi v skladu s členom 6(1) se ne sme šteti za del končnega obdobja za prostovoljni odhod, saj je to obdobje del odločbe o vrnitvi in začne teči šele z izdajo te odločbe.
In certain circumstances, when return/removal to a third country is not possible and ‘passing back’ the person to another Member State can be qualified as a more favourable measure (see section 3), Member State B may enforce the ‘passing-back’ of the person to Member State A; the procedures related to the ‘passing-back’ of illegally staying third-country nationals to another Member State are governed by national law.
Nadzor odhoda v drugo državo članico: pravo Unije ne opredeljuje, kako je treba nadzirati izpolnjevanje obveznosti glede vrnitve v drugo državo članico.
A third-country national who had been fingerprinted following irregular entry into Member State A and who has not requested asylum in Member State A is subsequently apprehended in Member State B. Can Member State B transfer the person back to Member State A in accordance with Dublin rules?
Države članice bi morale v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo zagotoviti, da se njihove odločbe ustrezno spremljajo.
No.
Preverjanje veljavnosti dovoljenj/pooblastil, ki jih izdajo druge države članice: trenutno ni osrednjega sistema za izmenjavo informacij o tem vprašanju med državami članicami.
Since there is not any link to an asylum procedure, the Dublin Regulation does not apply.
Države članice se spodbujajo, da sodelujejo dvostransko in si brez odlašanja izmenjujejo pomembne informacije v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo in dvostranskim dogovorom o sodelovanju.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 6(2)
V ta namen se lahko uporabijo tudi obstoječe nacionalne kontaktne točke (na primer tiste, ki so navedene v Prilogi 2 k Schengenskemu priročniku [31]).Pojem „dovoljenje za prebivanje ali drugo dovoljenje, ki jim daje pravico do prebivanja“ [32] je zelo širok in zajema vsak status ali dovoljenje, ki ga država članica odobri ali izda in ki zagotavlja pravico do zakonitega prebivanja, ne pa samo dopušča začasni odlog vrnitve/odstranitve.
Third-country nationals staying illegally on the territory of a Member State and holding a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay issued by another Member State shall be required to go to the territory of that other Member State immediately.
Ta pojem zajema naslednje primere:
In the event of non-compliance by the third-country national concerned with this requirement, or where the third-country national's immediate departure is required for reasons of public policy or national security, paragraph 1 shall apply.
vizum za dolgoročno bivanje (nedvomno zagotavlja pravico do prebivanja),
This provision — which replaces a similar rule contained in Article 23(2) and (3) of the Schengen Implementing Convention (‘SIC’) [30] — foresees that no return decision should be issued to an illegally staying third-country national who is holding a valid permit to stay in another Member State.
začasno humanitarno dovoljenje (če tako dovoljenje zagotavlja pravico do prebivanja, ne pa samo odlog vrnitve),
In such cases, the third-country national should in the first place be required to go immediately back to the Member State where he/she enjoys a right to stay.
dovoljenje za prebivanje, ki mu je potekla veljavnost in temelji na še vedno veljavnem statusu mednarodne zaščite (status mednarodne zaščite ni odvisen od veljavnosti papirja, ki ga dokazuje),
Only if the person does not comply with this request or in cases of risk for public policy or national security, a return decision shall be adopted.Further clarification:
veljavni vizum v neveljavnem potovalnem dokumentu (ki mu je potekla veljavnost) – v skladu z zadevno zakonodajo Unije se ne smejo izdajati vizumi z veljavnostjo, ki presega veljavnost potnega lista.
The form in which the request ‘to go to the territory of that other Member State immediately’ is issued should be determined in accordance with national law.
Primer veljavnega vizuma v potnem listu, ki mu je potekla veljavnost, se torej nikoli ne bi smel pojaviti v praksi.
It is recommended to issue decisions in writing and with reasons.
Če pa se, se zadevnega državljana tretje države ne sme neupravičeno kaznovati.
In order to avoid confusion, the decision should not be labelled ‘return decision’.
Za podrobne smernice o pomembnih pravilih glede vizumov glej posodobljeni priročnik o vizumih – del II, točki 4.1.1 in 4.1.2 [33].Ne zajema pa naslednjih primerov:
Period for going back to other Member State: no general indication can be given regarding the time which should elapse between the request to go to the territory of another Member State until the moment at which a return decision in accordance with Article 6(1) is issued.
dovoljenje za prebivanje, ki mu je potekla veljavnost in temelji na statusu za prebivanje, ki mu je tudi potekla veljavnost;
An appropriate time frame should be chosen in accordance with national law, taking into account the individual circumstances, the principle of proportionality and the fact that the term ‘immediately’ is used in the legal provision.
ponarejeni ali lažni potni listi ali dovoljenja za prebivanje;
The time between the request to go to the other Member State and the issuing of a return decision under Article 6(1) must not be counted as part of an eventual period for voluntary departure, since such period is an element of the return decision and will start running only with the issuing of a return decision.
papir, ki dokazuje začasni odlog odstranitve;
Control of departure to another Member State: Union law does not specify how compliance with the obligation to go back to the other Member State has to be controlled.
tolerantnost (če tolerantnost ne pomeni zakonite pravice do prebivanja).