natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When doing so, Member States should make no difference between entry bans issued by their own national authorities and by those issued by authorities of other Member States, as this would undermine the harmonised concept of an EU-wide entry ban established by the Return Directive.
Države članice bi morale sprejeti ukrepe za preprečevanje takih ponavljajočih se ocen, na primer z združitvijo upravnih zaslišanj s strani pristojnih nacionalnih organov za različne namene (na primer podaljšanje ali odobritev dovoljenja za prebivanje, določitev pravice do vstopa na ozemlje države članice, dokončna odločba o zavrnitvi prošnje za mednarodno zaščito) v en postopkovni korak, kolikor je to mogoče, pod pogojem, da se pravica osebe, da se izjasni, v celoti spoštuje.
Member States can adopt criminal law sanctions against illegally staying third-country nationals who did not comply with an valid entry ban following their return (judgment of the ECJ in Case C-290/14, Celaj, see section 4).
V tem okviru bi se v ta namen lahko razvila inovativna orodja, kot so na primer videokonference.
Article 11(5) of the Return Directive clarifies that the provisions on return-related entry bans apply without prejudice to the right to international protection under EU asylum acquis: this implies that previously issued entry bans under the Return Directive cannot justify the return or penalisation of third-country nationals authorised to enter or stay in the EU as asylum seeker or as beneficiary of international protection — see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-290/14, Celaj (paragraph 32).
Države članice morajo zagotoviti, da uporaba takih ukrepov ne posega v spoštovanje postopkovnih varovalnih ukrepov, in posebno pozornost nameniti osebam, ki potrebujejo posebna procesna jamstva, zlasti mladoletnikom (glej v nadaljevanju).
Such entry bans should be suspended (pending ongoing asylum procedures) or withdrawn (once international protection has been granted).
Pravica osebe, da se izjasni, zajema pravico osebe, da se izjasni o morebitni uporabi člena 5 in člena 6(2) do (5) direktive o vračanju in podrobnih ureditvah za vrnitev, kot sta obdobje za prostovoljni odhod in vprašanje, ali bo vrnitev prostovoljna ali prisilna.
Legal basis: Return Directive — Article 11(4); Schengen Implementing Convention — Article 25
Organ pa državljana tretje države pred zaslišanjem ne sme obvestiti, da namerava zoper njega sprejeti odločbo o vrnitvi, predhodno posredovati dejstva, na katerih bo utemeljil to odločbo, ali mu dovoliti rok za razmislek, če je temu državljanu omogočeno, da ustrezno in učinkovito predstavi svoje mnenje o nezakonitosti svojega prebivanja in o razlogih, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče v skladu z nacionalnim pravom utemeljiti, naj ta organ ne sprejme odločbe o vrnitvi (glej sodbo v zadevi Boudjlida, C-249/13).
Where a Member State is considering issuing a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay to a third-country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued by another Member State, it shall first consult the Member State having issued the entry ban and shall take account of its interests in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement.
Postopkovne varovalne ukrepe iz členov 12 in 13 direktive o vračanju je treba uporabljati za vse odločbe o vrnitvi, pri čemer ne smejo biti omejeni na tri vrste odločb, navedenih v členu 12(1) direktive.
Article 25 Schengen Implementing Convention provides that:
V postopkih vračanja, ki vključujejo ali zadevajo mladoletnike, je treba spoštovati pravico mladoletnika, da se izjasni.
Where a Member State considers issuing a residence permit, it shall systematically carry out a search in the Schengen Information System.
V skladu s členom 12 Konvencije o otrokovih pravicah in ob upoštevanju splošne pripombe št. 12 Odbora ZN za pravice otroka v zvezi s pravico otroka, da se izjasni [65], je treba zadevne mladoletnike zaslišati, bodisi neposredno bodisi prek zastopnika ali ustreznega organa; spoštovati je treba njihovo pravico, da svobodno izrazijo svoja mnenja, pri čemer mora biti tem mnenjem namenjena ustrezna teža, v skladu z njihovo starostjo in zrelostjo ter ob upoštevanju morebitnih komunikacijskih težav, da bi bilo njihovo sodelovanje smiselno.Da se v praksi zagotovi spoštovanje pravice mladoletnika, da se izjasni, bi morali ukrepi, ki jih sprejmejo države članice, temeljiti na naslednjih ključnih načelih:
Where a Member State considers issuing a residence permit to an alien for whom an alert has been issued for the purposes of refusing entry, it shall first consult the Member State issuing the alert and shall take account of its interests; the residence permit shall be issued for substantive reasons only, notably on humanitarian grounds or by reason of international commitments.
izražanje mnenj je izbira in ne obveznost;
Where a residence permit is issued, the Member State issuing the alert shall withdraw the alert but may put the alien concerned on its national list of alerts.
za pravico mladoletnika, da se izjasni, ne bi smele veljati nobene starostne omejitve ali druge samovoljne omejitve, niti po zakonu niti v praksi;
Prior to issuing an alert for the purposes of refusing entry within the meaning of Article 96, the Member States shall check their national records of long-stay visas or residence permits issued.
mladoletnik bi moral biti zaslišan v okolju, ki ustreza njegovim potrebam;
Where it emerges that an alert for the purposes of refusing entry has been issued for an alien who holds a valid residence permit issued by one of the Contracting Parties, the Contracting Party issuing the alert shall consult the Party which issued the residence permit in order to determine whether there are sufficient reasons for withdrawing the residence permit.
sredstva, ki se uporabljajo za uveljavljanje pravice mladoletnika, da se izjasni, bi bilo treba prilagoditi ravni razumevanja in sposobnosti komuniciranja ter bi morala upoštevati okoliščine primera;
If the residence permit is not withdrawn, the Contracting Party issuing the alert shall withdraw the alert but may nevertheless put the alien in question on its national list of alerts.
ob upoštevanju potrebe po zaščiti mladoletnikov pred škodo mladoletnik ne bi smel biti zaslišan večkrat, kot je potrebno;
Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply also to long-stay visas.
za olajšanje izražanja mnenj so morda potrebni posebni ukrepi za mladoletnike v posebej ranljivem položaju, vključno z zagotavljanjem storitev tolmačenja in prevajanja.
Article 25 SIC is a directly applicable provision and can be applied by Member States without transposing national legislation.
Zbiranje informacij o tihotapljenju: v skladu s prednostnimi nalogami iz Akcijskega načrta EU za boj proti tihotapljenju migrantov (2015–2020) [66] in predvsem s potrebo po zbiranju in izmenjavi informacij Komisija državam članicam priporoča, naj vzpostavijo ustrezne mehanizme, da zagotovijo sistematično zbiranje informacij od prijetih državljanov tretjih držav brez urejenega statusa, in sicer ob polnem spoštovanju temeljnih pravic in pravnega reda EU na področju azila.
Only the Member State issuing the entry ban (Member State A) can lift the entry ban.
Pri zagotavljanju pravice, da se pred sprejetjem odločbe o vrnitvi oseba izjasni, se države članice spodbujajo, da osebe v postopku vračanja pozovejo k izmenjavi informacij, ki so morda povezane z načinom delovanja in potmi tihotapskih mrež, z njihovimi povezavami s trgovino z ljudmi in drugimi kaznivimi dejanji ter s finančnimi transferji.
If another Member State (Member State B) decides to issue a residence permit to the same person or not to withdrawn an existing one (after having carried out consultation with the Member State which had issued the entry ban), Member State A is obliged to withdraw the alert (Article 25(2) SIC), although it may put the third-country national on its national list of alerts.
Informacije, pridobljene v zvezi s tem, bi se morale zbrati, ustrezni organi in agencije (za priseljevanje, mejni, policijski) pa bi si jih morali izmenjati na nacionalni ravni in ravni EU v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo in dobro prakso, ki se izmenja na zadevnih forumih EU.
The reasons underlying an existing entry ban issued by Member State A, as well as the interests of this Member State, must be considered and taken into account by Member State B before issuing a residence permit or deciding not to withdraw it (for instance for family reunification purposes).
Direktiva o vračanju izrecno ureja več različnih odločb v zvezi z vrnitvijo, in sicer:
In order to allow Member State B to properly take into account the underlying reasons for the entry ban, it is essential that Member State A provides the relevant information to Member State B in due time.
odločbe o vrnitvi (člen 3(4) in člen 6(1));
Those Member States which do not yet fully apply Schengen rules and therefore cannot (yet) directly apply Article 25 SIC, should nevertheless follow the spirit of Article 11(4) of the Return Directive and contact — if they become aware (through whatever source of information including information from the applicant) that a person is subject of an entry ban issued by another Member State — the authorities which issued the entry ban.
odločbe o obdobju za prostovoljni odhod in morebitnem podaljšanju takega obdobja (člen 7);
Before issuing a residence permit to the person, the Member State should seek to ‘take account of the interest’ of the Member State which issued the entry ban.
odločbe o odstranitvi (člen 8(3));
‘Historic’ entry bans issued before 24 December 2010 have to be adapted in line with the standards fixed in Article 11 of the Return Directive — i.e. maximum of 5 year, individual assessment, obligation to withdraw/consider withdrawing in specific circumstances — if they develop effects for the period after 24 December 2010 and if they are not yet in line with the substantive safeguards of Article 11.
odločbe o odlogu odstranitve (člen 9);
Adaptation should take place either upon application of the concerned person at any moment or ex officio at the earliest possible moment, and in any case not later than at the occasion of the regular (3-year) review of entry bans foreseen for SIS alerts.
odločbe o prepovedi vstopa in začasnem odlogu ali preklicu prepovedi vstopa (člen 11);
In the judgment of Case C-297/12, Filev and Osmani (paragraphs 39-41 and 44), the ECJ expressly clarified: ‘In that regard, it is important to note from the outset that that directive does not include a provision providing for transitional arrangements in relation to entry-ban decisions taken before it became applicable.
odločbe o pridržanju in podaljšanju pridržanja (člen 15).
None the less, it follows from the Court's settled case-law that new rules apply immediately, except in the event of a derogation, to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rules […].
Večina navedenih odločb predstavlja spremljevalni element odločbe o vrnitvi in običajno jih je treba sprejeti skupaj z odločbo o vrnitvi v enem upravnem aktu: odločbe o vrnitvi lahko vključujejo obdobje za prostovoljni odhod (člen 7), prepoved vstopa (člen 11) in morda tudi, ni pa nujno, odločbo o odstranitvi (v primeru nespoštovanja obdobja za prostovoljni odhod).
It follows that Directive 2008/115/EC is applicable to those effects which occur after the date of its applicability in the Member State concerned of entry-ban decisions taken under national rules which were applicable before that date. […] It follows that Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC precludes a continuation of the effects of entry bans of unlimited length made before the date on which Directive 2008/115/EC became applicable, […] beyond the maximum length of entry ban laid down by that provision, except where those entry bans were made against third-country nationals constituting a serious threat to public order, public security or national security’.
V določenih primerih se lahko te spremljevalne odločbe pozneje spremenijo:
The right to good administration is a fundamental right recognised as a general principle of EU law and enshrined in the CFR, which forms an integral part of the EU legal order.
prepoved vstopa je lahko naložena pozneje kot spremljevalni in naknadni element že izdane odločbe o vrnitvi, če oseba ni spoštovala obveznosti vrnitve v obdobju za prostovoljni odhod (člen 11(1)(b)),
This right includes the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely or which significantly affect his or her interests is taken, which is also inherent in respect for the rights of the defence, another general principle of EU law.
odločba o vrnitvi (ali odstranitvi), ki je že bila izvršljiva, se lahko odloži (člen 9).
In the judgments of Cases C-383/13, G & R [62], and C-249/13, Boudjlida [63], the ECJ provided important clarification on the right to be heard in relation to return and detention decisions.
Člen 6(6) direktive o vračanju potrjuje splošno načelo, ki državam članicam omogoča, da sprejmejo več različnih odločb skupaj (vključno z odločbami, ki niso neposredno povezane z vrnitvijo) v enem upravnem ali sodnem aktu, če so upoštevani ustrezni varovalni ukrepi in določbe za vsako posamezno odločitev.
These judgements imply that Member States must always comply with the safeguards below when taking decisions related to return (i.e. return decision, entry-ban decisions, removal decisions, detention order) even though this may not be expressly specified in the relevant articles of the Return Directive:(1) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;
Odločbe o prenehanju zakonitega prebivanja (na primer dokončna zavrnitev prošnje za azil, preklic vizuma ali zavrnitev podaljšanja dovoljenja za prebivanje) se torej lahko sprejmejo ločeno ali skupaj z odločbo o vrnitvi v enem upravnem ali sodnem aktu.
the right of every person to have access to his or her file, to analyse all the evidence relied on against him or her which serves to justify a decision by the competent national authority, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;
Države članice bi morale pri sprejemanju odločitev o pravnem statusu državljanov tretjih držav ravnati skrbno in brez zamud (glej sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Achughbabian, C-329/11 (točka 31): […] morajo pristojni organi, da ne bi bil ogrožen cilj Direktive 2008/115/ES, […] ravnati skrbno in se nemudoma opredeliti, ali je prebivanje zadevne osebe zakonito.“).
the right of every person to have recourse to a legal adviser prior to the adoption of a return decision, provided that the exercise of that right does not affect the due progress of the return procedure and does not undermine the effective implementation of the Directive; this does not entail an obligation upon Member States to bear the costs of that assistance;
Konkretni primeri:
the obligation of the administration to pay due attention to the observations by the person concerned and examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case;
Če se država članica odloči, da bo preklicala vizum, in določi, da mora državljan tretje države najpozneje v sedmih dneh prostovoljno zapustiti ozemlje države članice, ali je ta odločitev odločba o vrnitvi v okviru direktive o vračanju?
the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.
Ali je zajeta v druga pravila EU o vizumih?
Member States enjoy a significant margin of discretion on how to grant the right to be heard in practice: the non-respect of this right renders a decision invalid only insofar as the outcome of the procedure would have been different if the right was respected (judgment of the ECJ in Case C-383/13, G & R, paragraph 38).
Taka odločba lahko zajema dva elementa: odločbo o preklicu vizuma in odločbo o vrnitvi v smislu direktive o vračanju.
Moreover, a Member State authority may fail to hear a third-country national specifically on the subject of a return decision where, after that authority has determined that the third-country national is staying illegally in the national territory within a preceding asylum procedure which fully respected that person's right to be heard, it is contemplating the adoption of a return decision (judgment of the ECJ in Case C-166/13, Mukarubega [64]).
Če ima preklic vizuma takojšen učinek, bo državljan tretje države nezakonito prebival v smislu člena 3(2) direktive o vračanju, zato se uporablja člen 6 direktive (obveznost izdaje odločbe o vrnitvi).
The logic set out in Mukarubega is as follows: ‘The right to be heard before the adoption of a return decision cannot be used in order to re-open indefinitely the administrative procedure, for the reason that the balance between the fundamental right of the person concerned to be heard before the adoption of a decision adversely affecting that person and the obligation of the Member States to combat illegal immigration must be maintained’.
Preklic vizuma je lahko hkrati tudi predmet pritožbe v skladu s pravili glede vizumov iz Vizumskega zakonika [67] (ta možnost sprejetja več odločb skupaj z odločbo o vrnitvi je izrecno predvidena v členu 6(6) direktive o vračanju).Če država članica na svojem ozemlju odkrije državljana tretje države, ki ima zahtevani vizum, ne izpolnjuje pa (več) pogojev za prebivanje (člen 6 Zakonika o schengenskih mejah), lahko ta država najverjetneje izda odločbo o vrnitvi.
This logic can also be applied in different case constellations, such as those mentioned in Article 6(6) of the Return Directive (decision on ending of legal stay combined with return decision) and it entails that a repetitive assessment of the risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement is not required if the respect of that principle was already assessed in previous procedures, if the assessment is final and if there is no change in the individual situation of the third-country national concerned.
Ali bi ta odločba o vrnitvi (ki ji je morda priložena prepoved vstopa) samodejno pomenila, da navedeni vizum ni več veljaven?
In the same vein, a repetitive assessment of other elements that could be invoked in order to prevent return should be obviated.
Obe odločbi pa se lahko sprejmeta z enim upravnim aktom.
Member States should take measures to avoid such repetitive assessments, for instance by merging in one procedural step, to the extent possible, the administrative hearings of the competent national authorities for different purposes (for example renewal or granting of a residence permit, determination of the right to enter the territory of a Member State, final negative decision on an application for international protection), provided that the right to be heard is fully respected.
Izogniti se je treba izdaji odločbe o vrnitvi in pri tem dopustiti, da oseba odide z veljavnim (enotnim) vizumom.
In this context, innovative tools such as for instance video-conferencing could also be developed for this purpose.
Ali lahko odločba, s katero je zavrnjena prošnja za azil, tudi določi obveznost vrnitve?
Member States must ensure that the application of such measures does not result in a prejudice for the respect of procedural safeguards, and should pay particular attention to persons in need of special procedural guarantees, in particular minors (see below).
Dokončna zavrnitev prošnje za azil in odločba o vrnitvi se lahko izdata v enem aktu v skladu s členom 6(6) direktive o vračanju.
The right to be heard includes a right to be heard on the possible application of Articles 5 and 6(2) to (5) of the Return Directive and on the detailed arrangements for return, such as the period allowed for voluntary departure and whether return is to be voluntary or forced.
Tak združeni akt je z izključno logičnega vidika sestavljen iz dveh naknadnih in med seboj povezanih odločb, ločuje pa ju „logični trenutek“.
The authority must, however, not warn the third-country national, prior to the hearing, that it is contemplating adopting a return decision, or disclose information on which it intends to rely as justification for that decision, or allow a period of reflection, provided that the third-country national has the opportunity effectively to present his point of view on the subject of the illegality of his stay and the reasons which might, under national law, justify that authority refraining from adopting a return decision (see judgment of the ECJ in Case C-249/13, Boudjlida).
Pravna podlaga: direktiva o vračanju – člen 12(1)–(3)
The procedural safeguards of Articles 12 and 13 of the Return Directive should be applied to all decisions related to return and must not be limited to the three types of decisions mentioned in Article 12(1) of that Directive.
Odločbe o vrnitvi in, če so bile izdane, odločbe o prepovedi vstopa in odločbe o odstranitvi se izdajo v pisni obliki ter navajajo dejanske in pravne razloge ter informacije o razpoložljivih pravnih sredstvih.
The minor's right to be heard in return procedures involving or affecting them must be respected.
Informacije o dejanskih razlogih so lahko omejene, če nacionalna zakonodaja dovoljuje omejitev pravice do obveščenosti, zlasti z namenom varovanja nacionalne varnosti, obrambe, javne varnosti ter preprečevanja, preiskovanja, odkrivanja in pregona kaznivih dejanj.
In accordance with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and taking into account the General Comment No 12 of the UN Committee on the rights of the child on the right of the child to be heard [65], the minors concerned must be heard, either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body; the right to express their views freely must be respected and due weight must be given to the minors' views, in accordance with their age and maturity and taking into account any communication difficulties they may have, in order to make their participation meaningful.To ensure in practice the respect of the right of the minor to be heard, the measures adopted by Member States should be guided by the following key principles:
Pisna odločba je osnova postopkovnih varovalnih ukrepov, ki so zajeti v direktivo o vračanju.
expressing views is a choice and not an obligation,
Te zahteve ni mogoče opustiti.
the right to be heard should not be subject to any age limits or other arbitrary restrictions, either in law or in practice,
Informacije, ki se zagotovijo osebi v postopku vračanja, pa ne smejo zajemati samo navedb o razpoložljivih pravnih sredstvih: države članice se spodbujajo, da zagotovijo tudi druge informacije glede izpolnjevanja odločbe v praksi.
a minor should be heard in an environment that is appropriate to his/her needs,
Priporočeno je, da se osebo v postopku vračanja na primer obvesti o tem, ali lahko država članica prispeva k stroškom prevoza, ali lahko oseba v postopku vračanja koristi program za pomoč pri prostovoljnem vračanju in ali je mogoče podaljšati rok za izpolnitev odločbe o vrnitvi.
the means used to give effect to the right to be heard should be adapted to the level of understanding and ability to communicate and should take into account the circumstances of the case,
Osebo v postopku vračanja je treba tudi obvestiti o obveznosti zapustitve ozemlja držav članic EU in pridruženih schengenskih držav ter o posledicah neizpolnjevanja obveznosti vrnitve, zato da se spodbudi k prostovoljnemu odhodu.
facilitating the expression of views may require special measures for a minor in particularly vulnerable situations, including the provision of interpretation and translation services.
Te informacije so lahko zajete v odločbo o vrnitvi ali so tej odločbi priložene.