natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Države članice predvidijo primerne roke in druga potrebna pravila za uveljavljanje pravice prosilca do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva v skladu z odstavkom 1.
Member States shall provide for reasonable time-limits and other necessary rules for the applicant to exercise his/her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.
Države članice predvidijo minimalne roke in druga potrebna pravila za uveljavljanje pravice prosilca do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva v skladu z odstavkom 1.
Member States shall provide for minimum time-limits and other necessary rules for the applicant to exercise his/her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.
Zaradi velikih razlik med roki, ki jih predpisujejo države članice, in potrebe po vzpostavitvi skupnega evropskega azilnega sistema, kot je predpisan v členu 78 PDEU, je treba uvesti skupni minimalni rok, s katerim bi prosilcu omogočili, da ima tako po zakonodajni kot v praksi dostop do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva.
In view of the wide variety of time limits laid down by the Member States and the need to achieve a common asylum system as stipulated in Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a minimum common time limit should be introduced to provide applicants with access to an effective remedy in law and in practice.
Roki prosilcem ne preprečujejo ali pretirano otežujejo dostopa do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva v skladu z odstavkom 1.
The time limits shall not render impossible or excessively difficult the access of applicants to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.
Države članice lahko tudi določijo, da se odločbe, izdane v skladu s členom 37, preizkusijo po uradni dolžnosti.
Member States may also provide for an ex officio review of decisions taken pursuant to Article 37.
Države članice določijo minimalni rok 45 delovnih dni, v času katerega lahko prosilci uveljavljajo pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva.
The Member States shall set a minimum time limit of forty-five working days during which applicants may exercise their right to an effective remedy .
Za prosilce, katerih prošnje so obravnavane po postopku pospešenega obravnavanja v skladu z odstavkom 6 člena 27, države članice predvidijo minimalni rok 30 delovnih dni.
F or applicants under the accelerated procedure referred to in Article 27(6), the Member States shall lay down a minimum time limit of thirty working days.
Predpisani rok je odvisen od postopka, ki je bil uporabljen v posameznem primeru.
The time limit laid down should vary in accordance with the procedure applied in each case.
Člen 41 – odstavek 6 – pododstavek 1
Article 41 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
V primeru odločbe, sprejete v postopku pospešenega obravnavanja v skladu s členom 27(6), in sklepa o tem, da je prošnja v skladu s členom 29(2)(d) nedopustna, ter če v nacionalni zakonodaji pravica ostati v državi članici do zaključka postopka s pravnim sredstvom ni določena, sodišče na podlagi prošnje zadevnega prosilca ali na lastno pobudo odloči, ali lahko prosilec ostane na ozemlju države članice.
In the case of a decision taken in the accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 27 (6) and of a decision to consider an application inadmissible pursuant to Article 29 (2) (d), and where the right to remain in the Member State pending the outcome of the remedy is not foreseen under national legislation, a court or tribunal shall have the power to rule whether or not the applicant may remain on the territory of the Member State, either upon request of the concerned applicant or acting on its own motion.
V primeru odločbe, sprejete v postopku pospešenega obravnavanja v skladu s členom 27(6), in sklepa o tem, da je prošnja v skladu s členom 29(2)(d) nedopustna, ter če v teh primerih v nacionalni zakonodaji pravica ostati v državi članici do zaključka postopka s pravnim sredstvom ni določena, sodišče na podlagi prošnje zadevnega prosilca ali na lastno pobudo odloči, ali lahko prosilec ostane na ozemlju države članice.
In the case of a decision taken in the accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 27 (6) and of a decision to consider an application inadmissible pursuant to Article 29 (2) (d), and if, in such cases, the right to remain in the Member State pending the outcome of the remedy is not foreseen under national legislation, a court or tribunal shall have the power to rule whether or not the applicant may remain on the territory of the Member State, either upon request of the concerned applicant or acting on its own motion.
Pojasnitev je potrebna, saj bi besedilo drugače lahko ustvarilo zmedo.
Clarification needed to prevent possible confusion.
Komisija najpozneje […] poroča Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu o uporabi te direktive v državah članicah in predlaga vse potrebne spremembe.
No later than […], the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive in the Member States and shall propose any amendments that are necessary.
Države članice pošljejo Komisiji vse podatke, ki so potrebni za pripravo tega poročila.
Member States shall send the Commission all the information that is appropriate for drawing up this report.
Po predložitvi poročila Komisija poroča Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu o uporabi te direktive v državah članicah najmanj vsakih pet let .
After presenting the report, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive in the Member States at least every five years.
Komisija najpozneje […] poroča Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu o uporabi in finančnih stroških te direktive v državah članicah in predlaga vse potrebne spremembe.
No later than […], the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application and the financial cost of this Directive in the Member States and shall propose any amendments that are necessary.
Države članice pošljejo Komisiji vse informacije in finančne podatke, ki so potrebni za pripravo tega poročila.
Member States shall send the Commission all the information and financial data that is appropriate for drawing up this report.
Po predložitvi poročila Komisija poroča Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu o uporabi te direktive v državah članicah najmanj vsaki dve leti .
After presenting the report, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive in the Member States at least every two years.
Člen 46 – pododstavek 2
Article 46 – subparagraph 2
Države članice sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s členom 27(3) do [ tri leta od dneva prenosa direktive v nacionalno zakonodajo].
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 27(3) by [ 3 years from the date of the transposition].
Države članice sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s členom 27(3) do [ dve leti od dneva prenosa direktive v nacionalno zakonodajo].
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 27(3) by [ 2 years from the date of the transposition].
Prizadevanja za vzpostavitev skupnega evropskega azilnega sistema (CEAS) so se začela takoj po začetku veljavnosti Amsterdamske pogodbe maja 1999 na podlagi načel, ki jih je potrdil Evropski svet v Tampereju.
Work on the creation of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) started immediately after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in May 1999, on the basis of the principles approved by the Tampere European Council.
Cilj prve faze skupnega evropskega azilnega sistema (1999–2005) je bil uskladiti pravne okvire držav članic na podlagi minimalnih standardov.
During the first phase of the CEAS (1999-2005), the goal was to harmonise Member States' legal frameworks on the basis of minimum standards.
Direktiva Sveta 2005/85/ES o azilnih postopkih (v nadaljevanju „direktiva” ali „direktiva o postopkih”), ki je bila sprejeta 1. decembra 2005, predstavlja zadnjega od petih zakonodajnih elementov Evropske unije v zvezi z azilom.
Adopted on 1 December 2005, Council Directive 2005/85/EC on asylum procedures (hereinafter referred to as 'the Directive' or the ‘Asylum Procedures Directive’) was the last of the five pieces of EU asylum legislation.
Komisija je ob koncu prve faze, kot je bilo to predvideno v sklepih Evropskega sveta iz Tampereja in ponovno zapisano v Haaškem programu, Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu predložila predloge za odpravo ugotovljenih pomanjkljivosti in zagotovitev višjih standardov zaščite, ki bi bili znotraj Unije bolj usklajeni.
At the end of this first phase, as provided for in the conclusions to the Tampere European Council and reaffirmed in the Hague programme, the Commission submitted proposals to the European Parliament and the Council designed to address the deficiencies noted and to ensure higher and more harmonised standards of protection within the Union.
Komisija je tako 21. oktobra 2008 sozakonodajalcema predstavila predlog za prenovitev direktive o postopkih.
On 21 October 2009, the Commission submitted a proposal for the recasting of the Asylum Procedures Directive to the two co-legislators.
Cilj druge faze zakonodajnih dejavnosti na področju azila je, kot je bilo to izpostavljeno v Stockholmskem programu, do leta 2012 oblikovati skupni prostor zaščite in solidarnosti, ki bi med drugim temeljil na skupnem azilnem postopku.
As was firmly underlined in the Stockholm programme, the aim of the second phase of legislative work on asylum consists in establishing a common area of protection and solidarity by 2012 based inter alia on a common asylum procedure.
To je bistven vidik, ki sicer izhaja iz novega pravnega okvira: z začetkom veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe, je bil pojem „minimalni standardi” iz člena 63 Pogodbe o EU nadomeščen z bolj ambicioznimi „skupnimi postopki za dodelitev ali odvzem enotnega statusa azila ali subsidiarne zaščite” (člen 78(2)(d) PDEU).
This is a crucial aspect and one which needs to be looked at in the new legal context arising from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, under which the concept of 'minimum standards' referred to in Article 63 of the EC Treaty has been replaced by the more ambitious one of 'common procedures for the granting and withdrawing of uniform asylum or subsidiary protection status' (Article 78(2)(d), TFEU).
Izzivi nove faze usklajevanja
The challenges of the new phase of harmonisation
Kljub že več kot deset let trajajočim naporom za uskladitev azilne zakonodaje obstajajo med nacionalnimi predpisi še naprej velike razlike, kar velja tudi za raven njihovega izvajanja.
Despite the efforts made over the last ten years to achieve harmonisation in the asylum sector, major discrepancies still remain between national provisions and in the way they are applied.
Takšne razlike niso v skladu s skupnim evropskim azilnim sistemom in ovirajo njegovo izgradnjo.
Such disparities are incompatible with a common European asylum system and are an obstacle to its development.
Prav tako so v nasprotju z enim od temeljev dublinskega sistema, ki je osnovan na domnevi, da so azilni sistemi držav članic med seboj primerljivi.
In particular, they run counter to one of the cornerstones of the Dublin system, which is based on the presumption that the Member States' asylum systems are comparable.
Ne glede na to, v kateri državi članici vloži prosilec prošnjo za azil, mora biti deležen ustrezne in enake obravnave po vsej Uniji.
In whichever Member State applicants lodge an asylum request, they must enjoy a high standard of treatment that is equivalent throughout the Union.
Če uskladitev zakonodaje sama po sebi ne bo zadostovala za zmanjšanje razlik in bo potrebna tudi okrepitev praktičnega sodelovanja med državami članicami, je sprejetje trdnega evropskega pravnega okvira pogoj sine qua non, če želi Unija, kot se je k temu že tolikokrat zavezala, vzpostaviti ustrezen in učinkovit skupni evropski azilni sistem.
While legislative harmonisation alone would not suffice to reduce these differences and would need to be backed up by enhanced practical cooperation among the Member Sates, the adoption of a sound European legal framework is a sine qua non if the Union wishes to introduce a common European asylum system in an adequate and effective manner, something which it has repeatedly pledged to do.
Zaradi tega je nujno potrebna temeljita revizija direktive o postopkih, da bi zagotovili dostopen, pravičen in učinkovit postopek, kar bi bilo tako v interesu prosilcev kot držav članic.
With this in mind, a fundamental revision of the Procedures Directive is absolutely vital, so as to provide an accessible, fair and effective procedure, as much in the interests of asylum-seekers as in those of the Member States.
Pragmatičen in ambiciozen predlog Evropske komisije
A pragmatic and ambitious Commission proposal
Evropska komisija izhaja iz jasne ugotovitve: prejšnje besedilo, ki je dajalo prednost minimalističnemu pristopu, je vodilo v množitev neskladnih postopkov na nacionalni ravni ter pomanjkljivosti v postopkovnih jamstvih prosilcem za azil.
The Commission starts from a clear premise, namely that, by favouring a minimalist approach, the previous directive encouraged not only a proliferation of different procedural arrangements at national level, but also shortcomings as regards procedural guarantees for asylum-seekers.
Poročevalka na splošno ocenjuje, da bo s prenovitvijo, ki ga predlaga Komisija, resnično mogoče:
On the whole, your rapporteur believes that the Commission's recasting work can genuinely help to:
- doseči višjo raven uskladitev , in sicer s povečanjem skladnosti med instrumenti na področju azila, z razjasnitvijo in utrditvijo pravnih pojmov in postopkovnih mehanizmov ter s poenostavitvijo njihove uporabe;
- achieve greater harmonisation , by improving the consistency of asylum instruments, by clarifying and consolidating legal concepts and procedural mechanisms and thus simplifying their application;
- izboljšati standarde mednarodne zaščite znotraj Unije, zlasti z uvedbo novih postopkovnih jamstev za zagotovitev popolne skladnosti med standardi iz pravnega reda Evropske unije ter sodne prakse Sodišča Evropske unije in Sodišča za človekove pravice, ter
- improve international protection standards within the Union, by introducing new procedural guarantees, so as to ensure full compatibility between EU acquis standards and those established in the case law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights; and
- povečati kakovost in učinkovitost azilnih postopkov , pri čemer si je treba od začetka prizadevati za izboljšanje storitev, svetovanja in strokovnega znanja („frontloading“) ter spodbujati države članice, da na prvi stopnji v razumnem roku izdajo utemeljene odločbe.
- enhance the quality and efficiency of asylum procedures by 'frontloading' services, advice and expertise and encouraging Member States to deliver, within a reasonable time, robust determinations at first instance.
Postopek, ki ga predlaga Komisija („frontloading”), bi zlasti omogočil lažje prepoznavanje utemeljenih oziroma neutemeljenih prošenj ter poskusov zlorabe, izboljšal ustreznost utemeljitev v primerih negativnih odločb in zmanjšal verjetnost, da bi bile te v primeru pritožbe preklicane, prav tako pa bi znižal stroške sprejema in postopkov v državah članicah.
The Commission's proposed ‘frontloading’ would make it possible in particular to better identify cases of founded, unfounded and abusive applications, improve the defendability of negative decisions and reduce the risk of them being overturned by appeal bodies, and reduce reception and procedural costs in the Member States.
Obstoj skupnih pravil, katerih uporaba bo izboljšana in bolj skladna, naj bi med drugim preprečil sekundarna gibanja prosilcev znotraj Unije oziroma zmanjšal njihovo število ter okrepil zaupanje med državami članicami.
The existence of common rules, more effectively and more consistently applied, should also prevent or reduce secondary movements within the Union and enhance mutual trust between the Member States.
Predlogi sprememb
The proposed amendments
Predlogi sprememb, ki jih predlaga poročevalka, gredo v smeri predloga Komisije in njenega pristopa „frontloading”, da bi v okviru skupnega evropskega azilnega sistema prišli do usklajenih, pravičnih in učinkovitih postopkov.
The amendments proposed by your rapporteur therefore mirror the frontloading approach taken by the Commission proposal, with a view to achieving harmonised, fair and efficient procedures under the common European asylum system.
Gre predvsem za:
They aim in particular to:
- povečanje skladnosti v zvezi s konceptoma organa za presojo in pristojnega organa, v skladu z načelom enega samega pristojnega organa za presojo;
- secure more consistent application of the concept of 'determining authority' and 'competent authority' in line with the principle of a single determining authority;
- povečanje skladnosti med instrumenti na področju azila (v zvezi z opredelitvami in vzpostavljenimi mehanizmi);
- achieve greater consistency between asylum instruments (as regards definitions and mechanisms);
- okrepitev minimalnih postopkovnih jamstev , kot jih določata sodna praksa Sodišča Evropske unije in Sodišča za človekove pravice (zlasti kar zadeva načelo enakosti sredstev, pravico do obveščenosti, pravico do zagovora in pravico do brezplačne pravne pomoči), in skladnost v besedilu v zvezi z njihovim izvajanjem;
- enhance the minimum procedural safeguards established by the case law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights (particularly as regards the principle of equality of arms, the right to information, the right to be heard and the right to free legal assistance) and their consistent application in the directive;
- zagotovitev dejanskega upoštevanja potreb prosilcev, ki so ranljivi, in koristi otroka;
- ensure due account is taken of the needs of vulnerable applicants and the best interests of children;
- revizijo ključnih postopkovnih instrumentov , kot so pojmi varne izvorne države, varne tretje države in evropske varne tretje države, da bi zagotovili enotno in ustrezno uporabo jamstev in načel v zvezi minimalnimi pravicami.
- revise essential procedural instruments , such as the concept of safe country of origin, safe third country and safe European third country, to ensure that they are uniformly applied with due regard for minimum rights guarantees and principles.
Poročevalka se zaveda, da je v Svetu glede predloga še naprej veliko zadržkov, vendar je po njenem mnenju nujno potrebno, da Evropski parlament kot sozakonodajalec v sklopu zakonodajnih dejavnosti v drugi fazi izrabi priložnost za vzpostavitev pravičnega in učinkovitega skupnega evropskega azilnega sistema.
While being aware that there are still serious reservations within the Council about this proposal, your rapporteur nevertheless feels that it is vital for the European Parliament, as co-legislator on this occasion in the context of the second phase legislative work, to seize this opportunity to develop a common European asylum system that is fair and efficient.
Azilna politika neposredno zadeva ljudi, ki iščejo zaščito, z njo pa je povezana tudi zmogljivost Evropske unije, da razvije in ustvari resnični prostor svobode, varnosti in pravice.
Asylum policies have a direct impact on those seeking protection, as well as on the European Union's ability to develop and create a genuine area of freedom, security and justice.
Priloga: Pismo odbora za pravne zadeve
ANNEX: LETT ER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS
Predsednik Odbora za državljanske svoboščine,
Chair of Civil Liberties, Justice
pravosodje in notranje zadeve
and Home Affairs Committee
Zadeva: Predlog direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o minimalnih standardih glede postopkov za priznanje ali odvzem mednarodne zaščite v državah članicah (prenovitev)
Subject : Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast)
KOM(2009) 554 končno, 21.10.2009 - 2009/0165 (COD )
COM(2009) 554 final of 21.10.2009 - 2009/0165 (COD )
Odbor za pravne zadeve, ki mu imam čast predsedovati, je preučil navedeni predlog v skladu s členom 87 o prenovitvi, ki je bil vključen v poslovnik Evropskega parlamenta.
The Committee on Legal Affairs, which I am honoured to chair, has examined the proposal referred to above, pursuant to Rule 87 on Recasting, as introduced into the Parliament's Rules of Procedure.
„Če odbor, pristojen za pravne zadeve, meni, da predlog ne vsebuje vsebinskih sprememb, razen tistih, ki so bile opredeljene kot take, o tem obvesti pristojni odbor
"If the committee responsible for legal affairs considers that the proposal does not entail any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal, it shall inform the committee responsible.
tem primeru so, poleg pogojev iz členov 156 in 157, v pristojnem odboru dopustni predlogi sprememb le, če zadevajo tiste dele predloga, ki vsebujejo spremembe.
In such a case, over and above the conditions laid down in Rules 156 and 157, amendments shall be admissible within the committee responsible only if they concern those parts of the proposal which contain changes.
Vendar, če namerava pristojni odbor predložiti tudi predloge sprememb za kodificirane dele predloga v skladu s točko 8 Medinstitucionalnega sporazuma, o tem nemudoma obvesti Svet in Komisijo, slednja pa še pred glasovanjem v skladu s členom 54 odbor obvesti o svojem stališču glede predlogov sprememb in o tem, ali namerava umakniti predlog za prenovitev.”
However, if in accordance with point 8 of the Interinstitutional Agreement the committee responsible intends also to submit amendments to the codified parts of the Commission proposal, it shall immediately notify its intention to the Council and to the Commission, and the latter should inform the committee, prior to the vote pursuant to Rule 54, of its position on the amendments and whether or not it intends to withdraw the recast proposal."
Odbor za pravne zadeve v skladu z mnenjem pravne službe, katere predstavniki so sodelovali na sejah posvetovalne delovne skupne, ki je preučila predlagano prenovljeno različico, in v skladu s priporočili pripravljavca mnenja meni, da zadevni predlog ne vsebuje vsebinskih sprememb, razen tistih, ki so bile opredeljene kot take v predlogu ali v mnenju posvetovalne delovne skupine, in da je predlog, kar zadeva kodifikacijo nespremenjenih določb prejšnjih aktov z omenjenimi spremembami, zgolj kodifikacija obstoječih besedil brez vsebinskih sprememb.
Following the opinion of the Legal Service, whose representatives participated in the meetings of the Consultative Working Party examining the recast proposal, and in keeping with the recommendations of the draftsperson, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that the proposal in question does not include any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal or in the opinion of the Consultative Working Party and that, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts with those changes, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance.
Nadalje Odbor za pravne zadeve v skladu s členom 87 meni, da so tehnične prilagoditve, ki jih je v svojem mnenju predlagala omenjena delovna skupina, potrebne za zagotavljanje skladnosti predloga s pravili prenovitve.
Furthermore, pursuant to Rules 87, the Committee on Legal Affairs considered that the technical adaptations suggested in the opinion of the abovementioned Working Party were necessary in order to ensure that the proposal complied with the recasting rules.
Odbor za pravne zadeve je po razpravi na svoji seji 27. januarja 2010 z 22 glasovi za in brez vzdržanega glasu
In conclusion, after discussing it at its meeting of 27 January 2010, the Committee on Legal Affairs, by 22 votes in favour and no abstentions