Natisni vsebino

2.6.3. Aliens

Annual Report

2.6.3. Aliens

The number of complaints we received increased this year. Chief among the reasons for this are the fact that a considerable number of applications under the Act on the Regulation of the Status of the Citizens of Other Successor States of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Republic of Slovenia (ZUSDDD) have still not been resolved. Other factors are the duration of proceedings under the Aliens Act (ZTuj-1) and the inadequacies of this Act, proposed amendments to which are already in the first phase of the legislative procedure in the National Assembly.

The main reason that aliens turned to the ombudsman was the duration of procedures for dealing with applications for a permanent residence permit under the ZUSDDD. In almost all cases we carried out inquiries at the MNZ. The findings were the same: because of the large influx of applications under the ZUSDDD and as a result of staffing difficulties the MNZ had not managed to organise itself in such a way as to be able to remove the backlogs in a reasonable time.

Here it is worth stressing that the lengthy duration of these procedures has caused considerable difficulties for those lodging applications. Above all these are related to the high costs of constantly having to obtain new temporary residence permits and submit new proofs (which cannot be more than three months old). There are also quite a number of applicants who, because their application for a permanent residence permit has not been resolved, have been unable to obtain a personal work permit for an indefinite period. We proposed to the MNZ that, in the case of major delays in forwarding applications from the administrative unit, this fact be at least partially taken into account when determining the order of precedence for dealing with individual applications and that all possible measures be taken to complete all procedures under the ZUSDDD as soon as possible. The ministry assured us that in the case of applications arriving late from the administrative unit they take into account the date the application was lodged as a circumstance relevant to its treatment. They are aware of the importance of removing backlogs in this area as soon as possible and have already adopted a number of measures which will ensure that applications are dealt with more quickly. They estimate that the number of backlogs will have been significantly reduced by February 2002.

In addition to complaints relating to the duration of procedures for the issuing of temporary residence permits and problems arising from the nonfulfilment of the conditions for obtaining individual permits, a large number of complaints to the ombudsman related to difficulties in obtaining a first temporary residence permit or further temporary residence permit. While dealing with these complaints a doubt was raised about the suitability of the provisions of Articles 28, 29 and 31 of the ZTuj-1 (the application for a permit for first residence in the Republic of Slovenia shall be lodged at the diplomatic/consular mission of the Republic of Slovenia abroad; the application must state the purpose of residence in the Republic of Slovenia; the applicant may not change this stated purpose during the procedure; a request for the extension of a temporary residence permit shall be lodged with the competent body before the expiry of the period for which the permit is issued; a foreign national who has a permit for temporary residence in the Republic of Slovenia with a specific purpose or a free permit may before the expiry of the period for which the permit is issued lodge a request with the competent body in the Republic of Slovenia for the issuing of a further residence permit with a different purpose).

As an illustration of the difficulties which these provisions cause in practice we shall mention just two cases.

We were contacted by a foreign national who has been living in Slovenia for 20 years. He is married to a Slovenian citizen and has had a temporary residence permit under Article 37 of the ZTuj-1 for several years. During this time he has taken employment and obtained a work permit but when lodging his application for an extension of the permit he did not change his purpose of residence (temporary residence permit for purposes of work – Article 32 of the ZTuj-1) despite the fact that he fulfilled the conditions for this, since he was not aware of this possibility and no-one had drawn his attention to it. During the procedure for obtaining a further permit he and his wife separated and the application for an extension of residence on family grounds was refused. He will have to submit a new application under Article 32 with at a diplomatic/consular mission of the Republic of Slovenia abroad. Simultaneously a procedure is under way for the issuing of a permanent residence permit, which he applied for in 1999. Since the procedure is still not complete and an interruption of residence is now going to occur, the application for a permanent residence permit will be turned down – he will no longer fulfil the condition of eight years' uninterrupted residence in the Republic of Slovenia on the basis of a temporary residence permit.

A citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina requested a temporary residence permit for the purpose of employment on the basis of Article 32 of the ZTuj-1. Before this she had had a temporary residence permit for the purpose of study on the basis of Article 33 of the ZTuj-1. During the procedure at the administrative unit it was established that she does not fulfil the conditions for obtaining a permit under Article 32 of the ZTuj-1 but she still has student status and thus fulfils the conditions for obtaining a permit on that basis. The application for a permit on the basis of Article 32 of the ZTuj-1 was refused. The complainant therefore had to travel to Bosnia-Herzegovina and apply for a permit under Article 33 of the ZTuj-1 at the Slovenian embassy there. She has no family in Bosnia-Herzegovina. She will have to wait at least a month for the permit, which means interrupting her studies for a month and a heap of unnecessary expenses.

In 1992 Slovenia was faced with a mass influx of refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. Of the original 60,000-70,000 refugees around 2500 are still in Slovenia. In 1997 these refugees obtained the status of persons with temporary asylum. We have already warned in previous annual reports that a permanent solution to the status of these people is urgently necessary.

The Temporary Asylum Act only temporarily regulated the status of Bosnian and later Kosovan refugees. It does not define the duration of temporary asylum and does not envisage possibilities for the integration of refugees who cannot return to their own country or obtain different status in Slovenia. The biggest problem here is a limitation of the right to work. The Act provides that a person with temporary asylum status may work for a maximum of 60 days in a calendar year or eight hours a week. If such a person obtains a work permit he loses his temporary asylum. For this reason the majority of these people do not take employment but work illegally. Contract work of a maximum of 60 days a year does not enable them to provide for themselves and their families.

On the basis of the finding that conditions in the parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina from which the majority of persons with temporary asylum come do not permit them to return safely to their own country, the government of the Republic of Slovenia concluded that it was necessary to regulate the status of these persons so as to make it easier for them to integrate into Slovenian society. Thus at its session on 26 April 2001 it appointed a working group to prepare proposals of systemic solutions in this area. The working group was charged with studying whether it was possible to provide more permanent status for persons with temporary asylum within the framework of applicable legislation. If this were not possible it should prepare a proposal of amendments to existing regulations or propose a special law to regulate their continued residence and life in Slovenia.

At the time of writing, the status of these people had still not been regulated. Possible solutions on the basis of applicable legislation have been indicated but is still not possible to say whether they will be adopted. Nevertheless it would be worth hurrying up with the adoption of solutions. These people have already been in Slovenia for almost ten years. Many of them have already integrated into Slovenian society – especially children and young people who have attended or are still attending Slovenian schools.

Although we have only received a few actual complaints relating to the position of aliens who have entered Slovenia illegally, or to the issue of asylum in general, we continuously monitored events in these areas in 2001 because of possible violations of human rights. Even before the significant fall in illegal migrations we visited both the Deportation Centre near Postojna and the Asylum Centre in Ljubljana. An account of our findings and the measures taken on the basis of our comments can be found elsewhere.

The ombudsman met a representative of residents living near the Asylum Centre at Celovška 166 in Ljubljana who have formed an action group because of the consequences which they claim have been caused by the overcrowding of this building in their neighbourhood. On the other hand the police have not found that security conditions in the area of public order or crime have worsened as a result of the presence of a large number of inhabitants of the Asylum Centre in Šiška.

We have received various types of information from individuals relating to the treatment of aliens requesting asylum in the Republic of Slovenia. Some have asserted that the MNZ has unpublished (secret) instructions to the police not to record requests for asylum from aliens, or to prevent aliens from (immediately) lodging an asylum request. In response to our inquiry the MNZ assured us that every alien who expresses the intention to request asylum is dealt with by the responsible services in accordance with regulations. Every alien is able to lodge a request for asylum. When an alien requests asylum this represents the beginning of the procedure for granting refugee status. The procedure for receiving requests for asylum is set out by both the Asylum Act (ZAzil) and the Instruction governing the procedure and method for dealing with aliens entering the Republic of Slovenia and wishing to lodge a request for asylum, and on the acceptance, content and treatment of submitted asylum requests or recorded statements (Ur. l. RS, 65/00).

As regards cases of illegally crossing the national border or illegally remaining in Slovenia, most cases where an alien expresses the wish to request asylum are dealt with by the police. When asylum seekers are involved, police officers fill out a registration form and either direct the alien to the asylum centre or accompany him there. If the alien asks to be given an application for refugee status immediately, the police officer must immediately fill in this application. Similarly, if an alien appearing before an administrative offences judge expresses the wish to request asylum, the judge must fill out a registration document and direct the alien to the asylum centre, where he is accommodated. In 2000 just over 10,000 aliens expressed their intention to ask for asylum in the Republic of Slovenia. Around 1000 aliens left the asylum centre before it was even possible to collect applications for refugee status from them; just over 9000 aliens left the asylum centre just a few days after handing in their application. The situation was similar in the first half of 2001. Between 1 June 2001 and 13 June 2001 applications for refugee status were received from 95 aliens. All the aliens voluntarily left the asylum centre by 14 June 2001.

From conversations with aliens those at the centre established that the majority of aliens understand the word 'asylum' as a kind of stopping-off place or shelter in the event that they are caught by the police while illegally crossing the national border. Aliens use the word 'asylum' in these cases so that the competent national authorities accommodate them, feed them and if necessary even clothe them.

As a result of such findings, when an alien expresses his wish to request asylum, police officers and trained officials from the Asylum Section hold a conversation with the individual concerned in order to establish the facts of the case and the actual risk he is facing. In the course of these conversations it becomes clear whether the alien has a serious intention to request asylum and whether he will cooperate actively in the related procedure.

The two regulations under the second paragraph of Article 43 of the ZAzil on the methods and conditions for guaranteeing the rights of refugees have still not been adopted, although they should have been adopted within six months of the adoption of the ZAzil. The first regulation has already been prepared by the MNZ but non-governmental organisations in particular have made many comments on draft; it is not yet possible to say when the second of the two regulations will be prepared. Thus on the basis of Article 71 of the ZAzil, the provisions of the 1996 decree governing the realisation of the rights of aliens who have been granted refugee status are still being applied. However this decree does not include all the rights under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the ZAzil and we therefore feel that these two executive regulations should be adopted as soon as possible as a matter of urgency.

We also drew the attention of the Immigration and Refugees Office to the unsuitability of the practice by which the acknowledgement of rights is dependent on the application of the individual refugee without these being informed in advance of the rights that they are entitled to and under what conditions. The right to a housing allowance and health care has been exercised by approximately half of all refugees while the right to income support has been claimed by just one. It should not be assumed that none of the others do not also have these rights. We received a phone call at the office from a refugee who simply did not know that she had any rights at all.

One complaint we dealt with related to the procedure of extraditing an alien to his own country where he was charged with the criminal offence of grand fraud. After it had been finally established in the judicial proceeding that the legal conditions for extradition were met, the minister of justice issued a decision permitting extradition. Three weeks earlier the alien in question had been served a MNZ decision refusing his repeated request for asylum in the Republic of Slovenia. Under this decision he was obliged to leave the Republic of Slovenia within three days of its becoming final. He initiated an administrative dispute against the decision, with the result that the asylum procedure was far from being final. For this reason he believed that the decision of the minister of justice was over-hasty and unlawful. He sent the minister a request for its annulment. He also initiated an administrative dispute against this decision and at the same time proposed to the court the issuing of a temporary injunction delaying the execution of the decision.

Under the second paragraph of Article 530 of the Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP), the minister of justice shall not permit the extradition of a (charged or convicted) alien if said alien enjoys the right of refuge in the Republic of Slovenia (in other words if he has been granted asylum). The first paragraph of Article 40 of the ZAzil however provides that an asylum seeker whose request has been refused with a final decision and who does not leave the territory of the Republic of Slovenia within the stipulated deadline shall be forcibly removed from the country in accordance with the Aliens Act. Thus the final granting of asylum prevents the extradition of an alien to another country, while a finally refused asylum request in any case requires his forcible removal from the Republic of Slovenia. The two acts mentioned do not regulate the question of how an asylum procedure which is not yet completed affects the procedure for extraditing a charged or convicted alien to another country. In an attempt to fill this vacuum by methods of interpretation, the question of the relationship between the two regulations is raised:

   1. is the ZKP, through its special regulation of the procedure for extraditing charged and convicted persons, a special regulation in relation to the ZAzil, and can the charged or convicted person therefore be extradited to another country irrespective of the fact that his request for asylum in the Republic of Slovenia has not yet been finally settled?

   2. or is the special regulation the ZAzil, which would mean that the extradition of a charged or convicted person who has requested asylum in the Republic of Slovenia is not possible until the procedure relating to his request is finally concluded?

The relationship between the two procedures is also difficult to determine. It should not be allowed to happen that an individual is extradited to another country on the basis of a decision of the minister of justice and then be granted the right to refuge in the Republic of Slovenia as the result of an asylum request procedure. On the other hand there is a clear danger that asylum procedure could be abused in order to postpone or prevent extradition.

These issues were dealt with in detail in correspondence with the MP and the MNZ. We stressed that a vacuum caused by ambiguity or inadequacy in legislation should not be filled with in interpretation which is to the detriment of the individual. The State has all the possibilities, and also the duty, to regulate fully, precisely and unambiguously the powers of state bodies, and especially encroachments on the rights and fundamental freedoms of citizens and other persons in its territory. In cases of doubt the possibility of encroachments must be interpreted and applied restrictively.

The responses of the ministries reveal the view that the issuing of a decision permitting the extradition of an alien whose request for asylum has not yet been finally settled is possible, but that there is no final answer with regard to actual extradition to another country until the decision on the asylum request becomes final.


Letno poročilo 2001 - Poglavje 2.6.3.

2.6.3. Tujci

Število prejetih pobud se je letos povečalo. Med razlogi za to jepredvsem dejstvo, da še vedno ni rešeno precejšnje število vlog poZakonu o urejanju statusa državljanov drugih držav naslednic nekdanjeSFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji (ZUSDDD), pa tudi dolgotrajnost postopkov poZakonu o tujcih (ZTuj-1) in pomanjkljivosti tega zakona - v prvi fazizakonodajnega postopka v Državnem zboru je že predlog njegovih spremembin dopolnitev.

Tujci so se obračali na varuha predvsem zaradi dolgotrajnosti postopkov reševanja prošenj za izdajo dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje po ZUSDDD.Skoraj v vseh primerih smo opravili poizvedbo pri MNZ. Ugotovitve soenake: MNZ se zaradi velikega pripada vlog po navedenem zakonu inkadrovskih težav ni uspelo organizirati tako, da bi bili zaostanki vrazumnem in doglednem času odpravljeni.

Na podlagi odgovorov, ki smo jih prejeli na naše poizvedbe, smougotovili, da so UE pošiljale te vloge ministrstvu bolj ali manj redno,v številnih primerih pa s precejšnjo zamudo, kar lahko močno vpliva načas rešitve vloge, saj MNZ rešuje vloge po vrstnem redu prispetja knjim. Tudi roki, predvideni za dodeljevanje vlog v reševanje, se vsebolj odmikajo.

Pri tem velja poudariti, da je dolgotrajnost teh postopkovpovzročila vlagateljem vlog kup težav. Predvsem je bilo to povezano zvisokimi stroški pridobivanja vedno novih dovoljenj za začasnoprebivanje in vedno novih dokazil, ki ne smejo biti starejša od trehmesecev. Precej je tudi pobudnikov, ki zaradi nerešene vloge za izdajodovoljenja za stalno prebivanje niso mogli pridobiti osebnega delovnegadovoljenja za nedoločen čas.

MNZ smo predlagali, da v primeru večjih zamud pri odstopanjuvlog z UE to dejstvo vsaj delno upoštevajo pri določanju vrstnega redareševanja posameznih vlog, in da z vsemi mogočimi ukrepi zagotovijočimprejšnje dokončanje vseh postopkov po ZUSDDD.

Ministrstvo je zagotovilo, da ob neažurnem pošiljanju vlog z UEupoštevajo datum vložitve vloge kot okoliščino, ki je relevantna zareševanje. Zavedajo se pomembnosti čimprejšnjih odprav zaostankov natem področju in so že sprejeli nekatere ukrepe, ki bodo zagotovilipospešitev reševanja. Ocenjujejo, da se bo število zaostankov dofebruarja 2002 bistveno zmanjšalo.

Poleg pobud, ki so se nanašale na dolgotrajnost postopkov zaizdajo dovoljenj za začasno prebivanje in probleme zaradineizpolnjevanja pogojev za pridobitev posameznih dovoljenj, se je večještevilo pobudnikov obrnilo na varuha zaradi težav pri pridobitvi prvegaoziroma nadaljnjega dovoljenja za začasno prebivanje tujca. Medobravnavo teh pobud se je pokazal dvom o primernosti določb 28., 29. in31. člena ZTuj-1 (prošnja za izdajo dovoljenja za prvo prebivanje v RSse vloži pri diplomatsko-konzularnem predstavništvu RS v tujini; vprošnji mora biti naveden namen prebivanja v RS; vlagatelj navedeneganamena med postopkom ne more spreminjati; prošnja za podaljšanjedovoljenja za začasno prebivanje se vloži pri pristojnem organu predpotekom roka, do katerega dovoljenje velja; tujec, ki ima dovoljenje zazačasno prebivanje v RS z določenim namenom ali nevezano dovoljenje,lahko pred iztekom roka, za katerega je dovoljenje izdano, vložiprošnjo pri pristojnem organu v RS za izdajo nadaljnjega dovoljenja zaprebivanje z drugačnim namenom).

Za ilustracijo, kakšne težave v praksi povzročajo te določbe, omenimo le dva primera.

Na nas se je obrnil tujec, ki živi v RS že dvajset let. Poročen je sslovensko državljanko in ima že več let dovoljenje za začasnoprebivanje po 37. členu ZTuj-1 iz naslova združitve družine. V tem časuse je zaposlil, pridobil delovno dovoljenje, vendar ob vložitvi vlogeza podaljšanje dovoljenja ni spremenil namena (začasno dovoljenje zaprebivanje zaradi zaposlitve in dela - 32. člen ZTuj-1), kljub temu daje izpolnjeval pogoje, saj za to možnost ni vedel, niti ga na to ninihče opozoril. Med postopkom za pridobitev nadaljnjega dovoljenja stase z ženo razšla in vloga za podaljšanje dovoljenja iz naslovazdružitve družine je bila zavrnjena. Vložiti bo moral novo vlogo po 32.členu in sicer pri diplomatsko-konzularnem predstavništvu RS v tujini.Sočasno je v teku postopek za izdajo dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje,za katero je prosil že leta 1999. Ker postopek še ni končan in v temčasu pride do prekinitve prebivanja, bo vloga za izdajo dovoljenja zastalno prebivanje rešena negativno - ne bo več izpolnjen pogojosemletnega neprekinjenega prebivanja v RS na podlagi dovoljenj zazačasno prebivanje.

Državljanka BiH je zaprosila za izdajo dovoljenja za začasnoprebivanje zaradi zaposlitve in dela na podlagi 32. člena ZTuj-1. Predtem je imela dovoljenje za začasno prebivanje zaradi študija na podlagi33. člena ZTuj-1. Med postopkom na UE je bilo ugotovljeno, da neizpolnjuje pogojev za pridobitev dovoljenja po 32. členu ZTuj-1, ševedno pa ima status študentke in tako izpolnjuje pogoje za pridobitevdovoljenja na tej podlagi. Vloga za izdajo dovoljenja po 32. členuZTuj-1 je bila zavrnjena. Pobudnica je tako morala odpotovati v BiH intam na slovenskem veleposlaništvu zaprositi za dovoljenje po 33. členuZTtuj-1. V BiH sorodnikov nima. Na dovoljenje bo morala čakati vsaj enmesec, kar pomeni prekinitev študija za en mesec in kup nepotrebnihstroškov.

Tudi pri pridobivanju dovoljenj za začasno prebivanje sezonskihdelavcev v kmetijstvu se je pokazalo, da lahko dvakratno pošiljanjelistin med diplomatsko-konzularnim predstavništvom RS v tujini inpristojno UE (preveč) podaljša postopek. - Menimo, da bi bilo obbližnjem spreminjanju ZTuj-1 smiselno proučiti tudi navedena vprašanja.

Slovenija je bila v letu 1992 soočena z množičnim prihodombeguncev iz Bosne in Hercegovine ter Hrvaške. Od prvotnih 60.000 -70.000 oseb jih je v Sloveniji še približno 2.500. Ti begunci so leta1997 pridobili status oseb z začasnim zatočiščem. Že v prejšnjih letnih poročilih smo opozarjali, da je nujna trajna rešitev statusa za te osebe.

Zakon o začasnem zatočišču je le začasno uredil status bosanskihin kasneje kosovskih beguncev. Ne določa trajanja začasnega zatočiščain tudi ne predvideva možnosti za integracijo beguncev, ki se ne morejovrniti v matično državo ali si v Sloveniji pridobiti drugačnegastatusa. Predvsem gre tu za problem omejitve pravice do dela. Zakonnamreč določa, da lahko oseba z začasnim zatočiščem dela največ 60 dniv koledarskem letu ali osem ur na teden. Če pa si pridobi delovnodovoljenje, izgubi začasno zatočišče. Zato se večina teh oseb nezaposli, temveč delajo na črno. S pogodbenim delom do 60 dni na letonamreč ne morejo skrbeti zase in za svoje družine.

Vlada RS je na podlagi ugotovitve, da razmere v delih BiH, izkaterih prihaja pretežna večina oseb z začasnim zatočiščem, še neomogočajo njihove varne vrnitve v domovino, sklenila, da je treba temosebam urediti status, ki jim bo v večji meri zagotovil in olajšalvključevanje v slovensko družbo. Zato je na seji dne 26. 4. 2001imenovala delovno skupino za pripravo predlogov sistemskih rešitev natem področju. Delovni skupini je bilo naloženo, da prouči, ali jemogoče osebam z začasnim zatočiščem zagotoviti trajnejši status vokviru veljavne zakonodaje. Če to ne bi bilo mogoče, pa naj bipripravili predlog sprememb in dopolnitev sedanjih predpisov alipredlog posebnega zakona, ki bi uredil njihovo nadaljnje bivanje inživljenje v Sloveniji.

V času, ko smo pisali poročilo, status teh oseb še vedno ni bil rešen.Nakazane so bile sicer možne rešitve na podlagi veljavne zakonodaje,vendar še ni mogoče reči, ali bodo sprejete. Vsekakor bi s sprejetjemrešitev veljalo pohiteti. Ti ljudje so v Sloveniji že skoraj deset let.Veliko se jih je že integriralo v slovensko družbo, kar velja zlasti zaotroke in mladostnike, ki so obiskovali ali še obiskujejo slovenskešole.

Čeprav smo prejeli malo konkretnih pobud v zvezi s položajemtujcev, ki so ilegalno prišli v Slovenijo, in v zvezi s celotno azilnoproblematiko, smo tudi v letu 2001 zaradi možnih kršitev človekovihpravic kontinuirano spremljali dogajanja na teh področjih. Še predbistveno umiritvijo ilegalnih migracij smo obiskali tako Center zaodstranjevanje tujcev pri Postojni kot Azilni dom v Ljubljani. O našihugotovitvah in o ukrepih na podlagi naših pripomb pišemo na drugemmestu.

Varuh je sprejel predstavnika okoličanov Azilnega doma naCelovški cesti 166 v Ljubljani, ki so se organizirali zaradi posledic,ki jih je po njihovem zatrjevanju povzročala prenapolnjenost te stavbev njeni okolici. Po drugi strani pa policija ni ugotovila, da bi sezaradi velike prisotnosti prebivalcev Azilnega doma v Šiški poslabšalevarnostne razmere na področju javnega reda ali kriminalitete.

Od posameznikov smo prejeli različne informacije, ki se nanašajo na obravnavanje tujcev, ki želijo zaprositi za azil v Republiki Sloveniji.Nekateri so zatrjevali, da na MNZ obstajajo neobjavljena (skrita)navodila policiji, da morebitnih prošenj tujcev za azil ne evidentiraoziroma da se takšnemu tujcu ne omogoči, da bi (takoj) vložil prošnjoza azil.

Na poizvedbo smo na MNZ dobili zagotovilo, da vsakega tujca, kiizrazi voljo, da namerava zaprositi za azil, pristojne službeobravnavajo v skladu s predpisi. Vsakemu tujcu je omogočeno, da vložiprošnjo za azil. Ko tujec zaprosi za azil, to pomeni začetek postopkaza priznanje statusa begunca. Postopek sprejemanja prošnje za azilpoleg Zakona o azilu (ZAzil) določa Navodilo o postopku in načinuravnanja s tujci, ki vstopijo v Republiko Slovenijo in želijo vložitiprošnjo za azil, ter o sprejemanju, vsebini in ravnanju z vloženimiprošnjami za azil oziroma izjavami, sprejetimi na zapisnik (Ur. listRS, št. 65/2000).

V primerih nezakonitega prehoda državne meje ali nezakonitegazadrževanja v Sloveniji večino primerov, ko tujec izrazi željo, da bozaprosil za azil, obravnava policija. Policisti tedaj, ko gre zaprosilce za azil, izpolnijo registracijski list in tujca napotijo aliga pripeljejo v azilni dom. Če tujec zahteva, da se takoj poda vloga zapriznanje statusa begunca, mora policist takoj izpolniti tako vlogo.Prav tako mora sodnik za prekrške, če tujec v postopku pred njim izraziželjo, da bo zaprosil za azil, izpolniti registracijski list in tujcanapotiti v azilni dom, kjer se nastani. V Republiki Sloveniji je v letu2000 nekaj več kot 10.000 tujcev izrazilo voljo, da bodo zaprosili zaazil. Približno 1000 tujcev je azilni dom zapustilo, preden je bilosploh mogoče vzeti vloge za priznanje statusa begunca, nekaj več kot9000 teh tujcev pa je azilni dom zapustilo le nekaj dni po tem, ko sopodali vlogo. Podobno je bilo tudi v prvi polovici leta 2001. V času od1. 6. 2001 do 13. 6. 2001 so na primer prejeli 95 vlog za priznanjestatusa begunca. Vsi tujci so samovoljno zapustili azilni dom do 14. 6.2001.

Iz pogovorov s tujci so ugotovili, da večina tujcev besedo azilpojmuje kot nekakšno postojanko oziroma zavetišče v primeru, da jih prinezakonitem prestopu državne meje zaloti policija. Besedo azil tujciuporabijo v teh primerih zato, da jih pristojni državni organinastanijo, oskrbijo, nahranijo in po potrebi tudi oblečejo.

Zaradi takih ugotovitev potem, ko tujec izrazi željo, da bo zaprosilza azil, policisti in strokovne uradne osebe Sektorja za azil vpogovoru ugotavljajo dejansko stanje in dejansko ogroženostposameznika. V teh pogovorih se pokaže, ali ima tujec resnično voljo,da bo zaprosil za azil, in ali bo v tem postopku tudi aktivnosodeloval.

Še vedno nista bila sprejeta predpisa po drugem odstavku 43. člena ZAzil glede pravic prosilcev za azil in po drugem odstavku 47. člena ZAzil o načinih in pogojih za zagotavljanje pravic beguncev,čeprav naj bi bila sprejeta v šestih mesecih po sprejemu ZAzil. Prvipredpis je MNZ že pripravilo, vendar imajo zlasti nevladne organizacijeveliko pripomb k osnutku; kdaj pa bo pripravljen drugi, še ni mogočereči. Tako se na podlagi 71. člena ZAzil še vedno uporabljajo določbeUredbe o uresničevanju pravic tujcev, ki jim je bil priznan statusbegunca iz leta 1996, v kateri pa niso zajete vse pravice iz prvegaodstavka 47. člena ZAzil. Zato menimo, da bi bil čimprejšnji sprejemteh v dveh podzakonskih aktov nujen.

Urad za priseljevanje in begunce smo opozorili tudi na neustreznost prakse, po kateri je priznavanje pravic odvisno od vloge posameznega begunca,ne da bi bili ti prej obveščeni, kakšne pravice jim pripadajo in obkaterih pogojih. Pravico do nadomestila najemnine za stanovanje in dozdravstvenega varstva je uveljavila približno polovica beguncev,pravico do denarne pomoči pa samo eden. Ni pa rečeno, da med ostalimini takih, ki bi jim te pravic prav tako pripadale. Tudi na naš urad seje po telefonu obrnila begunka, ki sploh ni vedela, da ji pripadajokakšne pravice.

Obravnavali smo pobudo v zvezi s postopkom za izročitev tujca matični državi,kjer je obdolžen kaznivega dejanja velike goljufije. Po tem, ko je bilov sodnem postopku pravnomočno ugotovljeno, da so izpolnjeni zakonskipogoji za izročitev, je minister za pravosodje izdal odločbo, s kateroje dovolil izročitev. Tri tedne prej je bila temu tujcu vročena odločbaMNZ, da se zavrne njegova ponovna prošnja za priznanje azila vRepubliki Sloveniji. Po tej odločbi mora zapustiti Republiko Slovenijov treh dneh od njene pravnomočnosti. Zoper odločbo je sprožil upravnispor, tako da postopek za pridobitev azila še zdaleč ni pravnomočnokončan. Glede na to je bil prepričan, da je odločba ministra zapravosodje prenagljena in nezakonita. Ministru je poslal zahtevo zanjeno razveljavitev. Tudi zoper to odločbo je sprožil upravni spor,hkrati pa je sodišču predlagal izdajo začasne odredbe, s katero biodložilo izvršitev odločbe.

Po drugem odstavku 530. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP)minister za pravosodje ne dovoli izročitve (obdolženega oz. obsojenega)tujca, če ta v Republiki Sloveniji uživa pravico pribežališča (če jetorej pridobil azil). Prvi odstavek 40. člena ZAzil pa določa, da seprosilec za azil, ki mu je bila prošnja zavrnjena s pravnomočnoodločbo in ki ne zapusti ozemlja Republike Slovenije v roku, ki mu jebil določen, prisilno odstrani iz države v skladu z zakonom o tujcih.Pravnomočno pridobljeni azil torej preprečuje izročitev tujca drugidržavi, pravnomočno zavrnjena prošnja za azil pa v vsakem primerunarekuje njegovo prisilno odstranitev iz Republike Slovenije. Navedenazakona pa ne urejata vprašanja, kako vpliva postopek za pridobitevazila, ki še ni pravnomočno končan, na postopek za izročitevobdolženega ali obsojenega tujca drugi državi. Pri poskusu zapolnitvete praznine z metodami interpretacije se zastavi vprašanje o razmerjumed predpisoma:

1) ali je ZKP s posebno ureditvijo postopka za izročitev obdolžencevin obsojencev specialni predpis v razmerju do ZAzil in je torejobdolženec oz. obsojenec lahko izročen drugi državni ne glede na to, danjegova prošnja za pridobitev azila v Republiki Sloveniji še nipravnomočno rešena,

2) ali pa je specialni predpis ZAzil in torej izročitev obdolžencaoz. obsojenca, ki je zaprosil za pridobitev azila v RepublikiSloveniji, ni mogoča, dokler postopek v zvezi z njegovo prošnjo nipravnomočno končan.

Razmerje med obema postopkoma je tudi sicer težko določljivo. Ne bise smelo zgoditi, da bi bil posameznik na podlagi odločbe ministra zapravosodje izročen drugi državi, potem pa bi v azilnem postopkudosegel, da bi mu bila priznana pravica do pribežališča v RepublikiSloveniji. Po drugi strani pa je evidentna nevarnost, da bi se azilnipostopek izrabljal za odlaganje oz. preprečevanje izročitve.

Ta vprašanja smo podrobno obravnavali v dopisih MP in MNZ. Pritem smo poudarili, da praznina zaradi nejasnosti ali pomanjkljivosti vzakonodaji ne bi smela biti zapolnjena z interpretacijo v škodoposameznika. Država ima vse možnosti in tudi dolžnost, da pristojnostidržavnih organov, zlasti pa še posege v pravice in temeljne svoboščinedržavljanov in drugih ljudi na svojem območju, uredi popolno, natančnoin nedvoumno. Možnosti posegov je v dvomu treba razlagati inuporabljati restriktivno.

Po odgovorih ministrstev se kaže stališče, da je možna izdajaodločbe o dovolitvi izročitve tujca, katerega prošnja za azil še nipravnomočno rešena, ni pa dokončnega odgovora glede dejanske izročitvetuji državi pred pravnomočnostjo odločbe o prošnji za azil.


Legal information   |   Privacy   |   Contact Made by: Nova Vizija d.d.