Traduction de «séjour irrégulier » (Français → Anglais) :

assisting unlawful immigration | facilitation | facilitation of illegal immigration | facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence | facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence

illegal residence | illegal stay | unlawful residence

illegal presence | illegal residence | illegal stay | irregular stay | unauthorised residence

unlawful period of stay | illegal stay | irregular stay | unauthorised stay

person residing without authorisation | person with unauthorised stay | illegally resident person

Definition: A rapid rate of speech with breakdown in fluency, but no repetitions or hesitations, of a severity to give rise to diminished speech intelligibility. Speech is erratic and dysrhythmic, with rapid jerky spurts that usually involve faulty phrasing patterns.

chlorofluorocarbon lifetime [ CFC lifetime | fluorocarbon lifetime | chlorofluorocarbon residence time | CFC residence time | fluorocarbon residence time ]

adaptive irregular mesh

EUROPA - EU law and publications - EUR-Lex - EUR-Lex - 62017CA0240 - EN - Case C-240/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — E (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Third-country national staying illegally in a Member State — Threat to public order and national security — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 6(2) — Return decision — Ban on entry to the territory of the Member States — Alert for the purposes of refusing admission to the Schengen Area — Third-country national holding a valid residence permit issued by another Member State — Conv ...[+++]ention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 25(2) — Consultation procedure between the Member State issuing the alert and the Member State which issued the residence permit — Time limit — Failure of the Contracting State consulted to adopt a position — Consequences for the enforcement of return decisions and entry ban) // Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — E // (Case C-240/17) - ( // ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Third-country national staying illegally in a Member State - Threat to public order and national security - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 6(2) - Return decision - Ban on entry to the territory of the Member States - Alert for the purposes of refusing admission to the Schengen Area - Third-country national holding a valid residence permit issued by another Member State - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 25(2) - Consultation procedure between the Member State issuing the alert and the Member State which issued the residence permit - Time limit - Failure of the Contracting State consulted to adopt a position - Consequences for the enforcement of return decisions and entry ban))

Member States refuse annually more than 340.000 third country nationals the right to enter into the EU, apprehend about 500.000 third country nationals illegally residing on their territories and remove about 300.000 third country nationals who have entered illegally, have resided illegally or are returned to their country for other reasons.

In 2002, the EU adopted rules to crack down on migrant smuggling: Directive 2002/90/EC establishing a common definition of the offense of facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ L 328, 5.12.2002, p. 17) and Framework Decision 2002/946/JHAon the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ L 328, 5.12.2002, p. 1).

The right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as extending to the right of an illegally staying third-country national to express, before the adoption of a return decision concerning him, his point of view on the legality of his stay, on the possible application of Articles 5 and 6(2) to (5) of that directive and on the detailed arrangements for his ...[+++] return.