In short
An entry ban is the act by which entry into the country is closed by the administration. A deportation decision about a person who is in the country may not be the same paper as this ban. One concerns entry into the country. The other concerns the removal of a person who is in the country. Even if the two came in the same envelope, each is read from its own operative part. This article does not copy the objection petition, and it does not put a number of the period.
The place where the person appears in the decision
Where the person was at the moment of the act can mix the kind of the paper. An entry ban may have been notified to a person outside the country. That notification is not put in the place of a deportation act carried out in the country at that moment. A deportation decision may have been served on a person inside the country. This decision is not, of itself, the text of an entry ban. If the ban was written separately, it is read from its own heading. If it was not written, it is not completed as if a ban existed.
Where the person was is not built from an oral account. If the decision writes whether it sees the person in the country or outside it, that line is taken as the basis. If there is no line, this text does not invent a location. If the two decisions were drawn up on different dates, each date stays on its own paper. One is not treated as having changed the place where the other was drawn up. Not being admitted into the country at the border gate is also a record separate from these two papers. If the gate minutes are not in the ban decision, they are not made the reasoning of the ban. If the minutes refer to the ban decision, the reference is as much as the sentence in which it was written.
The entry and exit records in the passport may show the person's movement. The record is not the operative part of the entry ban. If the ban decision refers to these records, the reference sentence is read. If there is no reference, the stamp does not stand in for the text of the ban. If the ban was served while the person was outside the country, the service record shows whom that notification reached. While there is no record, it is not assumed that the notification arrived.
The ban decision may also have been passed through a representation channel. The transmission writing is not the operative part of the ban. The operative part is in the decision's own text. If the transmission writing says which page of the decision was sent, the page that is said is looked for. If the page is missing, the missing part is not completed from the transmission writing. The record that went to the person's address abroad and the record that went to the lawyer in the country are separate. Each record is tied to its own envelope. The period line in one envelope is not put in the place of the operative part in the other envelope. Being told orally that the ban was lifted does not erase the operative part while there is no lifting writing.
The two operative parts
The operative part of the deportation decision relates to the removal of a person who is in the country. The operative part of the entry ban relates to entry into the country being closed. The operative parts may stand one under the other on the same page. Standing one under the other does not make the two acts a single act. The reasoning of each operative part is in its own paragraph. If one paragraph is blank, the other is not treated as having completed it. The page being single does not mean the operative parts are a single judgment. The page number does not change the kind either. The kind is in the heading and in the sentence of the operative part.
An old ban decision and a new deportation decision may stand in the same folder. Whether the old operative part ended is not guessed from the first sentence of the new paper. If the new paper refers to the old ban, the reference is as much as the sentence in which it was written. If there is no reference, the two acts are left side by side. Naming the folder as a single ban file does not erase the headings. The new deportation decision is not treated as having changed the period of the old ban of itself. A change of period is read only if it is written on the relevant line.
Even if the reasoning paragraphs resemble each other, each paragraph stays in its own decision. A common word does not join the reasoning of the two acts. If more than one fact is counted in one paragraph, each fact is left on its own line. This page does not complete the facts with a standard list. A reason that is not written in the paragraph is not added. While there is no full text, the operative part is not built from a summary.
The period line is in the ban itself
How long the ban will last is read from there, if it is written on the period line of the decision. If there is no line, the period is not completed from a general memory. This article does not put a number of the period. The period in another file is not pasted onto this decision. A date in the deportation decision is not read as the end date of the entry ban. If there are two dates, both are left on their own paper. If one of the dates is blank, the gap is not filled with the other date. If the start line is blank, from which moment the ban will be counted is not announced either.
The service record shows which text reached the person. The record does not change the content of the period line. If there is no record, which text arrived is not announced from here either. An oral end is not put in the place of the line of the decision. Without a copy of the decision, there is no period line either. If the writing that went to the lawyer and the writing that went to the person carry a different period, the two texts are left side by side. Which one is the basis comes out of the service line. If there is no line, this page does not choose a period.
If the ban was lifted, the lifting stands in a separate writing. If there is no writing, the earlier period line is not treated as erased by word. If the lifting writing refers to the earlier ban, the reference is as much as it was written. The reference is not used in order to invent a new period. If the new writing carries a period, the period is on the line of that writing.
Permit refusals are not the text of the ban
A residence permit not being extended notifies that the extension request was not accepted. This notice is not an entry-ban decision. A refusal of a work permit is also the result of a permit application. The refusal writing does not carry the period line of the ban, or the reasoning paragraph. If the three writings stand in the same folder, there are three acts. One is not made the operative part of the other. The permit card still being with the person does not erase the operative part of the ban. The period of the card and the line of the ban are read separately.
A residence permit not being extended and a refusal of a work permit are read from their own service. The entry ban is read from its own operative part. If the end date of the permit document was not written as the period of the ban, it is not the period of the ban. The passport, the permit card, and the ban decision are put side by side. The date on the card does not change the operative part of the ban. An entry and exit stamp in the passport is not made the reasoning of the ban either, if it is not written in the ban decision. If a permit-refusal writing refers to a ban, the reference stays in the form in which it appears in the refusal text. The reference does not stand in for the operative part of the ban.
A code line does not stand in for the operative part
If a restriction code appears as the reasoning, the meaning of the code is not solved on this page. The code is the abbreviation of the decision sentence, and what a restriction code means is read separately. This text does not write a list of letters and figures. The code line does not stand in for the operative part of the entry ban either. Whatever the operative part says, the act is that. If there is only a code in the operative part and there is no sentence, a ban result is not announced from here either. If the sentence and the code conflict, both are left. The conflict is not closed by choosing a meaning from a list.
The code may also appear in the reasoning place of the deportation decision. That appearance does not join the two acts. Each code is read with the sentence of the decision in which it is found. If there is no sentence, the sentence in the other decision is not borrowed. An old code does not update the new ban's operative part of itself. The update is read if it stands in the new decision's own sentence.
The objection route is in a separate article
The route against an entry ban, or against a deportation decision, is not built as a petition on this page. Which act is gone against is separated from the heading that was served. How the petition is read is in the article an objection to a deportation decision. This text does not repeat the sections, the requests, and the period calculation of that article. Whether the route is open is not announced without the service in hand either. A draft that was not served is not made the subject of a petition inside this separation.
Treating the decision as absent is not the subject of this separation. The article recounts how the two administrative papers are separated. If one of the papers is missing, the result of the missing one is not built from here. The general frame is on the international law page and in the text of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection numbered 6458. The name of the statute does not produce a period that is not written in the decision in hand.
Conclusion
An entry ban may not be the same paper as the deportation decision of a person who is in the country. One concerns entry. The other concerns being in the country. The period is on the ban's own line. The number is not frozen here. Permit refusals do not stand in for the text of the ban. The objection petition is not copied in this text. A code list is not written either.