natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
63 The Council, the United Kingdom and the Commission submit that Regulation No 423/2007 is clearly directed at the Islamic Republic of Iran and that, therefore, it was not necessary to use Article 308 EC as a legal basis. In that regard, the judgment in Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission is not relevant since it concerned a different situation. Unlike in the present case, the regulation at issue in that case did not relate to a third country. The Commission adds that, if the appellant now disputes its links with the Islamic Republic of Iran, that constitutes a new ground of appeal which is inadmissible.
63 Vijeće, Ujedinjena Kraljevina i Komisija ističu da se Uredba br. 423/2007 jasno odnosi na Islamsku Republiku Iran i da stoga nije bilo potrebno primijeniti članak 308. UEZ-a kao pravnu osnovu. S tim u vezi, gore navedena presuda Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija nije relevantna jer se odnosi na drukčiju situaciju. Za razliku od ovog slučaja, uredba iz tog predmeta nije se odnosila na treću zemlju. Komisija dodaje da to što žalitelj sada osporava svoje veze s Islamskom Republikom Iran predstavlja novi žalbeni razlog koji je nedopušten.
65 The appellant contests the General Court’s reasoning in relation to the legal basis for Regulation No 423/2007, considering that that regulation should have been adopted unanimously either on the basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC, or on the basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC and Common Position 2007/140. Consequently, the contested decision could not have been adopted by qualified majority, as provided for in Article 15(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 for amendments to the list of persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 7(2) of that regulation.
65 Žalitelj osporava obrazloženje Općeg suda u vezi s pravnom osnovom Uredbe br. 423/2007 i smatra da je ta Uredba trebala biti donesena jednoglasno, na temelju članaka 60., 301. i 308. UEZ-a ili na temelju članaka 60. i 301. UEZ-a i Zajedničkog stajališta 2007/140. Slijedom toga, sporna odluka nije smjela biti donesena kvalificiranom većinom, kako je to predviđeno člankom 15. stavkom 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 za izmjenu popisa osoba, subjekata i tijela iz članka 7. stavka 2. te uredbe.
67 The appellant does not dispute the use of Article 60 EC and 301 EC. It merely disputes the fact that Regulation No 423/2007 is based solely on those provisions.
67 Žalitelj ne osporava primjenu članaka 60. i 301. UEZ-a. Osporava samo činjenicu da se Uredba br. 423/2007 temelji isključivo na tim odredbama.
68 According to its title, Regulation No 423/2007 concerns restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is apparent from the recitals in the preamble thereto and from its provisions taken as a whole that the regulation is intended to prevent or slow down the nuclear policy of that State, in the light of the threat it poses, by means of restrictive economic measures. As noted by the Advocate General in point 75 of his Opinion, it is not nuclear proliferation in general which is being combated, but the risks inherent in the Iranian nuclear proliferation programme.
68 U skladu sa svojim naslovom, Uredba br. 423/2007 odnosi se na mjere ograničavanja protiv Islamske Republike Iran. Iz njezinih uvodnih izjava i iz odredaba uzetih u cjelini proizlazi da je cilj uredbe gospodarskim mjerama ograničavanja spriječiti ili usporiti nuklearnu politiku te države s obzirom na prijetnju koju ona predstavlja. Kao što je to istaknuo nezavisni odvjetnik u točki 75. svojeg mišljenja, nije riječ o suzbijanju širenja nuklearnog oružja općenito, već o rizicima povezanima s iranskim programom širenja nuklearnog oružja.
"69 The aim and content of the measure in question clearly being the adoption of economic measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran, it was not necessary to have recourse to Article 308 EC, since Article 301 EC constitutes a sufficient legal basis in that it provides for an action by the Community to interrupt or to reduce, in part or completely, economic relations with one or more third countries; that action may cover the freezing of funds of entities, such as Bank Melli Iran, which are associated with the regime of the third country concerned."
"69 Budući da je jasno da su cilj i sadržaj predmetnog akta donošenje gospodarskih mjera protiv Islamske Republike Iran, nije bilo potrebno primijeniti članak 308. UEZ-a jer članak 301. UEZ-a predstavlja dostatnu pravnu osnovu s obzirom na to da je njime Zajednici omogućeno da djelomično ili u cijelosti prekine ili ograniči gospodarske odnose s jednom od ili više trećih zemalja; to djelovanje može uključivati zamrzavanje financijskih sredstava subjekata, kao što je Bank Melli Iran, povezanih s režimom predmetne treće zemlje."
70 As regards the need, asserted by the appellant, to include Common Position 2007/140 among the legal bases, it is sufficient to note that that need is contradicted by the very wording of Article 301 EC, which provides for the possibility of adopting Community measures when a common position or Community action adopted under the provisions of the EU Treaty, in the version prior to the Treaty of Lisbon, on the CFSP provide for Community action. The wording of that article indicates that the common position or joint action must exist in order for Community measures to be adopted, but not that those measures must be based on that common position or joint action.
70 U vezi s tvrdnjom žalitelja da Zajedničko stajalište 2007/140 treba uključiti u pravnu osnovu, dovoljno je utvrditi da je ta potreba osporena samim tekstom članka 301. UEZ-a, kojim je predviđena mogućnost donošenja mjera Zajednice kada je zajedničkim stajalištem ili djelovanjem Zajednice donesenim na temelju odredaba Ugovora o EU-u, u verziji prije Ugovora iz Lisabona, u vezi sa ZVSP-om predviđeno djelovanje Zajednice. U tekstu tog članka navedeno je da zajedničko stajalište ili zajedničko djelovanje moraju postojati kako bi mjere Zajednice mogle biti donesene, ali ne i da se te mjere moraju temeljiti na tom zajedničkom stajalištu ili zajedničkom djelovanju.
71 In any event, a common position cannot constitute the legal basis for a Community measure. Council common positions in the sphere of the CFSP, such as Common Positions 2007/140 and 2008/479, are adopted within the framework of the EU Treaty, in accordance with Article 15 thereof, whereas Council regulations, such as Regulation No 423/2007, are adopted within the framework of the EC Treaty.
71 U svakom slučaju, zajedničko stajalište ne može predstavljati pravnu osnovu akta Zajednice. Zajednička stajališta Vijeća u području ZVSP-a, kao što su zajednička stajališta 2007/140 i 2008/479, donose su u okviru Ugovora o EU-u, u skladu s njegovim člankom 15., dok su uredbe Vijeća, kao što je Uredba br. 423/2007, donose u okviru Ugovora o EZ-u.
73 The General Court thus rightly held, in paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, that the existence of a common position previously adopted in the sphere of the CFSP was simply a condition laid down by Article 301 EC.
73 Dakle, u točki 47. pobijane presude Opći sud pravilno je presudio da je postojanje zajedničkog stajališta koje je prethodno doneseno u području ZVSP-a samo uvjet utvrđen člankom 301. UEZ-a.
74 As regards the complaint alleging misuse of powers, the Court of Justice finds that the appellant has not shown in what way paragraph 50 of the judgment under appeal might be erroneous.
74 U vezi s prigovorom zloporabe ovlasti valja navesti da žalitelj nije pokazao na koji je način točka 50. pobijane presude pogrešna.
‘80 The purpose of the obligation to state the reasons for an act adversely affecting a person, as provided for by Article 253 EC and, more particularly in this case, by Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007 is, first, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to determine whether the measure is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which may permit its validity to be contested before the Community judicature and, secondly, to enable the latter to review the lawfulness of that measure. The obligation to state reasons therefore constitutes an essential principle of Community law which may be derogated from only for compelling reasons. The statement of reasons must therefore in principle be notified to the person concerned at the same time as the act adversely affecting him, for failure to state the reasons cannot be remedied by the fact that the person concerned learns the reasons for the act during the proceedings before the Community judicature. Furthermore, observance of the obligation to state reasons is all the more important in the case of an initial decision freezing an entity’s funds, because it constitutes the sole safeguard enabling the party concerned to make effective use of the legal remedies available to it to challenge the lawfulness of that decision, given that it has no right to be heard before the decision is adopted (see, to that effect and by analogy, [Organisation des Modjahedines du people d’Iran v Council], paragraphs 138 to 140, and the case-law cited).
„80 Svrha obveze obrazlaganja akta koji negativno utječe na prava osobe, kako je predviđeno člankom 253. UEZ-a i, posebno u ovom slučaju, člankom 15. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007, s jedne je strane dotičnoj osobi osigurati dostatne informacije kako bi mogla utvrditi je li akt dobro utemeljen ili sadržava moguće pogreške na temelju kojih bi se mogla osporiti njegova valjanost pred sudovima Zajednice i s druge strane omogućiti potonjima nadzor nad zakonitošću tog akta. Stoga obveza obrazlaganja akta predstavlja bitno načelo prava Zajednice od kojeg se može odstupiti samo zbog važnih razloga. Zato u načelu dotičnoj osobi treba uručiti obrazloženje istovremeno s aktom koji negativno utječe na njezina prava jer se izostanak obrazloženja ne može popraviti time da se dotična osoba upozna s razlozima akta tijekom postupka pred sudovima Zajednice. Nadalje, poštovanje obveze obrazlaganja tim je važnije u slučaju kada se prvotnom odlukom zamrzavaju financijska sredstva subjekta jer ona predstavlja jedinu zaštitu kojom se zainteresiranoj stranci omogućuje djelotvorna primjena pravnih sredstava koja su joj dostupna za osporavanje zakonitosti takve odluke, s obzirom na to da nema pravo na saslušanje prije donošenja odluke (u tom smislu i analogijom vidjeti gore navedenu presudu [Općeg suda Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran/Vijeće] t. 138. do 140., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
81 Unless, therefore, overriding considerations to do with the security of the Community or of its Member States or with the conduct of their international relations militate against the communication of certain matters (see, by analogy, [Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission], paragraph 342), the Council is bound, by virtue of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007, to apprise the entity concerned of the actual specific reasons when it adopts a decision to freeze funds such as the contested decision. It must thus state the facts and points of law on which the legal justification of the measure depend and the considerations which led it to adopt it. So far as may be, those reasons must be communicated, either concomitantly with or as soon as possible after the adoption of the measure at issue (see, to that effect and by analogy, [Organisation des Modjahedines du people d’Iran v Council], paragraphs 143 to 148, and the case-law cited).
81 Stoga je u skladu s člankom 15. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007 Vijeće obvezno, osim ako se priopćavanju određenih dokaza suprotstavljaju važni razlozi koji se tiču sigurnosti Unije ili njezinih država članica ili vođenja njihovih međunarodnih odnosa (analogijom vidjeti gore navedenu presudu [Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija], t. 342.), upoznati predmetni subjekt s posebnim i konkretnim razlozima pri donošenju odluke o zamrzavanju financijskih sredstava kao što je sporna odluka. Dakle, mora navesti činjenične i pravne okolnosti o kojima ovisi zakonska opravdanost mjere i razloge koji su doveli do njezina donošenja. To se obrazloženje u mjeri u kojoj je to moguće upućuje istovremeno s donošenjem predmetne mjere ili odmah nakon njezina donošenja (u tom smislu i analogijom vidjeti gore navedenu presudu [Općeg suda Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran/Vijeće, t. 143. do 148., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
82 The statement of reasons must, however, be appropriate to the measure at issue and the context in which it was adopted. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons is sufficient must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. In particular, the reasons given for a measure adversely affecting a person are sufficient if it was adopted in circumstances known to that person which enable him to understand the scope of the measure concerning him ([see Organisation des Modjahedines du people d’Iran v Council], paragraph 141, and the case-law cited).
82 Međutim, obrazloženje mora biti primjereno predmetnom aktu i kontekstu u kojem je akt donesen. Zahtjev za obrazlaganje mora se ocijeniti s obzirom na okolnosti predmetnog slučaja, osobito sadržaj akta, prirodu navedenih razloga i interes koji adresati mjere ili druge osobe na koje se akt izravno i osobno odnosi mogu imati u dobivanju objašnjenja. U obrazloženju nije potrebno podrobno navoditi sve činjenične i pravne okolnosti, s obzirom na to da se pitanje je li obrazloženje dostatno mora ocjenjivati ne samo u odnosu na svoju formulaciju, već i na svoj kontekst i na sva pravna pravila kojima se uređuje predmetno pravno područje. Preciznije, akt koji negativno utječe na neku osobu u dovoljnoj je mjeri obrazložen ako je donesen u kontekstu poznatom zainteresiranoj osobi što joj omogućuje da razumije doseg mjere koja se na nju odnosi (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu [Općeg suda Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran/Vijeće], t. 141., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
83 As pointed out in paragraph 57 above, in order for Article 7(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 423/2007 to be set in motion, the entity concerned must be engaged in or directly associated with or must provide support for nuclear proliferation. In consequence, in addition to indicating the legal basis of the measure adopted, the obligation to state reasons by which the Council is bound relates precisely to that fact. On the other hand, contrary to what the applicant argues, the Council was not required to give reasons for its decision to go beyond the measures laid down by Resolution 1803 (2008), since it has been found in paragraph 65 above that the contested decision did not give effect to that resolution, nor was it required to treat the applicant differently from other Iranian banks.
83 Kako je navedeno gore u točki 57., za provedbu članka 7. stavka 2. točaka (a) i (b) Uredbe br. 423/2007 predmetni subjekt mora sudjelovati u širenju nuklearnog oružja, biti izravno s njim povezan ili mu pružati potporu. Slijedom toga, pored navođenja pravne osnove donesene mjere, obveza obrazlaganja koja je određena Vijeću odnosi se upravo na tu činjenicu. S druge strane, suprotno onome što tvrdi tužitelj, Vijeće nije bilo obvezno obrazložiti svoju odluku da prijeđe okvire mjera utvrđenih Rezolucijom 1803 (2008), s obzirom na to da je gore u točki 65. utvrđeno da [spornom] odlukom nije provedena ta rezolucija, kao ni svoju odluku da prema tužitelju postupa drukčije nego prema drugim iranskim bankama.
84 In the instant case, the Council has stated, both in the title of the contested decision and in recital 2 in the preamble to the latter, that the measures taken were based on Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007. It has also explained, in paragraph 4 of Table B in the annex to the contested decision, the specific individual reasons that led it to consider that the applicant provided support for nuclear proliferation. The Council mentioned, first, the kind of support lent by the applicant, namely providing financial services, including opening letters of credit and maintaining accounts, secondly, the activities linked to nuclear proliferation involved by those services, namely the purchase of sensitive materials, and, thirdly, the beneficiaries of the support provided by the applicant, that is to say, the eight entities designated by name.
84 U ovom je slučaju Vijeće u naslovu sporne odluke i u njezinoj uvodnoj izjavi 2. navelo da su se donesene mjere temeljile na članku 7. stavku 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007. U točki 4. tablice B Priloga [spornoj] odluci također je objasnilo pojedinačne i posebne razloge zbog kojih je smatralo da tužitelj pruža potporu širenju nuklearnog oružja. Vijeće je na prvom mjestu navelo vrstu potpore koju pruža tužitelj, a to je pružanje financijskih usluga, uključujući otvaranje akreditiva i vođenje računovodstvenih evidencija, na drugom mjestu aktivnosti povezane sa širenjem nuklearnog oružja obuhvaćene tim uslugama, a to je kupnja osjetljivih materijala, i na trećem mjestu korisnike potpore koju pruža tužitelj, odnosno osam subjekata navedenih imenom.
85 In those circumstances, the Court considers that the statement of reasons for the contested decision with regard to the applicant is sufficient …’
85 U tim okolnostima Prvostupanjski sud smatra da je obrazloženje [sporne] odluke u dijelu koji se odnosi na tužitelja dostatno [...]” [neslužbeni prijevod]
‘The applicant’s claim that the Council was required automatically to offer it access to the material in its file must be rejected. When sufficiently precise information has been communicated, enabling the entity concerned to make its point of view on the evidence adduced against it by the Council known to advantage, the principle of respect for the rights of the defence does not mean that the institution is obliged spontaneously to grant access to the documents in its file. It is only on the request of the party concerned that the Council is required to provide access to all non-confidential official documents concerning the measure at issue (see, to that effect and by analogy, Case T-205/99 Hyper v Commission [2002] ECR II-3141, paragraphs 63 to 65, and the case-law cited). It would in fact be excessive to require spontaneous communication of the matters in the file, given that when a fund-freezing measure is adopted it is not certain that the entity concerned intends to check, by means of access to the file, the matters of fact supporting the allegations made against it by the Council.’
„S tim u vezi treba odbiti tvrdnju tužitelja da je Vijeće po službenoj dužnosti moralo omogućiti pristup elementima svojeg spisa. Ako je dostavljeno dovoljno informacija te time predmetnom subjektu omogućeno da se uspješno izjasni o dokazima koje je protiv njega iznijelo Vijeće, načelo poštovanja prava na obranu ne znači da je institucija dužna na vlastitu inicijativu omogućiti pristup sadržaju svojeg spisa. Vijeće je dužno samo na zahtjev zainteresirane stranke omogućiti pristup svim službenim dokumentima koji nisu povjerljivi i koji se odnose na predmetnu mjeru (u tom smislu i analogijom vidjeti presudu Općeg suda od 11. srpnja 2002., Hyper/Komisija, T-205/99, Zb., str. II-3141., t. 63. do 65., i navedenu sudsku praksu). Bilo bi pretjerano zahtijevati da se obavijest o elementima spisa uputi na vlastitu inicijativu jer pri donošenju mjere zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava nije sigurno da predmetni subjekt zaista namjerava pristupom spisu provjeriti činjenične elemente na kojima se temelje navodi koje je Vijeće iznijelo protiv njega.” [neslužbeni prijevod]
‘102 As regards the fact that the Council did not spontaneously produce the evidence supporting the statement of reasons for the contested decision, paragraphs 97 above and 107 below make it clear that it was not bound to do so, either before or after the present proceedings had been initiated.
„102 U vezi s činjenicom da Vijeće nije na vlastitu inicijativu predočilo dokaze na kojima se temelji obrazloženje [sporne] odluke, iz gore navedene točke 97. i dolje navedene točke 107. proizlazi da to nije bila njegova obveza ni prije ni nakon podnošenja ove tužbe.
103 Likewise, the applicant does not explain how the need to check one by one its relations with the entities designated in the contested decision stopped it seeking access to the Council’s file or requesting a hearing. On the contrary, those steps might have facilitated the research to be carried out, thanks to the documents consulted or the information obtained.
103 Tužitelj ne objašnjava ni kako to da zbog potrebe za pojedinačnom provjerom vlastitih odnosa sa subjektima navedenima u [spornoj] odluci nije mogao zatražiti pristup spisu Vijeća niti zatražiti saslušanje. Naprotiv, tim se koracima mogla olakšati provedba istrage na temelju pregledanih dokumenata ili dobivenih pojašnjenja.
104 Having regard to the foregoing, it must be concluded that, the applicant having omitted to make such a request to the Council, the latter was not obliged to grant it access to the file or to conduct a hearing, which means that the claim alleging breach of the rights of the defence must be rejected.’
104 Uzimajući u obzir prethodno navedeno, valja zaključiti da Vijeće nije bilo obvezno, zato što tužitelj nije podnio takav zahtjev Vijeću, omogućiti pristup spisu ili provesti saslušanje, što znači da valja odbiti prigovor u vezi s povredom prava na obranu.” [neslužbeni prijevod]
79 The appellant challenges, first, the General Court’s conclusion, in paragraphs 84 and 85 of the judgment under appeal, that it held sufficiently precise information in relation to the grounds for freezing its funds, second, the conclusion, in paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal, that the Council was not required to grant it access to the documents in the file, third, the conclusion, in paragraphs 102 and 104 of the judgment under appeal, that, the appellant having omitted to make such a request to the Council, the latter was not obliged to grant it access to the file whether before or after the bringing of an action and, fourth, the conclusion, in paragraph 106 of the judgment under appeal, that it was in a position fully to carry out its review.
79 Kao prvo, žalitelj osporava zaključak Općeg suda iz točaka 84. i 85. pobijane presude da je imao dovoljno precizne informacije u vezi s razlozima zamrzavanja njegovih financijskih sredstava, kao drugo, zaključak iz točke 97. pobijane presude da Vijeće nije bilo obvezno omogućiti pristup elementima spisa, kao treće, zaključak iz točaka 102. i 104. pobijane presude da Vijeće nije bilo obvezno omogućiti žalitelju pristup spisu prije ni nakon podnošenja tužbe s obzirom na to da žalitelj nije podnio takav zahtjev Vijeću i, kao četvrto, zaključak Općeg suda iz točke 106. pobijane presude da je bio u mogućnosti provesti potpuni nadzor.