natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In accordance with Case C-51/92 P Hercules Chemicals v Commission [1999] ECR I-4235, paragraphs 76 and 78, the infringement of that right cannot be remedied by the mere fact that access was made possible at a later stage, during an action in which annulment of the contested decision is sought.
U skladu s presudom od 8. srpnja 1999., Hercules Chemicals/Komisija (C-51/92 P, Zb., str. I-4235., t. 76. i 78.), povreda tog prava ne može se popraviti time da se pristup spisu omogući u kasnijoj fazi, odnosno tijekom tužbe za poništenje sporne odluke.
A fortiori, on the basis of that case-law, the rights of the defence and the right to effective legal protection are not respected where access was never granted to the file, even during the annulment proceedings.
Na temelju navedene sudske prakse, pravo na obranu i pravo na djelotvornu sudsku zaštitu a fortiori ne bi se poštovali kada pristup spisu nikada ne bi bio omogućen, čak ni tijekom postupka za poništenje.
81 In the appellant's view, the contested paragraphs of the judgment under appeal contradict the case-law of the General Court itself, in particular Case T-284/08 People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council [2008] ECR II-3487, paragraphs 74 and 75), and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, namely Saadi v Italy of 28 February 2008 (§ 138 and § 139), and A and Others v United Kingdom of 19 February 2009 (§ 126).
81 Prema mišljenju žalitelja, sporne su točke iz pobijane presude protivne sudskoj praksi Općeg suda, posebno presudi od 4. prosinca 2008., People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Vijeće (T-284/08, Zb., str. II-3487., t. 74. i 75.), kao i sudskoj praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava, i to presudama Saadi protiv Italije od 28. veljače 2008. (t. 138. i 139.) kao i A. i dr. protiv Ujedinjene Kraljevine od 19. veljače 2009. (t. 126.).
82 The French Republic and the United Kingdom submit that paragraph 4 of Table B in the annex to the contested decision contained clear and sufficient information in relation to the appellant.
82 Francuska Republika i Ujedinjena Kraljevina ističu da je točka 4. tablice B Priloga spornoj odluci sadržavala jasne i dostatne informacije u vezi sa žaliteljem.
It was thus not necessary, in their view, to grant the appellant access to the material in the file, as stated by the General Court in paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal.
Po mišljenju tih država članica stoga nije bilo neophodno žalitelju omogućiti pristup elementima spisa, kao što je to Opći sud naveo u točki 97. pobijane presude.
83 The French Republic states that the judgment in People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council is not relevant, since it concerns the procedure applicable to sanctions in relation to terrorism, whereas the contested decision concerns sanctions against a third country.
83 Francuska Republika navodi da gore navedena presuda People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Vijeće nije relevantna jer se odnosi na postupak primjenjiv na sankcije u vezi s terorizmom, dok se sporna odluka odnosi na sankcije protiv treće zemlje.
As for the case-law in relation to competition cases, the Council and the United Kingdom claim that that case-law also is irrelevant in the present case.
U vezi sa sudskom praksom koja se odnosi na predmete iz područja tržišnog natjecanja, Vijeće i Ujedinjena Kraljevina navode da ta sudska praksa nije relevantna u ovom slučaju.
Moreover, the United Kingdom and the Commission consider that the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights does not support the appellant's reasoning.
Nadalje, Ujedinjena Kraljevina i Komisija smatraju da obrazloženje žalitelja nije potkrijepljeno sudskom praksom Europskog suda za ljudska prava.
84 The Council and the Commission submit, as regards the furnishing of evidence during the judicial proceedings, that the appellant does not take account of paragraphs 30, 31 and 107 of the judgment under appeal, from which it transpires that `the application contains no plea challenging the Council's finding that the [appellant] has provided financial support for nuclear proliferation, even though that finding forms the basis of the contested decision so far as it concerns the [appellant] and, in consequence, could have been raised as soon as the action was brought, if necessary with the clarification that additional evidence would be produced as soon as it was available' (paragraph 30), with the result that the General Court was able to conclude, in paragraph 107 of the judgment under appeal, that it was not necessary for the Council to produce evidence in support of the grounds set out in the decision at issue.
84 U vezi s predočenjem dokaza tijekom sudskog postupka, Vijeće i Komisija tvrde da žalitelj ne uzima u obzir točke 30., 31. i 107. pobijane presude, iz kojih proizlazi da „tužba ne sadržava tužbeni razlog kojim se osporava ocjena Vijeća da je žalitelj pružao financijsku potporu širenju nuklearnog oružja, iako ta ocjena predstavlja osnovu sporne odluke u mjeri u kojoj se odnosi na žalitelja i da je slijedom toga taj tužbeni razlog mogao biti naveden u trenutku podnošenja tužbe, prema potrebi uz objašnjenje da će dodatni dokazi biti predočeni čim budu bili na raspolaganju" (točka 30.), tako da je Opći sud u točki 107. pobijane presude mogao zaključiti da Vijeće nije obvezno predočiti dokaze u prilog razlozima navedenima u predmetnoj odluci.
85 When questioned on that point at the hearing, the appellant stated that a ground of appeal disputing financial support for nuclear proliferation was implicitly included in the action before the General Court and that it intended to develop that ground of appeal after receiving the file of evidence on which the Council relied in adopting the contested decision.
85 Kada mu je na raspravi bilo postavljeno pitanje s tim u vezi, žalitelj je izjavio da je tužbeni razlog kojim osporava financijsku potporu širenju nuklearnog oružja bio implicitno uključen u tužbi pred Općim sudom i da je namjeravao dopuniti taj tužbeni razlog nakon zaprimanja dokaza iz spisa na koje se Vijeće pozvalo pri donošenju sporne odluke.
86 In so far as concerns the part of the present ground of appeal alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons, the Court notes at the outset that, in the absence of notification, by the Council, of the individual and specific grounds for a contested decision in accordance with Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007, it is the grounds set out in that decision, as published and notified to the appellant by the French banking commission, that need to be taken into consideration.
86 U pogledu onog dijela žalbenog razloga koji se odnosi na povredu obveze obrazlaganja, na početku treba utvrditi da, s obzirom na to da Vijeće nije uputilo obavijest o pojedinačnim i posebnim razlozima sporne odluke u skladu s člankom 15. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007, valja uzeti u obzir razloge utvrđene u toj odluci kako je objavljena i kako ju je francuska komisija za bankarstvo uručila žalitelju.
87 The General Court did not err in law in holding, in paragraphs 84 and 85 of the judgment under appeal, that the grounds for the contested decision were sufficient in the light of the case-law relating to the duty to state reasons.
87 Opći sud nije počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava presudivši u točkama 84. i 85. pobijane presude da je obrazloženje sporne odluke dostatno s obzirom na sudsku praksu koja se odnosi na obvezu obrazlaganja.
The General Court stated, inter alia, that the contested decision indicated the legal basis on which it had been adopted and the individual and specific reasons which had led the Council to consider that the appellant was providing support to Iran for nuclear proliferation.
Opći sud je utvrdio, između ostalog, da je u spornoj odluci navedena pravna osnova na temelju koje je donesena te pojedinačni i posebni razlozi zbog kojih je Vijeće smatralo da žalitelj pruža potporu Iranu u širenju nuklearnog oružja.
A reading of the grounds set out in the contested decision confirms that such information was sufficient to enable the appellant to understand the claims made against it and to assess the merits of the decision.
Čitanjem obrazloženja sporne odluke potvrđuje se da su navedene informacije bile dostatne da se žalitelju omogući razumijevanje tvrdnji navedenih protiv njega i ocjenjivanje osnovanosti odluke.
88 The issue of the grounds for the contested decision is different, however, from that of the evidence of the conduct of which the appellant is accused, namely, the facts set out in the contested decision and the treatment of those facts as constituting engagement in, or support for, the proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the development by that State of nuclear weapon delivery systems, within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 423/2007.
88 Međutim, pitanje obrazloženja sporne odluke drukčije je od pitanja dokaza o postupanju žalitelja za koje je optužen, odnosno činjenica utvrđenih spornom odlukom i kvalifikacije da te činjenice znače sudjelovanje u nuklearnim aktivnostima Islamske Republike Iran koje predstavljaju rizik širenja nuklearnog oružja ili razvoja sustava ispaljivanja nuklearnog oružja koji ta država provodi, izravnu povezanost s njima ili pružanje potpore u smislu članka 7. stavka 2. točaka (a) i (b) Uredbe br. 423/2007.
89 As submitted by the United Kingdom and the Commission, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights referred to by the appellant is not relevant.
89 Kao što tvrde Ujedinjena Kraljevina i Komisija, sudska praksa Europskog suda za ljudska prava na koju se poziva žalitelj nije relevantna.
The judgments cited, namely Saadi v Italy and A and Others v United Kingdom, relate to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (`the ECHR'), on the absolute prohibition of torture, degrading treatment or punishment.
Gore navedene presude Saadi protiv Italije kao i A. i dr. protiv Ujedinjene Kraljevine odnose se na članak 3. Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda, potpisane u Rimu 4. studenog 1950. (u daljnjem tekstu: EKLJP), o apsolutnoj zabrani mučenja, ponižavajućeg postupanja ili kažnjavanja.
However, the right to property, which the freezing of funds goes against, does not enjoy such absolute protection either under the ECHR or European Union law (on the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture, see Case C-112/00 Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-5659, paragraph 80); as a result the case-law referred to is not transposable to it.
Međutim, pravo vlasništva, na koje zamrzavanje financijskih sredstava utječe, nije apsolutno zaštićeno EKLJP-om ili pravom Unije (u vezi s apsolutnom zabranom mučenja vidjeti presudu od 12. lipnja 2003., Schmidberger, C-112/00, Zb., str. I-5659., t. 80.), tako da navedena sudska praska nije primjenjiva na to pravo.
90 Regulation No 423/2007 does not provide for an administrative procedure prior to decisions to freeze funds either for initial decisions, as a result of the expected surprise effect, or for re-examination decisions.
90 Uredbom br. 423/2007 nije predviđen upravni postupak prije odluka o zamrzavanju financijskih sredstva kako za prvotne odluke, zbog očekivanog učinka iznenađenja, tako ni za odluke o preispitivanju.
Only the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union described in paragraph 21 above is relevant to the interests of the persons, entities and bodies included in a list in that it authorises them to request a reexamination of the decision by which they were included in that list, by attaching supporting documents to their application.
Samo je službena obavijest u Službenom listu Europske unije opisana u točki 21. ove presude relevantna za interese osoba, subjekata i tijela uključenih u popis jer im je na temelju nje omogućeno da zatraže preispitivanje odluke kojom su uključeni u taj popis uz prilaganje popratnih dokumenta svojem zahtjevu.
91 In the present case, having regard to the fact that there was no organised administrative procedure, the case-law of the European Union referred to by the appellant is not relevant.
91 U ovom slučaju, uzimajući u obzir činjenicu na nije bilo organiziranog upravnog postupka, sudska praksa Unije na koju se poziva žalitelj nije relevantna.
Al-Jubail Fertilizer v Council was delivered in the context of dumping proceedings, to which Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (OJ 1984 L 201, p.
Gore navedena presuda Al-Jubail Fertilizer/Vijeće bila je donesena u okviru antidampinškog postupka na koji se primjenjivala Uredba Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2176/84 od 23. srpnja 1984. o zaštiti od dampinškog ili subvencioniranog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske ekonomske zajednice (SL L 201, str.
1) was applicable, and the judgment in Hercules Chemicals v Commission was delivered in a competition case in which Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p.
1.), dok je gore navedena presuda Hercules Chemicals/Komisija donesena u okviru predmeta u području tržišnog natjecanja na koji su se primjenjivali Uredba Vijeća br. 17 od 6. veljače 1962., Prva uredba o provedbi članaka [81.] i [82.] Ugovora (SL 1962, 13, str. 204.)
87) was applicable, and also as Regulation No 99/63/EEC of the Commission of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17 (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 47).
(SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 8., svezak 3., str. 3.) i Uredba Komisije br. 99/63/EEZ od 25. srpnja 1963. o saslušanjima predviđenima člankom 19. stavcima 1. i 2. Uredbe Vijeća br. 17. (SL 1963, 127, str. 2268.).
92 In any event, in paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court stated that 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.
92 U svakom slučaju, u točki 97. pobijane presude Opći sud podsjetio da je Vijeće dužno samo na zahtjev zainteresirane stranke omogućiti pristup svim službenim dokumentima koji nisu povjerljivi i koji se odnose na predmetnu mjeru.
However, the appellant does not explain in what way the General Court committed an error of law in making that finding.
Međutim, žalitelj nije objasnio na koji je način Opći sud tom ocjenom počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava.
Moreover, it is apparent from the findings of the General Court in paragraphs 103 and 104 of the judgment under appeal, not contested by the appellant in its appeal, that the latter did not request the Council to grant it access to its file.
Nadalje, iz tvrdnji Općeg suda u točkama 103. i 104. pobijane presude, koje žalitelj nije osporavao u svojoj žalbi, proizlazi da potonji od Vijeća nije zatražio pristup spisu.
93 It follows from the above that the third principal ground of appeal is unfounded.
93 Iz navedenog proizlazi da je treći glavni žalbeni razlog neosnovan.
The first alternative ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 and a contradiction in the grounds which vitiate the judgment under appeal
Prvi podredni žalbeni razlog: povreda članka 7. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 i proturječnost razloga pobijane presude
94 This ground of appeal concerns, in particular, paragraphs 51, 52, 64 and 65 of the judgment under appeal, which state:
94 Ovaj se žalbeni razlog posebno odnosi na točke 51, 52., 64. i 65. pobijane presude u kojima je navedeno sljedeće:
`51 Lastly, in so far as the applicant maintains that Articles 7(2) and 15(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 cannot constitute a valid legal basis for the contested decision because they allow the Council to adopt fund-freezing measures going beyond the measures adopted by the Security Council, it has to be pointed out that nothing in Article 60 EC or 301 EC permits the inference that the powers conferred on the Community by those provisions are limited to the implementing of measures decided by the Security Council.
„51 Naposljetku, ako tužitelj smatra da članak 7. stavak 2. i članak 15. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 ne bi mogle biti valjana pravna osnova sporne odluke jer se njima Vijeću omogućuje donošenje mjera zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava koje prelaze mjere koje je donijelo Vijeće sigurnosti, valja istaknuti da ničime u člancima 60. ili 301. UEZ-a nije omogućen zaključak da su ovlasti dodijeljene Zajednici navedenim odredbama ograničene na provedbu mjera koje je donijelo Vijeće sigurnosti. Stoga je Vijeće bilo nadležno za donošenje ne samo članka 7. stavka 1.
The Council was, therefore, competent to adopt not only Article 7(1) of Regulation No 423/2007, which gives effect to Resolution 1737 (2006) by ordering the freezing of the funds of the entities designated by it, but also Article 7(2) of that regulation, which permits the adoption of fund-freezing measures applying to other entities which, in the Council's opinion, are directly associated with or provide support for nuclear proliferation.
Uredbe br. 423/2007, kojim se Rezolucija 1737 (2006) provodi nalogom da se zamrznu financijska sredstva subjekata određenih u toj rezoluciji, već i članka 7. stavka 2. te uredbe, kojim se omogućuje donošenje mjera zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava koje se primjenjuju na druge subjekte koji po mišljenju Vijeća sudjeluju u širenju nuklearnog oružja, izravno su s njim povezani ili mu pružaju potporu. 52 U tom je kontekstu doista točno da se u uvodnoj izjavi 6.
52 In this context, it is, admittedly, true that recital 6 in the preamble to Regulation No 423/2007 requires the Council to exercise the power conferred on it by Article 7(2) of the regulation "in view of the objectives of [Resolution] 1737 (2006)".
Uredbe br. 423/2007 od Vijeća zahtijeva izvršavanje ovlasti koja mu je dodijeljena člankom 7. stavkom 2. uredbe „s obzirom na ciljeve Rezolucije 1737 (2006)" [neslužbeni prijevod].
The obligation to pursue the objectives of Resolution 1737 (2006) does not, however, in any way imply that Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 is to be implemented only in respect of entities referred to in restrictive measures adopted by the Security Council pursuant to that resolution.
Međutim, obveza ostvarivanja ciljeva Rezolucije 1737 (2006) nikako ne podrazumijeva da se članak 7. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 treba provoditi samo u pogledu subjekata koji su obuhvaćeni mjerama ograničavanja koje je na temelju te rezolucije donijelo Vijeće sigurnosti.
The lack of any measures taken by the Security Council or a specific position taken by the latter may, at the very most, be taken into consideration, with other relevant matters, in connection with the determination whether or not the conditions laid down by Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 have been satisfied.
Ako Vijeće sigurnosti ne donese mjere ili određeno stajalište, to se u najboljem slučaju može uzeti u obzir zajedno s drugim relevantnim elementima pri utvrđivanju jesu li uvjeti utvrđeni člankom 7. stavkom 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 zadovoljeni ili nisu. [...]
... 64 The first point to be noted here is that paragraphs 51 and 52 above make it clear that Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 confers on the Council autonomous power, the exercise of which is independent of the Security Council's adoption of restrictive measures applying to the entities concerned.
64 Ovdje najprije valja napomenuti da iz gore navedenih točaka 51. i 52. proizlazi da je člankom 7. stavkom 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 Vijeću dodijeljena autonomna ovlast, čije izvršenje ne ovisi o tome je li Vijeće sigurnosti donijelo mjere ograničavanja koje se primjenjuju na predmetne subjekte.
The object of Article 7(2) of the regulation and of the contested decision, adopted pursuant to that regulation, is not that of giving effect to resolutions of the Security Council, but only to ensure that the ends pursued by one of the resolutions in question, namely Resolution 1737 (2006), are attained by means of adopting autonomous restrictive measures.
Cilj članka 7. stavka 2. uredbe i [sporne] odluke, donesene na temelju te uredbe, nije provedba rezolucija Vijeća sigurnosti donesenih u vezi sa širenjem nuklearnog oružja, već samo osiguravanje ostvarivanja ciljeva koji se nastoje ostvariti predmetnim rezolucija, odnosno Rezolucijom 1737 (2006), donošenjem autonomnih mjera ograničavanja.
65 So, contrary to what the applicant maintains, neither Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 nor the contested decision gives effect to Resolution 1803 (2008), which means that the content and objectives of that resolution are not a yardstick against which the compatibility of the contested decision with the principle of proportionality must be assessed.'
65 Dakle, suprotno onome što tvrdi tužitelj, člankom 7. stavkom 2. Uredbe br. 423/2207 i [spornom] odlukom ne provodi se Rezolucija 1803 (2008), što znači da sadržaj i ciljevi te rezolucije nisu kriterij na temelju kojeg treba ocijeniti usklađenost [sporne] odluke s načelom proporcionalnosti."
95 The appellant submits that the General Court disregarded the limits of the Council's power of assessment on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 by rejecting the relevance of the Security Council resolutions in that assessment.
95 Žalitelj tvrdi da Opći sud nije pravilno odredio granice diskrecijskih ovlasti Vijeća na temelju članka 7. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 time što je u toj ocjeni odbacio relevantnost rezolucija Vijeća sigurnosti.
It thus committed an error of law and an error of assessment of the facts by rejecting the pleas alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the right to property since its reasoning was vitiated by contradictory grounds.
Dakle, počinio je pogrešku koja se tiče prava i pogrešku u ocjeni činjenica odbivši tužbene razloge koji su se temeljili na povredi načela proporcionalnosti i povredi prava vlasništva jer je njegovo obrazloženje bilo proturječno.
96 According to the appellant, the relationship between Regulation No 423/2007 and the Security Council resolutions cannot be denied; the purpose of that regulation was to implement those resolutions.
96 Po mišljenju žalitelja, ne može se zanijekati povezanost Uredbe br. 423/2007 i rezolucija Vijeća sigurnosti. Svrha te uredbe bila je provedba tih rezolucija.
Resolution 1803 (2008) merely required Member States to exercise `vigilance' as regards Bank Melli Iran.
Rezolucijom 1803 (2008) od država članica zahtijevao se samo „oprez" u pogledu banke Bank Melli Iran.
97 Moreover, the General Court's reasoning is vitiated by contradictory grounds.
97 Osim toga, obrazloženje Općeg suda je proturječno.
In paragraph 52 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court noted the relevance of Security Council resolutions whereas, in paragraphs 64 and 65 of the judgment under appeal, it described the Council's power as autonomous.
U točki 52. pobijane presude Opći sud navodi relevantnost rezolucija Vijeća sigurnosti, dok je točkama 64. i 65. pobijane presude ovlast Vijeća opisao kao autonomnu.
98 The Council, the French Republic, the United Kingdom and the Commission stress the autonomous nature of the measures adopted by the Council.
98 Vijeće, Francuska Republika, Ujedinjena Kraljevina i Komisija ističu autonomnost mjera koje je donijelo Vijeće.
The French Republic states that, in Resolution 1803 (2008) the Security Council left it to the States to make an assessment.
Francuska Republika navodi da je u Rezoluciji 1803 (2008) Vijeće sigurnosti ocjenu prepustilo državama.
In any event, the fact that the Security Council recommended vigilance does not mean that fund-freezing is a disproportionate measure.
U svakom slučaju, činjenica da je Vijeće sigurnosti preporučilo oprez ne znači da je zamrzavanje financijskih sredstava neproporcionalna mjera.
The Commission points out that Council pursued the objective of Resolution 1737 (2006).
Komisija ističe da je Vijeće slijedilo cilj Rezolucije 1737 (2006).