natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
"22 As is apparent from recitals 4, 5 and 6 in the preamble to Decision 2007/445, the Council informed those persons, groups and entities – by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 25 April 2007 (OJ 2007 C 90, p. 1) – of its intention to maintain them on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and of the fact that they could request the Council’s statement of reasons for including them on the list where this had not already been communicated to them. Following a complete review of that list in the light of the observations and documents submitted to it, the Council concluded that the persons, groups and entities listed in the Annex to Decision 2007/445 had been involved in terrorist acts within the meaning of Article 1(2) and (3) of Common Position 2001/931; that a decision had been taken with respect to them by a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that Common Position; and that they should continue to be subject to the specific restrictive measures provided for in Regulation No 2580/2001."
22 Kako je navedeno u uvodnim izjavama 4., 5. i 6. Odluke 2007/445, Vijeće je obavijestilo te osobe, skupine i subjekte – objavom u Službenom listu Europske unije od 25. travnja 2007. (SL C 90, str. 1.) [neslužbeni prijevod] – o svojoj namjeri da ih zadrži na popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 te o činjenici da mogu od Vijeća zatražiti obrazloženje za njihovo uključivanje u popis ako o tome već nisu bili obaviješteni. Nakon potpunog pregleda tog popisa s obzirom na očitovanja i dokumentaciju koja su mu dostavljena, Vijeće je zaključilo da su osobe, skupine i subjekti na popisu iz Priloga Odluci 2007/445 bili uključeni u teroristička djela u smislu članka 1. stavaka 2. i 3. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931, da su u vezi njih nadležna tijela donijela odluku u smislu članka 1. stavka 4. tog Zajedničkog stajališta i da se na njih nastavljaju primjenjivati posebne mjere ograničavanja iz Uredbe br. 2580/2001.
23 Under Article 3 of Decision 2007/445, ‘[t]his Decision shall take effect on the day of its publication’. Decision 2007/445 was published on 29 June 2007.
23 U skladu s člankom 3. Odluke 2007/445, „[o]va Odluka stupa na snagu na dan objave“. Odluka 2007/445 objavljena je 29. lipnja 2007.
24 DHKP-C is listed as entry no 26 in Section 2, entitled ‘Groups and Entities’, of the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2007/445, which – pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of that decision – replaces, inter alia, the list set out in Decision 2006/379.
24 DHKP-C je naveden u točki br. 26. u odjeljku 2. pod nazivom "Skupine i subjekti" popisa iz Priloga Odluci 2007/445 koji – u skladu s člancima 1. i 2. te odluke – zamjenjuje, između ostalog, popis iz Odluke 2006/379.
25 DHKP-C was maintained on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 by subsequent Council decisions and, in particular, by Council Decision 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2007/445 (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100), and by Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2007/868 (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21).
25 DHKP-C je zadržan na popisu iz članka 2.stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 naknadnim odlukama Vijeća, posebno Odlukom Vijeća 2007/868/EZ od 20 prosinca 2007. o provedbi članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 i stavljanju izvan snage Odluke 2007/445 (SL L 340, str. 100.) [neslužbeni prijevod] i Odlukom Vijeća 2008/583/EZ od 15. srpnja 2008. o provedbi članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 i stavljanju izvan snage Odluke 2007/868 (SL L 188, str. 21.) [neslužbeni prijevod].
"26 Infringements of legislative acts of the European Union, such as Regulation No 2580/2001, are punishable by criminal penalties pursuant to Paragraph 34(4) of the German Law on Foreign Trade (Außenwirtschaftsgesetz; ‘the AWG’), both in the version of 11 December 1996 (BGBl. 1996 I, p. 1850) and in the version of 26 June 2006 (BGBl. 2006 I, p. 1386)."
26 Kršenje zakonodavnih akata Europske unije, kao što je Uredba br. 2580/2001, prema njemačkom Zakonu o vanjskoj trgovini (Außenwirtschaftsgesetz, dalje u tekstu: AWG) kažnjivo je kaznenopravnim sankcijama kako prema njegovoj verziji od 11. prosinca 1996. (BGBI. 1996 I, str. 1850.) tako i prema verziji od 26. lipnja 2006. (BGBI. 2006 I, str. 1386.).
27 The criminal proceedings against the defendants are based on an indictment drawn up by the Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof (‘the Generalbundesanwalt’) on 6 October 2009, in which they are accused of being members of DHKP-C between 30 August 2002 and 5 November 2008, the date of their arrest, the aim of that organisation being, according to the indictment, to overthrow the Turkish political order by force. That is the basis on which the defendants were placed in pre-trial detention.
27 Kazneni postupak protiv tuženikâ temelji se na optužnici koju je sastavio Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof (dalje u tekstu: Generalbundesanwalt) 6. listopada 2009., a kojom ih se između 30. kolovoza 2002. i 5. studenoga 2008., dana njihovog uhićenja, optužuje za članstvo u DHKP-C-u, organizaciji čiji je cilj prema optužnici nasilna promjena političkog poretka u Turskoj. Na tome se temelji smještanje tuženikâ u istražni zatvor.
28 According to the indictment, throughout the duration of their membership of DHKP-C, the defendants – who are charged with running geographical sub-units (‘Bölge’) of DHKP-C in Germany – organised, as part of their main task, which was to provide the DHKP-C with funds, annual campaigns to collect donations for its benefit and transferred the funds collected to the organisation’s highest executive bodies. It is also alleged that the defendants played a crucial role in the organisation of events and the sale of publications with a view to raising funds for DHKP-C and transferred those funds to that organisation. According to the indictment, they were not unaware that the funds thus raised were intended, at least in part, to finance DHKP-C’s terrorist activities.
28 Prema optužnici, tijekom njihova članstva u DHKP-C-u, tuženici, koje se optužuje za vođenje geografskih podjedinica (,Bölge’) DHKP-C-a u Njemačkoj, organizirali su, kao dio njihove glavne zadaće, koja je bila osigurati DHKP-C-u financijska sredstva, godišnje akcije prikupljanja donacija u njegovu korist te prenijeli prikupljena financijska sredstva najvišim izvršnim tijelima organizacije. Također se navodi da su tuženici imali ključnu ulogu u organizaciji događaja i prodaji publikacija s ciljem prikupljanja financijskih sredstava za DHKP-C te su ta financijska sredstva prenijeli navedenoj organizaciji. Prema optužnici, bilo im je poznato da su tako prikupljena financijska sredstva namijenjena, barem djelomično, financiranju terorističkih aktivnosti DHKP-C-a.
‘(1) Taking account, if appropriate, of the amended procedure resulting from [Decision 2007/445], is the listing on the basis of Article 2 of [Regulation No 2580/2001] of an organisation which has not brought proceedings contesting the decisions concerning it to be regarded as effective (‘wirksam’) from the outset even if basic procedural guarantees were infringed in listing it?
„(1) Uzimajući u obzir, prema potrebi, izmijenjeni postupak proistekao iz [Odluke 2007/445], treba li uključivanje u popis na temelju članka 2. [Uredbe br. 2580/2001] organizacije koja nije podnijela tužbu kojom se osporavaju odluke koje se na nju odnose smatrati valjanim (,wirksamʼ) od početka iako je pri njezinom uključivanju došlo do kršenja osnovnih postupovnih jamstava?
(2) Are Articles 2 and 3 of [Regulation No 2580/2001] to be interpreted as meaning that funds, financial assets and economic resources are made available to a legal person, group or entity included in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of the regulation, that there is involvement in such provision or that there is participation in activities to circumvent Article 2 of the regulation even where the provider is, himself, a member of the legal person, group or entity?
(2) Treba li članke 2. i 3. [Uredbe br. 2580/2001] […] tumačiti u smislu da su financijska sredstva, financijska imovina i gospodarski izvori stavljeni na raspolaganje pravnoj osobi, skupini ili subjektu koji su uključeni u popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. te uredbe, da postoji uključenost u to raspolaganje, ili sudjelovanje u aktivnostima usmjerenima na zaobilaženje članka 2. te uredbe čak i ako je sam pružatelj tih sredstava član pravne osobe, skupine ili subjekta?
(3) Are Articles 2 and 3 of [Regulation No 2580/2001] to be interpreted as meaning that funds, financial assets and economic resources are made available to a legal person, group or entity included in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of the regulation, that there is involvement in such provision or that there is participation in activities to circumvent Article 2 of the regulation even where the asset to be provided already is, if only in the broader sense, accessible to the legal person, group or entity?’
(3) Treba li članke 2. i 3. [Uredbe br. 2580/2001] […] tumačiti u smislu da su financijska sredstva, financijska imovina i gospodarski izvori stavljeni na raspolaganje pravnoj osobi, skupini ili subjektu koji su uključeni na popis iz članka 2. stavka 3.te uredbe, da postoji uključenost u to raspolaganje ili sudjelovanje u aktivnostima usmjerenima na zaobilaženje članka 2. uredbe čak i ako je financijska imovina koja je, makar i samo posredno, namijenjena pravnoj osobi, skupini ili subjektu, njima već dostupna?
31 The order for reference was notified on 1 February 2010 to the interested parties, who were accorded a period ending between 15 and 21 April 2010 to submit written observations. At the time of that notification, the national court and those parties were informed of the Court’s decision to give priority to the present reference for a preliminary ruling.
31 Zainteresirane strane obaviještene su o zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku 1. veljače 2010. te im je omogućeno da u razdoblju koje završava između 15. i 21. travnja podnesu pisana očitovanja. Tom obavijesti nacionalni sud i te stranke obaviještene su o odluci Suda da ovom zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku da prednost.
32 By separate document dated 5 February 2010 which was received at the Court Registry on 11 February 2010, the national court requested the Court to apply the present reference for a preliminary ruling under the accelerated procedure. In support of that request, the national court explained that, by order of 15 January 2010, it had opened the defendants’ criminal trial and fixed the date for the hearings for the period between 11 March 2010 and 31 August 2010. the national court expressed the view that, given the likely duration of the trial and the importance, for the case before it, of the questions referred, a ruling on the questions put to the Court is a matter of exceptional urgency.
32 Posebnim dokumentom od 5. veljače 2010. koji je tajništvo Suda zaprimilo 11. veljače 2010., nacionalni sud zatražio je od Suda da se na zahtjev za prethodnu odluku primjeni ubrzani postupak. U prilog tom zahtjevu nacionalni sud je objasnio da je zahtjevom od 15. siječnja 2010. započeo kazneni postupak protiv tuženikâ te odredio datume za rasprave u razdoblju između 11. ožujka i 31. kolovoza 2010. Nacionalni sud izrazio je stajalište da je, s obzirom na očekivano trajanje kaznenog postupka i važnost prethodnih pitanja za postupak koji se pred njim vodi, donošenje odluke o pitanjima upućenim Sudu iznimno hitno.
37 By Question 1, the national court asks, in substance, whether the inclusion of DHKP-C on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001(‘the list’), which DHKP-C has not contested before the courts, must be regarded as having produced effects from the outset despite the fact that the entry was initially made in breach of basic procedural safeguards.
37 Prvim pitanjem nacionalni sud u biti pita treba li smatrati da je uključivanje DHKP-C-a u popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001, što DHKP-C nije osporavao sudskim putem , proizvelo učinke od početka unatoč činjenici da je pri početnom uključivanju došlo do kršenja osnovnih postupovnih jamstava?
"38 It is apparent from the information given in the order for reference that, among those safeguards, the national court is referring, in particular, to the duty under Article 296 TFEU to state reasons. Its doubts, in the light of the defendants’ objections, as to whether, given that duty, that listing was legal flow from judgments in which the General Court held that the inclusion of a number of persons, groups or entities on the list was illegal, chiefly because the Council had failed to state reasons for those various listings in the contested decisions and, accordingly, substantive review by the judicature of the European Union was impossible (Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council [2006] ECR II-4665; judgments of 11 July 2007 in Case T-47/03 Sison v Council and Case T-327/03 Al-Aqsa v Council; and judgments of 3 April 2008 in Case T-229/02 PKK v Council and Case T-253/04 Kongra-Gel and Others v Council)."
"38 Iz informacija navedenih u zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku vidljivo je da se među tim jamstvima nacionalni sud posebno poziva na obvezu obrazlaganja iz članka 296. UFEU-a. U svjetlu prigovora tuženikâ, dvojbe nacionalnog suda o valjanosti njihovog uključivanja s obzirom na tu obvezu proizlaze iz presuda u kojima je Opći sud smatrao da uključivanje više osoba, skupina ili subjekata u popis nije bilo valjano prije svega zato što Vijeće u pobijanim odlukama nije obrazložilo ta različita uključivanja te stoga sudski nadzor merituma nije bio moguć (presude Suda od 12. prosinca 2006., Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran/Vijeće,T-228/02, Zb., str. II-4665.; od 11. srpnja 2007. Sison/Vijeće T-47/03; Al-Aqsa/Vijeće, T-327/03; od 3. travnja 2008. PKK/Vijeće, T-229/02, kao i Kongra-Gel i drugi/Vijeće, T-253/04)."
41 Thus, Question 1 seeks an examination, in the light of the duty under Article 296 TFEU to state reasons, of the legality of the entry of DHKP-C on the list and its maintenance on that list by operation of the provisions identified in paragraph 20 above, which, taken together, cover the period between 30 August 2002, the date on which the conduct alleged in the indictment began, and 28 June 2007, the day before the date on which Decision 2007/445 came into effect (‘the inclusion of DHKP-C on the list during the period prior to 29 June 2007’).
41 U svjetlu obveze obrazlaganja iz članka 296. UFEU-a, prvim se pitanjem dakle traži ispitivanje valjanosti uključivanja DHKP-C-a u popis te njegova zadržavanja na tom popisu primjenom odredbi navedenih u točki 20. ove presude, koje zajedno obuhvaćaju razdoblje između 30. kolovoza 2002., datuma na koji su navodne radnje iz optužnice započele i 28. lipnja 2007., datuma uoči dana na koji je Odluka 2007/445 stupila na snagu (dalje u tekstu: uključivanje DHKP-C-a u popis u skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 2001/2580 tijekom razdoblja prije 29. lipnja 2007.).
42 On the other hand, as is accepted by all the parties who submitted observations to the Court, with the exception of F, Question 1 does not concern the legality of the inclusion of DHKP-C on the list pursuant to Decision 2007/445 and the subsequent Council decisions referred to in paragraph 25 above. Nor – contrary to the position argued for by F – does Question 1 concern the legality of Regulation No 2580/2001.
42 S druge strane, sve stranke koje su podnijele očitovanja Sudu, osim F-a, suglasne su da se prvo pitanje ne tiče valjanosti uključivanja DHKP-C-a u popis u skladu s Odlukom 2007/445 iz točke 25. ove presude. Protivno stajalištu koje zastupa F, ni prvo pitanje ne tiče se valjanosti Uredbe br. 2580/2001.
43 At the outset, it should be emphasised that, by contrast with the case which gave rise to the judgment in Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351, which concerned a measure freezing the applicants’ assets, the provisions whose legality is under consideration in this reference for a preliminary ruling are relied upon in support of accusations relating to an infringement of Regulation No 2580/2001, which is punishable under the applicable national law by criminal penalties entailing custodial sentences.
43 Prvo valja naglasiti da u suprotnosti s predmetom koji je doveo do presude od 3. rujna 2008., Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija (C-402/05 P i C-415/05 P, Zb., str. I-6351.), u kojoj se radilo o mjeri zamrzavanja tužiteljeve imovine, odredbe čija se valjanost razmatra u ovom zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku navedene su u prilog optužbama za kršenje Uredbe br. 25809/2001, što je prema mjerodavnom nacionalnom pravu kažnjivo kaznenopravnim sankcijama koje podrazumijevaju oduzimanje slobode.
44 Against that background, it should be noted that the European Union is based on the rule of law and the acts of its institutions are subject to review by the Court of their compatibility with EU law and, in particular, with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the general principles of law. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to confer on the judicature of the European Union jurisdiction to review the legality of acts of the institutions of the European Union (see, to that effect, Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, paragraphs 38 and 40, and Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, paragraph 281).
44 U tom kontekstu valja napomenuti da je Europska unija Unija prava u kojoj su njezine institucije podložne nadzoru usklađenosti njihovih akata s, među ostalim, Ugovorom o funkcioniranju Europske unije i općim načelima prava. Ugovorom o funkcioniranju Europske unije ustanovljen je cjelovit sustav pravnih lijekova i postupaka kojima je cilj osigurati nadzor zakonitosti akata Unije povjeravajući ga Sudu (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 25. srpnja 2002., Unión de Pequeños Agricultores/Vijeće, C-50/00 P, Zb., str. I-6677., t. 38. i 40., kao i gore navedenu Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, t. 281.).
49 In that regard, it should be pointed out that the defendants themselves were not placed on that list: the entry on the list relates only to DHKP-C. Moreover, the order for reference does not give any information on the basis of which it could be established that the position occupied by the defendants within DHKP-C would have conferred on them the power to represent that organisation in an action for annulment brought before the judicature of the European Union.
49 U tom pogledu valja naglasiti da sami tuženici nisu uključeni u taj popis, uključivanje u popis odnosi se samo na DHKP-C. Štoviše, u zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku ne navode se podaci na temelju kojih se može utvrditi da je položaj koji su imali u DHKP-C-u tuženicima dao ovlasti da zastupaju tu organizaciju u tužbi za poništenje podnesenoj pred sudom Europske unije
50 In addition, it cannot be held that the defendants were indisputably ‘directly and individually concerned’ by the listing at issue for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, which was applicable at the material time.
50 Usto, ne može se smatrati da se popis o kojem je riječ „izravno i osobno odnosi“ na tuženike u smislu četvrtog stavka članka 230. Ugovora o EZ-u koji je bio mjerodavan tijekom predmetnog razdoblja.
51 The reason for this is that, like Regulation No 2580/2001, that inclusion on the list is of general application. It serves, together with that regulation, to impose on an indeterminate number of persons an obligation to comply with specific restrictive measures against DHKP-C (see, by analogy, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, paragraphs 241 to 244).
51 Razlog tomu jest što, poput Uredbe br. 2580/2001., to uključivanje u popis ima opću primjenu. Ono služi da se zajedno s tom uredbom nepoznatom broju osoba uvede obveza poštovanja posebnih mjera ograničavanja protiv DHKP-C-a (vidjeti po analogiji gore navedenu presudu Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, t. 241. do t. 244.).
52 It follows that, as the national court pointed out, the defendants – unlike DHKP-C – did not have an indisputable right to bring an action under Article 230 EC for the annulment of that listing.
52 Iz toga slijedi da, kao što je nacionalni sud istaknuo, tuženici – za razliku od DHKP-C-a – nisu imali neosporivo pravo prema članku 230 Ugovora o EZ-u podnijeti tužbu za poništenje tog uključivanja.
53 As to the assessment, in the light of the duty under Article 296 TFEU to state reasons, of the legality of the provisions identified in paragraph 20 above, it should be pointed out that that duty is applicable to a listing such as that at issue in the main proceedings. That point was not disputed, moreover, by any of the parties who intervened in the proceedings before the Court.
53 Što se tiče valjanosti odredbi iz točke 20. ove presude, u svjetlu obveze obrazlaganja prema članku 296. UFEU-a, treba naglasiti da se ta obveza primjenjuje na uključivanje koje je u pitanju u glavnom postupku. Štoviše, to nije dovodila u pitanje niti jedna od stranaka koje su sudjelovale u postupku pred Sudom.
56 The defendants were therefore denied the information necessary to enable them to verify whether the inclusion of DHKP-C on the list during the period prior to 29 June 2007 – in particular, the accuracy and relevance of the evidence on which that listing was based – was well founded, despite the fact that it was one of the grounds of the indictment drawn up against them. At the hearing, the Council acknowledged that the right to know the evidence justifying such inclusion on the list extended to the defendants.
56 Tuženicima su stoga uskraćene potrebne informacije koje bi mogle potvrditi osnovanost uključivanja DHKP-C-a u popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. navedene uredbe tijekom razdoblja prije 29. lipnja 2007., a posebno, točnost i relevantnost elemenata koji su doveli do uključivanja u popis, usprkos činjenici da je to bio jedan od razloga zbog kojih je protiv njih podignuta optužnica. Tijekom rasprave Vijeće je potvrdilo da se pravo na upoznavanje s elementima koji opravdavaju uključivanje u popis proteže na tuženike.
57 The lack of a statement of reasons which vitiates the listing is also liable to frustrate the attempts of the courts to carry out an adequate review of the substantive legality of that listing, particularly as regards the verification of the facts, and the evidence and information relied upon in support of the listing. As F stated at the hearing, the possibility of an adequate review by the courts is indispensable if a fair balance between the requirements of the fight against international terrorism, on the one hand, and the protection of fundamental liberties and rights, on the other, is to be ensured.
57 Nepostojanje obrazloženja za uključivanje u popis također može spriječiti adekvatan sudski nadzor materijalne zakonitosti tog uključivanja, posebno u pogledu provjere činjenica te dokaza i informacija navedenih u prilog uključivanju. Kako je F naveo tijekom rasprave, odgovarajući sudski nadzor nužan je kako bi se osigurala ravnoteža između zahtjeva u okviru borbe protiv međunarodnog terorizma s jedne strane i zaštite temeljnih prava i sloboda s druge strane.