natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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).
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).
39 Against that background, the national court is uncertain whether, notwithstanding the fact that DHKP-C has not sought annulment of its inclusion on the list, the Council decisions must be held illegal for the same reasons in so far as they placed and subsequently maintained that organisation on the list.
39 U tom kontekstu nacionalni sud nije siguran treba li, bez obzira na činjenicu da DHKP-C nije zatražio poništenje svojeg uključivanja u popis, iz istih razloga smatrati nevaljanim odluke Vijeća kojima je ta organizacija stavljena na popis i dalje zadržana na popisu.
40 The national court is also uncertain as to the effect of Decision 2007/445, given the assertion made in the indictment that the inclusion of DHKP-C on the list had, in any event, been legitimated ex post facto in view of the procedure which the Council followed for the purposes of adopting that decision, in the course of which the reasons for including DHKP-C were stated.
40 Nacionalni sud također nije siguran u učinak Odluke 2007/445 s obzirom na tvrdnju u optužnici da je uključivanje DHKP-C-a u popis u svakom slučaju retroaktivno opravdano zahvaljujući postupku koji je Vijeće primijenilo za donošenje te odluke, tijekom kojeg su navedeni razlozi za uključivanje DHKP-C-a.
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.
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.
Nor - contrary to the position argued for by F - does Question 1 concern the legality of Regulation No 2580/2001.
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.
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.
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).
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.).
45 It follows that, in proceedings before the national courts, every party has the right to plead before the court hearing the case the illegality of the provisions contained in legislative acts of the European Union which serve as the basis for a decision or act of national law relied upon against him and to prompt that court, which does not have jurisdiction itself to make a finding of such illegality, to put that question to the Court by means of a reference for a preliminary ruling (see, to that effect, Cases C-239/99 Nachi Europe [2001] ECR I-1197, paragraph 35, and Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, paragraph 40).
45 Iz toga slijedi da u postupcima pred nacionalnim sudovima svaka stranka ima pravo pred sudom koji odlučuje o predmetu pozvati se na nevaljanost odredbi zakonodavnih akata Europske unije na temelju kojih je protiv nje donesena odluka ili akt nacionalnog prava te potaknuti taj sud, koji sam nije nadležan utvrditi tu nevaljanost, da uputi Sudu prethodno pitanje (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 15. veljače 2001., Nachi Europe, C-239/99, Zb., str. I-1197, t 35., i Unión de Pequeños Agricultores/Vijeće, t. 40.).
46 The recognition of that right presupposes, however, that the party in question had no right of direct action under Article 263 TFEU by which it could challenge provisions, the consequences of which it is suffering without having been able to seek their annulment (see, to that effect, Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf [1994] ECR I-833, paragraph 23, and Nachi Europe, paragraph 36).
46 Priznavanje tog prava međutim pretpostavlja da stranka u pitanju nema pravo, u skladu s člankom 263. UFEU-a, izravne tužbe,kojom bi mogla osporiti odredbe čije posljedice izravno trpi bez mogućnosti da zatraži njihovo poništenje (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 9. ožujka 1994., TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, C-188/92, Zb., str. I-833., t. 23. kao i gore navedenu Nachi Europe, t. 36.).
47 Pursuant to Paragraph 34(4) of the AWG, in the case before the referring court, the inclusion of DHKP-C on the list during the period prior to 29 June 2007 serves, together with Regulation No 2580/2001, as the basis for the indictment of the defendants in respect of that period.
47 Prema članku 34. stavku 4. AWG-a, u glavnom predmetu je uključivanje DHKP-C-a u popis tijekom razdoblja prije 29. lipnja 2007., zajedno s Uredbom br. 2580/2001, temelj za podizanje optužnice protiv tuženikâ za navedeno razdoblje.
48 Accordingly, it is necessary to determine whether, if the defendants had brought an action for annulment of that listing, the admissibility of their action would have been beyond doubt (see, to that effect, Case C-343/07 Bavaria and Bavaria Italia [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 40).
48 U skladu s tim, valja utvrditi bi li, da su tuženici podnijeli tužbu za poništenje tog uključivanja, ona bez sumnje bila dopuštena (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 2. srpnja 2009., Bavaria i Bavaria Italia, C-343/07, Zb., str. I-5491, t. 40.)
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.
49 U tom pogledu valja naglasiti da sami tuženici nisu uključeni u taj popis, uključivanje u popis odnosi se samo na 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.
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.
51 Razlog tomu jest što, poput Uredbe br. 2580/2001., to uključivanje u popis ima opću primjenu.
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).
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.
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.
That point was not disputed, moreover, by any of the parties who intervened in the proceedings before the Court.
Štoviše, to nije dovodila u pitanje niti jedna od stranaka koje su sudjelovale u postupku pred Sudom.
54 The purpose of that duty is, first, to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure so that they can assess whether it is well founded and, secondly, to enable the competent court to exercise its power of review (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03 Atzeni and Others [2006] ECR I-1875, paragraph 73, and C-370/07 Commission v Council [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 37).
54 Svrha te obveze jest, prvo, omogućiti zainteresiranima da se upoznaju s razlozima za donošenje tog akta tako da mogu ocijeniti njegovu osnovanost i, drugo, omogućiti nadležnom sudu da izvrši nadzor (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 23. veljače 2006. Atzeni i drugi, C-346/03 i C-529/03, Zb., str. I-1875., t. 73., kao i od 1. listopada 2009., Komisija/Vijeće,C-370/07, Zb., I-8917., t. 37.).
55 In the present case, as the Council confirmed at the hearing, none of the provisions referred to in paragraph 20 above was accompanied by a statement of reasons relating to the legal conditions for the application to DHKP-C of Regulation No 2580/2001, in particular, those relating to the existence of a decision taken by a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 or an explanation of the actual and specific reasons for which the Council considered that the inclusion of DHKP-C on the list was justified, or remained so.
55 U ovom slučaju, kako je Vijeće potvrdilo tijekom rasprave, niti jedna od odredbi iz točke 20. ove presude nije popraćena obrazloženjem koje se odnosi na pravne uvjete za primjenu Uredbe br. 2580/2001 na DHKP-C, posebno one koji se odnose na postojanje odluke koju je donijelo nadležno tijelo u smislu članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931 ili objašnjenjem konkretnih i posebnih razloga zbog kojih je Vijeće smatralo da je uključivanje DHKP-C-a u popis bilo ili jest opravdano.
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.
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.
At the hearing, the Council acknowledged that the right to know the evidence justifying such inclusion on the list extended to the defendants.
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.
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.
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.
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.
58 The Generalbundesanwalt argues nevertheless that, even if the inclusion of DHKP-C on the list prior to 29 June 2007 was not done legally, it has, in any event, been legitimated ex post facto by virtue of the procedure which was followed for the adoption of Decision 2007/445, in the course of which the reasons for that listing were provided.
58 Generalbundesanwalt, međutim, smatra da, čak i ako uključivanje DHKP-C-a u popis prije 29. lipnja 2007. nije bilo valjano, ono je, u svakom slučaju bilo retroaktivno opravdano postupkom za donošenje Odluke 2007/445, tijekom kojeg su navedeni razlozi za to uključivanje.
59 However, even if it were to be supposed that, by adopting Decision 2007/445, the Council intended to remedy the lack of a statement of reasons for placing DHKP-C on the list during the period prior to 29 June 2007, that decision cannot, in any circumstances, be relied upon, in conjunction with Paragraph 34(4) of the AWG, as a basis for a criminal conviction in respect of facts relating to that period, without infringing the principle of the non-retroactivity of provisions which may form the basis for a criminal conviction (see, by analogy, Case 63/83 Kirk [1984] ECR 2689, paragraphs 21 and 22; Case C-331/88 Fedesa and Others [1990] ECR I-4023, paragraph 44; and Joined Cases C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-403/02 Berlusconi and Others [2005] ECR I-3565, paragraphs 74 to 78).
59 Međutim, čak i ako bi se pretpostavilo da je, donošenjem Odluke 2007/445, Vijeće imalo namjeru ispraviti izostanak obrazloženja za uključivanje DHKP-C-a u popis tijekom razdoblja prije 29. lipnja 2007., ta odluka nikako ne može, zajedno s točkom 34. stavkom 4. AWG-a, biti temelj za osuđujuću presudu u kaznenom postupku za činjenice koje se odnose na to razdoblje, bez povrede načela zabrane retroaktivnog djelovanja odredbi koje predstavljaju temelj za osuđujuću presudu u kaznenom postupku (vidjeti po analogiji presude od 10. srpnja 1984., Kirk, 63/83, Zb., str. 2689., t. 21. i t. 22.; i od 13. studenoga 1990., Fedesa i drugi, C-331/88 str. I-4023., t. 44., kao i od 3. svibnja 2005., Berlusconi i drugi, C-387/02, C-391/02 i C-403/02, Zb., str. I-3565., t. 74. do t. 78.).
60 If it were accepted that, for the purposes of the proceedings before the referring court, Decision 2007/445 could provide a statement of the reasons for the decisions identified in paragraph 20 above, which were illegal during the period prior to 29 June 2007, Decision 2007/445 would in reality form part of the basis for a criminal conviction in respect of acts committed during that period, notwithstanding the fact that, throughout that period, that decision did not exist.
60 Ako bi se prihvatilo da, za potrebe glavnog postupka Odluka 2007/445 može osigurati obrazloženje za odluke iz točke 20. ove presude, koje su bile nevaljane tijekom razdoblja prije 29. lipnja 2007., Odluka 2007/445 mogla bi zapravo biti dio temelja za osuđujuću presudu u kaznenom postupku za djela počinjena tijekom tog razdoblja, bez obzira na činjenicu što tijekom tog razdoblja ta odluka nije postojala.
61 In those circumstances, it is for the national court to decline to apply, in the proceedings before it, the provisions referred to in paragraph 20 above, which consequently cannot form any part of the basis for criminal proceedings against the defendants in respect of the period prior to 29 June 2007.
61 U tim okolnostima, na nacionalnom sudu je da u postupku koji se pred njim vodi izuzme od primjene odredbe iz točke 20. ove presude, koje ne mogu biti dio temelja za kazneni postupak protiv tuženikâ u odnosu na razdoblje prije 29. lipnja 2007.
62 In view of the above, the answer to Question 1 is that, in respect of the period prior to 29 June 2007, the inclusion of DHKP-C on the list is illegal and, accordingly, can form no part of the basis for a criminal conviction linked to an alleged infringement of Regulation No 2580/2001.
62 Uzimajući u obzir navedeno, na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da je u odnosu na razdoblje prije 29. lipnja 2007., uključivanje DHKP-C-a na listu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 nevaljano i stoga ne može biti dio temelja za osuđujuću presudu u kaznenom postupku zbog navodnog kršenja navedene uredbe.
Questions 2 and 3
Drugo i treće pitanje
63 By Questions 2 and 3, which should be considered together, the national court asks, in substance, whether Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 must be interpreted as applying to the transfer, to a legal person, group or entity which is on the list, by a member of that legal person, group or entity, of funds, other financial assets or economic resources collected or obtained from third persons.
63 Drugim i trećim pitanjem, koja valja razmotriti zajedno, nacionalni sud u biti pita treba li članke 2. i 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 tumačiti tako da se odnose na prijenos pravnoj osobi, skupini ili subjektu na popisu, od strane člana te pravne osobe, skupine ili subjekta, financijskih sredstava, ostale financijske imovine ili gospodarskih izvora prikupljenih ili dobivenih od trećih osoba.
64 In the light of the information provided in the order for reference, the point of those two questions is to ascertain whether acts such as those by which the defendants, in their capacity as members of DHKP-C, transferred to that organisation - or, to be exact, to its highest executive bodies - the funds obtained from third persons through annual campaigns to collect donations, and through events and sales of publications, imply that those funds were made available for the benefit of that organisation within the meaning of Regulation No 2580/2001.
64 S obzirom na informacije u zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku, tim se pitanjima želi utvrditi proizlazi li iz djela kao što su ona kojima su tuženici, u svojstvu članova DHKP-C-a, prenijeli toj organizaciji, ili, točnije, njezinim najvišim izvršnim tijelima, sredstva dobivena od trećih osoba putem godišnjih akcija prikupljanja donacija i putem događanja i prodaje publikacija, da su ta sredstva stavljena na raspolaganje u korist te organizacije u smislu Uredbe br. 2580/2001.
65 The first point to note in that regard is that, as the French Government commented, there is nothing in the wording of Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 to support the inference that those provisions do not apply to acts of that nature.
65 S tim u vezi treba prije svega napomenuti, u skladu s napomenom francuske Vlade, da se iz teksta članaka 2. i 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 nikako ne može zaključiti da se te odredbe ne primjenjuju na djela te naravi.
66 On the contrary, the prohibition laid down in Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation No 2580/2001 is framed in particularly broad terms (see, by analogy, Case C-117/06 Möllendorf and Möllendorf-Niehuus [2007] ECR I-8361, paragraph 50).
66 Naprotiv, zabrana iz članka 2. stavka 1. točke (b) Uredbe br. 2580/2001 posebno je široko formulirana (vidjeti prema analogiji presudu od 11. listopada 2007., Möllendorf i Möllendorf-Niehuus, C-117/06, Zb., str. I-8361., t. 50.).