natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
47 Second, as regards Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007 more specifically, it must be borne in mind that the principle of effective judicial protection means that the European Union authority which adopts an act imposing restrictive measures against a person or entity is bound to communicate the grounds on which it is based, so far as possible, either when that measure is adopted or, at the very least, as swiftly as possible after it has been adopted in order to enable those persons or entities to exercise their right to bring an action (see, to that effect, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, paragraph 336).
47 Kao drugo, valja upozoriti konkretno u vezi s člankom 15. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007 da načelo djelotvorne sudske zaštite znači da je tijelo Unije koje donosi akt o određivanju mjera ograničavanja protiv osobe ili subjekta obvezno navesti u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri razloge na kojima se taj akt temelji u trenutku donošenja akta ili najkasnije što je prije moguće nakon njegovog donošenja kako bi se tim osobama ili subjektima omogućilo ostvarivanje prava na pravni lijek (u tom smislu vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, t. 336.).
48 It is with a view to ensuring observance of that principle that Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007 requires the Council to state individual and specific reasons for decisions taken pursuant to Article 7(2) of the regulation and make them known to the persons, entities and bodies concerned.
48 Kako bi se osiguralo poštovanje tog načela, člankom 15. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007 o mjerama ograničavanja protiv Irana od Vijeća se zahtijeva da navede pojedinačne i posebne razloge za odluke donesene u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 2. te uredbe i s njima upozna predmetne osobe, subjekte i tijela.
49 As the General Court noted in paragraph 86 of the judgment under appeal, the freezing of funds has considerable consequences for the entities concerned, for it may restrict the exercise of their fundamental rights.
49 Kako je Opći sud naveo u točki 86. pobijane presude, zamrzavanje financijskih sredstava ima znatne posljedice za predmetne subjekte jer se njime može ograničiti ostvarivanje njihovih temeljnih prava.
50 Although Regulation No 423/2007 does not state how reasons are `to be made known' to the persons, entities and bodies concerned, the claim made by the United Kingdom that publication in the Official Journal of the European Union is sufficient cannot be upheld.
50 Iako u Uredbi br. 423/2007 nije navedeno kako predmetne osobe, subjekte i tijela treba „upoznati" s razlozima, tvrdnja Ujedinjene Kraljevine da je objava u Službenom listu Europske unije dovoljna ne može se prihvatiti.
51 Indeed, if the communication of individual and specific reasons could be regarded as accomplished through publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, it is difficult to imagine why express reference is made to such communication, as in Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007, since that decision must be published in any event, in accordance with Article 254(1) and (2) EC, having regard to its prescriptive nature, as pointed out in paragraph 45 above.
51 Naime, ako bi se obavijest o pojedinačnim i posebnim razlozima mogla smatrati ostvarenom na temelju objave u Službenom listu Europske unije, teško je razumjeti zašto se u navedenom članku 15. stavku 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007 izričito upućuje na takvu obavijest s obzirom na to da ta odluka o zamrzavanju financijskih sredstava u svakom slučaju mora biti objavljena u skladu s člankom 254. stavcima 1. i 2. UEZ-a, uzimajući u obzir njezinu regulatornu prirodu koja se navodi u gore navedenoj točki 45 ove presude.
52 It follows that the Council is required to communicate a decision individually to satisfy the obligation imposed on it by that provision.
52 Iz toga proizlazi da Vijeće mora uputiti pojedinačnu obavijest o odluci kako bi ispunilo obvezu koja mu je određena tom odredbom.
53 That conclusion is not called into question by Article 254(3) EC, to which the appellant refers, concerning the notification of a decision in the narrow sense; besides, the appellant did not allege an infringement of that provision before the General Court.
53 Taj se zaključak ne dovodi u pitanje člankom 254. stavkom 3. UEZ-a na kojeg se poziva žalitelj i koji se odnosi na obavijest o odluci u užem smislu, pri čemu žalitelj nije naveo povredu te odredbe pred Općim sudom.
54 The same is true of paragraphs 68 to 73 of the judgment in Hoechst v Commission, to which the appellant refers and which need to be understood in the light of the parties' arguments to which they respond and their context.
54 Isto proizlazi iz točaka 68. do 73. gore navedene presude Hoechst/Komisija na koju se poziva žalitelj i koju valja tumačiti uzimajući u obzir argumente stranaka na koje se odgovara u tim točkama i njihov kontekst.
As is apparent from paragraphs 44 to 53 of the judgment in Hoechst v Commission, and paragraphs 21 to 24 of the Opinion of Advocate General Cosmos in that case, Hoechst AG relied on the lack of authentification of the contested decision and the fact that the text sent to it was not that adopted on the date indicated.
Kao što proizlazi iz točaka 44. do 53. gore navedene presude Hoechst/Komisija i točaka 21. do 24. mišljenja nezavisnog odvjetnika Cosmasa iz te presude, Hoechst AG se pozvao na nevjerodostojnost sporne odluke i činjenicu da tekst koji mu je poslan nije bio jednak tekstu donesenom navedenog dana.
In paragraph 69 of that judgment, the Court of Justice answered that line of argument by referring to paragraphs 48 and 49 of the judgment in Case C-137/92 P Commission v BASF and Others [1994] ECR I-2555, which relate to irregularities such as that at issue in that case, namely the lack of authentification of the measure.
Sud je u točki 69. te presude odgovorio na tu argumentaciju upućivanjem na točke 48. i 49. presude od 15. lipnja 1994., Komisija/BASF i dr. (C-137/92 P, Zb., str. I-2555.), koje se odnose na nepravilnosti kao što su one u tom predmetu, odnosno nevjerodostojnost akta.
In so far as concerns paragraph 72 of the judgment in Hoechst v Commission, reference is clearly made to the issue ruled upon in Commission v BASF and Others, namely, the legal consequences of the lack of authentification of a measure.
Što se tiče točke 72. gore navedene presude Hoechst/Komisija, jasno se upućuje na pitanje riješeno gore navedenom presudom Komisija/BASF i dr., odnosno na pravne posljedice nevjerodostojnosti akta.
55 In the present case, the individual and specific reasons for the freezing of funds provided for in Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007 have not been communicated by the Council, but sufficient information was communicated to the appellant's branch by the French banking commission and the appellant was able to bring an action.
55 U ovom slučaju Vijeće nije uputilo obavijest o pojedinačnim i posebnim razlozima zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava predviđenu člankom 15. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007, ali je francuska komisija za bankarstvo poslala dostatne informacije podružnici žalitelja i žalitelj je mogao podnijeti tužbu.
In the light of those factors, nor did the General Court commit an error of law, in paragraph 90 of the judgment under appeal, in holding that the fact that the Council did not apprise the appellant of the statement of reasons for the contested decision did not have the effect of depriving it of an opportunity of knowing, in good time, the reasons for the contested decision or of assessing the validity of the fund-freezing measure adopted in its regard.
S obzirom na navedene elemente, Opći sud nije počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava u točki 90. pobijane presude presudivši da time što Vijeće nije upoznalo žalitelja s obrazloženjem sporne odluke tužitelju nije bila uskraćena mogućnost da se pravodobno upozna s obrazloženjem sporne odluke ili da ocijeni osnovanost mjere zamrzavanja financijskih sredstva donesene protiv njega.
56 Although, as just pointed out, an individual communication is necessary in principle, it is sufficient to note that Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007 does not require communications to take a specific form, and refers only to the obligation to `make them known'.
56 Iako je, kako je upravo istaknuto, pojedinačna obavijest u načelu neophodna, dovoljno je utvrditi da se člankom 15. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007, u kojem se navodi samo obveza „upoznavanja", ne zahtijeva neki poseban oblik obavijesti.
What matters is that useful effect should have been given to that provision, namely, effective judicial protection of the persons and entities concerned by the restrictive measures adopted pursuant to Article 7(2) of the regulation, which was the case in this instance.
Važno je toj odredbi dati koristan učinak, a to je djelotvorna sudska zaštita predmetnih osoba i subjekata mjerama ograničavanja donesenima u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 2. uredbe, što je u ovom slučaju učinjeno.
57 It follows from all of the above considerations that the first ground of appeal is unfounded.
57 Iz svih navedenih razmatranja proizlazi da je prvi žalbeni razlog neosnovan.
The second principal ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the legal bases of Regulation No 423/2007 and an erroneous statement of reasons for the judgment under appeal
Drugi glavni žalbeni razlog: pogrešna primjena prava u tumačenju pravne osnove Uredbe br. 423/2007 i pogrešno obrazloženje pobijane presude
58 This ground of appeal concerns paragraphs 45 to 50 of the judgment under appeal, which read as follows:
58 Ovaj se žalbeni razlog odnosi na točke 45. do 50. pobijane presude u kojima je navedeno sljedeće:
`45 It is a special feature of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC that they form a bridge between the actions of the Community involving economic measures under Articles 60 EC and 301 EC and the objectives of the EU Treaty [in the version prior to the Treaty of Lisbon] in the sphere of external relations, including the [common foreign and security policy] (CFSP) (see, to that effect, Kadi [and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission,] paragraph 197).
„45 Posebnost je članaka 60. i 301. UEZ-a da oni čine premošćujuću klauzulu između djelovanja Zajednice koja uključuju gospodarske mjere ciljeva Ugovora o EU-a [u verziji ranijoj od Ugovora iz Lisabona] u području vanjskih odnosa, uključujući ZVSP (u tom smislu vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Kadi [i Al Barakaat International/Vijeće i Komisija], t. 197.).
Articles 60 EC and 301 EC are provisions expressly envisaging that action by the Community may prove necessary in order to attain one of the objectives specifically assigned to the Union by Article 2 EU, namely the implementation of a common foreign and security policy.
Članci 60. i 301. UEZ-a su odredbe kojima je izričito predviđeno da se djelovanje Zajednice može pokazati neophodnim za ostvarivanje jednog od ciljeva posebno dodijeljenog Uniji člankom 2. UEU-a, a to je provedba zajedničke vanjske i sigurnosne politike.
46 That fact is, however, without prejudice to the coexistence of the Union and the Community as integrated but separate legal orders, or to the constitutional architecture of the pillars, as intended by the framers of the Treaties now in force (see, to that effect, Kadi [and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission], paragraph 202).
46 Međutim, tom se činjenicom ne dovodi u pitanje istodobno postojanje Unije i Zajednice kao integriranih, ali odvojenih pravnih poredaka ni ustavna struktura stupova, kako su je predvidjeli autori ugovora koji su sada na snazi (u tom smislu vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Kadi [i Al Barakaat International/Vijeće i Komisija], t. 202.).
Consequently, even though an action by the Community under Articles 60 EC and 301 EC gives effect to one of the objectives of the Union, it is nevertheless undertaken on the basis of the Community pillar.
Slijedom toga, iako se djelovanjem Zajednice na temelju članaka 60. i 301. UEZ-a provodi jedan od ciljeva Unije, to se djelovanje provodi na temelju stupa Zajednice.
The lawfulness of measures taken in that sphere, such as Regulation No 423/2007 and the measures implementing it, must therefore be assessed in relation to the conditions laid down by the rules of that pillar, including the appropriate voting rule.
Stoga zakonitost akata donesenih u tom području, kao što su Uredba br. 423/2007 i akti za njezinu provedbu, valja ocijeniti u odnosu na uvjete utvrđene pravilima tog stupa, uključujući odgovarajuće pravilo o glasovanju.
47 It follows from the foregoing that, contrary to the applicant's claims, Common Position 2007/140, which forms part of the second pillar of the Union, is not a legal basis for Regulation No 423/2007 or for the measures implementing it, which means that the voting rule applicable to the adoption of that common position and to its amendment is irrelevant.
47 Iz prethodno navedenog proizlazi da, suprotno tvrdnjama tužitelja, Zajedničko stajalište 2007/140, koje čini dio drugog stupa Unije, nije pravna osnova Uredbe br. 423/2007 ili akata za njezinu provedbu, što znači da je pravilo o glasovanju koje se primjenjuje na donošenje tog zajedničkog stajališta i na njegove izmjene irelevantno.
Indeed, the existence of a common position or of a joint action previously adopted in the sphere of the CFSP is simply a condition laid down by Article 301 EC, which also defines the voting rule applicable to the adoption of the measures taken to give it effect.
Naime, postojanje zajedničkog stajališta ili zajedničkog djelovanja prethodno donesenih u području ZVSP-a samo je uvjet utvrđen člankom 301. UEZ-a, kojim je određeno i pravilo o glasovanju koje se primjenjuje na donošenja akata za njihovu provedbu.
48 In the present case, it is not disputed that Regulation No 423/2007 and the contested decision were adopted by a qualified majority, in accordance with the rule laid down in Article 301 EC.
48 U ovom slučaju nije sporno da su Uredba br. 423/2007 i sporna odluka donesene kvalificiranom većinom, u skladu s pravilom utvrđenim člankom 301. UEZ-a.
Nor is it disputed that the adoption of that regulation was preceded by the unanimous adoption of Common Position 2007/140 or that the adoption of the contested decision was preceded by the unanimous adoption of Common Position 2008/479, by which the applicant's name was entered in the list of entities to which the fund-freezing measure applied by virtue of Article 5(1)(b) of Common Position 2007/140.
Nije sporno ni da je donošenju te uredbe prethodilo jednoglasno donošenje Zajedničkog stajališta 2007/140 ili da je donošenju sporne odluke prethodilo jednoglasno donošenje Zajedničkog stajališta 2008/479, u kojem je naziv tužitelja uvršten u popis subjekata na koje se primjenjuje mjera zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava na temelju članka 5. stavka 1. točke (b) Zajedničkog stajališta 2007/140.
It is accordingly to be concluded that the conditions laid down by Article 301 EC have been complied with.
U skladu s tim valja zaključiti da su se poštovali uvjeti utvrđeni člankom 301. UEZ-a.
49 Consequently the applicant's head of claim alleging failure to follow the applicable voting rule must be rejected.
49 Slijedom toga prigovor tužitelja koji se odnosi na nepoštovanje primjenjivog pravila o glasovanju valja odbiti.
50 With regard to the applicant's other heads of claim, it is to be borne in mind that a measure is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence to have been taken with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated or of evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case (see Case C-210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I-11893, paragraph 75, and Case T-158/99 Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-1, paragraph 164, and the case-law cited).
50 U vezi s drugim prigovorima tužitelja, valja podsjetiti da u odnosu na akt može govoriti o postojanju zlouporabe ovlasti ako se utvrdi, na temelju objektivnih, relevantnih i usklađenih pokazatelja, da je on donesen s isključivim ciljem, ili barem odlučujućim, postizanja drugih ciljeva od ciljeva na koje se poziva ili izbjegavanja postupka posebno predviđenog Ugovorom za rješavanje okolnosti predmetnog slučaja (vidjeti presudu Suda od 14. prosinca 2004., Swedish Match, C-210/03, Zb., str. I-11893., t. 75., presudu Općeg suda od 13. siječnja 2004., Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz i dr./Komisija, T-158/99, Zb., str. II-1., t. 164., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
In this case, the applicant has not adduced evidence suggesting that the Council, in adopting the contested decision, pursued any end other than that of stopping nuclear proliferation by freezing the funds of entities which it considered were engaged in, directly associated with, or provided support for the activities concerned, in accordance with the procedure laid down for that purpose by the EC Treaty and by Regulation No 423/2007.'
U ovom slučaju tužitelj nije podnio dokaze da je Vijeće donošenjem sporne odluke slijedilo drugi cilj osim sprečavanja širenja nuklearnog oružja zamrzavanjem financijskih sredstava subjekata za koje je smatralo da sudjeluju u predmetnim aktivnostima, da su izravno s njima povezani ili da ih podupiru, u skladu s postupkom utvrđenim za tu namjenu Ugovorom o EZ-u i Uredbom br. 423/2007."
59 The appellant submits that the General Court committed an error of law in interpreting the legal bases of Regulation No 423/2007 and vitiated its judgment with erroneous grounds.
59 Žalitelj tvrdi da je u tumačenju pravne osnove Uredbe br. 423/2007 Opći sud počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava i da je svoju presudu pogrešno obrazložio.
60 The appellant observes that Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 relates to entities that `[are] engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support' for nuclear proliferation. On the basis of the judgment in Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, paragraph 167, it submits that, since the relevant criterion adopted by Regulation No 423/2007 and the contested decision is not the fact of being controlled by a third country, but participation in certain proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, those provisions go beyond the scope of Article 60 EC and 301 EC.
60 Žalitelj podsjeća da se članak 7. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 odnosi na subjekte koji „sudjeluju u širenj[u] nuklearnog oružja, izravno su s njim povezani ili [mu] pružaju potporu." [neslužbeni prijevod]. Na temelju gore navedene presude Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija (t. 167.), on tvrdi da budući da mjerodavni kriterij donesen Uredbom br. 423/2007 i spornom odlukom nije nadzor koji provodi treća zemlja, već sudjelovanje u određenim nuklearnim aktivnostima širenja nuklearnog oružja, te odredbe ne ulaze u područje primjene članaka 60. i 301. UEZ-a.
Consequently, it was essential to base those provisions not only on Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, but also on Article 308 EC, which requires a unanimous vote.
Slijedom toga, bilo je neophodno temeljiti te odredbe ne samo na člancima 60. i 301. UEZ-a, već i na članku 308. UEZ-a, kojim se zahtijeva jednoglasna odluka.
61 The appellant submits that the General Court also erred in law in considering that Common Position 2007/140 did not constitute a legal basis for Regulation No 423/2007 and the contested decision, but merely a `condition' laid down by Article 301 EC.
61 Žalitelj tvrdi da je Opći sud isto tako počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava kada je utvrdio da Zajedničko stajalište 2007/140 ne predstavlja pravnu osnovu Uredbe br. 423/2007 i sporne odluke, već samo „uvjet" utvrđen člankom 301.
In doing so, the General Court made a distinction which is not made in the rules laid down in the Treaty.
UEZ-a. Time je Opći sud napravio razliku koja ne postoji u pravilima utvrđenima Ugovorom.
The appellant argues that the list in Annex V to Regulation No 423/2007 is identical to that in Annex II to Common Position 2007/140, which, pursuant to Article 7(2) of that common position, can be amended only unanimously.
Žalitelj tvrdi da je popis iz Priloga V. Uredbi br. 423/2007 jednak onome iz Priloga II. Zajedničkom stajalištu 2007/140, koji se u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 2. tog zajedničkog stajališta može izmijeniti samo jednoglasnom odlukom.
Since Regulation No 423/2007 is based on Articles 60 EC and 301 EC and on Common Position 2007/140, Annex V to the regulation should have been amended in accordance with the rule of unanimity.
Budući da se Uredba br. 423/2007 temelji na člancima 60. i 301. UEZ-a i na Zajedničkom stajalištu 2007/140, Prilog V. toj uredbi trebalo je izmijeniti u skladu s pravilom jednoglasnosti.
By disregarding that rule in adopting the contested decision, the Council misused its powers.
Nepoštovanjem tog pravila pri donošenju sporne odluke, Vijeće je zlorabilo svoje ovlasti.
62 The French Republic considers that the ground of appeal raised by the appellant goes against the very wording of Article 301 EC.
62 Francuska Republika smatra da je žalbeni razlog koji navodi žalitelj protivan samom tekstu članka 301. UEZ-a.
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.
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.
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.
S tim u vezi, gore navedena presuda Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija nije relevantna jer se odnosi na drukčiju situaciju.
Unlike in the present case, the regulation at issue in that case did not relate to a third country.
Za razliku od ovog slučaja, uredba iz tog predmeta nije se odnosila na treću zemlju.
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.
Komisija dodaje da to što žalitelj sada osporava svoje veze s Islamskom Republikom Iran predstavlja novi žalbeni razlog koji je nedopušten.
64 So far as concerns misuse of powers, the Commission considers that, in paragraph 50 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court responded correctly by referring to the case-law applicable in that area.
64 Što se tiče zloporabe ovlasti, Komisija smatra da je u točki 50. pobijane presude Opći sud pravilno odgovorio upućivanjem na sudsku praksu primjenjivu u tom području.
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.
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.
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.
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.