natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
25 The General Court concluded therefrom, at paragraph 37 of the judgment under appeal, that it must be held that the contested decision had been adopted in disregard of the principles stated, in particular, in Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council, paragraphs 120, 126 and 131, so far as the rights of the defence were concerned.
25 Iz toga je Opći sud u točki 37. pobijane presude zaključio da se mora smatrati kako sporna odluka krši načela, posebno ona navedena u gore navedenoj presudi Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran/Vijeće, u točkama 120., 126. i 131. u mjeri u kojoj se odnose na prava na obranu.
26 In addition, at paragraphs 39 to 44 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court considered, in the first place, the Council’s argument that that institution was justified in so acting because of the particular situation in which it found itself in the circumstances of the case, in particular, the urgency with which the contested decision had to be adopted.
26 Usto, u točkama od 39. do 44. pobijane presude Opći sud razmatrao je prije svega argument Vijeća da se njegov postupak može opravdati posebnošću situacije u kojoj se zateklo s obzirom na okolnosti predmeta, posebno s obzirom na žurnost kojom je trebalo donijeti spornu odluku.
28 The General Court noted that more than two months had elapsed between 7 May 2008, when the Court of Appeal gave its judgment making it definitively impossible for the Council still to rely on the Home Secretary’s order of 28 March 2001, and 15 July 2008, the date on which the contested decision was adopted. The Council has not, however, explained why it could not, immediately after 7 May 2008, take steps with a view either to removing the applicant from the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 or to maintaining it in that list on the basis of new evidence.
28 Opći sud napomenuo je da je prošlo više od dva mjeseca od presude koju je 7. svibnja 2008. donio Court of Appeal, nakon koje je za Vijeće konačno postalo nemoguće daljnje pozivanje na rješenje koje je 28. ožujka 2001. donio Home Secretary, do 15. srpnja 2008. kad je donesena sporna odluka. Vijeće, međutim, nije objasnilo zašto neposredno nakon 7. svibnja 2008. nije moglo poduzeti mjere za uklanjanje PMOI-a s popisa iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 ili za njegovo zadržavanje na popisu na temelju novih dokaza.
30 It added that while, in its observations in the case giving rise to the judgment of 23 October 2008 in People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council, the Council expressly stated its intention of taking a position, as a matter of urgency, on ‘new elements’ brought to its attention, that institution nevertheless refrained from forwarding them to the PMOI, without claiming that any factual or legal obstacle prevented its doing so, even though the General Court had, by its judgment in People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council, annulled one of its earlier decisions, precisely on the ground that no such communication had been made before the decision was adopted.
30 Dodao je da iako je Vijeće u svojem očitovanju u predmetu koje je 23. listopada 2008. dovelo do gore navedene presude u predmetu People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Vijeće izričito navelo svoju namjeru da se žurno izjasni o „novim saznanjima”, ta ih institucija ipak nije proslijedila PMOI-ju, a da pri tom nije navelo niti jednu činjeničnu ili pravnu prepreku koja ga je u tome spriječila, premda je Opći sud svojom navedenom presudom u predmetu People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Vijeće poništio jednu njegovu raniju odluku upravo na temelju činjenice da prije njezina donošenja nije bilo takve komunikacije.
31 At paragraph 42 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court observed that neither the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 7 May 2008 nor the Home Secretary’s order of 23 June 2008 had an automatic, immediate effect on Council Decision 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2007/445/EC (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100), then applicable, that decision remaining in force and legally binding, in accordance with the presumption of legality attaching to acts of the European Union, for so long as it was not withdrawn, declared void in an action for annulment or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality.
31 U točki 42. pobijane presude Opći sud primijetio je da ni presuda koju je donio Court of Appeal 7. svibnja 2008. niti rješenje koje je donio Home Secretary 23. lipnja 2008. nisu automatski i neposredno utjecali na Odluku 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/EZ (SL L 340, str. 100.), koja se tada primjenjivala i ta odluka ostaje na snazi i pravno je obvezujuća u skladu s pretpostavkom zakonitosti akata Europske unije sve do njezina povlačenja, proglašenja ništavnom u postupku poništenja ili proglašenja nevažećom nakon upućivanja zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku ili prigovora nezakonitosti.
32 In the second place, the General Court rejected the Council’s argument that the statement of reasons of which the PMOI was notified enabled the latter’s rights of defence to be observed.
32 Kao drugo, Opći sud odbio je argument Vijeća kako je dostavljanjem obrazloženja presude PMOI-ju omogućeno poštovanje njegovih prava na obranu.
36 With regard to those pleas, the General Court concluded, at paragraph 78 of the judgment under appeal, first, that it had not been satisfactorily proved that the contested decision had been adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 and of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and, second, that the very circumstances of its adoption infringed the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection.
36 U vezi s tim tužbenim razlozima, Opći sud u točki 78. pobijane presude zaključio je, kao prvo, da nije na zadovoljavajući način dokazano da je sporna odluka donesena u skladu s odredbama članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931 i članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 i, kao drugo, da su same okolnosti njezina donošenja predstavljale kršenje tužiteljeva prava na djelotvornu pravnu zaštitu.
– itself give final judgment in the matter, dismissing the PMOI’s action, or refer the case back to the General Court.
– sam konačno odluči o predmetu odbacivanjem PMOI-ove tužbe ili ga vrati na Opći sud.
"– declare the appeal inadmissible;"
– žalbu proglasi nedopuštenom, ili
"– or, alternatively, declare that it is unnecessary to adjudicate on the appeal;"
– umjesto toga, odlučivanje o žalbi proglasi nepotrebnim, ili
"– or, in the further alternative, dismiss the appeal; and"
– kao sljedeću mogućnost, žalbu odbije i
– in any event, order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.
– u svakom slučaju naloži žalitelju plaćanje troškova suprotne stranke.
41 The PMOI, recalling that the contested decision has been repealed and replaced by Decision 2009/62, which no longer includes it in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, argues that the French Republic has no legal interest in bringing this appeal and that the latter is therefore inadmissible. It maintains, in the alternative, that the Court ought to refuse to rule on the appeal on the ground that it has no purpose.
41 Podsjećajući da je sporna odluka stavljena izvan snage i zamijenjena Odlukom 2009/62, na čijem se popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe 2580/2001 više ne nalazi, PMOI navodi da Francuska Republika nema pravni interes za podnošenje ove žalbe i da je ona stoga nedopuštena. Podredno, tvrdi da bi Sud trebao odbiti suditi o žalbi uz obrazloženje da je bespredmetna.
Findings of the Court
Ocjena suda
44 However, once the French Republic intervened in proceedings before the General Court, it follows from the second paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that that Member State may bring an appeal even when the General Court’s decision does not directly affect it.
44 Međutim, nakon što se Francuska Republika jednom uključi u postupak pred Općim sudom, iz članka 56. stavka 2. Statuta Suda Europske unije proizlazi da država članica može podnijeti žalbu čak i kad odluka Općeg suda na nju izravno ne utječe.
45 In addition, it follows from the third paragraph of that article that the Member States, whether or not they were parties to the case at first instance, do not have to show interest in order to bring an appeal against a judgment of the General Court (Case C-49/92 P Commission v Anic Partecipazioni [1999] ECR I-4125, paragraph 171).
45 Usto, iz stavka 3. toga članka slijedi da države članice, bez obzira na to jesu li one stranke u predmetu u prvome stupnju ili nisu, ne moraju dokazivati pravni interes kako bi podnijele žalbu protiv presude Općeg suda (Predmet C-49/92 P Komisija/Anic Partecipazioni [1999] ECR I-4125., točka 171.).
47 First, if the Court were to uphold the appeal and dismiss on its merits the PMOI’s application for annulment of the contested decision, the result, as the French Republic has rightly maintained, would be that the decision would be restored in the legal order of the European Union so far as concerns the period from 16 July 2008, the date of entry into force of the contested decision, and 27 January 2009, the date of entry into force of Decision 2009/62 repealing, without retroactive effect, the contested decision and removing the PMOI’s name from the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001.
47 Prvo, prihvati li Sud žalbu i odbije u meritumu PMOI-jev zahtjev za poništenje sporne odluke, to bi za posljedicu moglo imati, kako je Francuska Republika ispravno navela, da ta odluka ponovno postane dijelom pravnog poretka Europske unije za razdoblje od datuma stupanja na snagu sporne odluke 16. srpnja 2008. do datuma stupanja na snagu Odluke 2009/62 27. siječnja 2009., čime se bez retroaktivnog učinka stavlja izvan snage sporna odluka i uklanja PMOI-jev naziv s popisa iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001.
49 The French Republic still maintains that there were valid reasons for the inclusion by the contested decision of the PMOI’s name in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, and it has argued before the Court that it retains an interest in having the errors made by the General Court in the judgment under appeal recognised by the Court, in order that it may request the Council to include the PMOI in that list once more.
49 Francuska Republika i dalje smatra da su postojali valjani razlozi da se spornom odlukom PMOI uvrsti na popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe 2580/2001 i pred Sudom je tvrdila da njezin pravni interes ostaje da Sud prizna pogreške Općeg suda u pobijanoj presudi, kako bi ona od Vijeća mogla zahtijevati da se PMOI ponovno uvrsti na taj popis.
– Arguments of the parties
Argumentacija stranaka
52 The Court’s case-law makes it clear that the requirement of prior notification of a fund-freezing measure is subject to exceptions, in particular in the case of an initial decision to freeze, when such notification would harm the effectiveness of those restrictive measures (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, paragraphs 339 to 341).
52 Iz sudske prakse Suda proizlazi da obveza prethodnog obavješćivanja o mjeri zamrzavanja sredstava podliježe iznimkama, posebno u slučaju početne odluke o zamrzavanju, kad bi se slanjem obavijesti naštetilo učinkovitosti tih mjera ograničavanja (presuda 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., točke od 339. do 341.).
54 Nor, since the Home Secretary had, by order of 23 June 2008 which entered into force the following day, struck the PMOI’s name from the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, could the Home Secretary’s order of 28 March 2001, a decision of a competent authority that formed the basis for Decision 2007/868, any longer serve as grounds for the inclusion of the PMOI in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, on pain of contravening Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931.
54 Niti je, otkako je Home Secretary rješenjem od 23. lipnja 2008. koje je stupilo na snagu sljedećeg dana izbrisao PMOI-jev naziv s popisa organizacija zabranjenih na temelju Zakona o terorizmu iz 2000. (Terrorism Act 2000), rješenje koje je donio Home Secretary 28. ožujka 2001. kao odluku nadležnog tijela koja je predstavljala osnovu za donošenje Odluke 2007/868 više moglo služiti kao temelj za uvrštenje PMOI-ja na popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001, zbog prijetnje od povrede članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931.
58 The PMOI maintains that, in the judgment under appeal, the Court correctly rejected that line of argument put forward by the Council and taken up again in this appeal, holding, in particular, that in the circumstances of the case the Council was not entitled not to notify the PMOI in advance of the new matters at issue on the ground that, if it had done so, the freezing of the PMOI’s funds would have been interrupted. The General Court’s assessment relied, in addition, on matters of fact, which may not be challenged in an appeal.
58 PMOI smatra da je Sud u pobijanoj presudi ispravno odbio argumente koje je Vijeće izložilo i ponovilo u ovoj žalbi, i posebno navodi da, s obzirom na okolnosti predmeta, Vijeće nije imalo pravo ne obavijestiti unaprijed PMOI o novim spornim pitanjima uz obrazloženje da bi, da je to učinilo, bilo prekinuto zamrzavanje PMOI-ovih sredstava. Procjena Općeg suda se povrh toga oslanja na činjenično stanje koje se žalbom ne smije osporavati.
– Findings of the Court
– Ocjena suda
59 At paragraphs 36 and 37 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that, by adopting the contested decision without first informing the PMOI of the new information or new material in the file which, in its view, justified maintaining it in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and, a fortiori, by failing to give it the opportunity of making known to advantage its views on the matter, the Council breached the principles relating to the observance of the rights of the defence set forth, in particular, in paragraphs 120, 126 and 131 of Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council.
59 U točkama 36. i 37. pobijane presude Opći sud presudio je da je Vijeće, donijevši spornu odluku a da nije prvo obavijestilo PMOI o novim informacijama ili novim dokaznim materijalom u spisu, što je po njegovu uvjerenju opravdalo zadržavanje PMOI-ja na popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001, a tim više što mu nije dalo priliku da se izjasni i proširi njegova znanja o predmetu, prekršilo načela o poštovanju prava na obranu utvrđena posebno točkama 120., 126. i 131. presude o predmetu Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran/Vijeće.
60 The principles thus referred to by the General Court, and not challenged by the French Republic, may also be found in the Court of Justice’s case-law (see, in connection with Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), Kadi and Al Barakaat v Council and Commission, paragraphs 338 to 341).
60 Načela na koja se poziva Opći sud, a koja Francuska Republika ne osporava, mogu se naći i u sudskoj praksi Suda (vidjeti u vezi s Uredbom Vijeća (EZ) br. 881/2002 o određenim posebnim mjerama ograničavanja protiv određenih osoba i subjekata povezanih s Osamom bin Ladenom, mrežom Al-Qaidom i talibanima te o stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 467/2001 o zabrani izvoza određene robe i usluga u Afganistan, pooštravanju zabrane leta i proširivanju zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava i ostalih financijskih izvora u odnosu na afganistanske talibane (SL L 139, str. 9.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 18, svezak 2., str. 34.), Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, točke od 338. do 341.).
61 It is to be borne in mind that, in the case of an initial decision to freeze funds, the Council is not obliged to inform the person or entity concerned beforehand of the grounds on which that institution intends to rely in order to include that person or entity’s name in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001. So that its effectiveness may not be jeopardised, such a measure must be able to take advantage of a surprise effect and to apply immediately. In such a case, it is as a rule enough if the institution notifies the person or entity concerned of the grounds and affords it the right to be heard at the same time as, or immediately after, the decision is adopted.
61 U tom smislu valja upozoriti da u slučaju prvotne odluke o zamrzavanju sredstava Vijeće nije dužno zainteresiranu osobu ili subjekt unaprijed obavijestiti o razlozima na kojima ta institucija namjerava temeljiti uvrštenje imena ili naziva te osobe ili subjekta na popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe 2580/2001. Kako se ne bi ugrozila njezina učinkovitost, mjeru je potrebno primijeniti odmah i iskoristiti učinak iznenađenja. U tom je slučaju dovoljno primijeniti pravilo da institucija osobu ili subjekt obavješćuje o razlozima i osigurava im pravo na saslušanje u trenutku donošenja odluke ili neposredno nakon toga.
63 In the judgment under appeal, the General Court applied those principles to the facts of the case and rightly concluded that, given that the PMOI’s name had been maintained, by the contested decision, in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, a list in which it had appeared ever since its original inclusion on 3 May 2002 pursuant to Decision 2002/334, the Council might not, as it did in that case, communicate the new incriminating evidence against the PMOI at the same time as it adopted the contested decision. The Council was bound, imperatively, to ensure that the PMOI’s rights of defence were observed, that is to say, notification of the incriminating evidence against it and the right to be heard, before that decision was adopted.
63 Opći sud je u pobijanoj presudi ta načela primijenio na činjenice u predmetu i ispravno zaključio da, s obzirom na to da je PMOI-jev naziv spornom odlukom zadržan na popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001, popisu na kojem se nalazio otkako je prvi put uvršten 3. svibnja 2002. u skladu s Odlukom 2002/334, Vijeće nije moglo, kao u tom slučaju, obavijestiti o novim dokazima protiv PMOI-ja u isto vrijeme kad je donosilo spornu odluku. Vijeće je bilo obvezno nužno osigurati da se poštuju prava PMOI-ja na obranu, odnosno, pravo na obavijest o dokazima protiv njega i pravo na saslušanje, prije nego što je odluka bila donesena.
64 In this regard, it is to be stressed, as the Advocate General did in point 103 of her Opinion, that the element of protection afforded by the requirement of notification of incriminating evidence and the right to make representations before the adoption of a measure, such as the contested decision, that sets in motion the application of restrictive measures is fundamental and essential to the rights of defence. This is all the more the case because such measures have a considerable effect on the rights and freedoms of the persons and groups concerned.
64 U tom pogledu valja naglasiti, kao što je to učinila nezavisna odvjetnica u točki 103. mišljenja, da je zaštita koju pružaju obveza obavješćivanja o dokazima i pravo na ulaganje prigovora prije donošenja mjere, kao što je sporna odluka, kojom se pokreće primjena mjera ograničavanja temeljna i ključna za pravo na obranu. To je tim važnije što te mjere znatno utječu na prava i slobode osoba i skupina na koje se odnose.
65 The purpose of the rule that the addressee of a decision affecting him adversely must be placed in a position to submit his observations before that decision is adopted is to enable the authority concerned effectively to take into account all relevant information. In order to ensure that the addressee is in fact protected, the object of that rule is, in particular, to enable him to correct an error or produce such information relating to his personal circumstances as will tell in favour of the decision’s being adopted or not, or of its having this content or that (see, to this effect, Case C-349/07 Sopropé [2008] ECR I-10369, paragraph 49).
65 Svrha pravila na temelju kojega adresat neke odluke koja na njega negativno utječe mora imati priliku podnijeti svoje primjedbe prije nego ta odluka bude donesena jest da se zainteresiranom tijelu omogući da stvarno uzme u obzir sve relevantne informacije. Kako bi se osigurala stvarna zaštita navedenog adresata, svrha tog pravila posebno je omogućiti adresatu da ispravi grešku ili dostavi informacije koje se odnose na njegov osobni slučaj, koje će ići u prilog donošenju ili nedonošenju odluke ili u prilog ovakva ili onakva njezina sadržaja (vidjeti u tom smislu, presudu od 18. prosinca 2008., Sopropé, C-349/07, Zb., str. I-10369., točka 49.).
68 In paragraphs 39 to 44 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court nevertheless considered the Council’s argument that that institution was justified in communicating the new incriminating evidence against the PMOI at the same time as the contested decision was adopted and not before, despite the fact that it was not an initial decision to freeze funds, because of the particular situation in which the Council found itself in that case, more specifically, the urgency with which the contested decision had to be adopted.
68 U točkama od 39. do 44. pobijane presude Opći sud je ipak razmatrao argument Vijeća da je ta institucija imala pravo što je o novim dokazima protiv PMOI-ja tu organizaciju obavijestila u isto vrijeme kad je donesena sporna odluka, a ne prije, unatoč činjenici da to nije bila prvotna odluka o zamrzavanju sredstava, zato što se u tom predmetu Vijeće našlo u posebnoj situaciji ili, preciznije, zbog žurnosti kojom je spornu odluku trebalo donijeti.
70 The General Court held, first, that as of 7 May 2008, the date on which the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, it became once and for all impossible for the Council to rely on the order of the Home Secretary of 28 March 2001 as a decision of a competent authority for the purpose of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 in order to maintain the inclusion of the PMOI in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001. In addition, by order of 23 June 2008, which entered into force the following day, the Home Secretary acted on that judgment, striking the PMOI’s name from the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.
70 Opći sud presudio je, prvo, da je od 7. svibnja 2008., datuma kad je Court of Appeal donio presudu, za Vijeće zauvijek postalo nemoguće oslanjati se na rješenje koje je donio Home Secretary 28. ožujka 2001. kao na odluku nadležnog tijela u smislu članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931, radi zadržavanja PMOI-ja na popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001. Osim toga, rješenjem od 23. lipnja 2008. koje je stupilo na snagu sljedećeg dana, Home Secretary je postupio u skladu s tom presudom izbrisavši naziv PMOI-ja s popisa organizacija zabranjenih na temelju Zakona o terorizmu iz 2000. (Terrorism Act 2000).