natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘4. The list in the Annex shall be drawn up on the basis of precise information or material in the relevant file which indicates that a decision has been taken by a competent authority in respect of the persons, groups and entities concerned, irrespective of whether it concerns the instigation of investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act, an attempt to perpetrate, participate in or facilitate such an act based on serious and credible evidence or clues, or condemnation for such deeds. Persons, groups and entities identified by the Security Council of the United Nations as being related to terrorism and against whom it has ordered sanctions may be included in the list.
„4. Popis u Prilogu sastavlja se na temelju točnih podataka ili materijala iz odgovarajuće dokumentacije koja ukazuje na to da je odluku u vezi s tim osobama, skupinama i subjektima donijelo nadležno tijelo, bez obzira na to je li ta odluka donesena u vezi s pokretanjem istrage ili kaznenog progona za terorističko djelo, za pokušaj počinjenja, sudjelovanje, ili pomaganje pri počinjenju takvog djela, na temelju ozbiljnih i vjerodostojnih dokaza ili indicija, ili na temelju osuda za takva djela. Popisu se mogu dodati osobe, skupine i subjekti za koje je Vijeće sigurnosti Ujedinjenih naroda identificiralo da su povezani s terorizmom i protiv kojih je odredilo sankcije.
For the purposes of this paragraph, “competent authority” shall mean a judicial authority, or, where judicial authorities have no competence in the area covered by this paragraph, an equivalent competent authority in that area.
U smislu ovog stavka, „nadležno tijelo” jest pravosudno tijelo ili, tamo gdje pravosudna tijela nisu nadležna za područje u smislu ovog stavka, ekvivalentno tijelo nadležno za ovo područje. [...]
... 6. The names of persons and entities on the list in the Annex shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least once every six months to ensure that there are grounds for keeping them on the list.’
6. Imena osoba i subjekata navedenih na popisu redovito se revidiraju, a najmanje jednom u šest mjeseci, kako bi se osiguralo postojanje razloga zadržavanja imena na popisu.”
9 The PMOI’s inclusion in the list appearing in the Annex to Common Position 2001/931 was then maintained by a series of subsequent decisions taken by the Council in accordance with Article 1(6) of that Common Position.
9 PMOI je zatim na popisu iz Priloga Zajedničkom stajalištu 2001/931 održavan nizom odluka koje je Vijeće naknadno donosilo u skladu s člankom 1. stavkom 6. tog Zajedničkog stajališta.
Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001
Uredba (EZ) br. 2580/2001
10 On 27 December 2001 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).
10 Vijeće je 27. prosinca 2001. donijelo Uredbu (EZ) br. 2580/2001 o posebnim mjerama ograničavanja protiv određenih osoba i subjekata s ciljem borbe protiv terorizma (SL L 344, str. 70. i ispravak SL L 52, str. 58.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 18. svezak 1. str. 5.).
‘Action by the Community is necessary in order to implement the CFSP [common foreign and security policy] aspects of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.’
„Za provedbu elemenata ZVSP-a Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931/ZVSP, nužno je djelovanje Zajednice.”
‘1. Except as permitted under Articles 5 and 6:
„1. Osim iznimaka dopuštenih u skladu s člancima 5. i 6.:
"(a) all funds, other financial assets and economic resources belonging to, or owned or held by, a natural or legal person, group or entity included in the list referred to in paragraph 3 shall be frozen;"
"(a) sva financijska sredstva, ostala financijska imovina i gospodarski izvori koji pripadaju, ili koje ima u vlasništvu ili drži neka fizička ili pravna osoba, skupina ili subjekt navedeni u popisu iz stavka 3. zamrzavaju se;"
3. The Council, acting by unanimity, shall establish, review and amend the list of persons, groups and entities to which this Regulation applies, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article 1(4), (5) and (6) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP ...’
3. Odlučujući jednoglasno, Vijeće utvrđuje, ispituje i mijenja popis osoba, skupina i subjekata na koje se ova Uredba odnosi, u skladu s odredbama članka 1. stavaka 4., 5. i 6. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931/ZVSP [...]”
14 Subsequently, the PMOI’s inclusion in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 was continued by further Council decisions, adopted in accordance with Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, including the contested decision.
14 PMOI je zatim ostao na tom popisu na temelju niza odluka koje je Vijeće naknadno donosilo u skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001, uključujući i spornu odluku.
‘Following the judgment [under appeal], one group has not been included in the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.’
„Slijedom presude [u žalbenom postupku] Prvostupanjskog suda od 4. prosinca 2008. u predmetu T-284/08, jedna skupina nije uvrštena na popis osoba, skupina i subjekata na koje se primjenjuje Uredba (EZ) br. 2580/2001.”
18 For an account of the earlier background to the present dispute, paragraph 1 of the judgment under appeal makes reference to the judgments of the General Court in Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council [2006] ECR II-4665, paragraphs 1 to 26, and Case T-256/07 People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council [2008] ECR II-3019, paragraphs 1 to 37.
18 Radi upoznavanja s dosadašnjim okolnostima ovog spora, u prvoj se točki pobijane presude poziva na presude Općeg suda od 12. prosinca 2006., Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran/Vijeće (T-228/02, Zb., str. II-4665., točke od 1. do 26. i od 23. listopada 2008., People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Vijeće (T-256/07, Zb., str. II-3019., točke od 1. do 37.).
19 Paragraphs 1, 2, 12 and 16 of Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council state as follows:
19 U točkama 1., 2. 12. i 16. gore navedene presude Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran/Vijeće navodi se:
‘1. As appears from the case-file, [the PMOI] was founded in 1965 and set itself the objective of replacing the regime of the Shah of Iran, then the mullahs’ regime, by a democracy. In 1981 it took part in the foundation of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a body defining itself as the “parliament in exile of the Iranian resistance”. At the time of the facts giving rise to the present dispute, it was composed of five separate organisations and an independent section, making up an armed branch operating inside Iran. According to [the PMOI], however, it and all its members have expressly renounced all military activity since June 2001 and it no longer has an armed structure at the present time.
„1. Iz spisa proizlazi da je [PMOI] osnovan 1965. zadavši si kao cilj zamjenu režima iranskoga šaha, a zatim i režima mula, demokracijom. Godine 1981. sudjelovao je u osnivanju National Council of Resistance of Iran (dalje u tekstu: NCRI), tijela koje sebe definira kao „parlament iranskog otpora u izgnanstvu”. U vrijeme činjenica koje su dovele do ovog spora sastojao se od pet zasebnih organizacija i jedne neovisne sekcije, oružanog ogranka koji je djelovao u samom Iranu. Međutim, prema tvrdnjama [PMOI-ja], on sam i sve njegove članice izričito su se od lipnja 2001. odrekli svih vojnih aktivnosti te trenutačno u svom sastavu više nema nijednu vojnu strukturu.
2. By order of 28 March 2001, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the Home Secretary”) included [the PMOI] in the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. The applicant brought two parallel actions against that order, one an appeal before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (“POAC”), the other for judicial review before the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (“the High Court”).
2. UK Secretary of State for the Home Department (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova, Ujedinjena Kraljevina, u daljnjem tekstu: Home Secretary) rješenjem je [PMOI] uvrstio u popis organizacija zabranjenih na temelju Zakona o terorizmu iz 2000. (Terrorism Act 2000). Tužitelj je protiv tog rješenja pokrenuo dva usporedna postupka, prvo žalbu (appeal) pred Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Povjerenstvo za žalbe u vezi sa zabranjenim organizacijama, u daljnjem tekstu: POAC) i drugo, zahtjev za sudski nadzor (judicial review) pred High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) [Visoki sud (Engleska i Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrativni sud)] [...].
... 12. By judgment of 17 April 2002 [that court] dismissed the action for judicial review brought by the applicant against the Home Secretary’s order of 28 March 2001 …, considering, essentially, that the POAC was the appropriate forum to hear [the PMOI]’s arguments, including those alleging infringement of the right to be heard.
[...] 12. [Taj sud] odbio je presudom od 17. travnja 2002. postupak za sudski nadzor koji je tužitelj pokrenuo protiv rješenja koje je 28. ožujka 2001. donio Home Secretary [...], smatrajući kako je, u osnovi, POAC odgovarajući forum za odlučivanje o argumentima [PMOI-a], uključujući i navode o povredi prava na saslušanje.
... 16. By judgment of 15 November 2002 the POAC dismissed the appeal brought by the applicant against the Home Secretary’s order of 28 March 2001 …, considering, inter alia, that there was no requirement to hear [the PMOI]’s views beforehand, such a hearing being impractical or undesirable in the context of legislation directed against terrorist organisations. According to that same decision, the legal scheme of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a genuine opportunity for the applicant’s views to be heard before the POAC.’
[...] 16. POAC je presudom od 15. studenoga 2002. odbio žalbu [PMOI-a] protiv rješenja koje je 28. ožujka 2001. donio Home Secretary [...], smatrajući, među ostalim, da nema potrebe unaprijed saslušati stajališta [PMOI-ja], s obzirom na to da bi takvo saslušanje bilo nepraktično ili nepoželjno u kontekstu propisa usmjerenih protiv terorističkih organizacija. U istoj odluci navodi se da se pravnim ustrojem Zakona o terorizmu iz 2000. tužitelju pruža stvarna prilika za iznošenje stajališta pred POAC-om.”
‘2. By judgment of 7 May 2008, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (United Kingdom) (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the application of [the Home Secretary] for permission to appeal to that court against [the POAC]’s decision of 30 November 2007 by which it had allowed an appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision of 1 September 2006 refusing to lift the proscription of [the PMOI] as an organisation concerned in terrorism and ordered the Home Secretary to lay before the United Kingdom Parliament the draft of an Order removing the applicant from the list of organisations proscribed in the United Kingdom under the Terrorism Act 2000. ...
„2. Court of Appeal of England and Wales (United Kingdom) (Žalbeni sud Engleske i Walesa (Ujedinjena Kraljevina) (u daljnjem tekstu: Court of Appeal) presudom od 7. svibnja 2008. odbacio je zahtjev [koji je podnio Home Secretary] za dozvolu da se tom sudu podnese žalba protiv odluke [POAC-a] od 30. studenoga 2007. kojom je taj sud dozvolio žalbu protiv odluke koju je donio Home Secretary 1. rujna 2006. o odbijanju ukidanja zabrane [PMOI-ja] kao organizacije upletene u terorizam i naredio da Home Secretary pred parlamentom Ujedinjene Kraljevine iznese nacrt rješenja o uklanjanju tužitelja s popisa zabranjenih organizacija u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini na temelju Terrorism Act 2000. [...]
3. In that decision, the POAC inter alia described as “perverse” the Home Secretary’s conclusion, in his decision of 1 September 2006 refusing to lift the applicant’s proscription, that the applicant was, at that period, still an organisation “concerned in terrorism” within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000. ...
3. POAC je u toj odluci, među ostalim, „apsurdnim” opisao zaključak koji je Home Secretary iznio u svojoj odluci od 1. rujna 2006. o odbijanju ukidanja zabrane, da je tužitelj u tom razdoblju još uvijek bio organizacija „upletena u terorizam” u smislu Terrorism Act 2000. [...] [...]
... 5. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the POAC’s findings and moreover stated that the closed material adduced by the Home Secretary reinforced the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the Home Secretary could not reasonably have considered that the PMOI intended in future to revert to terrorism.
5. Court of Appeal presudom je podržao nalaze POAC-a i naveo, osim toga, da povjerljive informacije koje je prikupio Home Secretary idu u prilog zaključku koji je donio Court of Appeal da Home Secretary nije mogao opravdano smatrati da se PMOI u budućnosti namjerava okrenuti terorizmu.
6. By order of 23 June 2008, which entered into force on 24 June 2008, the Home Secretary therefore removed the PMOI’s name from the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, and this was approved by both Houses of Parliament in the United Kingdom.
6. Stoga je Home Secretary, rješenjem od 23. lipnja 2008. koje je stupilo na snagu 24. lipnja 2008., uklonio naziv PMOI-ja s popisa organizacija zabranjenih na temelju Terrorism Act 2000, što su potvrdila oba doma parlamenta u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini.
7. By [the contested decision], the Council nonetheless maintained, with others, [the PMOI]’s name on the list in the Annex to … Regulation … No 2580/2001 …
7. [Spornom odlukom] Vijeće je unatoč tome zadržalo, uz ostale, [PMOI-jev] naziv na popisu u Prilogu ... Uredbi ...br. 2580/2001 [...]
“In the case of one group, the Council has taken account of the fact that the decision by a competent authority on the basis of which the group was included on the list has not been in force since 24 June 2008. However, new information concerning the group has been brought to the Council’s attention. The Council considers that this new information warrants the group’s inclusion [in] the list.”
„Vijeće je u slučaju jedne skupine uzelo u obzir činjenicu da odluka nadležnoga tijela na temelju koje je ta skupina uvrštena na popis nije na snazi od 24. lipnja 2008. Međutim, Vijeću su o toj skupini dostavljene nove informacije. Vijeće smatra da se tim novim informacijama opravdava uvrštenje [na] popis.”
9. The contested decision was notified to [the PMOI] under cover of a letter from the Council dated 15 July 2008 ... In that letter, the Council stated, in particular, the following:
9. Vijeće je o spornoj odluci obavijestilo [PMOI] pismom od 15. srpnja 2008. [...] U tom se pismo posebno navodi:
“The Council has again decided to include [the PMOI] on the list … The Council has taken note of the fact that the competent authority decision which served as a basis for including [the PMOI] on the list is no longer in force as of 24 June. However, the Council has been provided with new information relevant to this listing. Having considered this new information, the Council has decided that [the PMOI] should still be included on the abovementioned list. Therefore, the Council has amended the statement of reasons accordingly.”
„Vijeće je ponovno odlučilo uvrstiti [PMOI] na popis [...] Vijeće je primilo na znanje da odluka nadležnoga tijela na temelju koje je [PMOI] uvršten na popis, od 24. lipnja više nije na snazi. Međutim, Vijeću su u vezi s tim uvrštenjem na popis dostavljene nove informacije. Razmotrivši ih, Vijeće je odlučilo da bi se [PMOI] trebao i dalje nalaziti na prethodno navedenome popisu. Stoga je Vijeće obrazloženje izmijenilo u skladu s tim.”
10. In the statement of reasons enclosed with the letter of notification …, the Council stated the following:
10. U obrazloženju priloženom uz obavijest [...], Vijeće navodi:
“The [PMOI] is a group formed in 1965 with the initial aim of overthrowing the imperial régime. Its members participated in the elimination of several thousand ‘agents’ of the old régime and were among the leaders in the taking of hostages at the US Embassy in Teheran. Although initially one of the most radical groups of the Islamic revolution, after being banned the PMOI went into hiding and carried out a number of attacks against the régime in place in Iran. The organisation was behind terrorist attacks, … Members of this organisation, located in various Member States of the European Union, are moreover currently being prosecuted for criminal activities aimed at funding their activities. These acts fall within Article 1(3), points (a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, and were committed with the aims set out in Article 1(3), points (i) and (iii) thereof.
„[PMOI] je skupina osnovana 1965. s ciljem svrgavanja carskoga režima. Njezini članovi sudjelovali su u eliminaciji nekoliko tisuća „agenata” staroga režima i među odgovornima su za uzimanje talaca u veleposlanstvu SAD-a u Teheranu. Premda isprva jedna od najradikalnijih skupina Islamske revolucije, PMOI nakon zabrane djelovanje nastavlja tajno i poduzima niz akcija protiv postojećeg režima u Iranu. Ta organizacija odgovorna je za terorističke napade, [...]. Protiv članova ove organizacije nastanjenih u raznim državama članicama Europske unije trenutačno je u tijeku kazneni progon za kaznena djela povezana s financiranjem njihovih aktivnosti. Riječ je o djelima obuhvaćenim člankom 1. stavkom 3. točkama (a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (h) i (i) Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931/ZVSP, a počinjena su s ciljevima utvrđenim njegovim člankom 1. stavkom 3. točkama (i) i (iii).
In April 2001, the anti-terrorist prosecutor’s office of the court of first instance [sic] of Paris opened a judicial inquiry into the charges of ‘criminal associations for the preparation of terrorist acts’ as provided for under French law by Act No 96/647 of 22 July 1996. The investigations conducted in the course of that judicial inquiry resulted in the targeting of alleged members of the [PMOI] for a series of offences all having a principal or subsidiary link with a collective undertaking whose aim is to seriously disrupt public order through intimidation or terror. In addition to the aforementioned criminal offence, the inquiry also focused on the ‘financing of a terrorist group’ as provided for under French law by Act No 2001/1062 of 15 November 2001 on security in everyday life.
Ured tužitelja za suzbijanje terorizma pariškog prvostupanjskog [sic] suda je u travnju 2001. pokrenuo sudsku istragu u vezi s optužbama za „zločinačko udruživanje radi pripremanja terorističkih djela” kako je u francuskome pravu predviđeno zakonom br. 96/647 od 22. srpnja 1996. Istrage provedene u okviru te sudske istrage bile su usmjerene na navodne članove [PMOI-ja] zbog niza kaznenih djela koje su sve neposredno ili posredno bile povezane sa združenim pothvatom čiji je cilj zastrašivanjem ili terorom ozbiljno poremetiti javni red. Osim na prethodno navedena kaznena djela, istraga je bila usmjerena i na „financiranje terorističke skupine” kako je u francuskome pravu predviđeno zakonom br. 2001/1062 od 15. studenoga 2001. o svakodnevnoj sigurnosti.
On 19 March 2007 and 13 November 2007, the Paris anti-terrorist prosecutor’s office brought supplementary charges against alleged members of the PMOI. These proceedings were prompted by the need to enquire into further elements arising from the investigations conducted between 2001 and 2007. They particularly focused on the charges of ‘laundering the direct or indirect proceeds of fraud offences against particularly vulnerable persons and organised fraud’ having a link with a terrorist undertaking as provided for under French law by Act No 2003/706 of 2 August 2003.
Ured pariškog tužitelja za suzbijanje terorizma podnio je 19. ožujka 2007. i 13. studenoga 2007. dodatne kaznene prijave protiv navodnih članova PMOI-ja. Ti su postupci pokrenuti jer je trebalo ispitati dodatna saznanja prikupljena u istragama provedenim između 2001. i 2007. Posebno su bili usmjereni na prijave za „pranje prihoda izravno ili neizravno stečenih kaznenim djelima prijevare posebno ranjivih pojedinaca i organiziranu prijevaru” koji su povezani s nekom terorističkom skupinom kako je u francuskome pravu predviđeno zakonom br. 2003/706 od 2. kolovoza 2003.
The Council notes that these proceedings are still in progress and were given wider scope in 2007 as part of the combating of financing operations conducted by terrorist groups. The Council is satisfied that the reasons for including [the PMOI] on the list of persons and entities subject to the measures set out in Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 remain valid.
Vijeće napominje da ti postupci još uvijek traju te su prošireni 2007. u sklopu borbe protiv financiranja koje provode terorističke skupine. Vijeće smatra da je dobro što razlozi za uključivanje [PMOI-a] na popis osoba i subjekata obuhvaćenih mjerama iz članka 2. stavaka 1. i 2. Uredbe (EZ) br. 2580/2001 ostaju valjani.
Having considered these elements, the Council has decided that the [PMOI] should continue to be subject to the measures set out in Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001.”‘
Uzevši u obzir ove informacije Vijeće je odlučilo da bi [PMOI] trebao i dalje biti obuhvaćen mjerama iz članka 2. stavaka 1. i 2. Uredbe br. 2580/2001.””
– annul the contested decision, insofar as it applies to the applicant, and
– poništi spornu odluku u dijelu koji se odnosi na tužitelja, i
– order the Council to pay the costs.
– naloži Vijeću snošenje troškova.
"23 In support of its claims, the PMOI advanced, in essence, five pleas in law: the first, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the evidence; the second, breaches of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 and of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and of the rules relating to the burden of proof; the third, breach of the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection; the fourth, breach of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to give reasons for a decision and the fifth, abuse or misuse of powers or procedures."
23 PMOI je u prilog svojim tvrdnjama iznio pet tužbenih razloga, od kojih je prvi očita pogrešna procjena dokaza, drugi povreda članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931 i članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 i pravila u pogledu tereta dokazivanja, treći je povreda prava na djelotvornu pravnu zaštitu, četvrti povreda prava na obranu i obveze obrazloženja odluke i peti zlouporaba ili pogrešna primjena ovlasti ili postupaka.
24 With regard to the fourth plea, alleging breach of the rights of the defence, the General Court stated, at paragraph 36 of the judgment under appeal, that it was common ground that the Council adopted the contested decision without first informing the applicant of the new information or new material in the file which, in its view, justified continuing to include it in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, namely, that relating to the judicial inquiry opened in April 2001 by the anti-terrorist prosecutor’s office of the Tribunal de grande instance of Paris and to the two supplementary charges brought in March and November 2007. The General Court added that, a fortiori, the Council had not enabled the applicant to make known its view of the matter effectively, before the contested decision was adopted.
24 U pogledu četvrtog tužbenog razloga u kojem se navodi da su povrijeđena prava na obranu, Opći je sud u stavku 36. pobijane presude naveo da je nesporno da je Vijeće donijelo spornu odluku, a da prethodno nije tužitelja obavijestio o novim saznanjima ili novom dokaznom materijalu u spisu koji su, prema mišljenju Vijeća, opravdavali nastavak zadržavanja na popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe 2580/2001, odnosno, o sudskoj istrazi koju je u travnju 2001. pokrenuo ured tužitelja za suzbijanje terorizma u Tribunal de grande instance de Paris i dvjema dodatnim prijavama podnesenim u ožujku i studenome 2007. Opći sud dodao je da Vijeće upravo zbog toga nije PMOI-u omogućilo da iznese svoje stavove o predmetu prije donošenja sporne odluke.