natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, the Council has amended the statement of reasons accordingly."
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.
,[PMOI] je skupina osnovana 1965. s ciljem svrgavanja carskoga režima.
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.
Njezini članovi sudjelovali su u eliminaciji nekoliko tisuća „agenata" staroga režima i među odgovornima su za uzimanje talaca u veleposlanstvu SAD-a u Teheranu.
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.
Premda isprva jedna od najradikalnijih skupina Islamske revolucije, PMOI nakon zabrane djelovanje nastavlja tajno i poduzima niz akcija protiv postojećeg režima u Iranu.
The organisation was behind terrorist attacks, ...
Ta organizacija odgovorna je za terorističke napade, [...].
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.
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.
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.
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).
The [PMOI] falls within Article 2(3)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001.
Na [PMOI] odnosi se članak 2. stavak 3. točka (ii) Uredbe (EZ) br. 2580/2001.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ured pariškog tužitelja za suzbijanje terorizma podnio je 19. ožujka 2007. i 13. studenoga 2007. dodatne kaznene prijave protiv navodnih članova PMOI-ja.
These proceedings were prompted by the need to enquire into further elements arising from the investigations conducted between 2001 and 2007.
Ti su postupci pokrenuti jer je trebalo ispitati dodatna saznanja prikupljena u istragama provedenim između 2001. i 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.
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.
A decision in respect of the [PMOI] has therefore been taken by a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.
Stoga je nadležno tijelo u smislu članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931/ZVSP donijelo odluku o [PMOI-ju].
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.
Vijeće napominje da ti postupci još uvijek traju te su prošireni 2007. u sklopu borbe protiv financiranja koje provode terorističke skupine.
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 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.
The action before the General Court and the judgment under appeal
Tužba pred Općim sudom i pobijana presuda
21 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 21 July 2008, the PMOI brought proceedings against the Council seeking annulment of the decision at issue and claiming that that court should:
21 Podnošenjem tužbe tajništvu Općeg suda 21. srpnja 2008. PMOI je pokrenuo postupak protiv Vijeća zahtijevajući poništenje sporne odluke i tražeći da sud:
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.
22 The French Republic and the European Commission were granted leave to intervene in those proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the Council.
22 Francuskoj Republici i Europskoj komisiji dopušteno je da se uključe u ove postupke kako bi poduprle zahtjev Vijeća.
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.
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.
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.
Opći sud dodao je da Vijeće upravo zbog toga nije PMOI-u omogućilo da iznese svoje stavove o predmetu prije donošenja sporne odluke.
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.
27 In this connection, the General Court held, at paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal, that the urgency alleged had by no means been established.
27 S tim u vezi Opći sud u točki 40. pobijane presude navodi kako žurnost uopće nije bila dokazana.
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.
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.
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.
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.
29 In addition, the General Court held, at paragraph 41 of the judgment under appeal, that, even assuming that the new material was not communicated to the Council by the French authorities until June 2008, this does not explain why that new material could not be communicated forthwith to the PMOI, if the Council intended to rely on it against the latter.
29 Povrh toga, u točki 41. pobijane presude Opći sud utvrdio je da čak i pod pretpostavkom da francuska tijela nisu Vijeću dostavila novi dokazni materijal do lipnja 2008., to ne objašnjava zašto se o tim dokazima nije odmah mogao obavijestiti PMOI, ako se Vijeće na te dokaze namjeravalo pozvati u postupku protiv njega.
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.
33 In this regard, the General Court ruled, at paragraph 46 of the judgment under appeal, that this argument arises from a confusion of the safeguarding of the rights of the defence in the context of the administrative procedure with the safeguarding of the right to an effective judicial remedy against the act having adverse effects adopted at the end of that procedure.
33 Opći sud je u tom pogledu u točki 46. pobijane presude odlučio da je takav argument posljedica ne razlikovanja zaštite prava na obranu u okviru upravnog postupka od zaštite prava na djelotvornu pravnu zaštitu od akta s nepovoljnim učincima koji se donosi na završetku tog postupka.
34 The General Court concluded therefrom, at paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, that, the fourth plea in law being well founded, the contested decision had to be annulled in so far as it concerned the PMOI.
34 Opći sud iz toga je u točki 47. pobijane presude zaključio da se, s obzirom na to da je četvrti tužbeni razlog utemeljen, sporna odluka mora poništiti u dijelu koji se odnosi na PMOI.
35 At paragraph 48 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court indicated that, even though it considered it unnecessary in the circumstances, it would none the less examine the second and third pleas in law, having regard to their importance in relation to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection.
35 U točki 48. pobijane presude Opći sud naveo je da će, iako to u postojećim okolnostima smatra nepotrebnim, svejedno ispitati drugi i treći tužbeni razlog, uzimajući u obzir njihovu važnost u pogledu temeljnog prava na djelotvornu pravnu zaštitu.
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.
37 In consequence, the General Court held, at paragraph 79 of the judgment under appeal, that the second and third pleas in law were founded.
37 Zbog toga je Opći sud u točki 79. pobijane presude presudio da su drugi i treći tužbeni razlozi utemeljeni.
Forms of order sought on appeal
Zahtjevi stranaka u žalbi
38 By its appeal, the French Republic claims that the Court of Justice should:
38 Francuska Republika ovom žalbom od Suda zahtijeva da:
set aside the judgment under appeal; and
ukine pobijanu presudu i
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.
39 The PMOI contends that the Court should:
39 PMOI zahtijeva da 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.
Concerning the appeal
O žalbi
40 The French Republic puts forward three grounds of appeal, alleging that the General Court committed errors of law in its assessment of the principles relating to the rights of defence, of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 and of the principles relating to the right to effective judicial protection, respectively.
40 Francuska Republika ističe tri žalbena razloga, navodeći da je Opći sud pogrešno primijenio pravo u svojoj ocjeni načela vezanih uz pravo na obranu, članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931 i načela koja se odnose na pravo na djelotvornu pravnu zaštitu.
Admissibility of the appeal
Dopuštenost žalbe
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.
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.
It maintains, in the alternative, that the Court ought to refuse to rule on the appeal on the ground that it has no purpose.
Podredno, tvrdi da bi Sud trebao odbiti suditi o žalbi uz obrazloženje da je bespredmetna.
42 The French Republic takes the view that the appeal is admissible and, in this respect, argues that, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, it need not substantiate any legal interest in bringing proceedings.
42 Stajalište je Francuske Republike da je žalba dopuštena i u tom smislu ona tvrdi da u skladu s trećim stavkom članka 56. Statuta Suda Europske unije ona ničim ne mora potkrijepiti pravni interes za vođenje postupka.
43 The Court has consistently held that for an appellant to have an interest in bringing proceedings the appeal must be capable, if successful, of procuring an advantage to the party bringing it (see, in particular, Case C-535/06 P Moser Baer India v Council [2009] ECR I-7051, paragraph 24 and case-law cited).
43 Da bi u skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom neki žalitelj imao pravni interes, žalbom bi se, ako je uspješna, stranci koja je podnosi morala moći osigurati određena prednost (vidjeti posebno presudu od 3. rujna 2009. Moser Baer India/Vijeće, C-535/06 P, Zb., str. I-7051., točka 24. i navedena sudska praksa).
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.).
46 Moreover, and contrary to what the PMOI maintains, this appeal has not become devoid of purpose because the contested decision including the PMOI in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 was repealed and replaced by Decision 2009/62 which, making reference to the judgment under appeal, no longer includes the PMOI in the updated version of the list.
46 Nadalje, a suprotno tvrdnjama PMOI-ja, ova žalba nije postala bespredmetna zbog toga što je sporna odluka o uključivanju PMOI-ja na popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe 2580/2001 stavljena izvan snage i zamijenjena Odlukom 2009/62 u kojoj se, pozivajući se na pobijanu presudu, PMOI više ne nalazi na ažuriranoj inačici popisa.