natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
36 The appellant submits that the General Court committed an error of law by failing to find the obligation of individual notification, laid down in Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007, which if not fulfilled results in the annulment of the measure, to be an essential procedural requirement and that it vitiated its statement of reasons with erroneous grounds. 
36 Žalitelj tvrdi da je Opći sud počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava jer nije smatrao da je obveza pojedinačne obavijesti, koja je utvrđena člankom 15. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007 i koja u slučaju neispunjavanja dovodi do poništenja mjere, bitan postupovni zahtjev i da je svoje obrazloženje temeljio na pogrešnim razlozima.
37 It emphasises that, according to Article 234 EC, individual decisions take effect only upon their notification. 
37 On ističe da u skladu s člankom 234. UEZ-a pojedinačne odluke stupaju na snagu tek nakon obavijesti.
It was all the more important to notify the contested decision since the appellant was not heard before the decision was adopted. 
Obavijest o spornoj odluci bila je tim važnija jer žalitelj nije bio saslušan prije donošenja odluke.
38 Citing the judgment in Case C-227/92 P Hoechst v Commission [1999] ECR I-4443, the appellant submits that the notification of a decision is an essential procedural requirement, which if not fulfilled constitutes an absolute ground for nullity of the measure. 
38 Navodeći presudu od 8. srpnja 1999., Hoechst/Komisija (C-227/92 P, Zb., str. I-4443.), žalitelj tvrdi da je obavijest o odluci bitan postupovni zahtjev čije je neispunjavanje apsolutni razlog ništavosti akta.
That nullity cannot be made good by information provided to the addressee of the measure by another person or entity. 
Ta se ništavost ne može popraviti informacijama o aktu koje je adresatu dostavila druga osoba ili drugi subjekt.
In the appellant's view, the notification of the contested decision made by the French banking commission could thus not satisfy the conditions for notification specified in Regulation No 423/2007. 
Prema mišljenju žalitelja, obaviješću o spornoj odluci koju je poslala francuska komisija za bankarstvo stoga nije mogao biti zadovoljen uvjet obavješćivanja iz Uredbe br. 423/2007.
39 In addition to the infringement of essential procedural requirements, the appellant accuses the General Court of providing erroneous grounds for its judgment by considering that the information provided to the appellant by the French banking commission made good the nullity and justifying that finding by the fact that the Council did not determine there to be `exceptional circumstances', even though the failure to notify a measure having adverse effects constitutes an infringement of a rule of European Union law which is of a public policy nature. 
39 Osim povrede bitnih postupovnih zahtjeva, žalitelj Općem sudu prigovara i da je naveo pogrešne razloge za svoju presudu jer je smatrao da je informacijama koje je tužitelju poslala francuska komisija za bankarstvo ispravljena ništavost i jer je potvrdio da je propust Vijeća da ispuni svoju obvezu opravdan „iznimnim okolnostima", iako izostanak obavijesti o aktu koji nepovoljno utječe na prava osobe predstavlja povredu pravila prava Unije u vezi s javnim poretkom.
40 The French Republic and the Commission dispute the General Court's reasons and suggest that the Court of Justice substitute those grounds for its own. 
40 Francuska Republika i Komisija osporavaju razloge Općeg suda i predlažu Sudu preinaku obrazloženja. Po njihovom se mišljenju člankom 15. stavkom 3.
In their view, Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007 does not require individual notification of the contested decision and no obligation to notify can be inferred from primary law. 
Uredbe br. 423/2007 ne zahtijeva pojedinačna obavijest o spornoj odluci, a iz primarnog prava isto tako ne proizlazi nikakva obveza obavješćivanja.
The General Court was thus wrong to require, in paragraph 88 of the judgment under appeal, that the Council provide individual notification. 
Stoga je Opći sud u točki 88. pobijane presude pogrešno zahtijevao od Vijeća osiguravanje pojedinačne obavijesti.
41 The Council, the French Republic and the Commission note the prescriptive nature of a decision to freeze funds. 
41 Vijeće, Francuska Republika i Komisija ističu regulatornu prirodu odluke o zamrzavanju financijskih sredstava.
The Council states that, in spite of its reasoning in relation to the obligation to notify, the General Court did not conclude that the contested measure constituted a decision and not a regulation. 
Vijeće navodi da unatoč obrazloženju u vezi s obvezom obavješćivanja, Opći sud nije zaključio da je sporna mjera odluka, a ne uredba.
42 The French Republic also contests the comparison made by the General Court, in paragraph 87 of the judgment under appeal, between fund-freezing measures adopted in the campaign against nuclear proliferation, which concern third countries, and those adopted in the campaign against terrorism, which concern individuals and entities on an individual basis. 
42 Francuska Republika isto tako osporava usporedbu, koju Opći sud navodi u točki 87. pobijane presude, između mjera zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava donesenih u okviru borbe protiv širenja nuklearnog oružja koje se odnose na treće zemlje i mjera donesenih u okviru borbe protiv terorizma koje se odnose na pojedince i subjekte koji djeluju samostalno.
It was never claimed that a measure imposing sanctions on a third country had to be notified to that country individually. 
Nikada se nije tvrdilo da o mjeri kojom se trećoj zemlji određuju sankcije treba pojedinačno obavijestiti tu zemlju.
The difference in objectives results, moreover, from a difference in legal bases; Regulation No 423/2007 was adopted on the basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, whereas the measures in relation to terrorism were adopted on the basis of Article 308 EC. 
Štoviše, razlika u ciljevima proizlazi iz razlike u pravnim osnovama jer je Uredba br. 423/2007 donesena na temelju članaka 60. i 301. UEZ-a, dok su mjere u vezi s terorizmom donesene na temelju članka 308. UEZ-a.
43 At the hearing, the Council stated that fund-freezing measures taken against persons linked to terrorism are notified in accordance with the guidelines set out in paragraph 147 of the judgment of the General Court in Organisation des Modjahedines du people d'Iran v Council, that is to say that, in order to prevent the legitimate expectations of those persons from being jeopardised, only the general grounds for the decision are published in the Official Journal of the European Union, whereas the specific and concrete grounds are notified to them. 
43 Na raspravi je Vijeće izjavilo da se obavijest o mjerama zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava poduzetih protiv osoba povezanih s terorizmom upućuje u skladu sa smjernicama utvrđenima točkom 147. gore navedene presude Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran/Vijeće, što znači da se u Službenom listu Europske unije objavljuje samo opće obrazloženje odluke, dok se obavijest o posebnom i konkretnom obrazloženju upućuje tim osobama kako se ne bi naštetilo njihovim legitimnim interesima.
44 The United Kingdom states that the purpose of notification is to inform the addressee of a decision and to enable him to bring an action. 
44 Ujedinjena Kraljevina podsjeća da je svrha obavijesti informirati adresata o odluci i omogućiti mu podnošenje pravnog sredstva.
In the present case, as regards the freezing of funds, prior notification would not have been possible given the required surprise effect. 
U ovom slučaju prethodna obavijest u vezi sa zamrzavanjem financijskih sredstava ne bi bila moguća zbog potrebnog učinka iznenađenja.
Article 254 EC does not state how notification is to be effected. 
Člankom 254. UEZ-a nije određen način upućivanja obavijesti.
The United Kingdom considers, in that regard, that an opinion published in the Official Journal of the European Union at the same time as the decision draws sufficient attention. 
S tim u vezi Ujedinjena Kraljevina smatra da se objavljivanjem mišljenja u Službenom listu Europske unije istovremeno s odlukom skreće dovoljna pozornost.
In any event, the entity concerned would immediately feel the effects of the implementation of the decision. 
U svakom slučaju, predmetni bi subjekt odmah osjetio učinke provedbe odluke.
In the present case, the French branch of Bank Melli Iran was informed of the contested decision and the appellant could have brought an action. 
U ovom je slučaju francuska podružnica Bank Melli Iran bila obaviještena o spornoj odluci i žalitelj je mogao podnijeti pravno sredstvo.
The United Kingdom, the Council, the French Republic and the Commission point out that the appellant did not suffer any harm as a result of the failure to notify the contested decision. 
Ujedinjena Kraljevina, Vijeće, Francuska Republika i Komisija ističu da žalitelju nije nanesena nikakva šteta time što nije dobio obavijest o spornoj odluci.
45 The Court of Justice notes, first, that, in spite of its title, the contested decision is of the same nature as a regulation. 
45 Kao prvo, valja navesti da je unatoč svojem naslovu sporna odluka po svojoj prirodi jednaka uredbi.
It contains just one annex, which replaces Annex V to Regulation No 423/2007. 
Ona sadržava samo jedan prilog kojim je zamijenjen Prilog V. Uredbi br. 413/2007.
The effect of that annex is determined in the second paragraph of Article 19 of that regulation, which provides that the regulation is to be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States, which corresponds to the effects of a regulation as provided for in Article 249 EC. 
Učinak tog priloga određen je člankom 19. drugim podstavkom navedene uredbe, kojim je predviđeno da je uredba u cijelosti obvezujuća i izravno se primjenjuje u svim državama članicama, što odgovara učincima uredbe kako je predviđeno člankom 249. UEZ-a.
46 In principle, therefore, the Treaty does not require such a measure to be notified, but to be published, in accordance with Article 254(1) and (2) EC. 
46 Stoga se Ugovorom u načelu na zahtijeva obavijest o takvom aktu, već njegova objava u skladu s člankom 254. stavcima 1. i 2. UEZ-a.
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.