natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
– must take account of the criteria set out in Section 1.3.1. of Annex II to Directive 2004/35 and state in its decision the grounds on which its choice is based, and, where appropriate, the grounds which justify the fact that there was no need for a detailed examination in the light of those criteria or that it was not possible to carry out such an examination due, for example, to the urgency of the environmental situation. 
– mora voditi računa o kriterijima utvrđenima u odjeljku 1.3.1. Priloga II. Direktivi 2004/35 i u svojoj odluci navesti razloge svog odabira te, prema potrebi, razloge kojima se opravdava činjenica da nije bilo potrebe za detaljnom procjenom s obzirom na te kriterije ili da takvu procjenu nije bilo moguće provesti, na primjer zbog hitnosti situacije u okolišu.
2. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Directive 2004/35 does not preclude national legislation which permits the competent authority to make the exercise by operators at whom environmental recovery measures are directed of the right to use their land subject to the condition that they carry out the works required by the authority, even though that land is not affected by those measures because it has already been decontaminated or has never been polluted. However, such a measure must be justified by the objective of preventing a deterioration of the environmental situation in the area in which those measures are implemented or, pursuant to the precautionary principle, by the objective of preventing the occurrence or resurgence of further environmental damage on the land belonging to the operators which is adjacent to the whole shoreline at which those remedial measures are directed. 
2. U okolnostima kakve su u glavnom postupku, Direktivi 2004/35 nije protivan nacionalni propis koji nadležnom tijelu dopušta da ostvarivanje prava operatera na koje se odnose mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu na uporabu vlastitog zemljišta uvjetuje izvršenjem radova koje to tijelo zahtijeva, čak i ako se te mjere ne odnose na to zemljište budući je već dekontaminirano ili nikad nije bilo onečišćeno. Međutim, takva mjera mora biti opravdana ciljem sprečavanja pogoršanja stanja okoliša na području na kojem se te mjere provode ili, u skladu s načelom opreznosti, ciljem sprečavanja nastanka ili ponovne pojave daljnje štete u okolišu na susjednom zemljištu u vlasništvu operaterâ uzduž cijele obale na koju su usmjerene te mjere otklanjanja.
Case C-27/09 P 
Predmet 27/09 P
French Republic 
Francuska Republika
v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran 
protiv People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran
21 December 2011 (*) 
21. prosinca 2011. (*)
(Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism – Common Position 2001/931/CFSC – Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 – Freezing of funds applicable to a group included in a list drawn up, revised and amended by the Council of the European Union – Rights of the defence) 
„Žalba – Zajednička vanjska i sigurnosna politika – Mjere ograničavanja protiv određenih osoba i subjekata s ciljem borbe protiv terorizma – Zajedničko stajalište 2001/931/ZVSP– Uredba (EZ) br. 2580/2001 – Zamrzavanje sredstava koje se primjenjuje na skupinu koja se nalazi na popisu koji je izradilo, revidiralo i izmijenilo Vijeće Europske unije – Pravo na obranu”
People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, established at Auvers-sur-Oise (France), represented by J.-P. Spitzer, avocat, D. Vaughan QC and M.-E. Demetriou, Barrister, 
People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, osnovana u Auvers-sur-Oise (Francuska), koju zastupaju J.-P. Spitzer, avocat, D. Vaughan, QC i M.-E. Demetriou, Barrister,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 8 September 2010, 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 8. rujna 2010.,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 14 July 2011, 
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisne odvjetnice na raspravi održanoj 14. srpnja 2011.,
1 By its appeal, the French Republic seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 4 December 2008 in Case T-284/08 People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran v Council [2008] ECR I-3487 (‘the judgment under appeal’), by which that court upheld the action brought by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (‘the PMOI’) for annulment of Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21, ‘the contested decision’), insofar as it concerned the PMOI. 
1 Francuska Republika svojom žalbom traži ukidanje presude Prvostupanjskog suda Europskih zajednica od 4. prosinca 2008., People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran/ Vijeće (T-284/08, Zb., str. II-3487., u daljnjem tekstu: pobijana presuda), kojom je sud prihvatio tužbu koju je podnio People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (u daljnjem tekstu: PMOI) za poništenje Odluke Vijeća 2008/583/EZ od 15. srpnja 2008. o provedbi članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe (EZ) br. 2580/2001 o posebnim mjerama ograničavanja protiv određenih osoba i subjekata s ciljem borbe protiv terorizma, te o stavljanju izvan snage Odluke 2007/868/EZ (SL L 188, str. 21.) (u daljnjem tekstu: sporna odluka), u dijelu koji se odnosi na PMOI.
"2 On 28 September 2001, the United Nations Security Council (‘the UN Security Council’) adopted Resolution 1373 (2001) on strategies to combat terrorism and, in particular, the financing of terrorism, by any means. Point 1(c) of the Resolution provides, inter alia, that all States are to freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons and entities." 
"2 Vijeće sigurnosti Ujedinjenih naroda (u daljnjem tekstu: Vijeće sigurnosti UN-a) donijelo je 28. rujna 2001. Rezoluciju 1373 (2001) o strategiji za borbu svim sredstvima protiv terorizma, a posebno financiranja terorizma. Točkom 1.(c) Rezolucije propisuje se, među ostalim, da sve države moraju odmah zamrznuti sredstva i drugu financijsku imovinu ili ekonomske izvore osoba koje su počinile ili pokušale počiniti terorističko djelo ili koje sudjeluju u počinjenju terorističkog djela ili olakšavaju njegovo počinjenje; subjekata u vlasništvu ili pod kontrolom tih osoba; i osoba i subjekata koji postupaju u ime ili po uputama tih osoba i subjekata."
‘This Common Position applies in accordance with the provisions of the following Articles to persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts and listed in the Annex.’ 
„Ovo Zajedničko stajalište primjenjuje se sukladno odredbama sljedećih članaka na osobe, skupine i subjekte navedene u Prilogu, a koje su uključene u teroristička djela.”
6 Article 1(2) and (3) of Common Position 2001/931 defines what is meant by ‘persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts’ and ‘terrorist act’, respectively. 
6 Člankom 1. stavcima 2. i 3. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931 definira se tko/što su „osobe, skupine i subjekti uključeni u teroristička djela” i što je „terorističko djelo”.
‘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: