natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
83 As pointed out in paragraph 57 above, in order for Article 7(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 423/2007 to be set in motion, the entity concerned must be engaged in or directly associated with or must provide support for nuclear proliferation. 
83 Kako je navedeno gore u točki 57., za provedbu članka 7. stavka 2. točaka (a) i (b) Uredbe br. 423/2007 predmetni subjekt mora sudjelovati u širenju nuklearnog oružja, biti izravno s njim povezan ili mu pružati potporu.
In consequence, in addition to indicating the legal basis of the measure adopted, the obligation to state reasons by which the Council is bound relates precisely to that fact. 
Slijedom toga, pored navođenja pravne osnove donesene mjere, obveza obrazlaganja koja je određena Vijeću odnosi se upravo na tu činjenicu.
On the other hand, contrary to what the applicant argues, the Council was not required to give reasons for its decision to go beyond the measures laid down by Resolution 1803 (2008), since it has been found in paragraph 65 above that the contested decision did not give effect to that resolution, nor was it required to treat the applicant differently from other Iranian banks. 
S druge strane, suprotno onome što tvrdi tužitelj, Vijeće nije bilo obvezno obrazložiti svoju odluku da prijeđe okvire mjera utvrđenih Rezolucijom 1803 (2008), s obzirom na to da je gore u točki 65. utvrđeno da [spornom] odlukom nije provedena ta rezolucija, kao ni svoju odluku da prema tužitelju postupa drukčije nego prema drugim iranskim bankama.
84 In the instant case, the Council has stated, both in the title of the contested decision and in recital 2 in the preamble to the latter, that the measures taken were based on Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007. 
84 U ovom je slučaju Vijeće u naslovu sporne odluke i u njezinoj uvodnoj izjavi 2. navelo da su se donesene mjere temeljile na članku 7. stavku 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007.
It has also explained, in paragraph 4 of Table B in the annex to the contested decision, the specific individual reasons that led it to consider that the applicant provided support for nuclear proliferation. 
U točki 4. tablice B Priloga [spornoj] odluci također je objasnilo pojedinačne i posebne razloge zbog kojih je smatralo da tužitelj pruža potporu širenju nuklearnog oružja.
The Council mentioned, first, the kind of support lent by the applicant, namely providing financial services, including opening letters of credit and maintaining accounts, secondly, the activities linked to nuclear proliferation involved by those services, namely the purchase of sensitive materials, and, thirdly, the beneficiaries of the support provided by the applicant, that is to say, the eight entities designated by name. 
Vijeće je na prvom mjestu navelo vrstu potpore koju pruža tužitelj, a to je pružanje financijskih usluga, uključujući otvaranje akreditiva i vođenje računovodstvenih evidencija, na drugom mjestu aktivnosti povezane sa širenjem nuklearnog oružja obuhvaćene tim uslugama, a to je kupnja osjetljivih materijala, i na trećem mjestu korisnike potpore koju pruža tužitelj, odnosno osam subjekata navedenih imenom.
85 In those circumstances, the Court considers that the statement of reasons for the contested decision with regard to the applicant is sufficient ...' 
85 U tim okolnostima Prvostupanjski sud smatra da je obrazloženje [sporne] odluke u dijelu koji se odnosi na tužitelja dostatno [...]"
77 The third principal ground of appeal also concerns paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal, which states: 
77 Treći se glavni žalbeni razlog odnosi i na točku 97. pobijane presude u kojoj je navedeno sljedeće:
`The applicant's claim that the Council was required automatically to offer it access to the material in its file must be rejected. 
„S tim u vezi treba odbiti tvrdnju tužitelja da je Vijeće po službenoj dužnosti moralo omogućiti pristup elementima svojeg spisa.
When sufficiently precise information has been communicated, enabling the entity concerned to make its point of view on the evidence adduced against it by the Council known to advantage, the principle of respect for the rights of the defence does not mean that the institution is obliged spontaneously to grant access to the documents in its file. 
Ako je dostavljeno dovoljno informacija te time predmetnom subjektu omogućeno da se uspješno izjasni o dokazima koje je protiv njega iznijelo Vijeće, načelo poštovanja prava na obranu ne znači da je institucija dužna na vlastitu inicijativu omogućiti pristup sadržaju svojeg spisa.
It is only on the request of the party concerned that the Council is required to provide access to all non-confidential official documents concerning the measure at issue (see, to that effect and by analogy, Case T-205/99 Hyper v Commission [2002] ECR II-3141, paragraphs 63 to 65, and the case-law cited). 
Vijeće je dužno samo na zahtjev zainteresirane stranke omogućiti pristup svim službenim dokumentima koji nisu povjerljivi i koji se odnose na predmetnu mjeru (u tom smislu i analogijom vidjeti presudu Općeg suda od 11. srpnja 2002., Hyper/Komisija, T-205/99, Zb., str. II-3141., t. 63. do 65., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
It would in fact be excessive to require spontaneous communication of the matters in the file, given that when a fund-freezing measure is adopted it is not certain that the entity concerned intends to check, by means of access to the file, the matters of fact supporting the allegations made against it by the Council.' 
Bilo bi pretjerano zahtijevati da se obavijest o elementima spisa uputi na vlastitu inicijativu jer pri donošenju mjere zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava nije sigurno da predmetni subjekt zaista namjerava pristupom spisu provjeriti činjenične elemente na kojima se temelje navodi koje je Vijeće iznijelo protiv njega."
78 Finally, it is necessary to reproduce paragraphs 102 to 104 of the judgment under appeal: 
78 Naposljetku valja navesti točke 102. do 104. pobijane presude:
`102 As regards the fact that the Council did not spontaneously produce the evidence supporting the statement of reasons for the contested decision, paragraphs 97 above and 107 below make it clear that it was not bound to do so, either before or after the present proceedings had been initiated. 
„102 U vezi s činjenicom da Vijeće nije na vlastitu inicijativu predočilo dokaze na kojima se temelji obrazloženje [sporne] odluke, iz gore navedene točke 97. i dolje navedene točke 107. proizlazi da to nije bila njegova obveza ni prije ni nakon podnošenja ove tužbe.
103 Likewise, the applicant does not explain how the need to check one by one its relations with the entities designated in the contested decision stopped it seeking access to the Council's file or requesting a hearing. 
103 Tužitelj ne objašnjava ni kako to da zbog potrebe za pojedinačnom provjerom vlastitih odnosa sa subjektima navedenima u [spornoj] odluci nije mogao zatražiti pristup spisu Vijeća niti zatražiti saslušanje.
On the contrary, those steps might have facilitated the research to be carried out, thanks to the documents consulted or the information obtained. 
Naprotiv, tim se koracima mogla olakšati provedba istrage na temelju pregledanih dokumenata ili dobivenih pojašnjenja.
104 Having regard to the foregoing, it must be concluded that, the applicant having omitted to make such a request to the Council, the latter was not obliged to grant it access to the file or to conduct a hearing, which means that the claim alleging breach of the rights of the defence must be rejected.' 
104 Uzimajući u obzir prethodno navedeno, valja zaključiti da Vijeće nije bilo obvezno, zato što tužitelj nije podnio takav zahtjev Vijeću, omogućiti pristup spisu ili provesti saslušanje, što znači da valja odbiti prigovor u vezi s povredom prava na obranu."
79 The appellant challenges, first, the General Court's conclusion, in paragraphs 84 and 85 of the judgment under appeal, that it held sufficiently precise information in relation to the grounds for freezing its funds, second, the conclusion, in paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal, that the Council was not required to grant it access to the documents in the file, third, the conclusion, in paragraphs 102 and 104 of the judgment under appeal, that, the appellant having omitted to make such a request to the Council, the latter was not obliged to grant it access to the file whether before or after the bringing of an action and, fourth, the conclusion, in paragraph 106 of the judgment under appeal, that it was in a position fully to carry out its review. 
79 Kao prvo, žalitelj osporava zaključak Općeg suda iz točaka 84. i 85. pobijane presude da je imao dovoljno precizne informacije u vezi s razlozima zamrzavanja njegovih financijskih sredstava, kao drugo, zaključak iz točke 97. pobijane presude da Vijeće nije bilo obvezno omogućiti pristup elementima spisa, kao treće, zaključak iz točaka 102. i 104. pobijane presude da Vijeće nije bilo obvezno omogućiti žalitelju pristup spisu prije ni nakon podnošenja tužbe s obzirom na to da žalitelj nije podnio takav zahtjev Vijeću i, kao četvrto, zaključak Općeg suda iz točke 106. pobijane presude da je bio u mogućnosti provesti potpuni nadzor.
80 The appellant submits that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the person concerned must receive, as of the administrative procedure, all the information necessary to defend his interests. 
80 Žalitelj podsjeća da u skladu sa sudskom praksom Suda dotična osoba u upravnom postupku mora dobiti sve informacije potrebne za obranu svojih interesa.
It adds, citing Case C-49/88 Al-Jubail Fertilizer v Council [1991] ECR I-3187, paragraphs 17 and 18), that that person must be enabled to make known his views on the truth and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged and the evidence held against him. 
Navodeći presudu od 27. lipnja 1991., Al-Jubail Fertilizer/Vijeće (C-49/88, Zb., str. I-3187., t. 17. i 18.), dodaje da toj osobi treba omogućiti da iznese svoja stajališta o istinitosti i relevantnosti navodnih činjenica i okolnosti te dokaza iznesenih protiv nje.
In accordance with Case C-51/92 P Hercules Chemicals v Commission [1999] ECR I-4235, paragraphs 76 and 78, the infringement of that right cannot be remedied by the mere fact that access was made possible at a later stage, during an action in which annulment of the contested decision is sought. 
U skladu s presudom od 8. srpnja 1999., Hercules Chemicals/Komisija (C-51/92 P, Zb., str. I-4235., t. 76. i 78.), povreda tog prava ne može se popraviti time da se pristup spisu omogući u kasnijoj fazi, odnosno tijekom tužbe za poništenje sporne odluke.
A fortiori, on the basis of that case-law, the rights of the defence and the right to effective legal protection are not respected where access was never granted to the file, even during the annulment proceedings. 
Na temelju navedene sudske prakse, pravo na obranu i pravo na djelotvornu sudsku zaštitu a fortiori ne bi se poštovali kada pristup spisu nikada ne bi bio omogućen, čak ni tijekom postupka za poništenje.
81 In the appellant's view, the contested paragraphs of the judgment under appeal contradict the case-law of the General Court itself, in particular Case T-284/08 People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council [2008] ECR II-3487, paragraphs 74 and 75), and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, namely Saadi v Italy of 28 February 2008 (§ 138 and § 139), and A and Others v United Kingdom of 19 February 2009 (§ 126). 
81 Prema mišljenju žalitelja, sporne su točke iz pobijane presude protivne sudskoj praksi Općeg suda, posebno presudi od 4. prosinca 2008., People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Vijeće (T-284/08, Zb., str. II-3487., t. 74. i 75.), kao i sudskoj praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava, i to presudama Saadi protiv Italije od 28. veljače 2008. (t. 138. i 139.) kao i A. i dr. protiv Ujedinjene Kraljevine od 19. veljače 2009. (t. 126.).
82 The French Republic and the United Kingdom submit that paragraph 4 of Table B in the annex to the contested decision contained clear and sufficient information in relation to the appellant. 
82 Francuska Republika i Ujedinjena Kraljevina ističu da je točka 4. tablice B Priloga spornoj odluci sadržavala jasne i dostatne informacije u vezi sa žaliteljem.
It was thus not necessary, in their view, to grant the appellant access to the material in the file, as stated by the General Court in paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal. 
Po mišljenju tih država članica stoga nije bilo neophodno žalitelju omogućiti pristup elementima spisa, kao što je to Opći sud naveo u točki 97. pobijane presude.
83 The French Republic states that the judgment in People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council is not relevant, since it concerns the procedure applicable to sanctions in relation to terrorism, whereas the contested decision concerns sanctions against a third country. 
83 Francuska Republika navodi da gore navedena presuda People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Vijeće nije relevantna jer se odnosi na postupak primjenjiv na sankcije u vezi s terorizmom, dok se sporna odluka odnosi na sankcije protiv treće zemlje.
As for the case-law in relation to competition cases, the Council and the United Kingdom claim that that case-law also is irrelevant in the present case. 
U vezi sa sudskom praksom koja se odnosi na predmete iz područja tržišnog natjecanja, Vijeće i Ujedinjena Kraljevina navode da ta sudska praksa nije relevantna u ovom slučaju.
Moreover, the United Kingdom and the Commission consider that the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights does not support the appellant's reasoning. 
Nadalje, Ujedinjena Kraljevina i Komisija smatraju da obrazloženje žalitelja nije potkrijepljeno sudskom praksom Europskog suda za ljudska prava.
84 The Council and the Commission submit, as regards the furnishing of evidence during the judicial proceedings, that the appellant does not take account of paragraphs 30, 31 and 107 of the judgment under appeal, from which it transpires that `the application contains no plea challenging the Council's finding that the [appellant] has provided financial support for nuclear proliferation, even though that finding forms the basis of the contested decision so far as it concerns the [appellant] and, in consequence, could have been raised as soon as the action was brought, if necessary with the clarification that additional evidence would be produced as soon as it was available' (paragraph 30), with the result that the General Court was able to conclude, in paragraph 107 of the judgment under appeal, that it was not necessary for the Council to produce evidence in support of the grounds set out in the decision at issue. 
84 U vezi s predočenjem dokaza tijekom sudskog postupka, Vijeće i Komisija tvrde da žalitelj ne uzima u obzir točke 30., 31. i 107. pobijane presude, iz kojih proizlazi da „tužba ne sadržava tužbeni razlog kojim se osporava ocjena Vijeća da je žalitelj pružao financijsku potporu širenju nuklearnog oružja, iako ta ocjena predstavlja osnovu sporne odluke u mjeri u kojoj se odnosi na žalitelja i da je slijedom toga taj tužbeni razlog mogao biti naveden u trenutku podnošenja tužbe, prema potrebi uz objašnjenje da će dodatni dokazi biti predočeni čim budu bili na raspolaganju" (točka 30.), tako da je Opći sud u točki 107. pobijane presude mogao zaključiti da Vijeće nije obvezno predočiti dokaze u prilog razlozima navedenima u predmetnoj odluci.
85 When questioned on that point at the hearing, the appellant stated that a ground of appeal disputing financial support for nuclear proliferation was implicitly included in the action before the General Court and that it intended to develop that ground of appeal after receiving the file of evidence on which the Council relied in adopting the contested decision. 
85 Kada mu je na raspravi bilo postavljeno pitanje s tim u vezi, žalitelj je izjavio da je tužbeni razlog kojim osporava financijsku potporu širenju nuklearnog oružja bio implicitno uključen u tužbi pred Općim sudom i da je namjeravao dopuniti taj tužbeni razlog nakon zaprimanja dokaza iz spisa na koje se Vijeće pozvalo pri donošenju sporne odluke.
86 In so far as concerns the part of the present ground of appeal alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons, the Court notes at the outset that, in the absence of notification, by the Council, of the individual and specific grounds for a contested decision in accordance with Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007, it is the grounds set out in that decision, as published and notified to the appellant by the French banking commission, that need to be taken into consideration. 
86 U pogledu onog dijela žalbenog razloga koji se odnosi na povredu obveze obrazlaganja, na početku treba utvrditi da, s obzirom na to da Vijeće nije uputilo obavijest o pojedinačnim i posebnim razlozima sporne odluke u skladu s člankom 15. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007, valja uzeti u obzir razloge utvrđene u toj odluci kako je objavljena i kako ju je francuska komisija za bankarstvo uručila žalitelju.
87 The General Court did not err in law in holding, in paragraphs 84 and 85 of the judgment under appeal, that the grounds for the contested decision were sufficient in the light of the case-law relating to the duty to state reasons. 
87 Opći sud nije počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava presudivši u točkama 84. i 85. pobijane presude da je obrazloženje sporne odluke dostatno s obzirom na sudsku praksu koja se odnosi na obvezu obrazlaganja.
The General Court stated, inter alia, that the contested decision indicated the legal basis on which it had been adopted and the individual and specific reasons which had led the Council to consider that the appellant was providing support to Iran for nuclear proliferation. 
Opći sud je utvrdio, između ostalog, da je u spornoj odluci navedena pravna osnova na temelju koje je donesena te pojedinačni i posebni razlozi zbog kojih je Vijeće smatralo da žalitelj pruža potporu Iranu u širenju nuklearnog oružja.
A reading of the grounds set out in the contested decision confirms that such information was sufficient to enable the appellant to understand the claims made against it and to assess the merits of the decision. 
Čitanjem obrazloženja sporne odluke potvrđuje se da su navedene informacije bile dostatne da se žalitelju omogući razumijevanje tvrdnji navedenih protiv njega i ocjenjivanje osnovanosti odluke.
88 The issue of the grounds for the contested decision is different, however, from that of the evidence of the conduct of which the appellant is accused, namely, the facts set out in the contested decision and the treatment of those facts as constituting engagement in, or support for, the proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the development by that State of nuclear weapon delivery systems, within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 423/2007. 
88 Međutim, pitanje obrazloženja sporne odluke drukčije je od pitanja dokaza o postupanju žalitelja za koje je optužen, odnosno činjenica utvrđenih spornom odlukom i kvalifikacije da te činjenice znače sudjelovanje u nuklearnim aktivnostima Islamske Republike Iran koje predstavljaju rizik širenja nuklearnog oružja ili razvoja sustava ispaljivanja nuklearnog oružja koji ta država provodi, izravnu povezanost s njima ili pružanje potpore u smislu članka 7. stavka 2. točaka (a) i (b) Uredbe br. 423/2007.
89 As submitted by the United Kingdom and the Commission, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights referred to by the appellant is not relevant. 
89 Kao što tvrde Ujedinjena Kraljevina i Komisija, sudska praksa Europskog suda za ljudska prava na koju se poziva žalitelj nije relevantna.
The judgments cited, namely Saadi v Italy and A and Others v United Kingdom, relate to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (`the ECHR'), on the absolute prohibition of torture, degrading treatment or punishment. 
Gore navedene presude Saadi protiv Italije kao i A. i dr. protiv Ujedinjene Kraljevine odnose se na članak 3. Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda, potpisane u Rimu 4. studenog 1950. (u daljnjem tekstu: EKLJP), o apsolutnoj zabrani mučenja, ponižavajućeg postupanja ili kažnjavanja.
However, the right to property, which the freezing of funds goes against, does not enjoy such absolute protection either under the ECHR or European Union law (on the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture, see Case C-112/00 Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-5659, paragraph 80); as a result the case-law referred to is not transposable to it. 
Međutim, pravo vlasništva, na koje zamrzavanje financijskih sredstava utječe, nije apsolutno zaštićeno EKLJP-om ili pravom Unije (u vezi s apsolutnom zabranom mučenja vidjeti presudu od 12. lipnja 2003., Schmidberger, C-112/00, Zb., str. I-5659., t. 80.), tako da navedena sudska praska nije primjenjiva na to pravo.
90 Regulation No 423/2007 does not provide for an administrative procedure prior to decisions to freeze funds either for initial decisions, as a result of the expected surprise effect, or for re-examination decisions. 
90 Uredbom br. 423/2007 nije predviđen upravni postupak prije odluka o zamrzavanju financijskih sredstva kako za prvotne odluke, zbog očekivanog učinka iznenađenja, tako ni za odluke o preispitivanju.
Only the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union described in paragraph 21 above is relevant to the interests of the persons, entities and bodies included in a list in that it authorises them to request a reexamination of the decision by which they were included in that list, by attaching supporting documents to their application. 
Samo je službena obavijest u Službenom listu Europske unije opisana u točki 21. ove presude relevantna za interese osoba, subjekata i tijela uključenih u popis jer im je na temelju nje omogućeno da zatraže preispitivanje odluke kojom su uključeni u taj popis uz prilaganje popratnih dokumenta svojem zahtjevu.
91 In the present case, having regard to the fact that there was no organised administrative procedure, the case-law of the European Union referred to by the appellant is not relevant. 
91 U ovom slučaju, uzimajući u obzir činjenicu na nije bilo organiziranog upravnog postupka, sudska praksa Unije na koju se poziva žalitelj nije relevantna.
Al-Jubail Fertilizer v Council was delivered in the context of dumping proceedings, to which Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (OJ 1984 L 201, p. 
Gore navedena presuda Al-Jubail Fertilizer/Vijeće bila je donesena u okviru antidampinškog postupka na koji se primjenjivala Uredba Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2176/84 od 23. srpnja 1984. o zaštiti od dampinškog ili subvencioniranog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske ekonomske zajednice (SL L 201, str.
1) was applicable, and the judgment in Hercules Chemicals v Commission was delivered in a competition case in which Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 
1.), dok je gore navedena presuda Hercules Chemicals/Komisija donesena u okviru predmeta u području tržišnog natjecanja na koji su se primjenjivali Uredba Vijeća br. 17 od 6. veljače 1962., Prva uredba o provedbi članaka [81.] i [82.] Ugovora (SL 1962, 13, str. 204.)
87) was applicable, and also as Regulation No 99/63/EEC of the Commission of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17 (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 47). 
(SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 8., svezak 3., str. 3.) i Uredba Komisije br. 99/63/EEZ od 25. srpnja 1963. o saslušanjima predviđenima člankom 19. stavcima 1. i 2. Uredbe Vijeća br. 17. (SL 1963, 127, str. 2268.).