natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
92 In any event, in paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court stated that 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. 
92 U svakom slučaju, u točki 97. pobijane presude Opći sud podsjetio da je Vijeće dužno samo na zahtjev zainteresirane stranke omogućiti pristup svim službenim dokumentima koji nisu povjerljivi i koji se odnose na predmetnu mjeru.
However, the appellant does not explain in what way the General Court committed an error of law in making that finding. 
Međutim, žalitelj nije objasnio na koji je način Opći sud tom ocjenom počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava.
Moreover, it is apparent from the findings of the General Court in paragraphs 103 and 104 of the judgment under appeal, not contested by the appellant in its appeal, that the latter did not request the Council to grant it access to its file. 
Nadalje, iz tvrdnji Općeg suda u točkama 103. i 104. pobijane presude, koje žalitelj nije osporavao u svojoj žalbi, proizlazi da potonji od Vijeća nije zatražio pristup spisu.
93 It follows from the above that the third principal ground of appeal is unfounded. 
93 Iz navedenog proizlazi da je treći glavni žalbeni razlog neosnovan.
The first alternative ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 and a contradiction in the grounds which vitiate the judgment under appeal 
Prvi podredni žalbeni razlog: povreda članka 7. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 i proturječnost razloga pobijane presude
94 This ground of appeal concerns, in particular, paragraphs 51, 52, 64 and 65 of the judgment under appeal, which state: 
94 Ovaj se žalbeni razlog posebno odnosi na točke 51, 52., 64. i 65. pobijane presude u kojima je navedeno sljedeće:
`51 Lastly, in so far as the applicant maintains that Articles 7(2) and 15(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 cannot constitute a valid legal basis for the contested decision because they allow the Council to adopt fund-freezing measures going beyond the measures adopted by the Security Council, it has to be pointed out that nothing in Article 60 EC or 301 EC permits the inference that the powers conferred on the Community by those provisions are limited to the implementing of measures decided by the Security Council. 
„51 Naposljetku, ako tužitelj smatra da članak 7. stavak 2. i članak 15. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 ne bi mogle biti valjana pravna osnova sporne odluke jer se njima Vijeću omogućuje donošenje mjera zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava koje prelaze mjere koje je donijelo Vijeće sigurnosti, valja istaknuti da ničime u člancima 60. ili 301. UEZ-a nije omogućen zaključak da su ovlasti dodijeljene Zajednici navedenim odredbama ograničene na provedbu mjera koje je donijelo Vijeće sigurnosti. Stoga je Vijeće bilo nadležno za donošenje ne samo članka 7. stavka 1.
The Council was, therefore, competent to adopt not only Article 7(1) of Regulation No 423/2007, which gives effect to Resolution 1737 (2006) by ordering the freezing of the funds of the entities designated by it, but also Article 7(2) of that regulation, which permits the adoption of fund-freezing measures applying to other entities which, in the Council's opinion, are directly associated with or provide support for nuclear proliferation. 
Uredbe br. 423/2007, kojim se Rezolucija 1737 (2006) provodi nalogom da se zamrznu financijska sredstva subjekata određenih u toj rezoluciji, već i članka 7. stavka 2. te uredbe, kojim se omogućuje donošenje mjera zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava koje se primjenjuju na druge subjekte koji po mišljenju Vijeća sudjeluju u širenju nuklearnog oružja, izravno su s njim povezani ili mu pružaju potporu. 52 U tom je kontekstu doista točno da se u uvodnoj izjavi 6.
52 In this context, it is, admittedly, true that recital 6 in the preamble to Regulation No 423/2007 requires the Council to exercise the power conferred on it by Article 7(2) of the regulation "in view of the objectives of [Resolution] 1737 (2006)". 
Uredbe br. 423/2007 od Vijeća zahtijeva izvršavanje ovlasti koja mu je dodijeljena člankom 7. stavkom 2. uredbe „s obzirom na ciljeve Rezolucije 1737 (2006)" [neslužbeni prijevod].
The obligation to pursue the objectives of Resolution 1737 (2006) does not, however, in any way imply that Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 is to be implemented only in respect of entities referred to in restrictive measures adopted by the Security Council pursuant to that resolution. 
Međutim, obveza ostvarivanja ciljeva Rezolucije 1737 (2006) nikako ne podrazumijeva da se članak 7. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 treba provoditi samo u pogledu subjekata koji su obuhvaćeni mjerama ograničavanja koje je na temelju te rezolucije donijelo Vijeće sigurnosti.
The lack of any measures taken by the Security Council or a specific position taken by the latter may, at the very most, be taken into consideration, with other relevant matters, in connection with the determination whether or not the conditions laid down by Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 have been satisfied. 
Ako Vijeće sigurnosti ne donese mjere ili određeno stajalište, to se u najboljem slučaju može uzeti u obzir zajedno s drugim relevantnim elementima pri utvrđivanju jesu li uvjeti utvrđeni člankom 7. stavkom 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 zadovoljeni ili nisu. [...]
... 64 The first point to be noted here is that paragraphs 51 and 52 above make it clear that Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 confers on the Council autonomous power, the exercise of which is independent of the Security Council's adoption of restrictive measures applying to the entities concerned. 
64 Ovdje najprije valja napomenuti da iz gore navedenih točaka 51. i 52. proizlazi da je člankom 7. stavkom 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 Vijeću dodijeljena autonomna ovlast, čije izvršenje ne ovisi o tome je li Vijeće sigurnosti donijelo mjere ograničavanja koje se primjenjuju na predmetne subjekte.
The object of Article 7(2) of the regulation and of the contested decision, adopted pursuant to that regulation, is not that of giving effect to resolutions of the Security Council, but only to ensure that the ends pursued by one of the resolutions in question, namely Resolution 1737 (2006), are attained by means of adopting autonomous restrictive measures. 
Cilj članka 7. stavka 2. uredbe i [sporne] odluke, donesene na temelju te uredbe, nije provedba rezolucija Vijeća sigurnosti donesenih u vezi sa širenjem nuklearnog oružja, već samo osiguravanje ostvarivanja ciljeva koji se nastoje ostvariti predmetnim rezolucija, odnosno Rezolucijom 1737 (2006), donošenjem autonomnih mjera ograničavanja.
65 So, contrary to what the applicant maintains, neither Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 nor the contested decision gives effect to Resolution 1803 (2008), which means that the content and objectives of that resolution are not a yardstick against which the compatibility of the contested decision with the principle of proportionality must be assessed.' 
65 Dakle, suprotno onome što tvrdi tužitelj, člankom 7. stavkom 2. Uredbe br. 423/2207 i [spornom] odlukom ne provodi se Rezolucija 1803 (2008), što znači da sadržaj i ciljevi te rezolucije nisu kriterij na temelju kojeg treba ocijeniti usklađenost [sporne] odluke s načelom proporcionalnosti."
95 The appellant submits that the General Court disregarded the limits of the Council's power of assessment on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 by rejecting the relevance of the Security Council resolutions in that assessment. 
95 Žalitelj tvrdi da Opći sud nije pravilno odredio granice diskrecijskih ovlasti Vijeća na temelju članka 7. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 time što je u toj ocjeni odbacio relevantnost rezolucija Vijeća sigurnosti.
It thus committed an error of law and an error of assessment of the facts by rejecting the pleas alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the right to property since its reasoning was vitiated by contradictory grounds. 
Dakle, počinio je pogrešku koja se tiče prava i pogrešku u ocjeni činjenica odbivši tužbene razloge koji su se temeljili na povredi načela proporcionalnosti i povredi prava vlasništva jer je njegovo obrazloženje bilo proturječno.
96 According to the appellant, the relationship between Regulation No 423/2007 and the Security Council resolutions cannot be denied; the purpose of that regulation was to implement those resolutions. 
96 Po mišljenju žalitelja, ne može se zanijekati povezanost Uredbe br. 423/2007 i rezolucija Vijeća sigurnosti. Svrha te uredbe bila je provedba tih rezolucija.
Resolution 1803 (2008) merely required Member States to exercise `vigilance' as regards Bank Melli Iran. 
Rezolucijom 1803 (2008) od država članica zahtijevao se samo „oprez" u pogledu banke Bank Melli Iran.
97 Moreover, the General Court's reasoning is vitiated by contradictory grounds. 
97 Osim toga, obrazloženje Općeg suda je proturječno.
In paragraph 52 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court noted the relevance of Security Council resolutions whereas, in paragraphs 64 and 65 of the judgment under appeal, it described the Council's power as autonomous. 
U točki 52. pobijane presude Opći sud navodi relevantnost rezolucija Vijeća sigurnosti, dok je točkama 64. i 65. pobijane presude ovlast Vijeća opisao kao autonomnu.
98 The Council, the French Republic, the United Kingdom and the Commission stress the autonomous nature of the measures adopted by the Council. 
98 Vijeće, Francuska Republika, Ujedinjena Kraljevina i Komisija ističu autonomnost mjera koje je donijelo Vijeće.
The French Republic states that, in Resolution 1803 (2008) the Security Council left it to the States to make an assessment. 
Francuska Republika navodi da je u Rezoluciji 1803 (2008) Vijeće sigurnosti ocjenu prepustilo državama.
In any event, the fact that the Security Council recommended vigilance does not mean that fund-freezing is a disproportionate measure. 
U svakom slučaju, činjenica da je Vijeće sigurnosti preporučilo oprez ne znači da je zamrzavanje financijskih sredstava neproporcionalna mjera.
The Commission points out that Council pursued the objective of Resolution 1737 (2006). 
Komisija ističe da je Vijeće slijedilo cilj Rezolucije 1737 (2006).
99 Those Member States and institutions also refer to the derogations provided for in Regulation No 423/2007, in particular Article 9 thereof, and conclude that the principle of proportionality was not infringed. 
99 Navedene države članice i institucije upozoravaju i na odstupanja predviđena Uredbom br. 423/2007, posebno njezinim člankom 9., i zaključuju da nije došlo do povrede načela proporcionalnosti.
100 It is important to note at the outset that Security Council resolutions and Council common positions and regulations originate from distinct legal orders. 
100 Najprije valja podsjetiti da rezolucije Vijeća sigurnosti i zajednička stajališta i uredbe Vijeća potječu iz različitih pravnih poredaka.
101 Security Council resolutions, such as Resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1803 (2008), were adopted within the framework of the United Nations, to which neither the European Union nor the European Community is a party. 
101 Rezolucije Vijeća sigurnosti, kao što su rezolucije 1737 (2006) i 1803 (2008), donesene su u okviru Ujedinjenih naroda, čije članice nisu ni Unija ni Zajednica.
Council common positions in the sphere of the CFSP, such as Common Positions 2007/140 and 2008/479, were adopted under Title V of the EU Treaty, in the version prior to the Treaty of Lisbon, in accordance with Article 15 thereof. 
Zajednička stajališta Vijeća u području ZVSP-a, kao što su zajednička stajališta 2007/140 i 2008/479, donesena su u skladu s glavom V. Ugovora o EU-u, u verziji prije Ugovora iz Lisabona, u skladu s njegovim člankom 15.
As for the Council regulations, such as Regulation No 423/2007, they were adopted in the framework of the EC Treaty, which constitutes the Community pillar of the European Union. 
Kada je riječ o uredbama Vijeća, kao što je Uredba br. 423/2007, one su bile donesene u okviru Ugovora o EZ-u, koji u Uniji predstavlja stup Zajednice.
102 Measures within the framework of the United Nations and the European Union are adopted by organs with autonomous powers, granted to them by their basic charters, that is to say the treaties that created them. 
102 Akte donesene u okviru Ujedinjenih naroda s jedne strane i u okviru Unije s druge strane donose tijela s autonomnim ovlastima, koje su im dodijeljene njihovim temeljnim poveljama, odnosno ugovorima kojima su uspostavljena.
103 In Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, the Court of Justice ruled on the relationship which exists between a Security Council resolution and a European Community regulation. 
103 U gore navedenoj presudi Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija Sud je odlučivao o odnosu koji postoji između rezolucije Vijeća sigurnosti i uredbe Zajednice.
It held, in paragraph 296 of that judgment, in particular, that, in drawing up Community measures aimed at giving effect to a Security Council resolution envisaged in a common position, the Community is to take due account of the terms and objectives of the resolution concerned. 
U točki 296. navedene presude presudio je da posebno pri donošenju mjera Zajednice s ciljem provedbe rezolucije Vijeća sigurnosti na koju se odnosi zajedničko stajalište, Zajednica mora uzeti u obzir tekst i ciljeve predmetne rezolucije.
104 The Court of Justice has similarly repeatedly held that account must be taken of the wording and purpose of a Security Council resolution when interpreting the regulation which seeks to implement that resolution (Case C-84/95 Bosphorus [1996] ECR I-3953, paragraph 14; Case C-177/95 Ebony Maritime and Loten Navigation [1997] ECR I-1111, paragraph 20; Case C-117/06 Möllendorf and Mölendorf-Niehuus [2007] ECR I-8361, paragraph 54; Kadi and Al Barakaat International foundation v Council and Commission, paragraph 297; Case C-340/08 M and Others [2010] ECR I-3913, paragraph 45; and the judgment in Case C-550/09 E and F [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 72). 
104 Slično tome, Sud je u više navrata presudio da treba uzeti u obzir tekst i cilj rezolucije Vijeća sigurnosti pri tumačenju uredbe kojom se provodi ta rezolucija (presude od 30. srpnja 1996., Bosphorus, C-84/95, Zb., str. I-3953., t. 14.; od 27. veljače 1997., Ebony Maritime i Loten Navigation, C-177/95, Zb., str. I-1111., t. 20.; od 11. listopada 2007., Möllendorf i Möllendorf-Niehuus, C-117/06, Zb., str. I-8361., t. 54.; gore navedena presuda Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, t. 297.; od 29. travnja 2010., M i dr., C-340/08, Zb., str. I-3913., t. 45., kao i od 29. lipnja 2010., E i F, C-550/09, Zb., str. I-6213., t. 72.).
105 The Court of Justice has also held, however, that, without the primacy of a Security Council resolution at the international level thereby being called into question, the requirement that the Community institutions should pay due regard to the institutions of the United Nations could not result in their abstaining from reviewing the lawfulness of Community measures in the light of the fundamental rights forming an integral part of the general principles of Community law (see, to that effect, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, paragraphs 288 and 326). 
105 Međutim, Sud je isto tako presudio, ne dovodeći u pitanje nadređenost rezolucije Vijeća sigurnosti na međunarodnoj razini, da poštovanje koje se nameće institucijama Zajednice u odnosu na institucije Ujedinjenih naroda ne može imati za posljedicu nedostatak nadzora zakonitosti akata Zajednice u odnosu na temeljna prava koja čine sastavni dio općih načela prava Zajednice (u tom smislu vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, t.
106 The above provides sufficient support for the General Court's conclusion, in paragraph 64 of the judgment under appeal, that the power granted to the Council under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 is an autonomous power. 
288. i 326.). 106 Tim se elementima u dovoljnoj mjeri potkrjepljuje zaključak Općeg suda u točki 64. pobijane presude da je ovlast dodijeljena Vijeću člankom 7. stavkom 2. Uredbe br.
In that regard, an obligation to `take due account' of the wording and purpose of the resolution concerned in no way runs counter to the finding that the Council legislates autonomously within the limits of its own legal order. 
423/2007 autonomna ovlast. U tom pogledu obveza „uzimanja u obzir" teksta i cilja predmetne rezolucije nikako nije protivna tvrdnji da Vijeće odlučuje autonomno u skladu s pravilima vlastitog pravnog poretka.
Therefore, contrary to what the appellant claims, the General Court did not contradict itself in referring, in paragraph 52 of the judgment under appeal, to the relevance of Security Council resolutions, while describing the Council's power as being autonomous, in paragraphs 64 and 65 of that judgment. 
Stoga, suprotno onome što tvrdi žalitelj, Opći si sud nije proturječio time što je u točki 52. pobijane presude istaknuo relevantnost rezolucija Vijeća sigurnosti i istovremeno u točkama 64. i 65. te presude opisao ovlast Vijeća kao autonomnu.
107 The General Court considered, in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, that the content and objectives of Resolution 1803 (2008) were not a yardstick against which the compatibility of the contested decision with the principle of proportionality must be assessed. 
107 Opći je sud u točki 65. pobijane presude utvrdio da sadržaj i ciljevi Rezolucije 1803 (2008) nisu kriterij na temelju kojeg treba ocijeniti usklađenost sporne odluke s načelom proporcionalnosti.
That statement must be understood in the light of the wording of Resolution 1803 (2008), which does not impose precise measures on the States, but requests them to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories, in particular Bank Melli Iran, in order to avoid such activities contributing to proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. 
Navedenu izjavu valja razumjeti u svjetlu teksta Rezolucije 1803 (2008), kojom se državama ne određuju precizne mjere, već se od njih zahtijeva oprez u pogledu aktivnosti financijskih institucija na njihovim državnim područjima, posebno Bank Melli Iran, kako se tim aktivnostima ne bi pridonosilo nuklearnim aktivnostima koje predstavljaju rizik širenja nuklearnog oružja.
108 Such wording in no way prevents States from adopting concrete fund-freezing measures as against Bank Melli Iran. 
108 Takvim se tekstom državama nikako ne zabranjuje donošenje konkretnih mjera zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava protiv Bank Melli Iran.
109 It results from the above that the first ground of appeal in the alternative is unfounded. 
109 Iz prethodno navedenog proizlazi da je prvi podredni žalbeni razlog neosnovan.
The second ground of appeal in the alternative, alleging an error of assessment of the appellant's right to property 
Drugi podredni žalbeni razlog: pogreška u ocjeni u pogledu prava vlasništva žalitelja
110 This second ground of appeal concerns more specifically paragraphs 70 and 71 of the judgment under appeal, which state: 
110 Drugi se žalbeni razlog posebno odnosi na točke 70. i 71. pobijane presude u kojima je navedeno sljedeće:
`70 Fourthly, so far as concerns the disadvantages caused to the applicant and the restriction of its fundamental rights, including the right to property and the right to carry on economic activity, it may be observed that, according to settled case-law, those rights form an integral part of the general principles of law whose observance is ensured by the Community judicature. 
„70 Kao četvrto, što se tiče poteškoća prouzročenih tužitelju i ograničavanja njegovih temeljnih prava, uključujući pravo vlasništva i pravo obavljanja gospodarske djelatnosti, valja utvrditi da u skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom ta prava čine sastavni dio općih načela prava čije je poštovanje osigurano sudovima Zajednice.
Respect for fundamental rights is thus a condition of the lawfulness of Community acts (see Kadi [and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission], paragraph 284, and the case-law cited). 
Dakle, poštovanje temeljnih prava uvjet je zakonitosti akata Zajednice (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Kadi [i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija] t. 284., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
Nevertheless, the case-law also makes it clear that fundamental rights are not absolute, and that their exercise may be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of public interest pursued by the Community. 
Međutim, iz sudske prakse isto tako proizlazi da temeljna prava nisu apsolutna prava i da njihovo ostvarenje može biti predmet ograničenja koja se mogu opravdati ciljevima od općeg interesa koje Zajednica slijedi.
Any economic or financial restrictive measure has, ex hypothesi, consequences which affect the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or business, thereby causing harm, in particular to the entities carrying on the activities that the restrictive measures in question are designed to stop. 
Sve gospodarske ili financijske mjere ograničavanja po definiciji imaju posljedice koje utječu na pravo vlasništva i slobodu obavljanja poslovne djelatnosti i time nanose štetu, posebno subjektima koji obavljaju djelatnosti koje se nastoje spriječiti predmetnim mjerama ograničavanja.
The importance of the aims pursued by the legislation at issue is such as to justify negative consequences, even of a substantial nature, for some operators (see, to that effect, [Bosphorus, paragraphs 21 to 23, and Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission], paragraphs 355 and 361). 
Važnost ciljeva spornih propisa sama po sebi je takva da se njome opravdavaju negativne, čak i znatne posljedice za određene subjekte (u tom smislu vidjeti gore navedene presude [Suda Bosphorus, t. 21. do 23., i Kadi [i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija], t. 355. i 361.).
71 In the instant case, the applicant's freedom to carry on economic activity and its right to property are restricted to a considerable degree, on account of the adoption of the contested decision, for it may not, in particular, dispose of its funds situated within the territory of the Community or held by Community nationals, except by virtue of special authorisation, and its branches, domiciled in that territory, may not conclude new transactions with their customers. 
71 U ovom su slučaju sloboda obavljanja gospodarske djelatnosti tužitelja i njegovo pravo vlasništva znatno ograničeni donošenjem sporne odluke posebno zato što ne može raspolagati svojim sredstvima koja se nalaze na području Zajednice ili su u vlasništvu državljana Zajednice, osim na temelju posebnog odobrenja, a njegove podružnice sa sjedištem na tom području ne mogu sklapati nove poslove sa svojim klijentima.
However, given the primary importance of maintaining international peace and security, the disadvantages caused are not inordinate in relation to the ends sought, especially because, first, those restrictions concern only part of the applicant's assets and, secondly, Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation No 423/2007 provide for certain exceptions allowing the entities affected by fund-freezing measures to meet essential expenditure.' 
Međutim, s obzirom na primarnu važnost održavanja međunarodnog mira i sigurnosti, prouzročene poteškoće nisu pretjerane u odnosu na zadane ciljeve, posebno jer se s jedne strane ta ograničenja odnose samo na dio sredstava tužitelja i jer su s druge strane člancima 9. i 10. Uredbe br. 423/2007 predviđene određene iznimke na temelju kojih se subjektima na koje se primjenjuju mjere zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava omogućuje pokrivanje bitnih izdataka."