natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
74 Moreover, the Parliament’s argument that it is impossible to distinguish the combating of ‘internal’ terrorism, on the one hand, from the combating of ‘external’ terrorism, on the other, does not appear capable of calling in question the choice of Article 215(2) TFEU as a legal basis of the contested regulation. 
74 Štoviše nije vjerojatno da bi argument Parlamenta da je nemoguće razlikovati suzbijanje „unutarnjeg“ terorizma s jedne strane i suzbijanje „vanjskog“ terorizma s druge strane mogao dovesti u pitanje odabir članka 215. stavka 2. UFEU-a kao pravne osnove pobijane uredbe.
76 In the present case, it is to be emphasised that the contested regulation amends Regulation No 881/2002 which, as found at paragraph 67 above, constitutes one of the instruments by which the European Union put into effect an action decided upon within the Security Council and intended to preserve international peace and security. In addition, as observed at paragraph 72 above, in the light of both its objectives and its content, the contested regulation relates to a decision taken by the Union under the CFSP. 
76 U ovom slučaju valja istaknuti da se pobijanom uredbom izmjenjuje Uredba br. 881/2002 koja je, kao što proizlazi iz točke 67. ove presude, jedan od instrumenata kojim Europska unija provodi djelovanje o kojem je odluku donijelo Vijeće sigurnosti i čija je namjera očuvanje međunarodnog mira i sigurnosti. Osim toga, kao što je navedeno u točke 72. ove presude, s obzirom na svoje ciljeve i sadržaj pobijana uredba odnosi se na odluku koju je Unija donijela u okviru ZVSP-a.
78 Having regard to those factors, it suffices to find that Article 215(2) TFEU constitutes the appropriate legal basis for measures, such as those at issue in the present case, directed to addressees implicated in acts of terrorism who, having regard to their activities globally and to the international dimension of the threat they pose, affect fundamentally the Union’s external activity. 
78 Uzimajući u obzir prethodno navedeno, dovoljno je utvrditi da članak 215. stavak 2. UFEU-a predstavlja odgovarajuću pravnu osnovu za mjere, poput mjera u ovom slučaju, usmjerene protiv adresata koji su upleteni u djela terorizma te koji, s obzirom na njihove aktivnosti na globalnoj razini te na međunarodnu dimenziju prijetnje koju predstavljaju, bitno utječu na vanjsko djelovanje Unije.
– The consequences for the Parliament’s prerogatives of the choice between Articles 75 TFEU and 215 TFEU 
– Posljedice odabira između članka 75. UFEU-a i članka 215. UFEU-a na ovlasti Parlamenta
79 While it is true that choosing between Articles 75 TFEU and 215 TFEU as the legal basis for the contested regulation has consequences for the Parliament’s prerogatives, inasmuch as the former provides for recourse to the ordinary legislative procedure whereas, under the latter, the Parliament is merely informed, that fact cannot, however, determine the choice of legal basis. 
79 Iako je istina da odabir između članka 75. UFEU-a i članka 215. UFEU-a kao pravne osnove za pobijanu uredbu ima posljedice na ovlasti Parlamenta, u smislu da se prvim predviđa zaštita u sklopu redovnog zakonodavnog postupka, a drugim Parlament tek prima obavijest, ta činjenica međutim ne može utjecati na odabir pravne osnove.
82 Nevertheless, the difference between Article 75 TFEU and Article 215 TFEU, so far as the Parliament’s involvement is concerned, is the result of the choice made by the framers of the Treaty of Lisbon conferring a more limited role on the Parliament with regard to the Union’s action under the CFSP. 
82 Međutim, razlika između članka 75. UFEU-a i članka 215. UFEU-a u odnosu na uključenost Parlamenta rezultat je odluke autora Lisabonskog ugovora da ograniče ulogu Parlamenta u pogledu djelovanja Unije u okviru ZVSP-a.
83 So far as concerns the Parliament’s argument that it would be contrary to Union law for it to be possible for measures to be adopted that impinge directly on the fundamental rights of individuals and groups by means of a procedure excluding the Parliament’s participation, it is to be noted that the duty to respect fundamental rights is imposed, in accordance with Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on all the institutions and bodies of the Union. In addition, under both Article 75 TFEU and Article 215(3) TFEU, the acts referred to in those articles are to include necessary provisions on legal safeguards. 
83 Što se tiče argumenta Parlamenta da je suprotno pravu Unije omogućiti da se mjere kojima se izravno zadire u temeljna prava pojedinaca i skupina usvajaju postupkom kojim se isključuje sudjelovanje Parlamenta, valja istaknuti da dužnost poštovanja temeljnih prava obvezuje, u skladu s člankom 51. stavkom 1. Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima, sve ustanove i tijela Unije. Osim toga, na temelju članka 75. UFEU-a kao i članka 215. stavka 3. UFEU-a, akti koji se spominju u navedenim člancima uključuju potrebne odredbe o pravnim jamstvima.
84 In consequence, a measure, such as the contested regulation, containing safeguards for the respect of the fundamental rights of the persons whose names appear in the list, may be adopted on the basis of Article 215(2) TFEU. The argument to the contrary, that such a measure may be adopted only on the basis of Article 75 TFEU, would, moreover, render Article 215(2) largely redundant, whereas the duty to respect fundamental rights bears also on Union measures giving effect to resolutions of the Security Council (see, to that effect, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, paragraphs 285, 299 and 326). 
84 Prema tome, akt, kao što je pobijana uredba, koji sadrži jamstva u pogledu poštovanja temeljnih prava osoba čija se imena nalaze na popisu, može biti donesen na temelju članka 215. stavka 2. UFEU-a. Teza kojom se tvrdi suprotno odnosno da takva mjera može biti donesena samo na temelju članka 75. UFEU-a osim toga u velikoj mjeri lišava korisnog učinka članak 215. stavak 2. UFEU-a, a obveza poštovanja temeljnih prava mora biti sadržana i u aktima Unije kojima se provode rezolucije Vijeća sigurnosti (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, t. 285., 299. i 326.).
88 The second plea is divided into two parts. The first concerns failure to comply with the condition relating to a joint proposal from the High Representative and the Commission, and the second concerns the fact that no decision under the CFSP was taken before the contested regulation was adopted. 
88 Drugi tužbeni razlog podijeljen je u dva dijela. Prvi se odnosi na nepoštovanje uvjeta koji se odnosi na zajednički prijedlog Visoke predstavnice i Komisije, a drugi se odnosi na činjenicu da prije donošenja pobijane uredbe nije donesena nijedna odluka u okviru ZVSP-a.
– No proposal compatible with the Treaties 
– Niti jedan prijedlog nije u skladu s Ugovorima
89 According to the Parliament, when the contested regulation was adopted on 22 December 2009, there was no Commission that could legitimately submit a joint proposal with the High Representative, the term of office of the Commission appointed on 22 November 2004 having expired on 31 October 2009 and the new Commission not taking office until 10 February 2010. Even if it had been acceptable, in the interests of the continuity of the work of that institution, for the Commission appointed in November 2004 to continue to perform certain tasks, its authority would have been confined to dealing with current business. It would not have been empowered to take a major political initiative amending the legal basis of a measure in such a way as to divest it of its legislative nature and to divest the Parliament and the national parliaments of any influence. 
89 Prema mišljenju Parlamenta, kada je pobijana uredba donesena 22. prosinca 2009. nije postojala Komisija koja je mogla legitimno podnijeti zajednički prijedlog s Visokom predstavnicom s obzirom da je mandat Komisije koja je preuzela dužnost 22. studenoga 2004. istekao 31. listopada 2009., a nova Komisija nije stupila na dužnost do 10. veljače 2010. Čak i da je bilo prihvatljivo u interesu kontinuiteta rada institucije da Komisija koja je preuzela dužnost u studenome 2004. nastavi obavljati određene zadaće, njezina ovlast bi bila ograničena na tekuće poslove. Ona ne bi bila ovlaštena pokrenuti veliku političku inicijativu kojom se mijenja pravna osnova akta koja bi uključivala gubitak njegovog zakonodavnog obilježja i gubitak utjecaja Parlamenta i nacionalnih parlamenata.
90 The Parliament considers that it cannot be argued that the proposal submitted by the Commission and the High Representative was merely the continuation of the proposal submitted by the Commission acting alone on 22 April 2009. Furthermore, the way in which the proposal was submitted was not in conformity with the role or the responsibilities of the High Representative, as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. It is inconceivable that a joint proposal as required under Article 215(2) TFEU could be replaced by a mere endorsement by the High Representative of a pre-existing Commission proposal, adopted by that institution before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Furthermore, the High Representative, as the person responsible for the CFSP, is required to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the joint proposal submitted. 
90 Parlament smatra da se ne može tvrditi da je prijedlog koji su podnijeli Komisija i Visoka predstavnica bio tek nastavak prijedloga koji je Komisija podnijela samostalno 22. travnja 2009. Osim toga, način na koji je prijedlog podnesen nije bio u skladu s ulogom ili odgovornostima Visoke predstavnice kako su predviđeni Lisabonskim ugovorom. Nezamislivo je da zajednički prijedlog u skladu s člankom 215. stavkom 2. UFEU-a može biti zamijenjen tako da Visoka predstavnica jednostavno odobri već postojeći prijedlog Komisije koji je ta institucija donijela prije stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora. Osim toga, Visoka predstavnica kao osoba odgovorna za ZVSP dužna je osigurati odgovarajuće obrazloženje za podneseni zajednički prijedlog.
91 The Council submits that when the term of office of the Commission, appointed in November 2004, expired on 31 October 2009, the Commission remained in office pending the appointment of a new Commission, in order to ensure the necessary continuity in the institution’s work, as indicated in recital 1 in the preamble to Decision 2010/80/EU of the European Council of 9 February 2010 appointing the European Commission (OJ 2010 L 38, p. 7). The Parliament continued, during the interim period from 1 November 2009 to 10 February 2010, to deal with the Commission as if the latter remained legitimately in existence. 
91 Vijeće tvrdi da je, kada je mandat Komisije koja je stupila na dužnost u studenome 2004. istekao 31. listopada 2009., Komisija nastavila obavljati dužnosti do imenovanja nove Komisije kako bi se osigurao potreban kontinuitet rada institucije, kao što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 1. Odluke 2010/80/EU Europskog vijeća od 9. veljače 2010. o imenovanju Europske komisije (SL L 38, str. 7.) [neslužbeni prijevod]. Parlament je nastavio, za trajanja prijelaznoga razdoblja od 1. studenoga 2009. do 10. veljače 2010., poslovati s Komisijom kao da Komisija i dalje legitimno postoji.
92 The Council stresses that the contested regulation was adopted on the basis of the proposal for a regulation of 22 April 2009 endorsed by the High Representative on 14 December 2009. That proposal remained valid after the expiry of the Commission’s term of office on 31 October 2009. The only effect of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon was to alter the procedure governing the adoption of the contested regulation. 
92 Vijeće naglašava da je pobijana uredba donesena na temelju prijedloga uredbe od 22. travnja 2009. koji je Visoka predstavnica odobrila 14. prosinca 2009. Taj je prijedlog nastavio vrijediti i nakon isteka mandata Komisije 31. listopada 2009. Jedini učinak stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora bio je promjena postupka kojim je uređeno donošenje pobijane uredbe.
93 The Council observes that, on 2 December 2009, the Commission presented to the Parliament and the Council a communication on the consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures, including an indicative list of the pending proposals it had presented before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and indicating, for each of the proposals, the consequences of the entry into force of that treaty. The proposal presented by the Commission to the Council on 22 April 2009 was mentioned in that list, together with an indication that its legal basis was to change from the former Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC to Article 215 TFEU. 
93 Vijeće podsjeća da je 2. prosinca 2009. Komisija predstavila Parlamentu i Vijeću komunikaciju [COM(2009) 665 final] o posljedicama stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora na međuinstitucionalne postupke donošenja odluka u tijeku, što uključuje indikativni popis tekućih prijedloga koje je podnijela prije stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora te navela, za svaki od tih prijedloga, posljedice stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora. Prijedlog koji je Komisija predstavila Vijeću 22. travnja 2009. spomenut je u tom popisu, zajedno s napomenom da će se njegova pravna osnova promijeniti s bivših članaka 60. UEZ-a, 301. UEZ-a i 308. UEZ-a na članak 215. UFEU-a.
94 Even if it were to be conceded that the situation in which the Commission found itself is analogous to that provided for in the sixth paragraph of Article 246 TFEU on the voluntary resignation of all the Members of the Commission, the case-law of the Union judicature does not, in the Council’s view, support the conclusion that the Commission stepped outside the sphere of current business. In paragraph 96 of its judgment in Joined Cases T-228/99 and T-233/99 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission [2003] ECR II-435, the General Court held that a decision on State aid adopted by the Commission after its members had collectively resigned did not constitute a new political initiative which thus exceeded the powers of a Commission that was restricted to dealing with current business. If that was the conclusion in respect of a new decision adopted by the Commission during the period in question, the same conclusion must a fortiori apply in circumstances in which a pre-existing proposal remained pending. In addition, the question arises whether the limitation to dealing with current business laid down in the second paragraph of Article 201 EC was applicable, given that the Parliament had not adopted a motion of censure on the Commission’s administration. 
94 Čak i kad bi bilo prihvaćeno da je situacija u kojoj se Komisija našla analogna situaciji predviđenoj u šestom stavku članka 246. UFEU-a o dobrovoljnoj ostavci svih članova Komisije, prema mišljenju Vijeća sudska praksa Unije ne ide u prilog zaključku da je Komisija napustila područje tekućih poslova. U točki 96. presude Suda od 6. ožujka 2003., Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale i Land Nordrhein-Westfalen/Komisija (T-228/99 i T-233/99, Zb., str. II-435.), Opći je sud presudio da odluka o državnoj potpori koju je donijela Komisija nakon što su njezini članovi dali kolektivnu ostavku ne predstavlja novu političku inicijativu koja bi premašila ovlasti Komisije koje su bile ograničene na obavljanje tekućih poslova. Ako je to zaključak u odnosu na novu odluku koju je Komisija donijela tijekom odnosnog razdoblja, isti zaključak mora se a fortiori primijeniti u okolnostima u kojima je postojeći prijedlog još uvijek otvoren. Isto tako postavlja se pitanje je li ograničenje na obavljanje samo tekućih poslova iz drugog stavka članka 201. UEZ-a bilo primjenjivo s obzirom da Parlament nije donio odluku o izglasavanju nepovjerenja Komisiji.
95 According to the Council, the joint proposal of the High Representative and the Commission was duly submitted. On 14 December 2009, the High Representative endorsed the Commission’s proposal of 22 April 2009. It was neither necessary nor possible for her to present a separate statement of reasons. Nor was it possible for her to make unilateral additions to the statement of reasons set out in the preamble to the proposal. 
95 Prema mišljenju Vijeća, zajednički prijedlog Visoke predstavnice i Komisije uredno je podnesen. Visoka predstavnica podržala je 14. prosinca 2009. prijedlog Komisije od 22. travnja 2009. Nije bilo ni potrebno ni moguće da ona predstavi zasebno obrazloženje. Ona također nije mogla jednostrano dopuniti obrazloženja iz preambule prijedloga.
– No decision under the CFSP 
– Nepostojanje odluke u okviru ZVSP-a
96 According to the Parliament, the contested regulation does not contain any reference to a decision adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the EU Treaty, even though Article 215 TFEU provides for it. The preamble to that regulation refers to Common Position 2002/402, but the latter does not constitute a decision within the meaning of that provision. A common position adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon cannot be treated in the same way as such a decision. 
96 Parlament je mišljenja da se pobijana uredba ne poziva na odluku koja je donesena u skladu s poglavljem 2. glave V. Ugovora o EU-u, iako je to predviđeno člankom 215. UFEU-a. U svojoj preambuli uredba se poziva na Zajedničko stajalište 2002/402, ali ono nije odluka u smislu te odredbe. Zajedničko stajalište koje je doneseno prije stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora ne može se izjednačiti s takvom odlukom.
97 According to the Parliament, the Council’s arguments that the legal effects of that common position should be maintained, in accordance with the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the FEU, EU and EAEC Treaties and with what that institution calls the ‘principle of continuity of acts’, are irrelevant. There is nothing in that protocol, nor is there any principle of European Union law, to the effect that a common position may take the place of a decision adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the EU Treaty. The Council also disregards the fact that such a decision is itself amenable to judicial review by a party having the requisite legal standing and that the Court could even prohibit the Council from adopting measures under Article 215 TFEU. 
97 Parlament je mišljenja da su argumenti Vijeća da treba zadržati pravne učinke tog zajedničkog stajališta u skladu s Protokolom (br. 36) o privremenim odredbama, koji se nalazi u prilogu Ugovoru o FEU-u, EU-u i EZAE-u, te u skladu s onim što ta institucija naziva „načelom kontinuiteta akata“, irelevantni. Ne postoji ništa u tom protokolu te ne postoji načelo prava Unije prema kojem zajedničko stajalište može zamijeniti odluku donesenu u skladu s poglavljem 2. glave V. Ugovora o EU-u. Vijeće također zanemaruje činjenicu da takva odluka sama po sebi podliježe sudskom nadzoru od strane osobe na odgovarajućem pravnom položaju te da bi Sud čak mogao zabraniti Vijeću donošenje mjera na temelju članka 215. UFEU-a.
98 The Council contends that Regulation No 881/2002, preceded by the adoption of Common Position 2002/402, defines the specific provisions and procedures necessary to give effect to the freezing of funds. Even though it was decided to amend that regulation in response to Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, by adding to it provisions on procedural safeguards, it was not necessary to amend Common Position 2002/402 or to adopt a new decision under the CFSP to that effect. When a measure under the CFSP requiring the adoption of restrictive measures already exists, that measure not having been repealed, annulled or amended, it cannot be required that a new decision under the CFSP should be adopted under Chapter 2 of Title V of the EU Treaty. Such an approach would be contrary to the principle of continuity of acts laid down in Article 9 of the Protocol (No 36). 
98 Vijeće ističe da se Uredbom br. 881/2002, koja je prethodila donošenju Zajedničkog stajališta 2002/402, definiraju posebne odredbe i postupci potrebni za realizaciju zamrzavanja sredstava. Iako je odluka o izmjeni te uredbe donesena nakon gore navedene presude Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija na način da joj se dodaju odredbe o postupovnim jamstvima, nije bilo potrebno izmijeniti Zajedničko stajalište 2002/402 niti donijeti novu odluku u okviru ZVSP-a u tom smislu. Kada u okviru ZVSP-a već postoji mjera koja predviđa donošenje mjera ograničavanja, a dotični akt nije stavljen izvan snage, poništen ni izmijenjen, nije moguće zatražiti donošenje nove odluke u okviru ZVSP-a na temelju poglavlja 2. glave V. Ugovora o EU-u. Takav pristup suprotan je načelu kontinuiteta akata iz članka 9. Protokola (br. 36).
100 With regard, in the first place, to the lack of a proposal compatible with the Treaties, it is true that the Commission’s term of office ended on 31 October 2009 and that the Commission remained in office until 10 February 2010, pending the completion of the process of appointing the new Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. The contested regulation was adopted between those two dates, namely, on 22 December 2009. 
100 Kao prvo, s obzirom na nepostojanje prijedloga koji bi bio u skladu s Ugovorima, točno je da je mandat Komisije završio 31. listopada 2009. i da je Komisija nastavila izvršavati svoje dužnosti do 10. veljače 2010., dovršetka postupka imenovanja nove Komisije, u skladu s odredbama Lisabonskog ugovora. Pobijana uredba donesena je između ta dva datuma odnosno 22. prosinca 2009.
101 Nevertheless, even if, after the Commission’s term of office expired on 31 October 2009, that body’s powers were limited to dealing with current business, the institution could undertake the formal amendment of its proposal for a regulation of 22 April 2009 in respect of its legal basis. 
101 Ipak, čak i da su nakon što je mandat Komisije istekao 31. listopada 2009. ovlasti tog tijela bile ograničene na izvršavanje tekućih poslova, ta je institucija mogla poduzeti formalnu izmjenu svojeg prijedloga uredbe od 22. travnja 2009. u pogledu njezine pravne osnove.
104 As regards the Parliament’s argument that a joint proposal by the High Representative and the Commission was necessary, it is to be found that on 14 December 2009 the High Representative officially endorsed the proposal for a regulation of 22 April 2009. 
104 U odnosu na argument Parlamenta da je bio potreban zajednički prijedlog Visoke predstavnice i Komisije, valja utvrditi da je 14. prosinca 2009. Visoka predstavnica službeno podržala prijedlog uredbe od 22. travnja 2009.
105 Article 215 TFEU requires no more than a joint proposal of the Commission and the High Representative, and does not make it necessary for the High Representative to present a separate statement of reasons or to supplement that in the Commission’s proposal. 
105 Člankom 215. UFEU-a predviđen je samo zajednički prijedlog Komisije i Visokog predstavnika te se njime ne uvjetuje da Visoki predstavnik podnese zasebno obrazloženje ili dopunu prijedloga Komisije.
113 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Council has applied for costs and the Parliament has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. Pursuant to the first subparagraph of that article, the interveners in these proceedings are to bear their own costs. 
113 Sukladno članku 69. stavku 2. Poslovnika, stranka koja ne uspije u postupku dužna je, na zahtjev protivne stranke, snositi troškove. Budući da je Vijeće podnijelo zahtjev da se Parlamentu naloži snošenje troškova i da on nije uspio u svojem tužbenom zahtjevu, treba mu se naložiti snošenje troškova. Na temelju prvog podstavka odnosnog članka, intervenijenti u ovom postupku snose vlastite troškove.
"2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;" 
"2. Europskom parlamentu nalaže se snošenje troškova;"
24 January 2012 *(1) 
24. siječnja 2012. *