natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
“The [PMOI] is a group formed in 1965 with the initial aim of overthrowing the imperial régime. Its members participated in the elimination of several thousand ‘agents’ of the old régime and were among the leaders in the taking of hostages at the US Embassy in Teheran. Although initially one of the most radical groups of the Islamic revolution, after being banned the PMOI went into hiding and carried out a number of attacks against the régime in place in Iran. The organisation was behind terrorist attacks, … Members of this organisation, located in various Member States of the European Union, are moreover currently being prosecuted for criminal activities aimed at funding their activities. These acts fall within Article 1(3), points (a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, and were committed with the aims set out in Article 1(3), points (i) and (iii) thereof. 
„[PMOI] je skupina osnovana 1965. s ciljem svrgavanja carskoga režima. Njezini članovi sudjelovali su u eliminaciji nekoliko tisuća „agenata” staroga režima i među odgovornima su za uzimanje talaca u veleposlanstvu SAD-a u Teheranu. Premda isprva jedna od najradikalnijih skupina Islamske revolucije, PMOI nakon zabrane djelovanje nastavlja tajno i poduzima niz akcija protiv postojećeg režima u Iranu. Ta organizacija odgovorna je za terorističke napade, [...]. Protiv članova ove organizacije nastanjenih u raznim državama članicama Europske unije trenutačno je u tijeku kazneni progon za kaznena djela povezana s financiranjem njihovih aktivnosti. Riječ je o djelima obuhvaćenim člankom 1. stavkom 3. točkama (a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (h) i (i) Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931/ZVSP, a počinjena su s ciljevima utvrđenim njegovim člankom 1. stavkom 3. točkama (i) i (iii).
In April 2001, the anti-terrorist prosecutor’s office of the court of first instance [sic] of Paris opened a judicial inquiry into the charges of ‘criminal associations for the preparation of terrorist acts’ as provided for under French law by Act No 96/647 of 22 July 1996. The investigations conducted in the course of that judicial inquiry resulted in the targeting of alleged members of the [PMOI] for a series of offences all having a principal or subsidiary link with a collective undertaking whose aim is to seriously disrupt public order through intimidation or terror. In addition to the aforementioned criminal offence, the inquiry also focused on the ‘financing of a terrorist group’ as provided for under French law by Act No 2001/1062 of 15 November 2001 on security in everyday life. 
Ured tužitelja za suzbijanje terorizma pariškog prvostupanjskog [sic] suda je u travnju 2001. pokrenuo sudsku istragu u vezi s optužbama za „zločinačko udruživanje radi pripremanja terorističkih djela” kako je u francuskome pravu predviđeno zakonom br. 96/647 od 22. srpnja 1996. Istrage provedene u okviru te sudske istrage bile su usmjerene na navodne članove [PMOI-ja] zbog niza kaznenih djela koje su sve neposredno ili posredno bile povezane sa združenim pothvatom čiji je cilj zastrašivanjem ili terorom ozbiljno poremetiti javni red. Osim na prethodno navedena kaznena djela, istraga je bila usmjerena i na „financiranje terorističke skupine” kako je u francuskome pravu predviđeno zakonom br. 2001/1062 od 15. studenoga 2001. o svakodnevnoj sigurnosti.
On 19 March 2007 and 13 November 2007, the Paris anti-terrorist prosecutor’s office brought supplementary charges against alleged members of the PMOI. These proceedings were prompted by the need to enquire into further elements arising from the investigations conducted between 2001 and 2007. They particularly focused on the charges of ‘laundering the direct or indirect proceeds of fraud offences against particularly vulnerable persons and organised fraud’ having a link with a terrorist undertaking as provided for under French law by Act No 2003/706 of 2 August 2003. 
Ured pariškog tužitelja za suzbijanje terorizma podnio je 19. ožujka 2007. i 13. studenoga 2007. dodatne kaznene prijave protiv navodnih članova PMOI-ja. Ti su postupci pokrenuti jer je trebalo ispitati dodatna saznanja prikupljena u istragama provedenim između 2001. i 2007. Posebno su bili usmjereni na prijave za „pranje prihoda izravno ili neizravno stečenih kaznenim djelima prijevare posebno ranjivih pojedinaca i organiziranu prijevaru” koji su povezani s nekom terorističkom skupinom kako je u francuskome pravu predviđeno zakonom br. 2003/706 od 2. kolovoza 2003.
The Council notes that these proceedings are still in progress and were given wider scope in 2007 as part of the combating of financing operations conducted by terrorist groups. The Council is satisfied that the reasons for including [the PMOI] on the list of persons and entities subject to the measures set out in Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 remain valid. 
Vijeće napominje da ti postupci još uvijek traju te su prošireni 2007. u sklopu borbe protiv financiranja koje provode terorističke skupine. Vijeće smatra da je dobro što razlozi za uključivanje [PMOI-a] na popis osoba i subjekata obuhvaćenih mjerama iz članka 2. stavaka 1. i 2. Uredbe (EZ) br. 2580/2001 ostaju valjani.
Having considered these elements, the Council has decided that the [PMOI] should continue to be subject to the measures set out in Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001.”‘ 
Uzevši u obzir ove informacije Vijeće je odlučilo da bi [PMOI] trebao i dalje biti obuhvaćen mjerama iz članka 2. stavaka 1. i 2. Uredbe br. 2580/2001.””
– annul the contested decision, insofar as it applies to the applicant, and 
– poništi spornu odluku u dijelu koji se odnosi na tužitelja, i
– order the Council to pay the costs. 
– naloži Vijeću snošenje troškova.
"23 In support of its claims, the PMOI advanced, in essence, five pleas in law: the first, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the evidence; the second, breaches of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 and of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and of the rules relating to the burden of proof; the third, breach of the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection; the fourth, breach of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to give reasons for a decision and the fifth, abuse or misuse of powers or procedures." 
23 PMOI je u prilog svojim tvrdnjama iznio pet tužbenih razloga, od kojih je prvi očita pogrešna procjena dokaza, drugi povreda članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931 i članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 i pravila u pogledu tereta dokazivanja, treći je povreda prava na djelotvornu pravnu zaštitu, četvrti povreda prava na obranu i obveze obrazloženja odluke i peti zlouporaba ili pogrešna primjena ovlasti ili postupaka.
24 With regard to the fourth plea, alleging breach of the rights of the defence, the General Court stated, at paragraph 36 of the judgment under appeal, that it was common ground that the Council adopted the contested decision without first informing the applicant of the new information or new material in the file which, in its view, justified continuing to include it in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, namely, that relating to the judicial inquiry opened in April 2001 by the anti-terrorist prosecutor’s office of the Tribunal de grande instance of Paris and to the two supplementary charges brought in March and November 2007. The General Court added that, a fortiori, the Council had not enabled the applicant to make known its view of the matter effectively, before the contested decision was adopted. 
24 U pogledu četvrtog tužbenog razloga u kojem se navodi da su povrijeđena prava na obranu, Opći je sud u stavku 36. pobijane presude naveo da je nesporno da je Vijeće donijelo spornu odluku, a da prethodno nije tužitelja obavijestio o novim saznanjima ili novom dokaznom materijalu u spisu koji su, prema mišljenju Vijeća, opravdavali nastavak zadržavanja na popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe 2580/2001, odnosno, o sudskoj istrazi koju je u travnju 2001. pokrenuo ured tužitelja za suzbijanje terorizma u Tribunal de grande instance de Paris i dvjema dodatnim prijavama podnesenim u ožujku i studenome 2007. Opći sud dodao je da Vijeće upravo zbog toga nije PMOI-u omogućilo da iznese svoje stavove o predmetu prije donošenja sporne odluke.
25 The General Court concluded therefrom, at paragraph 37 of the judgment under appeal, that it must be held that the contested decision had been adopted in disregard of the principles stated, in particular, in Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council, paragraphs 120, 126 and 131, so far as the rights of the defence were concerned. 
25 Iz toga je Opći sud u točki 37. pobijane presude zaključio da se mora smatrati kako sporna odluka krši načela, posebno ona navedena u gore navedenoj presudi Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran/Vijeće, u točkama 120., 126. i 131. u mjeri u kojoj se odnose na prava na obranu.
26 In addition, at paragraphs 39 to 44 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court considered, in the first place, the Council’s argument that that institution was justified in so acting because of the particular situation in which it found itself in the circumstances of the case, in particular, the urgency with which the contested decision had to be adopted. 
26 Usto, u točkama od 39. do 44. pobijane presude Opći sud razmatrao je prije svega argument Vijeća da se njegov postupak može opravdati posebnošću situacije u kojoj se zateklo s obzirom na okolnosti predmeta, posebno s obzirom na žurnost kojom je trebalo donijeti spornu odluku.
28 The General Court noted that more than two months had elapsed between 7 May 2008, when the Court of Appeal gave its judgment making it definitively impossible for the Council still to rely on the Home Secretary’s order of 28 March 2001, and 15 July 2008, the date on which the contested decision was adopted. The Council has not, however, explained why it could not, immediately after 7 May 2008, take steps with a view either to removing the applicant from the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 or to maintaining it in that list on the basis of new evidence. 
28 Opći sud napomenuo je da je prošlo više od dva mjeseca od presude koju je 7. svibnja 2008. donio Court of Appeal, nakon koje je za Vijeće konačno postalo nemoguće daljnje pozivanje na rješenje koje je 28. ožujka 2001. donio Home Secretary, do 15. srpnja 2008. kad je donesena sporna odluka. Vijeće, međutim, nije objasnilo zašto neposredno nakon 7. svibnja 2008. nije moglo poduzeti mjere za uklanjanje PMOI-a s popisa iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 ili za njegovo zadržavanje na popisu na temelju novih dokaza.
30 It added that while, in its observations in the case giving rise to the judgment of 23 October 2008 in People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council, the Council expressly stated its intention of taking a position, as a matter of urgency, on ‘new elements’ brought to its attention, that institution nevertheless refrained from forwarding them to the PMOI, without claiming that any factual or legal obstacle prevented its doing so, even though the General Court had, by its judgment in People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council, annulled one of its earlier decisions, precisely on the ground that no such communication had been made before the decision was adopted. 
30 Dodao je da iako je Vijeće u svojem očitovanju u predmetu koje je 23. listopada 2008. dovelo do gore navedene presude u predmetu People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Vijeće izričito navelo svoju namjeru da se žurno izjasni o „novim saznanjima”, ta ih institucija ipak nije proslijedila PMOI-ju, a da pri tom nije navelo niti jednu činjeničnu ili pravnu prepreku koja ga je u tome spriječila, premda je Opći sud svojom navedenom presudom u predmetu People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Vijeće poništio jednu njegovu raniju odluku upravo na temelju činjenice da prije njezina donošenja nije bilo takve komunikacije.
31 At paragraph 42 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court observed that neither the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 7 May 2008 nor the Home Secretary’s order of 23 June 2008 had an automatic, immediate effect on Council Decision 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2007/445/EC (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100), then applicable, that decision remaining in force and legally binding, in accordance with the presumption of legality attaching to acts of the European Union, for so long as it was not withdrawn, declared void in an action for annulment or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality. 
31 U točki 42. pobijane presude Opći sud primijetio je da ni presuda koju je donio Court of Appeal 7. svibnja 2008. niti rješenje koje je donio Home Secretary 23. lipnja 2008. nisu automatski i neposredno utjecali na Odluku Vijeća 2007/868/EZ od 20. prosinca 2007. o provedbi članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 i stavljanju izvan snage Odluke 2007/445/EZ (SL L 340, str. 100.), koja se tada primjenjivala i ta odluka ostaje na snazi i pravno je obvezujuća u skladu s pretpostavkom zakonitosti akata Europske unije sve do njezina povlačenja, proglašenja ništavnom u postupku poništenja ili proglašenja nevažećom nakon upućivanja zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku ili prigovora nezakonitosti.
32 In the second place, the General Court rejected the Council’s argument that the statement of reasons of which the PMOI was notified enabled the latter’s rights of defence to be observed. 
32 Kao drugo, Opći sud odbio je argument Vijeća kako je dostavljanjem obrazloženja presude PMOI-ju omogućeno poštovanje njegovih prava na obranu.
36 With regard to those pleas, the General Court concluded, at paragraph 78 of the judgment under appeal, first, that it had not been satisfactorily proved that the contested decision had been adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 and of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and, second, that the very circumstances of its adoption infringed the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection. 
36 U vezi s tim tužbenim razlozima, Opći sud u točki 78. pobijane presude zaključio je, kao prvo, da nije na zadovoljavajući način dokazano da je sporna odluka donesena u skladu s odredbama članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931 i članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 i, kao drugo, da su same okolnosti njezina donošenja predstavljale kršenje tužiteljeva prava na djelotvornu pravnu zaštitu.
– itself give final judgment in the matter, dismissing the PMOI’s action, or refer the case back to the General Court. 
– sam konačno odluči o predmetu odbacivanjem PMOI-ove tužbe ili ga vrati na Opći sud.
"– declare the appeal inadmissible;" 
– žalbu proglasi nedopuštenom, ili
"– or, alternatively, declare that it is unnecessary to adjudicate on the appeal;" 
– umjesto toga, odlučivanje o žalbi proglasi nepotrebnim, ili
"– or, in the further alternative, dismiss the appeal; and" 
– kao sljedeću mogućnost, žalbu odbije i
– in any event, order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs. 
– u svakom slučaju naloži žalitelju plaćanje troškova suprotne stranke.
41 The PMOI, recalling that the contested decision has been repealed and replaced by Decision 2009/62, which no longer includes it in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, argues that the French Republic has no legal interest in bringing this appeal and that the latter is therefore inadmissible. It maintains, in the alternative, that the Court ought to refuse to rule on the appeal on the ground that it has no purpose. 
41 Podsjećajući da je sporna odluka stavljena izvan snage i zamijenjena Odlukom 2009/62, na čijem se popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe 2580/2001 više ne nalazi, PMOI navodi da Francuska Republika nema pravni interes za podnošenje ove žalbe i da je ona stoga nedopuštena. Podredno, tvrdi da bi Sud trebao odbiti suditi o žalbi uz obrazloženje da je bespredmetna.
Findings of the Court 
Ocjena suda
44 However, once the French Republic intervened in proceedings before the General Court, it follows from the second paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that that Member State may bring an appeal even when the General Court’s decision does not directly affect it. 
44 Međutim, nakon što se Francuska Republika jednom uključi u postupak pred Općim sudom, iz članka 56. stavka 2. Statuta Suda Europske unije proizlazi da država članica može podnijeti žalbu čak i kad odluka Općeg suda na nju izravno ne utječe.
45 In addition, it follows from the third paragraph of that article that the Member States, whether or not they were parties to the case at first instance, do not have to show interest in order to bring an appeal against a judgment of the General Court (Case C-49/92 P Commission v Anic Partecipazioni [1999] ECR I-4125, paragraph 171). 
45 Usto, iz stavka 3. toga članka slijedi da države članice, bez obzira na to jesu li one stranke u predmetu u prvome stupnju ili nisu, ne moraju dokazivati pravni interes kako bi podnijele žalbu protiv presude Općeg suda (Predmet C-49/92 P Komisija/Anic Partecipazioni [1999] ECR I-4125., točka 171.).
47 First, if the Court were to uphold the appeal and dismiss on its merits the PMOI’s application for annulment of the contested decision, the result, as the French Republic has rightly maintained, would be that the decision would be restored in the legal order of the European Union so far as concerns the period from 16 July 2008, the date of entry into force of the contested decision, and 27 January 2009, the date of entry into force of Decision 2009/62 repealing, without retroactive effect, the contested decision and removing the PMOI’s name from the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001. 
47 Prvo, prihvati li Sud žalbu i odbije u meritumu PMOI-jev zahtjev za poništenje sporne odluke, to bi za posljedicu moglo imati, kako je Francuska Republika ispravno navela, da ta odluka ponovno postane dijelom pravnog poretka Europske unije za razdoblje od datuma stupanja na snagu sporne odluke 16. srpnja 2008. do datuma stupanja na snagu Odluke 2009/62 27. siječnja 2009., čime se bez retroaktivnog učinka stavlja izvan snage sporna odluka i uklanja PMOI-jev naziv s popisa iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001.
49 The French Republic still maintains that there were valid reasons for the inclusion by the contested decision of the PMOI’s name in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, and it has argued before the Court that it retains an interest in having the errors made by the General Court in the judgment under appeal recognised by the Court, in order that it may request the Council to include the PMOI in that list once more. 
49 Francuska Republika i dalje smatra da su postojali valjani razlozi da se spornom odlukom PMOI uvrsti na popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe 2580/2001 i pred Sudom je tvrdila da njezin pravni interes ostaje da Sud prizna pogreške Općeg suda u pobijanoj presudi, kako bi ona od Vijeća mogla zahtijevati da se PMOI ponovno uvrsti na taj popis.
– Arguments of the parties 
Argumentacija stranaka
52 The Court’s case-law makes it clear that the requirement of prior notification of a fund-freezing measure is subject to exceptions, in particular in the case of an initial decision to freeze, when such notification would harm the effectiveness of those restrictive measures (Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351, paragraphs 339 to 341). 
52 Iz sudske prakse Suda proizlazi da obveza prethodnog obavješćivanja o mjeri zamrzavanja sredstava podliježe iznimkama, posebno u slučaju početne odluke o zamrzavanju, kad bi se slanjem obavijesti naštetilo učinkovitosti tih mjera ograničavanja (presuda od 3. rujna 2008., Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, C-402/05 P i C-415/05 P, Zb.¸str. I-6351., točke od 339. do 341.).
54 Nor, since the Home Secretary had, by order of 23 June 2008 which entered into force the following day, struck the PMOI’s name from the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, could the Home Secretary’s order of 28 March 2001, a decision of a competent authority that formed the basis for Decision 2007/868, any longer serve as grounds for the inclusion of the PMOI in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, on pain of contravening Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931. 
54 Niti je, otkako je Home Secretary rješenjem od 23. lipnja 2008. koje je stupilo na snagu sljedećeg dana izbrisao PMOI-jev naziv s popisa organizacija zabranjenih na temelju Zakona o terorizmu iz 2000. (Terrorism Act 2000), rješenje koje je donio Home Secretary 28. ožujka 2001. kao odluku nadležnog tijela koja je predstavljala osnovu za donošenje Odluke 2007/868 više moglo služiti kao temelj za uvrštenje PMOI-ja na popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001, zbog prijetnje od povrede članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931.
58 The PMOI maintains that, in the judgment under appeal, the Court correctly rejected that line of argument put forward by the Council and taken up again in this appeal, holding, in particular, that in the circumstances of the case the Council was not entitled not to notify the PMOI in advance of the new matters at issue on the ground that, if it had done so, the freezing of the PMOI’s funds would have been interrupted. The General Court’s assessment relied, in addition, on matters of fact, which may not be challenged in an appeal. 
58 PMOI smatra da je Sud u pobijanoj presudi ispravno odbio argumente koje je Vijeće izložilo i ponovilo u ovoj žalbi, i posebno navodi da, s obzirom na okolnosti predmeta, Vijeće nije imalo pravo ne obavijestiti unaprijed PMOI o novim spornim pitanjima uz obrazloženje da bi, da je to učinilo, bilo prekinuto zamrzavanje PMOI-ovih sredstava. Procjena Općeg suda se povrh toga oslanja na činjenično stanje koje se žalbom ne smije osporavati.
– Findings of the Court 
– Ocjena suda
59 At paragraphs 36 and 37 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that, by adopting the contested decision without first informing the PMOI of the new information or new material in the file which, in its view, justified maintaining it in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and, a fortiori, by failing to give it the opportunity of making known to advantage its views on the matter, the Council breached the principles relating to the observance of the rights of the defence set forth, in particular, in paragraphs 120, 126 and 131 of Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council. 
59 U točkama 36. i 37. pobijane presude Opći sud presudio je da je Vijeće, donijevši spornu odluku a da nije prvo obavijestilo PMOI o novim informacijama ili novim dokaznim materijalom u spisu, što je po njegovu uvjerenju opravdalo zadržavanje PMOI-ja na popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001, a tim više što mu nije dalo priliku da se izjasni i proširi njegova znanja o predmetu, prekršilo načela o poštovanju prava na obranu utvrđena posebno točkama 120., 126. i 131. presude o predmetu Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran/Vijeće.