natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
48 In the present case, it is not disputed that Regulation No 423/2007 and the contested decision were adopted by a qualified majority, in accordance with the rule laid down in Article 301 EC. 
48 U ovom slučaju nije sporno da su Uredba br. 423/2007 i sporna odluka donesene kvalificiranom većinom, u skladu s pravilom utvrđenim člankom 301. UEZ-a.
Nor is it disputed that the adoption of that regulation was preceded by the unanimous adoption of Common Position 2007/140 or that the adoption of the contested decision was preceded by the unanimous adoption of Common Position 2008/479, by which the applicant's name was entered in the list of entities to which the fund-freezing measure applied by virtue of Article 5(1)(b) of Common Position 2007/140. 
Nije sporno ni da je donošenju te uredbe prethodilo jednoglasno donošenje Zajedničkog stajališta 2007/140 ili da je donošenju sporne odluke prethodilo jednoglasno donošenje Zajedničkog stajališta 2008/479, u kojem je naziv tužitelja uvršten u popis subjekata na koje se primjenjuje mjera zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava na temelju članka 5. stavka 1. točke (b) Zajedničkog stajališta 2007/140.
It is accordingly to be concluded that the conditions laid down by Article 301 EC have been complied with. 
U skladu s tim valja zaključiti da su se poštovali uvjeti utvrđeni člankom 301. UEZ-a.
49 Consequently the applicant's head of claim alleging failure to follow the applicable voting rule must be rejected. 
49 Slijedom toga prigovor tužitelja koji se odnosi na nepoštovanje primjenjivog pravila o glasovanju valja odbiti.
50 With regard to the applicant's other heads of claim, it is to be borne in mind that a measure is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence to have been taken with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated or of evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case (see Case C-210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I-11893, paragraph 75, and Case T-158/99 Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-1, paragraph 164, and the case-law cited). 
50 U vezi s drugim prigovorima tužitelja, valja podsjetiti da u odnosu na akt može govoriti o postojanju zlouporabe ovlasti ako se utvrdi, na temelju objektivnih, relevantnih i usklađenih pokazatelja, da je on donesen s isključivim ciljem, ili barem odlučujućim, postizanja drugih ciljeva od ciljeva na koje se poziva ili izbjegavanja postupka posebno predviđenog Ugovorom za rješavanje okolnosti predmetnog slučaja (vidjeti presudu Suda od 14. prosinca 2004., Swedish Match, C-210/03, Zb., str. I-11893., t. 75., presudu Općeg suda od 13. siječnja 2004., Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz i dr./Komisija, T-158/99, Zb., str. II-1., t. 164., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
In this case, the applicant has not adduced evidence suggesting that the Council, in adopting the contested decision, pursued any end other than that of stopping nuclear proliferation by freezing the funds of entities which it considered were engaged in, directly associated with, or provided support for the activities concerned, in accordance with the procedure laid down for that purpose by the EC Treaty and by Regulation No 423/2007.' 
U ovom slučaju tužitelj nije podnio dokaze da je Vijeće donošenjem sporne odluke slijedilo drugi cilj osim sprečavanja širenja nuklearnog oružja zamrzavanjem financijskih sredstava subjekata za koje je smatralo da sudjeluju u predmetnim aktivnostima, da su izravno s njima povezani ili da ih podupiru, u skladu s postupkom utvrđenim za tu namjenu Ugovorom o EZ-u i Uredbom br. 423/2007."
59 The appellant submits that the General Court committed an error of law in interpreting the legal bases of Regulation No 423/2007 and vitiated its judgment with erroneous grounds. 
59 Žalitelj tvrdi da je u tumačenju pravne osnove Uredbe br. 423/2007 Opći sud počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava i da je svoju presudu pogrešno obrazložio.
60 The appellant observes that Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 relates to entities that `[are] engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support' for nuclear proliferation. On the basis of the judgment in Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, paragraph 167, it submits that, since the relevant criterion adopted by Regulation No 423/2007 and the contested decision is not the fact of being controlled by a third country, but participation in certain proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, those provisions go beyond the scope of Article 60 EC and 301 EC. 
60 Žalitelj podsjeća da se članak 7. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 odnosi na subjekte koji „sudjeluju u širenj[u] nuklearnog oružja, izravno su s njim povezani ili [mu] pružaju potporu." [neslužbeni prijevod]. Na temelju gore navedene presude Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija (t. 167.), on tvrdi da budući da mjerodavni kriterij donesen Uredbom br. 423/2007 i spornom odlukom nije nadzor koji provodi treća zemlja, već sudjelovanje u određenim nuklearnim aktivnostima širenja nuklearnog oružja, te odredbe ne ulaze u područje primjene članaka 60. i 301. UEZ-a.
Consequently, it was essential to base those provisions not only on Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, but also on Article 308 EC, which requires a unanimous vote. 
Slijedom toga, bilo je neophodno temeljiti te odredbe ne samo na člancima 60. i 301. UEZ-a, već i na članku 308. UEZ-a, kojim se zahtijeva jednoglasna odluka.
61 The appellant submits that the General Court also erred in law in considering that Common Position 2007/140 did not constitute a legal basis for Regulation No 423/2007 and the contested decision, but merely a `condition' laid down by Article 301 EC. 
61 Žalitelj tvrdi da je Opći sud isto tako počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava kada je utvrdio da Zajedničko stajalište 2007/140 ne predstavlja pravnu osnovu Uredbe br. 423/2007 i sporne odluke, već samo „uvjet" utvrđen člankom 301.
In doing so, the General Court made a distinction which is not made in the rules laid down in the Treaty. 
UEZ-a. Time je Opći sud napravio razliku koja ne postoji u pravilima utvrđenima Ugovorom.
The appellant argues that the list in Annex V to Regulation No 423/2007 is identical to that in Annex II to Common Position 2007/140, which, pursuant to Article 7(2) of that common position, can be amended only unanimously. 
Žalitelj tvrdi da je popis iz Priloga V. Uredbi br. 423/2007 jednak onome iz Priloga II. Zajedničkom stajalištu 2007/140, koji se u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 2. tog zajedničkog stajališta može izmijeniti samo jednoglasnom odlukom.
Since Regulation No 423/2007 is based on Articles 60 EC and 301 EC and on Common Position 2007/140, Annex V to the regulation should have been amended in accordance with the rule of unanimity. 
Budući da se Uredba br. 423/2007 temelji na člancima 60. i 301. UEZ-a i na Zajedničkom stajalištu 2007/140, Prilog V. toj uredbi trebalo je izmijeniti u skladu s pravilom jednoglasnosti.
By disregarding that rule in adopting the contested decision, the Council misused its powers. 
Nepoštovanjem tog pravila pri donošenju sporne odluke, Vijeće je zlorabilo svoje ovlasti.
62 The French Republic considers that the ground of appeal raised by the appellant goes against the very wording of Article 301 EC. 
62 Francuska Republika smatra da je žalbeni razlog koji navodi žalitelj protivan samom tekstu članka 301. UEZ-a.
63 The Council, the United Kingdom and the Commission submit that Regulation No 423/2007 is clearly directed at the Islamic Republic of Iran and that, therefore, it was not necessary to use Article 308 EC as a legal basis. 
63 Vijeće, Ujedinjena Kraljevina i Komisija ističu da se Uredba br. 423/2007 jasno odnosi na Islamsku Republiku Iran i da stoga nije bilo potrebno primijeniti članak 308. UEZ-a kao pravnu osnovu.
In that regard, the judgment in Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission is not relevant since it concerned a different situation. 
S tim u vezi, gore navedena presuda Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija nije relevantna jer se odnosi na drukčiju situaciju.
Unlike in the present case, the regulation at issue in that case did not relate to a third country. 
Za razliku od ovog slučaja, uredba iz tog predmeta nije se odnosila na treću zemlju.
The Commission adds that, if the appellant now disputes its links with the Islamic Republic of Iran, that constitutes a new ground of appeal which is inadmissible. 
Komisija dodaje da to što žalitelj sada osporava svoje veze s Islamskom Republikom Iran predstavlja novi žalbeni razlog koji je nedopušten.
64 So far as concerns misuse of powers, the Commission considers that, in paragraph 50 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court responded correctly by referring to the case-law applicable in that area. 
64 Što se tiče zloporabe ovlasti, Komisija smatra da je u točki 50. pobijane presude Opći sud pravilno odgovorio upućivanjem na sudsku praksu primjenjivu u tom području.
65 The appellant contests the General Court's reasoning in relation to the legal basis for Regulation No 423/2007, considering that that regulation should have been adopted unanimously either on the basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC, or on the basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC and Common Position 2007/140. 
65 Žalitelj osporava obrazloženje Općeg suda u vezi s pravnom osnovom Uredbe br. 423/2007 i smatra da je ta Uredba trebala biti donesena jednoglasno, na temelju članaka 60., 301. i 308. UEZ-a ili na temelju članaka 60. i 301.
Consequently, the contested decision could not have been adopted by qualified majority, as provided for in Article 15(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 for amendments to the list of persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 7(2) of that regulation. 
UEZ-a i Zajedničkog stajališta 2007/140. Slijedom toga, sporna odluka nije smjela biti donesena kvalificiranom većinom, kako je to predviđeno člankom 15. stavkom 2. Uredbe br. 423/2007 za izmjenu popisa osoba, subjekata i tijela iz članka 7. stavka 2. te uredbe.
66 According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the choice of legal basis for a Community measure must rest on objective factors that are amenable to judicial review, including, in particular, the aim and the content of the measure (see, inter alia, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, paragraph 182). 
66 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda, izbor pravne osnove akta Zajednice mora se temeljiti na objektivnim elementima koji podliježu sudskoj kontroli, među kojima su cilj i sadržaj tog akta (osobito vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, t. 182.).
67 The appellant does not dispute the use of Article 60 EC and 301 EC. 
67 Žalitelj ne osporava primjenu članaka 60. i 301. UEZ-a.
It merely disputes the fact that Regulation No 423/2007 is based solely on those provisions. 
Osporava samo činjenicu da se Uredba br. 423/2007 temelji isključivo na tim odredbama.
68 According to its title, Regulation No 423/2007 concerns restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran. 
68 U skladu sa svojim naslovom, Uredba br. 423/2007 odnosi se na mjere ograničavanja protiv Islamske Republike Iran.
It is apparent from the recitals in the preamble thereto and from its provisions taken as a whole that the regulation is intended to prevent or slow down the nuclear policy of that State, in the light of the threat it poses, by means of restrictive economic measures. 
Iz njezinih uvodnih izjava i iz odredaba uzetih u cjelini proizlazi da je cilj uredbe gospodarskim mjerama ograničavanja spriječiti ili usporiti nuklearnu politiku te države s obzirom na prijetnju koju ona predstavlja.
As noted by the Advocate General in point 75 of his Opinion, it is not nuclear proliferation in general which is being combated, but the risks inherent in the Iranian nuclear proliferation programme. 
Kao što je to istaknuo nezavisni odvjetnik u točki 75. svojeg mišljenja, nije riječ o suzbijanju širenja nuklearnog oružja općenito, već o rizicima povezanima s iranskim programom širenja nuklearnog oružja.
69 The aim and content of the measure in question clearly being the adoption of economic measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran, it was not necessary to have recourse to Article 308 EC, since Article 301 EC constitutes a sufficient legal basis in that it provides for an action by the Community to interrupt or to reduce, in part or completely, economic relations with one or more third countries; that action may cover the freezing of funds of entities, such as Bank Melli Iran, which are associated with the regime of the third country concerned. 
69 Budući da je jasno da su cilj i sadržaj predmetnog akta donošenje gospodarskih mjera protiv Islamske Republike Iran, nije bilo potrebno primijeniti članak 308. UEZ-a jer članak 301. UEZ-a predstavlja dostatnu pravnu osnovu s obzirom na to da je njime Zajednici omogućeno da djelomično ili u cijelosti prekine ili ograniči gospodarske odnose s jednom od ili više trećih zemalja; to djelovanje može uključivati zamrzavanje financijskih sredstava subjekata, kao što je Bank Melli Iran, povezanih s režimom predmetne treće zemlje.
70 As regards the need, asserted by the appellant, to include Common Position 2007/140 among the legal bases, it is sufficient to note that that need is contradicted by the very wording of Article 301 EC, which provides for the possibility of adopting Community measures when a common position or Community action adopted under the provisions of the EU Treaty, in the version prior to the Treaty of Lisbon, on the CFSP provide for Community action. 
70 U vezi s tvrdnjom žalitelja da Zajedničko stajalište 2007/140 treba uključiti u pravnu osnovu, dovoljno je utvrditi da je ta potreba osporena samim tekstom članka 301. UEZ-a, kojim je predviđena mogućnost donošenja mjera Zajednice kada je zajedničkim stajalištem ili djelovanjem Zajednice donesenim na temelju odredaba Ugovora o EU-u, u verziji prije Ugovora iz Lisabona, u vezi sa ZVSP-om predviđeno djelovanje Zajednice.
The wording of that article indicates that the common position or joint action must exist in order for Community measures to be adopted, but not that those measures must be based on that common position or joint action. 
U tekstu tog članka navedeno je da zajedničko stajalište ili zajedničko djelovanje moraju postojati kako bi mjere Zajednice mogle biti donesene, ali ne i da se te mjere moraju temeljiti na tom zajedničkom stajalištu ili zajedničkom djelovanju.
71 In any event, a common position cannot constitute the legal basis for a Community measure. 
71 U svakom slučaju, zajedničko stajalište ne može predstavljati pravnu osnovu akta Zajednice.
Council common positions in the sphere of the CFSP, such as Common Positions 2007/140 and 2008/479, are adopted within the framework of the EU Treaty, in accordance with Article 15 thereof, whereas Council regulations, such as Regulation No 423/2007, are adopted within the framework of the EC Treaty. 
Zajednička stajališta Vijeća u području ZVSP-a, kao što su zajednička stajališta 2007/140 i 2008/479, donose su u okviru Ugovora o EU-u, u skladu s njegovim člankom 15., dok su uredbe Vijeća, kao što je Uredba br. 423/2007, donose u okviru Ugovora o EZ-u.
72 The Council could, therefore, adopt a Community measure only on the basis of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty, in this case Articles 60 EC and 301 EC. 
72 Vijeće bi stoga moglo donijeti akt Zajednice samo na temelju ovlasti koje su mu dodijeljene Ugovorom o EZ-u, u ovom slučaju člancima 60. i 301. UEZ-a.
73 The General Court thus rightly held, in paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, that the existence of a common position previously adopted in the sphere of the CFSP was simply a condition laid down by Article 301 EC. 
73 Dakle, u točki 47. pobijane presude Opći sud pravilno je presudio da je postojanje zajedničkog stajališta koje je prethodno doneseno u području ZVSP-a samo uvjet utvrđen člankom 301.
74 As regards the complaint alleging misuse of powers, the Court of Justice finds that the appellant has not shown in what way paragraph 50 of the judgment under appeal might be erroneous. 
UEZ-a. 74 U vezi s prigovorom zloporabe ovlasti valja navesti da žalitelj nije pokazao na koji je način točka 50. pobijane presude pogrešna.
75 It follows from the above that the second principal ground of appeal is unfounded. 
75 Iz navedenog proizlazi da je drugi glavni žalbeni razlog neosnovan.
The third principal ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state the grounds for a measure, of the rights of the defence and of the principle of effective legal protection 
Treći glavni žalbeni razlog: povreda obveze obrazlaganja akta, prava na obranu i načela djelotvorne sudske zaštite
76 This ground of appeal concerns paragraphs 80 to 85 of the judgment under appeal, which state: 
76 Ovaj se žalbeni razlog odnosi na točke 80. do 85. pobijane presude u kojima je navedeno sljedeće:
`80 The purpose of the obligation to state the reasons for an act adversely affecting a person, as provided for by Article 253 EC and, more particularly in this case, by Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007 is, first, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to determine whether the measure is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which may permit its validity to be contested before the Community judicature and, secondly, to enable the latter to review the lawfulness of that measure. 
„80 Svrha obveze obrazlaganja akta koji negativno utječe na prava osobe, kako je predviđeno člankom 253. UEZ-a i, posebno u ovom slučaju, člankom 15. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 423/2007, s jedne je strane dotičnoj osobi osigurati dostatne informacije kako bi mogla utvrditi je li akt dobro utemeljen ili sadržava moguće pogreške na temelju kojih bi se mogla osporiti njegova valjanost pred sudovima Zajednice i s druge strane omogućiti potonjima nadzor nad zakonitošću tog akta.
The obligation to state reasons therefore constitutes an essential principle of Community law which may be derogated from only for compelling reasons. 
Stoga obveza obrazlaganja akta predstavlja bitno načelo prava Zajednice od kojeg se može odstupiti samo zbog važnih razloga.
The statement of reasons must therefore in principle be notified to the person concerned at the same time as the act adversely affecting him, for failure to state the reasons cannot be remedied by the fact that the person concerned learns the reasons for the act during the proceedings before the Community judicature. 
Zato u načelu dotičnoj osobi treba uručiti obrazloženje istovremeno s aktom koji negativno utječe na njezina prava jer se izostanak obrazloženja ne može popraviti time da se dotična osoba upozna s razlozima akta tijekom postupka pred sudovima Zajednice.
Furthermore, observance of the obligation to state reasons is all the more important in the case of an initial decision freezing an entity's funds, because it constitutes the sole safeguard enabling the party concerned to make effective use of the legal remedies available to it to challenge the lawfulness of that decision, given that it has no right to be heard before the decision is adopted (see, to that effect and by analogy, [Organisation des Modjahedines du people d'Iran v Council], paragraphs 138 to 140, and the case-law cited). 
Nadalje, poštovanje obveze obrazlaganja tim je važnije u slučaju kada se prvotnom odlukom zamrzavaju financijska sredstva subjekta jer ona predstavlja jedinu zaštitu kojom se zainteresiranoj stranci omogućuje djelotvorna primjena pravnih sredstava koja su joj dostupna za osporavanje zakonitosti takve odluke, s obzirom na to da nema pravo na saslušanje prije donošenja odluke (u tom smislu i analogijom vidjeti gore navedenu presudu [Općeg suda Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran/Vijeće] t. 138. do 140., i navedenu sudsku praksu). 81 Stoga je u skladu s člankom 15. stavkom 3.
81 Unless, therefore, overriding considerations to do with the security of the Community or of its Member States or with the conduct of their international relations militate against the communication of certain matters (see, by analogy, [Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission], paragraph 342), the Council is bound, by virtue of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007, to apprise the entity concerned of the actual specific reasons when it adopts a decision to freeze funds such as the contested decision. 
Uredbe br. 423/2007 Vijeće obvezno, osim ako se priopćavanju određenih dokaza suprotstavljaju važni razlozi koji se tiču sigurnosti Unije ili njezinih država članica ili vođenja njihovih međunarodnih odnosa (analogijom vidjeti gore navedenu presudu [Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija], t. 342.), upoznati predmetni subjekt s posebnim i konkretnim razlozima pri donošenju odluke o zamrzavanju financijskih sredstava kao što je sporna odluka.
It must thus state the facts and points of law on which the legal justification of the measure depend and the considerations which led it to adopt it. 
Dakle, mora navesti činjenične i pravne okolnosti o kojima ovisi zakonska opravdanost mjere i razloge koji su doveli do njezina donošenja.
So far as may be, those reasons must be communicated, either concomitantly with or as soon as possible after the adoption of the measure at issue (see, to that effect and by analogy, [Organisation des Modjahedines du people d'Iran v Council], paragraphs 143 to 148, and the case-law cited). 
To se obrazloženje u mjeri u kojoj je to moguće upućuje istovremeno s donošenjem predmetne mjere ili odmah nakon njezina donošenja (u tom smislu i analogijom vidjeti gore navedenu presudu [Općeg suda Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran/Vijeće, t. 143. do 148., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
82 The statement of reasons must, however, be appropriate to the measure at issue and the context in which it was adopted. 
82 Međutim, obrazloženje mora biti primjereno predmetnom aktu i kontekstu u kojem je akt donesen.
The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. 
Zahtjev za obrazlaganje mora se ocijeniti s obzirom na okolnosti predmetnog slučaja, osobito sadržaj akta, prirodu navedenih razloga i interes koji adresati mjere ili druge osobe na koje se akt izravno i osobno odnosi mogu imati u dobivanju objašnjenja.
It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons is sufficient must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. 
U obrazloženju nije potrebno podrobno navoditi sve činjenične i pravne okolnosti, s obzirom na to da se pitanje je li obrazloženje dostatno mora ocjenjivati ne samo u odnosu na svoju formulaciju, već i na svoj kontekst i na sva pravna pravila kojima se uređuje predmetno pravno područje.
In particular, the reasons given for a measure adversely affecting a person are sufficient if it was adopted in circumstances known to that person which enable him to understand the scope of the measure concerning him ([see Organisation des Modjahedines du people d'Iran v Council], paragraph 141, and the case-law cited). 
Preciznije, akt koji negativno utječe na neku osobu u dovoljnoj je mjeri obrazložen ako je donesen u kontekstu poznatom zainteresiranoj osobi što joj omogućuje da razumije doseg mjere koja se na nju odnosi (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu [Općeg suda Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran/Vijeće], t. 141., i navedenu sudsku praksu).