natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
33 In this regard, the General Court ruled, at paragraph 46 of the judgment under appeal, that this argument arises from a confusion of the safeguarding of the rights of the defence in the context of the administrative procedure with the safeguarding of the right to an effective judicial remedy against the act having adverse effects adopted at the end of that procedure. 
33 Opći sud je u tom pogledu u točki 46. pobijane presude odlučio da je takav argument posljedica ne razlikovanja zaštite prava na obranu u okviru upravnog postupka od zaštite prava na djelotvornu pravnu zaštitu od akta s nepovoljnim učincima koji se donosi na završetku tog postupka.
34 The General Court concluded therefrom, at paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, that, the fourth plea in law being well founded, the contested decision had to be annulled in so far as it concerned the PMOI. 
34 Opći sud iz toga je u točki 47. pobijane presude zaključio da se, s obzirom na to da je četvrti tužbeni razlog utemeljen, sporna odluka mora poništiti u dijelu koji se odnosi na PMOI.
35 At paragraph 48 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court indicated that, even though it considered it unnecessary in the circumstances, it would none the less examine the second and third pleas in law, having regard to their importance in relation to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection. 
35 U točki 48. pobijane presude Opći sud naveo je da će, iako to u postojećim okolnostima smatra nepotrebnim, svejedno ispitati drugi i treći tužbeni razlog, uzimajući u obzir njihovu važnost u pogledu temeljnog prava na djelotvornu pravnu zaštitu.
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.
37 In consequence, the General Court held, at paragraph 79 of the judgment under appeal, that the second and third pleas in law were founded. 
37 Zbog toga je Opći sud u točki 79. pobijane presude presudio da su drugi i treći tužbeni razlozi utemeljeni.
Forms of order sought on appeal 
Zahtjevi stranaka u žalbi
38 By its appeal, the French Republic claims that the Court of Justice should: 
38 Francuska Republika ovom žalbom od Suda zahtijeva da:
set aside the judgment under appeal; and 
ukine pobijanu presudu i
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.
39 The PMOI contends that the Court should: 
39 PMOI zahtijeva da 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.
Concerning the appeal 
O žalbi
40 The French Republic puts forward three grounds of appeal, alleging that the General Court committed errors of law in its assessment of the principles relating to the rights of defence, of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 and of the principles relating to the right to effective judicial protection, respectively. 
40 Francuska Republika ističe tri žalbena razloga, navodeći da je Opći sud pogrešno primijenio pravo u svojoj ocjeni načela vezanih uz pravo na obranu, članka 1. stavka 4. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931 i načela koja se odnose na pravo na djelotvornu pravnu zaštitu.
Admissibility of the appeal 
Dopuštenost žalbe
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. 
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.
It maintains, in the alternative, that the Court ought to refuse to rule on the appeal on the ground that it has no purpose. 
Podredno, tvrdi da bi Sud trebao odbiti suditi o žalbi uz obrazloženje da je bespredmetna.
42 The French Republic takes the view that the appeal is admissible and, in this respect, argues that, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, it need not substantiate any legal interest in bringing proceedings. 
42 Stajalište je Francuske Republike da je žalba dopuštena i u tom smislu ona tvrdi da u skladu s trećim stavkom članka 56. Statuta Suda Europske unije ona ničim ne mora potkrijepiti pravni interes za vođenje postupka.
43 The Court has consistently held that for an appellant to have an interest in bringing proceedings the appeal must be capable, if successful, of procuring an advantage to the party bringing it (see, in particular, Case C-535/06 P Moser Baer India v Council [2009] ECR I-7051, paragraph 24 and case-law cited). 
43 Da bi u skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom neki žalitelj imao pravni interes, žalbom bi se, ako je uspješna, stranci koja je podnosi morala moći osigurati određena prednost (vidjeti posebno presudu od 3. rujna 2009. Moser Baer India/Vijeće, C-535/06 P, Zb., str. I-7051., točka 24. i navedena sudska praksa).
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.).
46 Moreover, and contrary to what the PMOI maintains, this appeal has not become devoid of purpose because the contested decision including the PMOI in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 was repealed and replaced by Decision 2009/62 which, making reference to the judgment under appeal, no longer includes the PMOI in the updated version of the list. 
46 Nadalje, a suprotno tvrdnjama PMOI-ja, ova žalba nije postala bespredmetna zbog toga što je sporna odluka o uključivanju PMOI-ja na popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe 2580/2001 stavljena izvan snage i zamijenjena Odlukom 2009/62 u kojoj se, pozivajući se na pobijanu presudu, PMOI više ne nalazi na ažuriranoj inačici popisa.
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.
48 Nor, secondly, does it appear that, as a consequence of the adoption of Decision 2009/62, the dispute between the parties has been brought to and end and that the appeal has therefore become devoid of purpose for that reason (see, by analogy, the order of 1 December 2004 in Case C-498/01 P OHIM v Zapf Creation [2004] ECR I-11349, paragraph 12). 
48 Drugo, ne čini se da je spor između stranaka okončan zbog donošenja Odluke 2009/62 te da je zbog toga žalba postala bespredmetna (vidjeti, analogijom, rješenje od 1. prosinca 2004., presuda OHIM/Zapf Creation, C-498/01 P, Zb., str. I-11349., točka 12.).
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.
50 In the circumstances, the appeal not having become devoid of purpose, the Court must adjudicate. 
50 U ovim okolnostima, kako žalba nije postala bespredmetna, Sud mora donijeti odluku.
Substance 
O meritumu
The first ground of appeal: error of law committed in the assessment of the principles relating to the rights of the defence 
Prvi žalbeni razlog: pogrešna primjena prava u procjeni načela povezanih s pravom na obranu
51 The French Republic complains that, at paragraph 37 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the contested decision had been adopted in breach of the principles relating to the rights of the defence, inasmuch as the Council had adopted the decision without first informing the PMOI of the new information or new material in the file which, in its view, justified the continued inclusion of the PMOI in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001. 
51 Francuska Republika prigovara Općem sudu da je u točki 37. pobijane presude presudio da je sporna odluka donesena kršenjem načela koja se odnose na pravo na obranu, utoliko što je Vijeće tu odluku donijelo, a da prije toga nije obavijestilo PMOI o novim informacijama ili novim informacijama u spisu kojima se, po njegovu mišljenju, opravdava zadržavanje PMOI-ja na popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001.
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.).
53 The French Republic maintains that, when the contested decision was adopted, there was clearly a threat that the fund-freezing measure applicable to the PMOI might be interrupted and, therefore, a danger that the effectiveness of the measure might be jeopardised. 
53 Francuska Republika smatra da je u trenutku donošenja sporne odluke postojala jasna prijetnja da bi mjera zamrzavanja sredstava koja se primjenjuje na PMOI mogla biti prekinuta te da bi stoga mogla biti ugrožena učinkovitost mjere.
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.
55 The French Republic adds that although that order of 23 June 2008 admittedly had no automatic, immediate effect on Decision 2007/868, the fact remains that the Council could not allow a situation to continue in which that decision lacked any basis, but had rather to act thereupon as soon as possible. 
55 Francuska Republika dodaje da, iako rješenje od 23. lipnja 2008. kao što je poznato nije imalo nikakav automatski neposredan utjecaj na Odluku 2007/868, ipak ostaje činjenica da Vijeće nije moglo dopustiti da se nastavi stanje u kojem ta odluka neće imati pravne osnove već je po tom pitanju moralo djelovati u najkraćem roku.
56 Given that on 9 June 2008 the Council had received, from the French authorities, new information, namely, the judicial inquiry opened on 9 April 2001 in relation to 17 alleged members of the PMOI and the judicial investigation of 24 persons, warranting, according to those authorities, their request for the PMOI to be included in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, the Council ought, in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the sanctions, to have avoided any interruption of the freezing of funds and, therefore, to have adopted as swiftly as possible a new decision including the PMOI in that list. 
56 S obzirom na to da je Vijeće 9. lipnja 2009. od francuskih tijela primilo nove informacije, odnosno o sudskoj istrazi pokrenutoj 9. travnja 2001. u vezi sa 17 navodnih članova PMOI-ja i sudskoj istrazi o 24 osobe čime se, smatrala su ta tijela, opravdala svoj zahtjev da se PMOI uvrsti na popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001, Vijeće je trebalo radi osiguranja učinkovitosti sankcija, izbjeći svaki prekid zamrzavanja sredstava i u najkraćem mogućem roku stoga donijeti novu odluku kojom se PMOI stavlja na taj popis.
57 In addition, the French Republic recalls that, in accordance with Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931, at the end of June 2008 the Council was obliged to review, as soon as possible, the list as drawn up by Decision 2007/868. 
57 Usto, Francuska Republika podsjeća da je u skladu s člankom 1. stavkom 6. Zajedničkog stajališta 2001/931, Vijeće krajem lipnja 2008. bilo obvezno u najkraćem roku preispitati popis sastavljen Odlukom 2007/868.
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. 
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.
The General Court's assessment relied, in addition, on matters of fact, which may not be challenged in an appeal. 
Procjena Općeg suda se povrh toga oslanja na činjenično stanje koje se žalbom ne smije osporavati.
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.
60 The principles thus referred to by the General Court, and not challenged by the French Republic, may also be found in the Court of Justice's case-law (see, in connection with Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), Kadi and Al Barakaat v Council and Commission, paragraphs 338 to 341). 
60 Načela na koja se poziva Opći sud, a koja Francuska Republika ne osporava, mogu se naći i u sudskoj praksi Suda (vidjeti u vezi s Uredbom Vijeća (EZ) br. 881/2002 o određenim posebnim mjerama ograničavanja protiv određenih osoba i subjekata povezanih s Osamom bin Ladenom, mrežom Al-Qaidom i talibanima te o stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 467/2001 o zabrani izvoza određene robe i usluga u Afganistan, pooštravanju zabrane leta i proširivanju zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava i ostalih financijskih izvora u odnosu na afganistanske talibane (SL L 139, str. 9.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 18, svezak 2., str. 34.), Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, točke od 338. do 341.).
61 It is to be borne in mind that, in the case of an initial decision to freeze funds, the Council is not obliged to inform the person or entity concerned beforehand of the grounds on which that institution intends to rely in order to include that person or entity's name in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001. 
61 U tom smislu valja upozoriti da u slučaju prvotne odluke o zamrzavanju sredstava Vijeće nije dužno zainteresiranu osobu ili subjekt unaprijed obavijestiti o razlozima na kojima ta institucija namjerava temeljiti uvrštenje imena ili naziva te osobe ili subjekta na popis iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe 2580/2001.
So that its effectiveness may not be jeopardised, such a measure must be able to take advantage of a surprise effect and to apply immediately. 
Kako se ne bi ugrozila njezina učinkovitost, mjeru je potrebno primijeniti odmah i iskoristiti učinak iznenađenja.
In such a case, it is as a rule enough if the institution notifies the person or entity concerned of the grounds and affords it the right to be heard at the same time as, or immediately after, the decision is adopted. 
U tom je slučaju dovoljno primijeniti pravilo da institucija osobu ili subjekt obavješćuje o razlozima i osigurava im pravo na saslušanje u trenutku donošenja odluke ili neposredno nakon toga.
62 In contrast, in the case of a subsequent decision to freeze funds by which the inclusion of the name of a person or entity already appearing in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 is maintained, that surprise effect is no longer necessary in order to ensure that the measure is effective, with the result that the adoption of such a decision must, in principle, be preceded by notification of the incriminating evidence and by allowing the person or entity concerned an opportunity of being heard. 
62 Nasuprot tome, u slučaju naknadno donesene odluke o zamrzavanju sredstava kojom se ime osobe ili subjekta koje se već nalazi na popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001 na tom popisu zadržava, učinak iznenađenja više nije nužan da bi se osigurala učinkovitost pa, slijedom toga, odluci u načelu moraju prethoditi obavješćivanje o dokazima protiv njih i osiguranje prava osobi ili subjektu da se o njima izjasni.
63 In the judgment under appeal, the General Court applied those principles to the facts of the case and rightly concluded that, given that the PMOI's name had been maintained, by the contested decision, in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, a list in which it had appeared ever since its original inclusion on 3 May 2002 pursuant to Decision 2002/334, the Council might not, as it did in that case, communicate the new incriminating evidence against the PMOI at the same time as it adopted the contested decision. 
63 Opći sud je u pobijanoj presudi ta načela primijenio na činjenice u predmetu i ispravno zaključio da, s obzirom na to da je PMOI-jev naziv spornom odlukom zadržan na popisu iz članka 2. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 2580/2001, popisu na kojem se nalazio otkako je prvi put uvršten 3. svibnja 2002. u skladu s Odlukom 2002/334, Vijeće nije moglo, kao u tom slučaju, obavijestiti o novim dokazima protiv PMOI-ja u isto vrijeme kad je donosilo spornu odluku.
The Council was bound, imperatively, to ensure that the PMOI's rights of defence were observed, that is to say, notification of the incriminating evidence against it and the right to be heard, before that decision was adopted. 
Vijeće je bilo obvezno nužno osigurati da se poštuju prava PMOI-ja na obranu, odnosno, pravo na obavijest o dokazima protiv njega i pravo na saslušanje, prije nego što je odluka bila donesena.