Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition), 5 November 2014 — Adib Mayaleh v Council of the European Union

Reports of Cases

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition)

5 November 2014 *

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds —

Functions of the Governor of the Central Bank of Syria — Actions for annulment —

Communication of an act imposing restrictive measures — Time-limit for bringing proceedings —

Admissibility — Rights of the defence — Fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of

proof — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Right to property — Right to private

and family life — Application of restrictions on entry to a national of a Member State — Freedom of

movement for citizens of the Union)

In Joined Case T-307/12 and T-408/13,

Adib Mayaleh, residing in Damascus (Syria), represented by G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers,

applicant,

Council of the European Union, represented by J.-P. Hix and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment in part of, first, Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of

14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ

2012 L 126, p. 9); second, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012

implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of

the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3); third, Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November

2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012

L 330, p. 21); fourth, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013

implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in

Syria (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1; Corrigendum in OJ 2013 L 127, p. 27); and, fifth, Council Decision

2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14),

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of G. Berardis (rapporteur), President, O. Czúcz, I. Pelikánová, A. Popescu and E. Buttigieg,

judges,

Registrar: J. Plingers, administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 3 April 2014,

delivers the following

* Language of the case: French.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

Judgment

Background to the disputes

The applicant, Mr Adib Mayaleh, a Syrian national and naturalised French citizen, is the Governor of

the Central Bank of Syria. At the time of his naturalisation, his name was Gallicised to André Mayard,

which is the only name on his French passport.

On 9 May 2011, the Council of the European Union adopted, on the basis of Article 29 TEU, Decision

2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11).

Article 3(1) of Decision 2011/273 provides that Member States are to take the necessary measures to

prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons responsible for the violent

repression against the civilian population in Syria, and persons associated with them, as listed in the

Annex to that decision.

Article 4(1) of Decision 2011/273 provides that all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned,

held or controlled by persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in

Syria, and natural or legal persons, and entities associated with them are to be frozen. The detailed

rules applicable to the freezing of those funds and economic resources are defined in the other

paragraphs of that article.

Pursuant to Article 5(1) of Decision 2011/273, the Council is to establish the list of the persons

concerned.

On the same date, the Council adopted, on the basis of Article 215(2) TFEU, Regulation (EU)

No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1).

Article 4(1) of that regulation provides for the freezing of all funds and economic resources belonging

to, owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex II to

that regulation.

Decision 2011/273 was replaced by Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning

restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56).

Article 18(1) and Article 19(1) of Decision 2011/782 correspond to Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of

Decision 2011/273 respectively, and also provide that the restrictive measures provided for therein are

also to apply to persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime.

Regulation No 442/2011 was replaced by Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012

concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation

No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1).

By Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782

(OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9), the applicant’s name was added to the list in Annex I to that decision, with, in

the language of the case, the following reasons:

‘Adib Mayaleh apporte un soutien économique et financier au régime syrien dans le cadre de ses

fonctions de gouverneur de la Banque centrale de Syrie’ (‘Abdul Mayaleh is responsible for providing

economic and financial support to the Syrian regime through his functions as the Governor of the

Central Bank of Syria’).

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

By Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of

Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3), the applicant’s name was added to the list in Annex II to

that regulation, for the same reasons as those set out at paragraph 10 above.

Article 21(2) and (3) of Decision 2011/782 provides:

‘2. The Council shall communicate its decision on listing, including the grounds therefor, to the

person or entity concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a

notice, providing such person or entity with an opportunity to present observations.

3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall

review its decision and inform the person or entity concerned accordingly.’

Article 32(2) and (3) of Regulation No 36/2012 contains a similar provision.

On 15 May 2012, the Council published in the Official Journal of the European Union a Notice for the

attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in [Decision 2011/782],

as implemented by [Decision 2012/256], and [Regulation No 36/2012], as implemented by

[Implementing Regulation No 410/2012] apply (OJ 2012 C 139, p. 19).

According to that notice, the persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council,

together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them in the lists annexed to the

acts referred to at paragraph 14 above should be reconsidered.

The applicant did not approach the Council following his inclusion on the lists in question. However,

by application lodged at the Court Registry on 11 July 2012, he brought an action for annulment of

Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 and Implementing Decision 2012/256, in so far as those acts

concerned him.

By Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against

Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), the restrictive measures applied to the

applicant were maintained, his name appearing in Annex I.A to Decision 2012/739, with the following

reasons:

‘Adib Mayaleh est responsable de la fourniture d’un soutien économique et financier au régime par le

biais de ses fonctions de gouverneur de la Banque centrale de Syrie’ (‘Adib Mayaleh is responsible for

providing economic and financial support to the Syrian regime through his functions as the Governor

of the Central Bank of Syria’).

On 30 November 2012, the Council published in the Official Journal of the European Union a Notice

for the attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Decision

2012/739 and Regulation No 36/2012 apply (OJ 2012 C 370, p. 6), the content of which essentially

coincides with that of the notice referred to at paragraphs 14 and 15 above.

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012

(OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1; corrigendum in OJ 2013 L 127, p. 27), the Council replaced Annex II to

Regulation No 36/2012, maintaining the applicant’s name in the new annex, for the same reasons as

those set out at paragraph 17 above.

On 23 April 2013, the Council published in the Official Journal of the European Union a Notice for the

attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/739,

as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP, and in Regulation No 36/2012, as

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

implemented by Council Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 apply (OJ 2012 C 115, p. 5), the

content of which essentially coincides with that of the notice referred to at paragraphs 14 and 15

above.

By Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ

2013 L 147, p. 14), the restrictive measures applied to the applicant were maintained, his name

appearing in Annex I.A to that decision, with the same reasons as those set out at paragraph 17

above.

On 1 June 2013, the Council published in the Official Journal of the European Union a Notice for the

attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/255

and Regulation No 36/2012 apply (OJ 2013 C 155, p. 1), the content of which essentially coincides

with that of the notice referred to at paragraphs 14 and 15 above.

Procedure and forms of order sought

As stated at paragraph 16 above, by application lodged at the Court Registry on 11 July 2012, the

applicant brought an action for annulment of Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 and

Implementing Decision 2012/256, in so far as those acts concerned him. That action was registered as

Case T-307/12.

By a pleading lodged at the Court Registry on 30 January 2013, the applicant sought leave to amend

the form of order sought in Case T-307/12 in order that his claim for annulment might also cover

Decision 2012/739, in so far as it concerned the applicant (‘the request that the action might cover

Decision 2012/739’).

By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 27 February 2013, the Council stated that it had no

observations on the request that the action might cover Decision 2012/739.

By a pleading lodged at the Court Registry on 30 July 2013, the applicant sought leave to amend the

form of order sought in Case T-307/12 so that his claim for annulment might also cover

Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 and Decision 2013/255, in so far as those acts concerned him

(‘the request that the action might cover Implementing Regulation No 363/2013’ and ‘the request that

the action might cover Decision 2013/255’, respectively). On the same date the applicant also brought a

second action, which was registered as Case T-408/13, whereby he sought annulment of Implementing

Regulation No 363/2013 and Decision 2013/255, in so far as those acts concerned him.

In Case T-307/12, by letter lodged at the Court Registry on 6 September 2013, the Council stated that

it had no observations on either the request that the action might cover Implementing Regulation

No 363/2013 or the request that the application might cover Decision 2013/255.

In Case T-408/13, the Court (Ninth Chamber), in the context of the measures of organisation of

procedure provided for in Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure, asked the Council to state whether

Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 and Decision 2013/255 had been communicated directly to the

applicant.

By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 15 October 2013, the Council produced two letters, dated

13 May and 3 June 2013 respectively, whereby it had communicated to one of the applicant’s

representatives in Case T-307/12, Mr Karouni, first, Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 and then

Decision 2013/255.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 30 October 2013, the applicant confirmed that his

representative had received the abovementioned communications, on 17 May and 6 June 2013

respectively. However, the applicant observed that neither Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 nor

Decision 2013/255 had been communicated directly to his address.

On the basis of Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure, and after the parties had been heard, Cases

T-307/12 and T-408/13 were joined for the purposes of the written procedure, the oral procedure and

the final judgment, by order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 6 November 2013.

On 18 December 2013, the Council lodged the defence in Case T-408/13.

By decision of 6 January 2014, the Court (Ninth Chamber) decided that a second exchange of pleadings

was unnecessary, on the basis of Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 21 January 2014, the applicant sought leave to submit a reply

in Case T-408/13, in order to be able to adopt a position on the plea of inadmissibility raised by the

Council in the defence referred to at paragraph 32 above.

On 22 January 2014, pursuant to Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure and on a proposal from the

Ninth Chamber, the Court decided to refer the present cases to the Ninth Chamber, extended

composition.

By a pleading lodged at the Court Registry on 22 January 2014, the applicant sought leave to amend

the form of order sought in order that the claims for annulment might also cover Council Decision

2013/760/CFSP of 13 December 2013 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2013 L 335, p. 50) and

Council Regulation (EU) No 1332/2013 of 13 December 2013 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (JO

2013 L 335, p. 3), in so far as those acts concerned him.

By decision of 13 February 2014, the Court (Ninth Chamber, extended composition) rejected the

applicant’s request referred to at paragraph 34 above.

Acting upon a report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court (Ninth Chamber, extended composition)

decided to open the oral procedure and, in the context of the measures of organisation of procedure

provided for in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, to request the parties to answer certain

questions. Information was also requested from the French Republic, on the basis of the second

paragraph of Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The parties complied with those measures within the prescribed period. Likewise, the French Republic

supplied the requested information.

The parties presented oral argument and answered the oral questions put to them by the Court at the

hearing on 3 April 2014. On that occasion, the applicant stated, first, that the action in Case T-408/13

had been brought as an alternative action, in order to take account of the possibility that the Court

should find that the form of order sought in Case T-307/12, as amended by the requests referred to at

paragraphs 24 and 26 above, was inadmissible and, second, that it had withdrawn the request to amend

the form of order sought referred to at paragraph 36 above. The Council claimed that Implementing

Regulation No 363/2013 had been challenged out of time. In the alternative, in the event that the

Court should consider that the corrigendum of that implementing regulation published in the Official

Journal on 9 May 2013 (‘the corrigendum of 9 May 2013’) ought to have been communicated to the

applicant, the Council asked that the action be declared inadmissible in so far as it related to that

implementing regulation and left the question of admissibility to the Court’s discretion so far as that

corrigendum was concerned. Formal notice of those statements was taken in the minutes of the

hearing.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

In Case T-307/12, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Implementing Decision 2012/256, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Implementing Regulation No 410/2012, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Decision 2012/739, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Implementing Regulation No 363/2013, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Decision 2013/255, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

In Case T-408/13, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Implementing Regulation No 363/2013, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Decision 2013/255, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

In Case T-307/12, the Council contends that the Court should:

— dismiss the action;

— order the applicant to pay the costs.

In Case T-408/13, the Council contends that the Court should:

— declare the action inadmissible;

— in the alternative, declare the action inadmissible in so far as it relates to Implementing Regulation

No 363/2013;

— in the further alternative, dismiss the action as unfounded;

— order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

A – The action in Case T-307/12

1. The admissibility of the requests to amend the form of order sought

The applicant sought leave to extend the scope of his action in Case T-307/12 in order that it might

also cover Decision 2012/739, Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 and Decision 2013/255.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

a) The request that the action might cover Decision 2012/739 and Decision 2013/255

It should be borne in mind that, as is apparent from paragraphs 17 and 20 above, after the application

in Case T-307/12 had been lodged, first, Decision 2011/782, as amended by Implementing Decision

2012/256, was repealed and replaced by Decision 2012/739 and, second, as Decision 2012/739 was no

longer applicable, Decision 2013/255 was adopted. The applicant’s name is on the lists constituting

Annex I to Decision 2012/739 and Decision 2013/255, with the reasons as set out at paragraph 17

above.

In that regard, it must be observed that, where in the course of the proceedings the act initially

contested is replaced by another act having the same subject-matter, the latter act must be regarded

as a new factor which allows the applicant to amend the form of order sought and its pleas. It cannot

be accepted that a EU institution or organ were able, in order to counter criticisms in an application

against one of its acts, to amend that act or to substitute another for it and to rely in the proceedings

on that amendment or substitution in order to deprive the other party of the opportunity of extending

the form of order sought and his original pleas in law to the later act or of submitting supplementary

pleas against that act (Case 14/81 Alpha Steel v Commission [1982] ECR 749, paragraph 8, and Joined

Cases T-35/10 and T-7/11 Bank Melli Iran v Council [2013] ECR, paragraph 53).

Furthermore, in order to be admissible, a request to amend the form of order sought must be

submitted within the two-month period for bringing proceedings provided for in the sixth paragraph of

Article 263 TFEU, plus the 10-day period on account of distance provided for in Article 102(2) of the

Rules of Procedure and also, where appropriate, the additional 14 days referred to in Article 102(1) of

those rules (see paragraph 65 below). This time-limit for bringing an action is mandatory and must be

applied by the Courts of the European Union in such a way as to safeguard legal certainty and also the

equality of persons before the law. It is thus for the relevant Court to verify, if necessary of its own

motion, whether that time-limit has been observed (see Bank Melli Iran v Council, paragraph 47

above, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited).

It must be accepted that the request that the action might cover Decision 2012/739 and the request

that the action might cover Decision 2013/255 are admissible. Since those decisions, under which the

applicant continues to be affected by the restrictive measures against Syria, were adopted on

29 November 2012 and 31 May 2013 respectively, it must be held that those requests, which were

lodged at the Court Registry on 30 January 2013 and 30 July 2013 respectively, were necessarily

submitted within the time-limit for bringing an action applicable to each of the decisions in question.

b) The request that the action might cover Implementing Regulation No 363/2013

Although in the observations which it lodged at the Court Registry on 6 September 2013 (see

paragraph 27 above) the Council did not plead that the request that the action might cover

Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 was out of time, it claimed at the hearing common to the two

joined cases that the applicant had challenged that act after the time-limit for doing so had expired. In

essence, as it had already observed in the defence in Case T-408/13, the Council maintained that the

applicant ought to have submitted its request to the Court no later than 29 July 2013, in view, first, of

the fact that on 17 May 2013 one of the lawyers who already represented the applicant in Case

T-307/12 had acknowledged receipt of the communication of that implementing regulation by the

Council to the address of his chambers and, second, of the provisions on the time-limits for bringing

proceedings prescribed in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 102(2) and the first

subparagraph of Article 101(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

At the hearing, the applicant maintained that that communication was not valid and that the request

that the action might cover Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 was therefore not out of time.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

The Court must examine whether the Council was under an obligation to communicate Implementing

Regulation No 363/2013 to the applicant and, if so, what procedures that communication had to

follow.

The obligation to communicate Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 to the applicant

As a preliminary point, it should be observed that the principles referred to at paragraphs 47 and 48

above also apply in respect of a request to amend the form of order sought with respect to an act,

such as Implementing Regulation No 363/2013, which, without repealing an earlier act, maintains a

person’s entry on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures, following a review procedure

expressly required by the relevant legislation (see, to that effect, Bank Melli Iran v Council,

paragraph 47 above, paragraph 54).

In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, the principle of effective

judicial protection means that the European Union authority which adopts individual restrictive

measures against a person or entity, as is the case here, is bound to communicate the grounds on

which those measures are based, either when those measures are adopted or, at the very least, as

swiftly as possible after their adoption, in order to enable those persons or entities to exercise their

right to bring an action (see Bank Melli Iran v Council, paragraph 47 above, paragraph 56 and the

case-law cited).

In this instance, that principle is applied in Article 32(1) and (2) of Regulation No 36/2012, which

provides that:

‘1. Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to [restrictive]

measures …, it shall amend Annex II or Annex IIa accordingly.

2. The Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for listing, to the natural or legal

person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1, either directly, if the address is known, or through

the publication of a notice, providing such natural or legal person, entity or body with an opportunity

to present observations.’

It follows that the time-limit for bringing an action for annulment of an act imposing restrictive

measures on a person or entity starts to run only from the date on which that act is notified to the

interested party and not from the date of publication of that act, having regard to the fact that that

act, as regards the persons on whom those measures are imposed, forms part of a bundle of individual

decisions. Likewise, the time-limit for submitting a request to extend the form of order sought and the

pleas in law to an act which maintains those measures begins to run only from the date on which that

new act is communicated to the person or entity concerned (see, to that effect, Bank Melli Iran v

Council, paragraph 47 above, paragraph 57; see also, to that effect and by analogy, Joined Cases

C-478/11 P to C-482/11 P Gbagbo and Others v Council [2013 ECR, paragraphs 56 to 58).

In the present case, Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 is an act whereby the Council maintained

the applicant’s name on the list annexed to Regulation No 36/2012. The Council was therefore

required to communicate such an act to the applicant, independently of whether, in order to maintain

his name on that list, the Council had relied on new factors. Contrary to the Council’s assertion at the

hearing, it does not follow from the judgment in Joined Cases T-174/12 and T-80/13 Syrian Lebanese

Commercial Bank v Council [2014] ECR, paragraph 149, that the obligation to communicate to the

person concerned an act maintaining restrictive measures against him applies only where that act is

based on new factors by comparison which those that had initially justified the adoption of such

measures. In reality, the case-law on which the Council relies relates to whether respect for the rights

of defence of a person on whom restrictive measures are imposed requires that that person be heard

prior to the adoption of an act which maintains such measures against him. It is in that context that

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

the case-law has established that the right to be heard prior to the adoption of acts maintaining

restrictive measures with respect to persons to whom those measures already apply assumes that the

Council has admitted new evidence against those persons (see Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v

Council, paragraph 149 and the case-law cited).

It follows that the Council was required to communicate Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 to the

applicant.

The alternative between the direct communication of Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 to those

concerned and the publication of a notice concerning that act in the Official Journal

In order to establish the event that caused time to begin to run for the purpose of challenging

Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 before the Court, it is appropriate to define the procedures

whereby the Council was required to communicate that act to him.

It follows from the case-law that Article 32(1) and (2) of Regulation No 36/2012 must be interpreted as

meaning that when the Council has the address of a person subject to restrictive measures, where the

acts incorporating those measures are not communicated directly, the period with which that person

must comply in order to challenge those acts before the Court does not begin to run. Thus, it is only

where it is impossible to communicate individually to the person concerned the act by which

restrictive measures against him are adopted or maintained that the publication of a notice in the

Official Journal of the European Union causes that period to begin to run (see, to that effect, Bank

Melli Iran v Council, paragraph 47 above, paragraph 59, and Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v

Council, paragraph 57 above, paragraphs 59 and 60; see also, to that effect and by analogy, Gbagbo

and Others v Council, paragraph 56 above, paragraphs 61 and 62).

In that regard, it should be observed that the Council may be considered to be unable to communicate

individually to a natural or legal person or to an entity an act incorporating restrictive measures

relating to that person or entity either when the latter’s address is not published and has not been

supplied to the Council or when the communication sent to the address which the Council has fails,

in spite of the steps which it has taken, with all necessary diligence, in order to effect such

communication.

In the present case, it is common ground that on 23 April 2013, the date of adoption of Implementing

Regulation No 363/2013, the Council had the applicant’s address. In fact, the application initiating the

proceedings in Case T-307/12, lodged at the Court Registry on 11 July 2012 and notified to the

Council on 13 July 2012, contained the applicant’s address for service, in accordance with

Article 44(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, and stated that his address for service was the Central Bank

of Syria, whose address was also stated.

Accordingly, in principle, it must be precluded that the publication in the Official Journal of the notice

concerning, in particular, Implementing Regulation No 363/2013, referred to at paragraph 20 above,

may be regarded as the event causing the period with which the applicant was required to comply in

order to challenge that act before the Court to begin to run.

In the present case, since the Council has not even claimed that it was impossible for it to

communicate Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 directly to the applicant (see, to that effect,

Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council, paragraph 57 above, paragraph 61), the date of

publication of that notice could constitute the starting point of the period for bringing proceedings

only if such direct communication would have proved to be unsuccessful (see paragraph 61 above).

However, that is not the case here.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

Furthermore, it should be observed that when the Council has the address for service of a person

subject to restrictive measures and has validly communicated the acts incorporating those measures to

him at that address, no relevance can be ascribed to the fact that the period for bringing proceedings

against those acts might be more favourable to that person if it were calculated from the date of

publication in the Official Journal of the notice relating to the acts in question, in view, in particular,

of the application of Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which provides for 14 additional days

for the calculation of the period for bringing proceedings from publication of an act in the Official

Journal (see, to that effect, Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council, paragraph 57 above,

paragraph 65). Direct communication received by the addressee enables him to take cognisance of the

content of the acts concerning him and also of the grounds on which they are based. Accordingly, the

date of receipt of such communication causes time to begin to run for the purpose of bringing an

action against those acts (see, to that effect and by analogy, orders of 4 June 2012 in Case

T-350/09 ICO Satellite v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraphs 29 and 33, and of

18 December 2012 in Case T-320/11 Hungary v Commission, not published in the ECR,

paragraphs 19 and 23). It should be borne in mind, moreover, that the purpose of the additional

14-day period provided for in Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure is to ensure that interested

parties have sufficient time within which to bring an action against the published acts and the acts

communicated to those concerned by the publication of a notice (see, to that effect, Syrian Lebanese

Commercial Bank v Council, paragraph 57 above, paragraphs 64 and 65). Where an act was

communicated directly to the person concerned, on the other hand, there is no reason why he should

be afforded such a period.

Since it follows from the foregoing, first, that the Council was required to communicate Regulation

No 363/2013 directly to the applicant and, second, that if such communication was not validly made,

the period with which the applicant was required to comply in order to challenge that act before the

Court never began to run, it must be established whether the Council fulfilled that obligation.

The procedures whereby Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 was communicated to the applicant

It is common ground, first, that the Council did not communicate Implementing Regulation

No 363/2013 to the applicant’s address for service at the Central Bank of Syria and, second, that one

of the lawyers representing the applicant in Case T-307/12 received on 17 May 2013 a letter from the

Council dated 13 May 2013, to which Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 was annexed (‘the letter

received on 17 May 2013’).

The applicant claims that the letter received on 17 May 2013 is not a valid communication, on the

ground that the Council, first, did not communicate to him the corrigendum of 9 May 2013 (see

paragraph 40 above); second, inserted that letter in a single envelope, which also contained

communications relating to other clients of his representatives’ chambers; and, third, did not use the

applicant’s address for service at the Central Bank of Syria.

As regards the applicant’s first argument, it should be observed that Implementing Regulation

No 363/2013 was indeed the subject of the corrigendum of 9 May 2013 and that it is not apparent

from the file that that corrigendum was annexed to the letter received on 17 May 2013. However, the

parties are agreed that the corrigendum of 9 May 2013 was intended only to correct the way in which

the names of the persons on the lists annexed to the implementing regulation in question had been

written in Arabic.

In that regard, it should be observed, first of all, that Implementing Regulation No 363/2013, both in

the original version and in the version resulting from the corrigendum of 9 May 2013, states the

names of the persons on the lists annexed to that regulation in roman characters, while the reference

in Arabic appears only in brackets. Next, the acts incorporating restrictive measures against Syria

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

adopted before that implementing regulation contained only the version in roman characters of the

persons concerned, which did not prevent the applicant from taking cognisance of them and from

challenging them before the Court. Last, Arabic is not an official language of the European Union.

In those circumstances, it must be considered that the corrigendum of 9 May 2013 had no impact on

the effects which Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 produced vis-à-vis the applicant (see, to that

effect and by analogy, Case C-30/93 AC-ATEL Electronics [1994] ECR I-2305, paragraph 24).

Accordingly, the fact that Implementing Regulation No 363/2013, but not the corrigendum of 9 May

2013, was annexed to the letter received on 17 May 2013 does not support the conclusion that the

communication in question was invalid, and the applicant’s first argument must therefore be rejected.

Neither is the applicant’s second argument well founded. It is sufficient to observe that, in the letter

received on 17 May 2013, it was clearly stated, under the heading ‘subject-matter’ of the letter, that it

concerned the applicant. It is thus clear that the expression ‘your client’, in what is admittedly the

standardised text of that letter, refers not to just any client of the chambers of the applicant’s

representatives but to the applicant. In addition, the letter bears a number of the register of the

Secretariat General of the Council, which in principle enables it to be distinguished from the other

letters in the single envelope received by the applicant’s representative.

As regards the applicant’s third argument, it should be borne in mind that the sixth paragraph of

Article 263 TFEU refers to ‘notification [of the act] to the [applicant]’, and not to notification of the

act to his representative.

It follows that where an act must be notified in order for the period for bringing proceedings to begin

to run, it must in principle be sent to the addressee of the act, and not to the lawyers representing him.

According to the case-law, notification to an applicant’s representative amounts to notification to the

addressee only where such a form of notification is expressly provided for in the legislation or by

agreement between the parties (see, to that effect, order of 8 July 2009 in Case T-545/08 Thoss v

Court of Auditors, not published in the ECR, paragraphs 41 and 42, and judgment of 11 July 2013 in

Joined Cases T-104/07 and T-339/08 BVGD v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 146).

In the present case, it is also necessary to take account of the applicable legislation, namely

Article 32(1) and (2) of Regulation No 36/2012 (see paragraph 55 above), and to note that it makes

no express reference to the possibility that the notification referred to in the case-law referred to in

the preceding paragraph might take the form of communication of an act to a lawyer representing the

person at whom the measure is directed.

It follows that, by communicating Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 to one of the lawyers

representing the applicant in Case T-307/12, the Council did not comply with the letter of that

legislation, which it had imposed upon itself.

It should be observed, moreover, that there is nothing in the file to substantiate the conclusion that

there was an agreement between the parties, within the meaning of the case-law referred to at

paragraph 74 above, that would allow the Council to communicate Implementing Regulation

No 363/2013 to that representative. In that respect, it should be observed that the applicant was never

in contact with the Council, either directly or through his lawyers, so that the existence of such an

agreement could have been the consequence only of the documents exchanged before the Court in

the context of the present actions. However, those documents do not permit the view that such an

agreement was concluded.

In those circumstances, it must be held that, as the Council did not properly communicate

Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 to the applicant, the latter was not barred, on 30 July 2013,

from submitting the request that the action might cover that act. Thus, the plea of inadmissibility

raised by the Council in respect of that request must be rejected.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

Consequently, in the examination of the substance of the action in Case T-307/12, the applicant must

be considered to be entitled to seek annulment of Decision 2011/782, as amended by Implementing

Decision 2012/256, of Regulation No 36/2012 (as amended by Implementing Regulation No 410/2012,

Decision 2012/739 of Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 and of Decision 2013/255) (together ‘the

contested acts’), in so far as those acts concern him.

2. Substance

In support of his action, the applicant relies, in essence, on four pleas in law, alleging:

— first, breach of the rights of the defence, of the right to a fair hearing and of the right to effective

judicial protection;

— second, breach of the obligation to state reasons;

— third, the absence of proof of a sufficient link between him and the situation giving rise to the

adoption of restrictive measures against Syria and also breach of the principle of proportionality;

— fourth, breach of the principle of proportionality, of the right to property, of the right to private and

family life and of the right to freedom to come and go and also breach of the national and EU rules

reserved for citizens of the Member States and of the Union.

It is appropriate to examine first of all the second plea, then the first plea, and then the other pleas.

a) Second plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons

The applicant claims that the contested acts do not state the actual and specific reasons why the

Council, in the exercise of its discretion, considered that he should be subject to the restrictive

measures against Syria. The reasons stated in the acts are vague and general and merely describe the

applicant’s professional functions, instead of providing objective evidence on which it might be

concluded that he participates, through his actual conduct, in the actions alleged against the Central

Bank of Syria and connected with the repression of the civilian population.

Nor were any additional reasons communicated to him following the adoption of the contested acts.

The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.

It should be borne in mind that the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons for an act adversely

affecting a person, as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, is, first, to provide the

person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to determine whether the act is well

founded or whether it is vitiated by an error permitting its validity to be contested before the Courts of

the European Union and, second, to enable those Courts to review the lawfulness of the act. The

obligation to state reasons thus imposed constitutes an essential principle of EU law which may be

derogated from only for compelling reasons. 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 Courts of the European Union (see, to that effect, Case

C-417/11 P Council v Bamba [2012] ECR, paragraph 49, and Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council

[2009] ECR II-3967, paragraph 80).

Consequently, unless there are compelling reasons touching on the security of the European Union or

of its Member States or the conduct of their international relations which prevent the disclosure of

certain information, the Council is required to inform the person or entity covered by restrictive

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

measures of the actual and specific reasons why it considers that those measures had to be adopted. It

must thus state the matters of fact and law which constitute the legal basis of the measures concerned

and the considerations which led it to adopt them (see, to that effect, Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v

Council, paragraph 85 above, paragraph 81).

Furthermore, the statement of reasons must be appropriate to the act at issue and to the context in

which it was adopted. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the

circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the act in question, the nature of the reasons

given and the interest which the addressees of the act, or other parties to whom it is of direct and

individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the statement of

reasons to specify all the relevant matters of fact and 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. In particular, the reasons given for an act 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 (Council v Bamba, paragraph 85 above,

paragraphs 53 and 54, and Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council, paragraph 85 above,

paragraph 82).

In the present case, the reasons supplied by the Council since the applicant was included on the lists of

restrictive measures against Syria have always been, in essence, that he performs the functions of

governor of the Central Bank of Syria.

In that regard, it should be noted that, contrary to applicant’s assertion in answer to a question put by

the Court, the slight differences in wording, in the language of the case, between the reasons stated in

Implementing Decision 2012/256 and Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 (see paragraphs 10

and 11 above), on the one hand, and those stated in Decision 2012/739 and Implementing Regulation

No 363/2013 and Decision 2013/255 (see paragraphs 17 and 21 above), on the other hand, have no

impact on the substance of the reasons supplied by the Council.

In effect, the fact that the applicant is considered to provide economic and financial support to the

Syrian regime in the context of his functions as governor is tantamount asserting that he is

responsible for providing such support through those functions. In either case it is the applicant’s

functions that, in the Council’s opinion, are of such a kind that they involve a role of supplying

economic and financial support to the Syrian regime.

As the Council observes, the explanation for the amendments to which the applicant refers lies not in a

change in the meaning of the reasons initially relied on against him, but in the desire to ensure greater

consistency, from a purely literal viewpoint, between the different language versions of the contested

acts.

It should be borne in mind, moreover, that, according to settled case-law, the need for a uniform

interpretation of European Union acts makes it impossible in case of doubt for the text of a provision

to be considered in isolation but requires, on the contrary, that it should be interpreted and applied in

the light of the versions drawn up in the other official languages (see Case C-412/10 Homawoo [2011]

ECR I-11603, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited). In a number of the language versions of the

contested acts, including, in particular, the English version, the reasons relied on against the applicant

were not altered. That confirms, should confirmation be necessary, that the substance of those reasons

remained the same.

That having been made clear, it should be observed that a reading of the reasons on which the

contested acts were based enabled the applicant to understand that he had been included on the lists

of persons subject to the restrictive measures against Syria because of his professional functions.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

Confirmation that the applicant did indeed understand that the Council had relied on his professional

functions may be found in the fact that, in the context of the present action, he put forward a plea —

the third plea — specifically disputing the possibility that the Council should adopt restrictive measures

against him on the sole basis of those functions.

Furthermore, as the reasons for the Council’s choice were clearly stated in the contested acts, the

Court is in a position to assess the merits of those reasons.

In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the obligation to state reasons on which an act is based is

an essential procedural requirement, to be distinguished from the question whether the reasons given

are correct, which goes to the substantive legality of the contested act. The reasoning on which an act

is based consists in a formal statement of the grounds on which that act is based. If those grounds are

vitiated by errors, the latter will vitiate the substantive legality of the act, but not the statement of

reasons in it, which may be adequate even though it sets out reasons which are incorrect (see, to that

effect, Case C-413/06 P Bertelsmann and Sony Corporation of America v Impala [2008] ECR I-4951,

paragraph 181, and Council v Bamba, paragraph 85 above, paragraph 60).

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the plea alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons

must be rejected, while the merits of the reasons relied on by the Council against the applicant must

be assessed in the context of the third plea.

b) First plea, alleging breach of the rights of the defence, of the right to a fair hearing and of the right

to effective judicial protection

The applicant claims that he was included on the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures

against Syria, which are penal in nature, without having first been informed of the reasons for his

inclusion and having been heard in that respect. The requirement that those measures should have a

surprise effect did not preclude a hearing being held before they were adopted.

Furthermore, in the applicant’s submission, the Council failed to fulfil its obligation to communicate

the contested acts, including the reasons for his inclusion, to him, although it could not be unaware

of his address for service. The publication of a notice in the Official Journal did not give him the

‘actual possibility’ of submitting observations. In fact, the review procedure mentioned by such notices

does not enable the applicant to put forward his point of view effectively and does not provide

sufficient guarantees. It is therefore irrelevant that he did not submit a request for a review.

100

Last, the applicant claims that he was unable to exercise his right to effective judicial protection, as the

Council did not communicate to him the reasons why he was covered by the restrictive measures

against Syria.

101

The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.

102

It should be borne in mind that the fundamental right to observance of the rights of the defence

during a procedure preceding the adoption of a restrictive measure is expressly affirmed in

Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is recognised by

Article 6(1) TEU as having the same legal value as the Treaties (Case C-27/09 P France v People’s

Mojahedin Organization of Iran [2011] ECR I-13427, paragraph 66).

103

It should also be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the principle of effective judicial

protection is a general principle of EU law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to

the Member States, which has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, this

principle having, moreover, been reaffirmed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Case

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, paragraph 37, and 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, ‘Kadi’,

paragraph 335).

104

In addition, according to settled case-law, the effectiveness of judicial review, which must apply in

particular to the lawfulness of the grounds on which a European Union authority relied in order to

include a person or an entity on the lists of addressees of the restrictive measures adopted by that

authority, means that that authority is bound to communicate those grounds to the person or entity

concerned, so far as possible, either when that inclusion is decided on or, at the very least, as swiftly

as possible after that decision is taken, in order to enable those addresses to exercise, within the

periods prescribed, their right to bring an action (see, to that effect, Kadi, paragraph 103 above,

paragraph 336).

105

Observance of that obligation to communicate the grounds is necessary both to enable the persons to

whom restrictive measures are addressed to defend their rights in the best possible conditions and to

decide, with full knowledge of the relevant facts, whether there is any point in their applying to the

Courts of the European Union (see, to that effect, Case 222/86 Heylens and Others [1987] ECR 4097,

paragraph 15), and to put those Courts fully in a position in which they may carry out the review of

the lawfulness of the Community act in question, which is their duty under the Treaty (Kadi,

paragraph 103 above, paragraph 337).

106

In accordance with the requirements laid down in that case-law, Article 21(2) and (3) of Decision

2011/782, Article 32(2) and (3) of Regulation No 36/2012, Article 27(2) and (3) of Decision 2012/739

and Article 30(2) and (3) of Decision 2013/255 provide that the Council is to communicate its

decision to the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned, including the reasons for his or its

inclusion on the list, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice,

providing such person or entity with an opportunity to present observations. Where observations are

submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council is to review its decision and

inform the natural or legal person, entity or body accordingly.

107

In addition, it should be borne in mind, first, that it follows from Article 25 of Decision 2011/782,

Article 31 of Decision 2012/739 and Article 34 of Decision 2013/255 that those decisions are to be

kept under constant review and, second, that, according to Article 32(4) of Regulation No 36/2012,

the lists annexed to that regulation are to be reviewed at regular intervals.

108

In the present case, following the adoption of Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 and

Implementing Decision 2012/256, the notice referred to at paragraphs 14 and 15 above was published,

thus providing the applicant with the opportunity to submit observations to the Council.

109

The fact that that communication was made after the applicant was first included on the list of persons

covered by the restrictive measures at issue cannot in itself be regarded as a breach of the rights of the

defence.

110

In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, respect for the rights of the

defence and, in particular, the right to be heard, with regard to restrictive measures, does not require

that the European Union authorities, before first including a person or an entity on the list imposing

restrictive measures, communicate the reasons for that listing to the person or entity concerned (see,

to that effect, Kadi, point 103 above, paragraph 338).

111

In fact, such prior communication would be liable to jeopardise the effectiveness of the measures

relating to the freezing of funds and economic resources imposed by those authorities (see, to that

effect, Kadi, point 103 above, paragraph 339).

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

112

In order to attain their objective, such measures must, by their very nature, take advantage of a

surprise affect and apply with immediate effect (see, to that effect, Kadi, paragraph 103 above,

paragraph 340).

113

Thus, the Council was not required to hear the applicant before first placing him on the lists of

persons covered by the restrictive measures against Syria.

114

However, in the context of the adoption of Decision 2012/739, Implementing Regulation No 363/2013

and Decision 2013/255, which are subsequent acts that maintained the applicant’s name on the lists of

names of persons subject to restrictive measures, the argument that the measures must have a surprise

effect cannot in principle be legitimately relied on (Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council [2013] ECR,

paragraph 42, and Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council, paragraph 57 above, paragraph 148;

see also, to that effect and by analogy, France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran,

paragraph 102 above, paragraph 62).

115

None the less, it follows from the case-law that the right to be heard prior to the adoption of acts

maintaining restrictive measures in respect of persons already covered by them presupposes that the

Council has admitted new evidence against those persons (Makhlouf v Council, paragraph 114 above,

paragraph 43, and Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council, paragraph 57 above, paragraph 149;

see also, to that effect and by analogy, France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran,

paragraph 102 above, paragraph 63).

116

In the present case, it should be observed that when the Council maintained the applicant’s name on

the lists of persons covered by the restrictive measures against Syria, it did not admit new evidence

that had not already been communicated to the applicant following the adoption of the acts first

placing him on the lists at issue. As stated at paragraphs 88 to 92 above, the applicant’s listing and

the fact that his listing was maintained are based on his functions as Governor of the Central Bank of

Syria.

117

It should be observed, moreover, that, in the light of the provisions referred to at paragraphs 106

and 107 above, the applicant had the opportunity to submit his observations to the Council on his own

initiative, without a fresh invitation being expressly formulated prior to the adoption of each

subsequent act, in the absence of new evidence admitted with respect to him.

118

The applicant did not avail himself of that opportunity.

119

In such circumstances, it must be considered that the applicant had the opportunity over several

months to submit his observations to the Council and to challenge the merits of the reasons, as

indicated with sufficient clarity in the contested acts (see paragraphs 93 to 95 above), that resulted in

his being included and maintained on the lists of persons covered by the restrictive measures.

120

As regards the fact that the Council did not give the applicant a hearing, it should be stated that

neither the legislation in question nor the general principle of respect for the rights of the defence

gives those concerned the right to such a hearing (see Case T-7/11 Bank Melli Iran v Council,

paragraph 47 above, paragraph 105 and the case-law cited), whether when they are first listed or when

their names are maintained on the lists at issue.

121

As regards the applicant’s argument relating to the lack of individual communication of the contested

acts, it may, admittedly, be considered that the Council had the applicant’s business address at the

Central Bank of Syria, at least from 13 July 2012, the date on which it was notified of the application

initiating the proceedings in Case T-307/12, which contains the information that the applicant’s

address for service is at that bank, whose address is given (see paragraph 61 above).

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

122

None the less, it should be noted that while the absence of individual communication of the contested

acts has an impact on the point at which time starts running for the purpose of the bringing of an

action, it does not in itself justify the annulment of the acts at issue. In that regard, the applicant does

not put forward any arguments that would demonstrate that, in the present case, the failure to

communicate those acts individually to his address in Syria resulted in a breach of his rights that

would justify the annulment of those acts in so far as they concern him (see, to that effect, Bank Melli

Iran v Council, paragraph 47 above, paragraphs 112 and 113).

123

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be concluded that there was no breach of the

applicant’s rights of defence and his right to effective judicial protection either when he was included

or when he was maintained on the lists of persons covered by the restrictive measures against Syria

and that the present plea must therefore be rejected.

c) Third plea, alleging absence of evidence of a sufficient link between the applicant and the situation

giving rise to the adoption of restrictive measures against Syria, and breach of the principle of

proportionality

124

In order to examine the applicant’s third plea, alleging absence of evidence of a sufficient link between

him and the situation giving rise to the adoption of restrictive measures, and also breach of the

principle of proportionality, the Court must rule, first of all, on the extent of the review which it must

carry out; next, on whether the Council could rely exclusively on the applicant’s professional functions;

and, last, on the other arguments raised by the applicant in that context.

The extent of the review carried by the Court

125

The applicant maintains that the Court cannot confine itself to ascertaining in the abstract the cogency

of the grounds relied on by the Council, but must be satisfied that the Council relied on accurate and

specific information and evidence, which is not so in the present case. The Court should undertake the

same type of review as that exercised in relation to restrictive measures aimed at alleged terrorist

activities.

126

The Council claims that, in view of the broad discretion which it enjoys when adopting restrictive

measures against a third country, the Court cannot call in question the appropriateness of subjecting

the applicant to those measures, owing to his functions as Governor of the Central Bank of Syria, save

in the event of a manifest error. The Court’s review must go to the material accuracy of the facts relied

on by the Council with respect to the functions carried out by the applicant.

127

It should be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, as regards the general rules defining the

procedures for giving effect to the restrictive measures, the Council has a broad discretion as to what

to take into consideration for the purpose of adopting economic and financial sanctions on the basis of

Article 215 TFEU, consistent with a decision adopted on the basis of Chapter 2 of Title V of the EU

Treaty, in particular Article 29 TEU. Because the Courts of the European Union may not substitute

their assessment of the evidence, facts and circumstances justifying the adoption of such measures for

that of the Council, the review carried out by those Courts must be restricted to checking that the

rules governing procedure and the statement of reasons have been complied with, that the facts are

materially accurate and that there has been no manifest error of assessment of the facts or misuse of

power. That limited review applies, especially, to the assessment of the considerations of

appropriateness on which such measures are based (Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council,

paragraph 85 above, paragraph 36, and Case T-130/11 Gossio v Council [2013] ECR, paragraph 57).

128

As for the review of the lawfulness of a decision to include the name of a person or an entity on the

lists annexed to acts incorporating the adoption of restrictive measures, the Courts of the European

Union must satisfy themselves that that decision, which assumes individual scope for that person, has

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

a sufficiently solid factual basis. That involves assessing the facts alleged in the statement of reasons on

which the decision is based, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an

assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern whether those

reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision,

is substantiated. In the event of challenge, it is for the Council to show that the reasons taken into

consideration vis-à-vis the person concerned are well founded, and not for that person to adduce

negative evidence showing that those reasons are not well founded (see, to that effect, T-390/08 Bank

Melli Iran v Council, paragraph 85 above, paragraph 37, and judgment of 5 December 2012 in Case

T-421/11 Qualitest v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 55; see also, to that effect and by

analogy, Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission and Others v Kadi [2013]

ECR, paragraphs 119 and 121).

129

Furthermore, the question of the evidence of the alleged conduct, which concerns the substantive

legality of the act in question, involves assessing the truth of the facts set out in that act and the

characterisation of those facts as evidence justifying the use of restrictive measures against the person

concerned (Council v Bamba, paragraph 85 above, paragraph 60).

130

It is in the light of those considerations that the Court will examine the merits of the arguments raised

by the applicant in the context of the present plea.

The possibility for the Council to rely exclusively on the applicant’s professional functions

131

The applicant takes issue with the fact that the contested acts contain no evidence showing the

existence of a link between, on the one hand, his person, his conduct and his activities and, on the

other, the objectives of the restrictive measures against Syria. In the absence of any evidence of his

involvement in the repression of the civilian population and of any causal link between his conduct

and that repression, the mere fact that he is the Governor of the Central Bank of Syria does not

justify the adoption of restrictive measures against him, which therefore breach the principle of

proportionality. The press articles produced by the Council before the Court are not sufficient

evidence to show that the applicant provides support to the Syrian regime in that repression.

132

In particular, in the applicant’s submission, by including him on the lists at issue, the Council sought in

reality to impose a more severe sanction on the Central Bank of Syria, which was already covered by

the restrictive measures. In that regard, the applicant observes that the Council has made provision

for derogations from the application of the restrictive measures to the bank, which is tantamount to

recognising the fundamental role which it plays in financing all sectors of the country’s economy. It is

inconsistent and disproportionate that the Council should adopt restrictive measures against the

Governor of the Central Bank of Syria while acknowledging the need that the Bank should be able to

function normally. In effect, such functioning presupposes that there is a Governor at the head of the

institution.

133

Nor does the fact that individual sanctions are imposed on the applicant have any impact on the

activities of the Central Bank of Syria, or on the activities of the Syrian regime, having regard in

particular to the functioning of that institution, which is not comparable to that of a private

undertaking.

134

The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.

135

First of all, it should be borne in mind that, as the restrictive measures adopted in Decision 2011/273

did not make it possible to put an end to the Syrian regime’s repression against the civilian population,

the Council considered that those measures should be applied not only to persons responsible for that

repression but also to persons benefiting from or supporting the regime and persons associated with

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

them. Those provisions are found, respectively, in Article 18(1) and Article 19(1) of Decision 2011/782,

Article 24(1) and Article 25(1) of Decision 2012/739 and Article 27(1) and 28(1) of Decision 2013/255.

136

Second, it should be observed that, although the concept of ‘support for the regime’ is not defined in

those provisions, there is no ground on which to conclude that only persons supporting the Syrian

regime for the precise purpose of enabling it to pursue its repressive activities against the civilian

population might be covered by restrictive measures. Since it would have been impossible for the

Council to ascertain the purposes for which the resources provided to that regime were used, it was

necessary to adopt measures applicable to any form of support.

137

Third, in the light of the extract from the Central Bank of Syria’s website produced by the Council, the

content of which was not called in question by the applicant, it is common ground that that bank has

as its task, in particular, to serve as banker to the Government of that country. Consequently, it cannot

be denied that the Bank provides financial support to the Syrian regime.

138

Fourth, it should be stated that, while it is true that, according to the case-law, it is for the competent

European Union authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the

person concerned are well founded, and not for that person to adduce evidence of the negative, that

those reasons are not well founded (Commission and Others v Kadi, paragraph 128 above,

paragraph 121), in the present case the applicant has never disputed the fact, relied on by the Council

as the reason for his listing, that he is the Governor of the Central Bank of Syria.

139

In that regard, first, although the applicant had the opportunity to make representations to the Council

in application of the provisions referred to at paragraph 106 above, he did not claim before the Council

that, although he was the Governor of the Central Bank of Syria, he did not support the Syrian regime.

140

Second, before the Court, the applicant confined himself to mere assertions to the effect that he carried

out only functions of an administrative or technical nature and had no real influence over the

management of the Central Bank of Syria, which is a State body.

141

In answer to those arguments, the Council produced, in annexes to the defence, two press articles from

which it is apparent, in particular, that the applicant was in a position to take significant decisions

relating to the monetary policy of Syria.

142

It should be stated that those articles confirm that the applicant, as Governor, exercises fundamental

functions within the Central Bank of Syria, which cannot be characterised as merely administrative or

technical.

143

Furthermore, it should be observed that a person exercising functions which confer on him the power

to manage an entity covered by restrictive measures may, as a general rule, himself be considered to be

involved in the activities that justified the adoption of the restrictive measures covering the entity in

question (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 December 2013 in Case T-58/12 Nabipour and Others v

Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 110).

144

The applicant himself acknowledges that the Governor of the Central Bank of Syria is at the head of

that bank.

145

In that regard, the fact, raised by the applicant at the hearing, that the Central Bank of Syria is subject

to political control by the minister responsible for economic and financial affairs does not indicate that

the applicant, as the most senior authority within the bank, is not involved in providing financial

resources to the Syrian regime. On the contrary, it tends to demonstrate the existence of close links

between the management of the financial resources of that regime and the professional functions

carried out by the applicant.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

146

Fifth, it is necessary to establish whether the Council observed the principle of proportionality, which,

according to settled case-law, is one of the general principles of EU law and requires that measures

implemented through provisions of EU law be appropriate for attaining the legitimate objectives

pursued by the legislation at issue and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them (Case

C-176/09 Luxembourg v Parliament and Council [2011] ECR I-3727, paragraph 61, and Joined Cases

C-539/10 P and C-550/10 P Al-Aqsa v Council and Netherlands v Al-Aqsa [2012] ECR,

paragraph 122).

147

In that regard, first of all, it should be borne in mind that, as is apparent from the preamble to

Decision 2011/273, the Council initiated restrictive measures against a third country, namely Syria, in

response to the violent repression by the authorities of that country against the civilian population.

The same concern underlies the contested acts, which follow directly from Decision 2011/273. Next,

it should be stated that, although the restrictive measures at issue were aimed only at those in charge

of the Syrian regime, and not also the persons supporting that regime, the attainment of the objectives

pursued by the Council could have been frustrated, as those in charge of the regime could easily obtain

the support, in particular the financial support, which they needed in order to continue that repression,

through other persons holding senior managerial posts within the principal institutions of the Syrian

State. Last, it is necessary to take into account the importance for the European Union of the

objective of maintaining peace and international security and also of protecting the civilian

population.

148

It follows that the Council was able, without committing a breach of the principle of proportionality, to

rely on the applicant’s functions in order to consider that he was in a position of power and influence

with respect to the financial support of the Syrian regime supplied by the Central Bank of Syria.

Consequently, the Council was also entitled to consider that the adoption of restrictive measures

against the applicant was likely to contribute to putting pressure on that regime that might put an end

to, or attenuate, the repression against the civilian population. The question whether the contested acts

entail for the applicant limitations of his rights that are compatible with that principle will be examined

in the context of the fourth plea.

149

Sixth, it should be observed that no relevance can be attributed to the fact that when the Council

decided to adopt restrictive measures against the Central Bank of Syria it inserted specific provisions

in the acts then in force by Council Decision 2012/122/CFSP of 27 February 2012 amending Decision

2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 54, p. 14) and by Council Regulation (EU) No 168/2012 of 27 February 2012

amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 54, p. 1), in order to provide for derogations.

150

In that regard, it should be observed that, as the Council correctly submits, those derogations relate in

essence to the transfer of funds in favour of financial institutions coming within the jurisdiction of the

Member States which are intended to finance trade authorised by them, on the ground, in particular,

that they have been able to establish that the funds in question would not be received by a person or

entity covered by the restrictive measures against Syria.

151

Furthermore, by Council Regulation (EU) No 867/2012 of 24 September 2012 amending Regulation

No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 257, p. 1), the conditions required for the application of those derogations

were made more restrictive.

152

The Court observes, as does the Council, and contrary to the applicant’s contention, that the purpose

of those derogations was not to enable the Central Bank of Syria to function normally, but solely to

avoid penalising persons and entities not covered by the restrictive measures and trade not prohibited

between the Member States and Syria.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

153

Since the restrictive measures affecting the applicant personally are not as such capable of harming

persons and entities not covered by those measures or trade that is not prohibited, the existence of

the abovementioned derogations with respect to the Central Bank of Syria does not give rise to

contradictions that would call in question the adoption of restrictive measures with respect to the

applicant or permit a finding of a breach of the principle of proportionality.

154

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be concluded that the Council did not err in

adopting restrictive measures with respect to the applicant on the sole ground that he was the

Governor of the Central Bank of Syria.

The applicant’s other arguments

– The alleged need to initiate investigations or proceedings against the applicant before including him

on the lists of persons covered by restrictive measures

155

The applicant claims that no investigation or proceeding was carried out against him before his name

was included and maintained on the lists at issue.

156

The Council disputes the applicant’s argument.

157

It should be observed that the applicant relies on the judgment in Case T-348/07 Al-Aqsa v Council

[2010] ECR II-4575, which was set aside by the judgment in Al-Aqsa v Council and Netherlands v

Al-Aqsa, paragraph 146 above, and which, moreover, dealt with restrictive measures adopted pursuant

to Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific

measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93), which establishes conditions different from

those contained in the contested acts in order for a person to be covered by restrictive measures.

158

Article 1(4) of that common position provides that the list of persons concerned is to be ‘drawn up on

the basis of precise information or material in the relevant file which indicates that a decision has been

taken by a competent authority in respect of the persons, groups and entities concerned, irrespective of

whether it concerns the instigation of investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act, an attempt to

perpetrate, participate in or facilitate such an act based on serious or credible evidence or clues, or

condemnation for such deeds’.

159

However, it should be observed that in the present case the contested acts contain no provision

comparable to that cited at paragraph 158 above.

160

It follows that the present argument must be rejected.

– The level of the applicant’s person financial resources and his alleged lack of involvement in politics

and in the repression against the civilian population

161

The applicant claims, first, that his personal financial resources are modest and, second, that there is

no proof of his involvement in any political or military activities, still less of his involvement in the

repression against the civilian population.

162

The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.

163

It should be observed that it is clear from the contested acts, and the Council confirmed in its written

submissions to the Court, that the applicant was covered by the restrictive measures at issue only

because of the support which he provides to the Syrian regime in the exercise of his functions as

Governor of the Central Bank of Syria. The examination carried out at paragraphs 125 to 160 above

shows that that ground is well founded and sufficient.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

164

Accordingly, the applicant’s present arguments must be rejected as inoperative.

165

In any event, it should be observed that there is nothing in the contested acts to support the

conclusion that the adoption of restrictive measures with respect to a person is conditional on the

amount of the resources which that person has at his disposal.

166

In the light of all of the considerations set out in relation to the third plea, that plea must be rejected

in its entirety.

d) Fourth plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, of the right to property, of the right

to private and family life and of the right to come and go freely and also breach of the national and EU

rules reserved for citizens of the Member States and of the Union

167

In the applicant’s submission, the freezing of his funds as a result of the contested acts constitutes a

disproportionate interference with his right to property, protected in particular by Article 17(1) of the

Charter of Fundamental Rights, since it prevents him from freely enjoying his possessions, although he

was not given a hearing and although that limitation of his right is not necessary or appropriate in

order to attain the objectives pursued by the Council. In spite of their temporary precautionary nature

and the fact that they are applicable only to economic resources in the European Union, the restrictive

measures imposed on him deprive him of his right to property, since he is unable to use it.

168

For similar reasons, the restrictions imposed by the measures at issue on his freedom to come and go

constitute a disproportionate interference with his right to a private and family life, recognised in

particular in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

169

Next, the applicant claims that he has dual Syrian and French nationality and that he must therefore

benefit from the rights conferred on citizens of the Union. The applicant’s link with France is

confirmed by the fact that his family lives there. Although the applicant acknowledges that

Article 18(2) of Decision 2011/782 does not require that Member States refuse their own nationals

access to their territory, he maintains that that provision gives rise to an ambiguous situation which is

not consistent with the provisions of international law and French law that absolutely prohibit such

refusal of access. In addition, the applicant submits that a number of provisions of EU law guarantee

that every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely on the territory of the Member

States.

170

Last, the applicant observes that the possibilities, provided for in the contested acts, to derogate from

the restrictions of his rights are not sufficient, since they entail a supplementary request made ex post

facto, when the very substance of the rights in question has been impaired, and that the grant of those

derogations depends on the discretion of the Council and the Member States.

171

The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.

Preliminary observations

172

It should be borne in mind that the right to property is among the general principles of EU law and is

enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As regards the right to respect for

private and family life, it is enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (see, to that

effect, Joined Cases C-356/11 and C-357/11 O. and Others [2012] ECR, paragraph 76).

173

According to settled case-law, those fundamental rights do not enjoy absolute protection in EU law,

but must be viewed in relation to their function in society (see, to that effect, Kadi, paragraph 103

above, paragraph 355). Consequently, the exercise of those rights may be restricted, provided that

those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of public interest pursued by the European Union

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

and do not constitute, in relation to the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference,

impairing the very substance of the rights thus so guaranteed (see, to that effect, Case C-84/95

Bosphorus [1996] ECR I-3953, paragraph 21, and Al-Aqsa v Council and Netherlands v Al-Aqsa,

paragraph 146 above, paragraph 121).

174

As regards the principle of proportionality, it is appropriate, first, to refer to the case-law cited at

paragraph 146 above and, second, to bear in mind that, according to Article 52(1) of the Charter of

Fundamental Rights, any limitation of the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by that

Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to

the principle of proportionality, limitations may be applied only if they are necessary and genuinely

meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the

rights and freedoms of others (Case C-12/11 McDonagh [2013] ECR, paragraph 61).

Breach of the right to property

175

176

It should be observed that measures relating to the freezing of the funds, financial assets and other

economic resources of the persons identified as supporting the Syrian regime imposed by the

contested acts are temporary precautionary measures and are not supposed to deprive the persons

concerned of their property (see, to that effect and by analogy, Kadi, point 103 above, paragraph 358).

However, the measures in question undeniably entail a restriction of the exercise of the right to

property (see, to that effect and by analogy, Al-Aqsa v Council and Netherlands v Al-Aqsa,

paragraph 146 above, paragraph 120).

Those measures are ‘provided for by law’ (see, by analogy, Eur. Court H.R., Lavents v. Lithuania,

28 November 2002, No. 58442/00, § 135), since they are set out in acts of general application (see, to

that effect, Gbagbo and Others v Council, paragraph 56 above, paragraph 56; see also, by analogy,

Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert [2010] ECR I-11063,

paragraph 66) and have a clear legal basis in European Law and since they are also formulated in

sufficiently precise terms as regards their scope and the reasons showing why they apply to the

applicant (see paragraphs 88 to 94 above).

177

As regards the appropriateness of the measures at issue, with reference to an objective of general

interest as fundamental to the international community as the protection of civilian populations and

the maintenance of peace and international security, those measures cannot be regarded as

inappropriate (see, to that effect, Kadi, paragraph 103 above, paragraph 363, and Al-Aqsa v Council

and Netherlands v Al-Aqsa, paragraph 146 above, paragraph 123).

178

As regards the necessity of the measures, it should be noted that the alternative and less restrictive

measures, such as a system of prior authorisation or an obligation to justify, a posteriori, how the

funds transferred were used, are not as effective in achieving the goal pursued, namely the application

of pressure on those supporting the Syrian regime, having regard in particular to the possibility of

circumventing the restrictions imposed (see, by analogy, Al-Aqsa v Council and Netherlands v

Al-Aqsa, paragraph 146 above, paragraph 125).

179

In addition, it must be borne in mind that Article 19(3) to (7) of Decision 2011/782, Article 25(3)

to (11) of Decision 2012/739, Article 28(3) to (11) of Decision 2013/255 and Articles 16 to 18 of

Regulation No 36/2012 provide for the possibility, first, to authorise the use of frozen funds to satisfy

basic needs or meet certain commitments and, second, to grant specific authorisations for the release

of certain funds, financial assets or other economic resources.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

180

Last, it should be observed that the maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists annexed to the

contested acts is subject to periodic review so as to ensure that the persons who, and entities which,

no longer meet the criteria for listing are removed from the lists (see, by analogy, Kadi, paragraph 103

above, paragraph 365, and Al-Aqsa v Council and Netherlands v Al-Aqsa, paragraph 146 above,

paragraph 129).

181

Thus, it must be concluded that the measures relating to the freezing of the applicant’s funds, financial

assets and other economic resources respect the principle of proportionality and are therefore

compatible with his right to property.

Breach of the right to private and family life, the freedom to come and go and also the national and EU

rules reserved for citizens of the Member States and of the Union

182

It is appropriate when examining the arguments which the applicant raises against the restrictions on

access to the territories of the Member State to distinguish the territory of the French Republic, of

which the applicant is a national, and the territories of the other Member States.

– The restriction on access to French territory

183

It should be borne in mind that, in Article 18(1) of Decision 2011/782, Article 24(1) of Decision

2012/739 and Article 27(1) of Decision 2013/255 (‘the provisions on restrictions on entry’), the

Council provided as follows:

‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their

territories of the persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria,

persons benefiting from or supporting the regime, and persons associated with them, as listed in

Annex I.’

184

However, a special provision was inserted in the decisions referred to in the preceding paragraph in the

case of nationals of the Member States.

185

According to Article 18(2) of Decision 2011/782, Article 24(2) of Decision 2012/739 and Article 27(2)

of Decision 2013/255 (‘the provisions relating to nationals’):

‘Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.’

186

That provision thus recognises that the Member States have exclusive competence as regards the

application of the restrictions at issue to their own nationals. It follows that, in the case of a person

who, like the applicant, in addition to having Syrian nationality, has French nationality, EU law does

not require the French authorities to deny him access to the territory of the French Republic.

187

In answer to a request for information sent to it by the Court (see paragraphs 38 and 39 above), the

French Republic stated that it regarded the provisions relating to nationals as a safeguard clause

which allowed it to ensure that its citizens had the right to enter the national territory, a right which,

in its view, followed in particular from the constitutional value of freedom to come and go and from

Article 3 of Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms. The French Republic also explained that, by the simple fact of having a French passport,

which identified him as a French national called André Mayard, the applicant was able to travel to

France, even if that passport had now expired.

188

Likewise, in its written answer to a question put by the Court, the Council confirmed that the

application of the provisions relating to nationals was a matter for the Member States, which were not

even required to inform the Council that they were applying those provisions.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

189

In those circumstances, and since the applicant has not challenged either the information supplied by

the French Republic or the Council’s answer, it must be held that his complaint relating to the alleged

impossibility of travelling to France, where his family lives, is factually incorrect and must therefore be

rejected. The same applies to the alleged interference with the applicant’s private and family life, since

it follows from the foregoing that the contested acts do not affect the possibility which the applicant

has to visit his family in France.

– Restriction of freedom of movement within the European Union

190

It should be observed that, in spite of the provisions relating to nationals, a citizen of a Member State,

and therefore also of the Union, whose name is on the lists of persons covered by the provisions on

restrictions on entry comes within the scope of those provisions so far as Member States other than

that of which he is a national are concerned.

191

That results from the fact that when the provisions on restrictions on entry are addressed to Member

States other than the State of which a person covered by the restrictive measures at issue is a national,

they are not subject to any specific derogation for citizens of the Union. Therefore, even with respect

to those citizens, those Member States are required to apply the restrictions in question in relation to

their respective territories. The provisions relating to nationals apply only to the territory of the

Member State of which such a person is a national.

192

The Court must consider whether the situation created by the provisions on restrictions on entry with

respect to citizens of the Union is compatible with the rights of those citizens.

193

On that point, it should be recalled that, according to Article 21(1) TFEU:

‘Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the

Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the

measures adopted to give them effect.’

194

Furthermore, according to the case-law, the right to freedom of movement for citizens of the Union is

not unconditional (Case C-33/07 Jipa [2008] ECR I-5157, paragraph 21, and Case C-434/10 Aladzhov

[2011] ECR I-11659, paragraph 28).

195

It should be noted that the reservation expressed in the second part of Article 21(1) TFEU (see

paragraph 193 above) refers to the Treaties, in the plural, which also includes the EU Treaty; and the

restrictions on entry, which appear in decisions adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU, are clearly

provisions adopted in application of the EU Treaty.

196

Consequently, it must be held that, by adopting acts coming within the common foreign and security

policy, the Council was in principle entitled to limit the right to freedom of movement within the

European Union which the applicant derives from his status as a citizen of the Union. However, it is

appropriate to ascertain whether the Council acted in accordance with the principle of

proportionality, as defined in the case-law referred to at paragraphs 146 and 174 above.

197

In that regard, first, it should be observed that the considerations set out at paragraphs 177, 178

and 180 above regarding the appropriate, necessary and temporary nature of the measures relating to

the freezing of funds are applicable by analogy to the provisions on restrictions on entry. Second, it

should be borne in mind that, in accordance with Article 18(6) of Decision 2011/782, Article 24(6) of

Decision 2012/739 and Article 27(6) of Decision 2013/255, the competent authority of a Member State

may authorise entry to its territory, in particular, on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

198

As regards the argument which the applicant seeks to derive from Directive 2004/38/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and

their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending

Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,

73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77),

it should be observed that the provisions on restrictions on entry, in that they apply to citizens of the

Union, must be regarded as constituting a lex specialis by reference to that directive, so that those

provisions prevail over that directive in situations which they specifically seek to regulate (see, to that

effect and by analogy, Case C-444/00 Mayer Parry Recycling [2003] ECR I-6163, paragraph 57, and

Case T-371/03 Le Voci v Council [2005] ECR-SC I-A-209 and II-957, paragraph 122).

199

That lex specialis, moreover, merely reflects, at a common level and in a particular context, restrictions

on freedom of movement which the Member States individually may apply to certain persons, in

accordance with Article 27 of Decision 2004/38. That directive does not confer on citizens of the

Union an unconditional right to freedom of movement in the Union, but allows Member States to

restrict that freedom on grounds, in particular, of public policy or public security, in accordance with

the principle of proportionality (see, to that effect, Jipa, paragraph 194 above, paragraphs 22 and 29).

200

In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the fourth plea must also be rejected, as must,

accordingly, the action in Case T-307/12 in its entirety.

B – The action in Case T-408/13

201

As the Court observed at paragraph 40 above, the applicant stated at the hearing, in essence, that the

action in Case T-408/13 should be considered to have been brought as an alternative action, in order

to take account of the possibility that the Court should find that the action in Case T-307/12 is at

least in part inadmissible.

202

Since it follows from paragraphs 45 to 79 above that the action in Case T-307/12 is wholly admissible,

there is no need to give judgment on the action in Case T-408/13.

Costs

203

Under Article 87(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. Furthermore, under Article 87(6) of

those rules, where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs are in the discretion of the Court.

204

In Case T-307/12, since the applicant has been unsuccessful, he must be ordered to pay the costs in

accordance with the form of order sought by the Council.

205

In Case T-408/13, the Court considers on a fair assessment of the circumstances that the applicant

should also be ordered to pay the costs. The Court found that there was no need to adjudicate on the

action in that case on the ground that it had been brought purely on a subsidiary basis, in order to take

account of the possibility that the action in T-307/12 would be held inadmissible, although no plea of

inadmissibility had been raised by the Council at the time when the action in Case T-408/13 was

brought.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber, extended composition)

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

hereby:

Dismisses the action in Case T-307/12;

Declares that there is no need to give judgment on the action in Case T-408/13;

Orders Mr Adib Mayaleh to pay the costs.

Berardis

Czúcz

Popescu

Pelikánová

Buttigieg

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 5 November 2014.

[Signatures]

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

Table of contents

Background to the disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Procedure and forms of order sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A – The action in Case T-307/12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. The admissibility of the requests to amend the form of order sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) The request that the action might cover Decision 2012/739 and Decision 2013/255 . . . . . .

b) The request that the action might cover Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 . . . . . . . . .

The obligation to communicate Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 to the applicant . .

The alternative between the direct communication of Implementing Regulation

No 363/2013 to those concerned and the publication of a notice concerning that act in

the Official Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The procedures whereby Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 was communicated to

the applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Substance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) Second plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b) First plea, alleging breach of the rights of the defence, of the right to a fair hearing and of

the right to effective judicial protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c) Third plea, alleging absence of evidence of a sufficient link between the applicant and the

situation giving rise to the adoption of restrictive measures against Syria, and breach of

the principle of proportionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The extent of the review carried by the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The possibility for the Council to rely exclusively on the applicant’s professional functions

The applicant’s other arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

– The alleged need to initiate investigations or proceedings against the applicant

before including him on the lists of persons covered by restrictive measures . . . . . . . .

– The level of the applicant’s person financial resources and his alleged lack of

involvement in politics and in the repression against the civilian population . . . . . . . .

d) Fourth plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, of the right to property, of

the right to private and family life and of the right to come and go freely and also breach

of the national and EU rules reserved for citizens of the Member States and of the Union

Preliminary observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Breach of the right to property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

JUDGMENT OF 5. 11. 2014 — JOINED CASES T-307/12 AND T-408/13

MAYALEH v COUNCIL

Breach of the right to private and family life, the freedom to come and go and also the

national and EU rules reserved for citizens of the Member States and of the Union . . . . . .

– The restriction on access to French territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

– Restriction of freedom of movement within the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B – The action in Case T-408/13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ECLI:EU:T:2014:926

حكم من المحكمة العامة الأوروبية في دعوى أديب ميالة، حاكم مصرف سورية المركزي، ضد إدراجه في عقوبات سورية.

المعلومات الأساسية

تاريخ الصدور

2014/11/05

البلد المستهدف

سوريةلبنانإيرانفرنساهولندا

رقم الوثيقة

T-307/12, T-408/13 — CELEX 62012TJ0307

مصدر الوثيقة

EUR-Lex — محكمة العدل الأوروبية

المجموعات

الاتحاد الأوربي

نوع المصدر

مصدر أصلي

نوع الوثيقة

قرار / حكم قضائي

العنوان الأصلي للوثيقة

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition), 5 November 2014 — Adib Mayaleh v Council of the European Union

التصنيف الفرعي

قرار عقوبات

اللغة

الإنجليزية

كود الذاكرة السورية

SMI/A200/995949

الجهة المصدرة

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

وثائق أخرى للجهة المصدرة

Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded — Set of indicia — Distortion of the sense of the evidence

نوع الوثيقة:

قرار / حكم قضائي

الجهة المصدرة:

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

تاريخ الصدور:

2016/04/07

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Scope — Recognition of a private divorce pronounced by a religious court in a third country — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court

نوع الوثيقة:

قرار / حكم قضائي

الجهة المصدرة:

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

تاريخ الصدور:

2016/05/12

Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from the regime — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded — Set of indicia

نوع الوثيقة:

قرار / حكم قضائي

الجهة المصدرة:

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

تاريخ الصدور:

2015/04/21

نوع الوثيقة:

قرار / حكم قضائي

الجهة المصدرة:

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

تاريخ الصدور:

2016/04/07

Appeals — Restrictive measures against Syria — Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Listing criterion — Broad discretion available to the Council — Burden of proof

نوع الوثيقة:

قرار / حكم قضائي

الجهة المصدرة:

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

تاريخ الصدور:

2015/01/08

نوع الوثيقة:

قرار / حكم قضائي

الجهة المصدرة:

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

تاريخ الصدور:

2015/04/21

نوع الوثيقة:

قرار / حكم قضائي

الجهة المصدرة:

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

تاريخ الصدور:

2015/04/21

نوع الوثيقة:

قرار / حكم قضائي

الجهة المصدرة:

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

تاريخ الصدور:

2015/04/21

Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-563/11 Anbouba v Council

نوع الوثيقة:

قرار / حكم قضائي

الجهة المصدرة:

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

تاريخ الصدور:

2015/01/08

Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Anbouba v Council

نوع الوثيقة:

قرار / حكم قضائي

الجهة المصدرة:

محكمة العدل الأوروبية

تاريخ الصدور:

2015/01/31