JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
18 May 2022 (*)(1)
(Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted against Syria – Freezing of funds – Error of assessment – Proportionality – Right to property – Right to pursue an economic activity – Misuse of powers – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Right to a fair trial – Determination of listing criteria)
In Case T‑296/20,
Amer Foz, residing in Dubai (United Arab Emirates), represented by L. Cloquet, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by T. Haas and M. Bishop, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed of S. Gervasoni, President, L. Madise and J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: M. Zwozdziak-Carbonne, Administrator,
having regard to the written part of the procedure, including:
–        the application lodged at the Court Registry on 12 May 2020,
–        the first statement of modification lodged at the Court Registry on 13 August 2020,
–        the defence and the observations on the first statement of modification lodged at the Court Registry on 8 October 2020,
–        the reply lodged at the Court Registry on 27 November 2020,
–        the rejoinder lodged at the Court Registry on 3 February 2021,
–        the second statement of modification lodged at the Court Registry on 9 August 2021,
–        the observations on the second statement of modification lodged at the Court Registry on 28 September 2021,
further to the hearing on 2 December 2021,
gives the following
Judgment
1        By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Amer Foz, seeks the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 43 I, p. 6), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 43 I, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 18), in so far as those acts include or maintain his name on the lists annexed to those acts.
Background to the dispute and events subsequent to the bringing of the action
2        The applicant is a businessperson of Syrian nationality.
3        Strongly condemning the violent repression of peaceful protest in Syria and calling on the Syrian authorities to exercise restraint instead of force, the Council of the European Union adopted, under Article 29 TEU, Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11). In view of the seriousness of the situation, the Council imposed an arms embargo, a ban on exports of material which might be used for internal repression, restrictions on admission to the European Union and the freezing of the funds and economic resources of certain persons and entities responsible for the violent repression against the Syrian civilian population.
4        The names of the persons responsible for the violent repression against the Syrian civilian population and the names of the persons, natural or legal, and entities associated with them are listed in the annex to Decision 2011/273. According to Article 5(1) of that decision, the Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, may amend that annex. The applicant’s name was not included in that annex when that decision was adopted.
5        Since some of the restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic fall within the scope of the FEU Treaty, the Council adopted, on the basis of Article 215(2) TFEU, Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1). The content of that regulation is largely identical to that of Decision 2011/273 but provides for the release of frozen funds in certain circumstances. The list of persons, entities and bodies identified as being either responsible for the repression in question or associated with those responsible, set out in Annex II to that regulation, is identical to the list in the annex to Decision 2011/273. Under Article 14(1) and (4) of Regulation No 442/2011, where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the restrictive measures referred to, it is to amend Annex II accordingly and, furthermore, to review the list in that annex at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.
6        By Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), the Council considered it necessary, in view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, to impose additional restrictive measures. For the sake of clarity, the measures imposed by Decision 2011/273 were grouped together with the additional measures into a single legal instrument. Decision 2011/782 provides, in Article 18 thereof, for restrictions on admission to the territory of the European Union of the persons whose names are listed in Annex I and, in Article 19, for the funds and economic resources of the persons and entities whose names are listed in Annex I and Annex II to be frozen.
7        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 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1).
8        Decision 2011/782 was replaced 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), which was itself replaced by Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14).
9        On 12 October 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 75). On the same day, it adopted Regulation (EU) 2015/1828 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 1).
10      The wording of Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255 was amended by Decision 2015/1836. Those articles now provide for restrictions on the entry into, or transit through, the territories of the Member States as well as for the freezing of the funds of persons associated with the categories of persons referred to in paragraph 2(a) to (g) of those articles, ‘as listed in Annex I’, unless there is ‘sufficient information that [those persons] are not, or are no longer, associated with the regime or exercise influence over it or do not pose a real risk of circumvention’.
11      Regulation 2015/1828 amended, inter alia, the wording of Article 15 of Regulation No 36/2012 in order to incorporate therein the new listing criteria defined by Decision 2015/1836 and inserted into Decision 2013/255.
12      By Implementing Decision 2020/212 and Implementing Regulation 2020/211 (together referred to as ‘the initial measures’), the applicant’s name was added at line 291 of the list in Section A (Persons) of Annex I to Decision 2013/255 and added at line 291 of the list in Section A (Persons) of Annex II to Regulation No 36/2012 (together, ‘the lists at issue’).
13      First, the ‘identifying information’ included in the lists at issue mentions that the applicant is male, has, inter alia, Syrian nationality and was born on 11 March 1976. It goes on to describe his position as ‘General Manager of ASM International General Trading LLC’. Lastly, ‘Samer Foz’, ‘Aman Holding [(Aman Dimashq JSC)]’ and ‘ASM International General Trading LLC’ are identified there as being ‘relatives/business associates/entities or partners/links’ of the applicant.
14      Second, the grounds for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue are worded as follows:
‘Leading businessperson with personal and family business interests and activities in multiple sectors of the Syrian economy, including through Aman Holding (formerly known as the Aman Group). Through Aman Holding, he benefits financially from access to commercial opportunities and supports the [regime of Bashar Al-Assad], including through involvement in the regime-backed development of Marota City. Since 2012, he has also been General Manager of ASM International [General] Trading LLC.
He is also associated with his brother Samer Foz, who has been designated by the [European Union] since January 2019 as a leading businessperson operating in Syria and for supporting or benefiting from the regime.’
15      On 18 February 2020, the Council published in the Official Journal of the European Union a Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2020 C 55, p. 7). The persons and entities concerned by that notice could, in accordance with that notice, submit to the Council, before 1 March 2020, a request for reconsideration of the decision to include their name on the lists at issue.
16      By letter of 10 April 2020, the applicant, in essence, objected to the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue and asked the Council to disclose to him the documents supporting that listing (‘the letter of 10 April 2020’).
17      By letter of 23 April 2020, the Council sent to the applicant a document bearing the reference WK 1751/2020 INIT of 12 February 2020, containing the evidence in support of the reasons for including his name on the lists at issue. Furthermore, the Council informed him that it was in possession of a classified document which would be forwarded to him as soon as the declassification procedure had been completed. Lastly, the Council informed him that it would reply to him at a later date with regard to his observations relating to the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue. It, inter alia, supplemented its reply in that regard by letter of 2 June 2020.
18      On 28 May 2020, the Council adopted Decision 2020/719, which extended the application of Decision 2013/255 until 1 June 2021, and Implementing Regulation 2020/716 (together, ‘the 2020 maintaining acts’). The applicant’s name was maintained at line 291 of the lists at issue on the basis of the same reasons as those given in the initial measures (‘the 2020 reasons’).
19      On 29 May 2020, the Council published in the Official Journal a Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/255 and in Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2020 C 180, p. 10). The persons and entities concerned by that notice could, in accordance with that notice, submit to the Council, before 1 March 2021, a request for reconsideration of the decision to include their name on the lists at issue.
20      By letter of 1 March 2021, the applicant submitted observations on the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue and objected to his name being maintained on those lists.
21      By letter of 15 April 2021, first of all, the Council informed the applicant of its intention to maintain his name on the lists at issue for reasons which were different in part from those set out in the 2020 reasons. Next, it sent him the document bearing the reference WK 4361/2021 INIT of 29 March 2021, containing the evidence in support of the proposal to amend the reasons for listing as compared with the 2020 reasons. Finally, it invited the applicant to submit his observations on the proposed reasons for listing by 29 April 2021 at the latest.
22      By letter of 29 April 2021, the applicant challenged the proposed reasons for listing on which the Council intended to rely.
23      On 27 May 2021, the Council adopted Decision 2021/855, which extended the application of Decision 2013/255 until 1 June 2022, and Implementing Regulation 2021/848 (together, ‘the 2021 maintaining acts’). The applicant’s name was maintained at line 291 of the lists at issue. The Council justified the adoption of the restrictive measures against him by stating reasons different from those given in the initial measures and in the 2020 maintaining acts (‘the 2021 reasons’).
24      As regards, first, the ‘identifying information’ included in the lists at issue, the 2021 maintaining acts reproduce the information set out in paragraph 13 above. Furthermore, the applicant’s position is now described there as being ‘Founder of District 6 Company; Founding partner of Easy life Company’, the reference to ‘ASM International General Trading LLC’ has been removed and the reference to ‘Vice Chairman of Asas Steel Company’ has been added under ‘relatives/business associates/entities or partners/links’ of the applicant.
25      Second, the 2021 reasons are worded as follows:
‘Leading businessperson with personal and family business interests and activities in multiple sectors of the Syrian economy. He benefits financially from access to commercial opportunities and supports the Syrian regime. Between 2012 and 2019, he was General Manager of ASM International [General] Trading LLC.
He is also associated with his brother Samer Foz, who has been designated by the Council since January 2019 as a leading businessperson operating in Syria and for supporting or benefiting from the regime. Together with his brother, he implements a number of commercial projects, notably in the Adra al-Ummaliyya area ([suburbs of Damascus, Syria]). These projects include a factory that manufactures cables and cable accessories as well as a project to produce electricity using solar power. They also engaged in various activities with [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (Da’esh)] on behalf of the [regime of Bashar Al-Assad], including the provision of weapons and ammunitions in exchange for wheat and oil.’
26      On 28 May 2021, the Council published in the Official Journal a Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/255 and in Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2021 C 201, p. 6).
27      By letter of 28 May 2021, the Council informed the applicant that none of the arguments put forward in the letter of 29 April 2021 called into question its decision that there were sufficient reasons for maintaining his name on the lists at issue.
Forms of order sought
28      The applicant claims that the Court should:
–        annul the initial measures, the 2020 maintaining acts and the 2021 maintaining acts (together, ‘the contested measures’) in so far as they concern the applicant;
–        order the Council to pay the costs.
29      The Council contends that the Court should:
–        dismiss the action;
–        order the applicant to pay the costs;
–        in the alternative, should the Court annul the contested measures in so far as they concern the applicant, order that the effects of Decisions 2020/719 and 2021/855 be maintained in so far as they concern him until the annulment in part of Implementing Regulations 2020/716 and 2021/848 takes effect.
30      The wording of the Council’s third head of claim set out in paragraph 29 above, which corrected a clerical error in the Council’s observations on the second statement of modification, was accepted by the Council at the hearing, formal note of which was taken in the minutes of the hearing.
Law
31      In support of the first point of the form of order which he seeks, the applicant relies on six pleas in law, alleging (i) an error of assessment; (ii) infringement of the principle of proportionality; (iii) infringement of the right to property and the freedom to pursue an economic activity; (iv) misuse of powers; (v) infringement of the obligation to state reasons; and, lastly, (vi) infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial.
32      It is appropriate to examine, first of all, the fifth plea and then the sixth plea, before examining the first plea, the fourth plea and, lastly, the second and third pleas taken together.
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons
33      The applicant submits that the statement of reasons provided by the Council does not satisfy the obligation incumbent on the EU institutions under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. Specifically, he claims that the statement of reasons adopted in the contested measures does not enable him to identify the disputed transactions. Furthermore, he adds that the Council did not ‘genuinely’ examine the statement of reasons adopted, which is ‘purely formal’ and was not properly thought out by the Council. Moreover, he argues that it is accepted in case-law that the reasons have to be communicated simultaneously after the decision is adopted in order for the person whose name is included on the lists at issue to be able to defend himself or herself and for the Court to exercise its review of the legality of the contested measures. In addition, the applicant submits that, in order to substantiate the statement of reasons, the Council referred to the reasons for including his name on the lists at issue and to recitals 2 and 3 of the initial measures. Lastly, he submits that the Council used a ‘convoluted’ formula in the statement of reasons aimed at deliberately avoiding reproducing the full wording of the criterion ‘leading businessperson operating in Syria’ by omitting the words ‘operating in Syria’. Furthermore, at the hearing, he submitted, in essence, that the Council had not clearly indicated the criteria for including his name on the lists at issue. According to him, information provided in that regard at the hearing stage implies either that the statement of reasons for the 2020 and 2021 reasons is not sufficiently detailed or that the listing criteria are determined a posteriori.
34      The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.
35      It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons on which an act adversely affecting an individual is based, which is a corollary of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, is, first, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to ascertain whether the act is well founded or whether it is vitiated by a defect which may permit its legality to be contested before the EU judicature and, second, to enable the latter to review the legality of that act (see judgment of 13 September 2013, Makhlouf v Council, T‑383/11, EU:T:2013:431, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).
36      It should also be noted that the statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the Court having jurisdiction to exercise its power of review (see judgment of 13 September 2013, Makhlouf v Council, T‑383/11, EU:T:2013:431, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
37      The statement of reasons for an act of the Council which imposes a measure freezing funds must make it possible to identify the actual and specific reasons why the Council considers, in the exercise of its discretionary power of assessment, that that measure must be adopted in respect of the person concerned (see judgment of 13 September 2013, Makhlouf v Council, T‑383/11, EU:T:2013:431, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).
38      However, the requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure may have in obtaining explanations (see judgment of 13 September 2013, Makhlouf v Council, T‑383/11, EU:T:2013:431, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited).
39      It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, inasmuch as the question whether the statement of reasons for a measure meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU 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 (see judgment of 13 September 2013, Makhlouf v Council, T‑383/11, EU:T:2013:431, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited).
40      In particular, the reasons given for a measure adversely affecting a person are sufficient if that measure was adopted in a context which was known to that person and which enables that person to understand the scope of the measure concerning him or her (see judgment of 13 September 2013, Makhlouf v Council, T‑383/11, EU:T:2013:431, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited).
41      Lastly, it should be borne in mind that the obligation to state the 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 reasons on which that act is based. If those reasons 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 judgment of 5 November 2014, Mayaleh v Council, T‑307/12 and T‑408/13, EU:T:2014:926, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited).
42      As a preliminary point, it should be noted that recitals 2 and 3 of the initial measures set out the general reasons justifying the adoption of the measures at issue, while the specific reasons for the applicant’s listing are included at line 291 of Table A of the lists at issue.
43      Moreover, it should be recalled that the general listing criteria laid down in Article 27(1) and Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, which are reproduced, as regards the freezing of funds, in Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 36/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1828, provide that persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the Syrian regime are to be subject to restrictive measures. Similarly, Article 27(2)(a) and (3) and Article 28(2)(a) and (3) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, which are reproduced, as regards the freezing of funds, in Article 15(1a)(a) and (1b) of Regulation No 36/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1828, provide that the category of ‘leading businesspersons operating in Syria’ is to be subject to restrictive measures, unless there is sufficient information that they are not, or are no longer, associated with the Syrian regime or do not exercise influence over it or do not pose a real risk of circumvention. Lastly, the last phrase of Article 27(2), and Article 27(3) and the last phrase of Article 28(2), and Article 28(3) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, which are reproduced, as regards the freezing of funds, in the last phrase of Article 15(1a), and in Article 15(1b) of Regulation No 36/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1828, provide that persons and entities associated with the persons, entities or bodies covered by one of the listing criteria are to be subject to restrictive measures, unless there is sufficient information that they are not, or are no longer, associated with the Syrian regime or that they do not exercise influence over it or do not pose a real risk of circumvention (the criterion of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures).
44      As mentioned in paragraph 18 above, it should be noted that the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue remained unchanged between the adoption of the initial measures and the adoption of the 2020 maintaining acts. Thus, as regards those acts, the Council gave the following reasons for the inclusion and maintaining of the applicant’s name on those lists:
‘Leading businessperson with personal and family business interests and activities in multiple sectors of the Syrian economy, including through Aman Holding (formerly known as the Aman Group). Through Aman Holding, he benefits financially from access to commercial opportunities and supports the [regime of Bashar Al-Assad], including through involvement in the regime-backed development of Marota City. Since 2012, he has also been General Manager of ASM International [General] Trading LLC.
He is also associated with his brother Samer Foz, who has been designated by the [European Union] since January 2019 as a leading businessperson operating in Syria and for supporting or benefiting from the regime.’
45      By contrast, the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue were amended when the 2021 maintaining acts were adopted, as pointed out in paragraph 25 above. The Council gave the following reasons for maintaining his name on the lists:
‘Leading businessperson with personal and family business interests and activities in multiple sectors of the Syrian economy. He benefits financially from access to commercial opportunities and supports the Syrian regime. Between 2012 and 2019, he was General Manager of ASM International [General] Trading LLC.
He is also associated with his brother Samer Foz, who has been designated by the Council since January 2019 as a leading businessperson operating in Syria and for supporting or benefiting from the regime. Together with his brother, he implements a number of commercial projects, notably in the Adra al-Ummaliyya area (Damascus suburbs). These projects include a factory that manufactures cables and cable accessories as well as a project to produce electricity using solar power. They also engaged in various activities with [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (Da’esh)] on behalf of the [regime of Bashar Al-Assad], including the provision of weapons and ammunitions in exchange for wheat and oil.’
46      In the first place, contrary to what the applicant claims in the argument referred to in paragraph 33 above, the wording of the reasons for inclusion referred to in paragraphs 44 and 45 above makes it possible to infer that his name was included and maintained on the lists at issue, first, due to his status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria, second, due to his association with the Syrian regime and, third, due to his association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures, namely his brother, Samer Foz. In other words, the inclusion and maintaining of the applicant’s name are based, first of all, on the criterion defined in Article 27(2)(a) and Article 28(2)(a) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, and in Article 15(1a)(a) of Regulation No 36/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1828 (criterion of a leading businessperson operating in Syria), then on the criterion set out in Article 27(1) and Article 28(1) of that decision and Article 15(1)(a) of that regulation (criterion of association with the regime) and, lastly, on the criterion set out in the last phrase of Article 27(2) and Article 28(2) of that decision and in the last phrase of Article 15(1a) of that regulation (criterion of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures).
47      Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the Council did not clearly indicate the criteria on the basis of which his name had been included and maintained on the lists in question must be rejected. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that failure to refer to a precise provision need not necessarily constitute an infringement of essential procedural requirements when the legal basis for the measure may be determined from other parts of the measure (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 March 2015, Central Bank of Iran v Council, T‑563/12, EU:T:2015:187, paragraph 68). Moreover, according to his written pleadings, the applicant was able to determine the criteria on the basis of which his name had been included and then maintained on the lists at issue.
48      In the present case, it should be noted that the actual and specific reasons which led the Council to include and maintain the applicant’s name on the lists at issue are stated sufficiently clearly to enable the applicant to understand them. The 2020 reasons relate to clear facts concerning the applicant. These are, first, his personal and family business interests, second, his activities in multiple sectors of the Syrian economy, in particular within Aman Holding, through which he benefits financially from access to commercial opportunities, in particular through involvement in the Marota City development project (‘the Marota City project’), third, his capacity as General Manager of ASM International General Trading LLC from 2012 and, fourth, his professional association with his brother, Samer Foz.
49      As regards the 2021 reasons, which include substantial changes as compared with the 2020 reasons, they also refer to facts which are clearly explained. First, they define the period during which the applicant occupied the post of General Manager of ASM International General Trading, namely from 2012 to 2019. Second, they clearly specify the types of activities which the applicant manages with his brother, Samer Foz, namely, first, the implementation of a number of commercial projects, which include a factory that manufactures cables and cable accessories and a project to produce electricity using solar power, and, further, various activities with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (‘ISIL’), also known as Da’esh, on behalf of the Syrian regime.
50      Moreover, the pleas and arguments raised by the applicant in his pleadings indicate, first, that he was put in a position to ascertain the reasons for the measures concerning him so as to be able to challenge them effectively before the EU judicature and, second, that he was aware of the context in which the measures were adopted. In particular, as regards the applicant’s argument that the Council used a ‘convoluted’ formula in the statement of reasons in order to avoid the words ‘operating in Syria’, it is clear from the applicant’s written pleadings that he had in fact understood that the Council considered that he was carrying on his activities in Syria, since he claims that he clearly does not carry on his activities in Syria, but that he does so in Dubai (United Arab Emirates).
51      In the second place, the applicant’s argument that the Council did not carefully examine the statement of reasons adopted seeks, in fact, to challenge the factual evidence relied on by the Council. Since that argument does not specifically call into question the adequacy of the statement of reasons for the contested measures, but rather the substantive legality of those acts, it must be examined in the context of the first plea, alleging an error of assessment.
52      In the third place, the fact that the Council failed to set out in detail the disputed transactions which led to the applicant’s name being included and maintained on the lists at issue cannot lead to a finding that it infringed its obligation to state reasons, since, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraphs 39 and 40 above, the Council is not required to specify all the relevant facts and points of law and the applicant was put in a position to understand the scope of the measures concerning him.
53      It follows from all of the foregoing that the statement of the reasons on which the contested measures are based is comprehensible and sufficiently precise to enable the applicant to ascertain the reasons which led the Council to take the view that including and maintaining his name on the lists at issue was justified and to challenge their legality before the EU judicature, and to enable the latter to exercise its power of review. The fifth plea must therefore be rejected.
Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial
54      The applicant submits, in essence, that the contested measures infringe his rights of defence and his right to a fair trial, as provided for in Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6(3) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, in so far as the Council failed to hear him before those measures were adopted. In that regard, he submits that, since he was not heard before those measures were adopted, he was unable to submit his observations in a timely fashion. According to him, there was no urgency or risk of particular loss for the Council. On the other hand, he argues that the possibility of being heard a posteriori did not enable him to avoid losses that were certain and foreseeable. In the reply, he cites point 41 of the Opinion of Advocate General Bot in M. (C‑277/11, EU:C:2012:253) in order to argue that the justification allowing the Ministry of Justice of a Member State of the European Union to exonerate itself from complying with the substantive formality which constitutes the right for any person to be heard in advance does not apply to the Council in the present case,
55      The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments. It maintains, as regards the initial measures, that, since they are initial decisions to include the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, it is not obliged, according to settled case-law, to hear him before his designation.
56      It should be borne in mind that observance of the rights of the defence includes, inter alia, the right to be heard, which is enshrined in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter (see judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 99 and the case-law cited).
57      Article 52(1) of the Charter nevertheless allows limitations on the exercise of the rights enshrined in the Charter, provided that the limitation concerned respects the essence of the fundamental right in question and, subject to the principle of proportionality, that it is necessary and genuinely meets objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union (see judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 101 and the case-law cited).
58      Lastly, the question whether there is an infringement of the rights of the defence must be examined in relation to the specific circumstances of each particular case, including the nature of the act at issue, the context of its adoption and the legal rules governing the matter in question (see judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 102 and the case-law cited).
59      As a preliminary point, it should be pointed out that the EU judicature distinguishes between, on the one hand, the initial entry of a person’s name on the lists imposing restrictive measures and, on the other, the maintenance of that person’s name on those lists (judgment of 30 April 2015, Al-Chihabi v Council, T‑593/11, EU:T:2015:249, paragraph 40).
60      In the first place, it should be noted that neither the legislation in question nor the general principle of respect for the rights of the defence gives the interested parties the right to a hearing, the opportunity to submit their observations in writing being sufficient (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgments of 23 October 2008, People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council, T‑256/07, EU:T:2008:461, paragraph 93, and of 6 September 2013, Bank Melli Iran v Council, T‑35/10 and T‑7/11, EU:T:2013:397, paragraph 105).
61      In the second place, as regards the initial measures, the EU authorities cannot be required to communicate the reasons for those measures before the name of a person or entity is entered on the lists imposing restrictive measures for the first time (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 January 2015, Makhlouf v Council, T‑509/11, not published, EU:T:2015:33, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
62      So that its effectiveness may not be jeopardised, such a measure must, by its very nature, be able to take advantage of a surprise effect and to apply immediately. In such a case, it is as a rule enough if the institution notifies the person or entity concerned of the reasons and affords that person or entity the right to be heard at the same time as, or immediately after, the decision is adopted (judgment of 21 December 2011, France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, C‑27/09 P, EU:C:2011:853, paragraph 61).
63      In the present case, the notification of the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue was published in the Official Journal on 18 February 2020, as is clear from paragraph 15 above. In addition, by the letter of 10 April 2020, the applicant, in essence, objected to the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue and asked the Council to disclose to him the documents supporting that listing, which the Council did by letter of 23 April 2020.
64      Therefore, it must be held that, in the present case, the fact that the applicant was not heard prior to the initial entry of his name on the lists at issue constitutes a justified limitation of his rights of defence within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 57 above.
65      That conclusion is not called into question by the applicant’s arguments. In that regard, first, he submits, without substantiation, that there was no urgency or risk that he would compromise the effectiveness of the initial measures by being heard prior to their adoption, whereas the opportunity to be heard a posteriori did not enable him to avoid losses. Second, the applicant’s argument based on point 41 of the Opinion of Advocate General Bot in M. (C‑277/11, EU:C:2012:253) is unfounded. It is apparent, in essence, from point 40 of that Opinion that, as regards the initial decisions including the name of a person or entity on the restrictive measures lists, limits on the right to be heard in order to protect a higher public interest were set on the basis of settled case-law, referred to in paragraphs 60 and 62 above.
66      In the third place, as regards the 2020 maintaining acts and the 2021 maintaining acts, it should be borne in mind that, in the case of acts by which the name of a person or entity already included on the lists imposing restrictive measures is maintained, the surprise effect is no longer necessary in order to ensure that those acts are effective, with the result that the adoption of such decisions must, in principle, be preceded by notification of the incriminating evidence and by affording the person or entity concerned an opportunity to be heard (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2011, France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, C‑27/09 P, EU:C:2011:853, paragraph 62).
67      In that regard, the Court of Justice has made clear that the element of protection afforded by the requirement of notification of incriminating evidence and the right to make representations before the adoption of decisions maintaining the name of a person or entity on a list of persons or entities subject to restrictive measures is fundamental and essential to the rights of the defence. This is all the more the case because the restrictive measures in question have a considerable effect on the rights and freedoms of the persons and groups concerned (judgment of 21 December 2011, France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, C‑27/09 P, EU:C:2011:853, paragraph 64).
68      In the present case, first, it should be recalled, as indicated in paragraph 18 above, that the 2020 maintaining acts did not amend the 2020 reasons set out in the annexes to the initial measures. In addition, by letter of 23 April 2020, that is to say before the adoption of the 2020 maintaining acts, the Council sent to the applicant document WK 1751/2020 INIT, containing the evidence supporting the reasons for the initial inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. It is not apparent from the file that the Council relied on new evidence in order to adopt the 2020 maintaining acts, or that it took account of updated information concerning the applicant’s personal situation or the political and security situation of the Syrian Arab Republic between the date of adoption of the initial measures and the date of the 2020 maintaining acts (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 February 2020, Kande Mupompa v Council, T‑170/18, EU:T:2020:60, paragraphs 71 and 72 and the case-law cited). It follows that the Council observed the applicant’s rights of defence when adopting the 2020 maintaining acts.
69      Second, it should be borne in mind, as is stated in paragraph 23 above, that the 2021 maintaining acts amended the 2020 reasons. As is apparent from the file, by letter of 15 April 2021, first of all, the Council informed the applicant of its intention to maintain his name on the lists at issue for reasons which were different in part from those set out in the 2020 reasons and sent him amended proposed reasons for listing. The Council also sent him document WK 4361/2021 INIT, containing the evidence in support of those proposed reasons and invited him to submit his observations on that document by 29 April 2021 at the latest, which the applicant did by letter of 29 April 2021. Lastly, by letter of 28 May 2021, the Council informed him that it had adopted the 2021 maintaining acts which maintained his name on those lists for reasons that were different from the 2020 reasons.
70      It follows from the foregoing that, as regards the 2021 maintaining acts, by sending to the applicant, prior to the adoption of the abovementioned acts, the amended proposed reasons for listing and the document containing the evidence in support of those proposed reasons for listing and inviting him to submit observations both on those proposed reasons and on the evidence, the Council observed the applicant’s rights of defence when adopting the 2021 maintaining acts. Accordingly, the sixth plea in law must be rejected.
First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment
Preliminary observations
71      It should be borne in mind that the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter requires, inter alia, that the EU judicature ensure that the decision by which restrictive measures were adopted or maintained, which affects the person or entity concerned individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that the judicial review is not limited to the assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but focuses on whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, is substantiated (judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119).
72      It is for the EU judicature, in order to carry out that examination, to request the competent EU authority, when necessary, to produce information or evidence, confidential or not, relevant to such an examination (see judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 120 and the case-law cited).
73      It is the task of the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person or entity concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person or entity to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded (judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 121).
74      For that purpose, there is no requirement that that authority produce before the EU judicature all the information and evidence underlying the reasons alleged in the measure sought to be annulled. It is, however, necessary that the information or evidence produced should support the reasons relied on against the person or entity concerned (judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 122).
75      If the competent EU authority provides relevant information or evidence, the EU judicature must then determine whether the facts alleged are made out in the light of that information or evidence and assess the probative value of that information or evidence in the circumstances of the particular case and in the light of any observations submitted in relation to them by, among others, the person or entity concerned (judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 124).
76      In accordance with the Court of Justice’s case-law, the assessment as to whether a listing was well founded must be carried out by examining the evidence not in isolation, but in the context in which it fits (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, paragraph 51, and of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑605/13 P, EU:C:2015:248, paragraph 50).
77      Lastly, in carrying out the assessment of the importance of what was at stake, which forms part of the review of the proportionality of the restrictive measures at issue, account may be taken of the context of those measures, of the fact that there was an urgent need to adopt such measures intended to put pressure on the Syrian regime to stop the violent repression against the population and of the difficulty of obtaining more specific evidence in a State at civil war and having an authoritarian regime (judgment of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑605/13 P, EU:C:2015:248, paragraph 46).
78      The present plea should be examined in the light of those considerations.
79      In essence, first, the applicant claims that the Council itself had admitted that he was not a businessperson ‘operating in Syria’ within the meaning of Article 27(2)(a) and Article 28(2)(a) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836. Second, he disputes that he is a ‘businessperson with personal and family business interests and activities in multiple sectors of the Syrian economy’. Third, he asserts that he cannot be regarded as a ‘leading’ businessperson. Fourth, he claims that he is not associated with the regime of Bashar Al-Assad, does not exercise any influence over that regime and does not pose a risk of circumvention of the sanctions directed at the regime. Fifth, he submits that he is no longer involved in ASM International General Trading since that company has been liquidated and dissolved. Sixth, he submits that he is not linked to or involved in companies established in Syria or involved in Aman Holding JSC. Seventh, he submits that he is not professionally linked with Samer Foz. Eighth, he states that the fact that he is linked to Samer Foz does not call into question the complete absence of any link between him and the regime of Bashar Al-Assad, as Samer Foz himself is absolutely not associated with that regime and contests the inclusion of his own name on the lists at issue before the General Court. Ninth, he claims that he is not involved in the Marota City project at all, which means that he could not have developed lands expropriated from persons displaced by the conflict in Syria, which prevented those persons from being able to return to their homes. Tenth, he asserts that that project is not backed by the Syrian regime.
80      The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.
Determination of the elements of the reasons for listing in respect of each of the listing criteria
81      As mentioned in paragraph 46 above, it must be inferred from the 2020 and 2021 reasons that the applicant’s name was included and maintained on the lists at issue because he satisfied three criteria, namely that of being a leading businessperson operating in Syria, that of association with the Syrian regime and that of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures. In order to assess whether the application of those criteria in the present case is well founded, it is necessary to determine, at the outset, the factual elements of the reasons for listing in respect of each of those criteria.
82      In that regard, it cannot be excluded that, for a specific person, the reasons for inclusion might overlap to a certain extent, in that a person may be considered to be a leading businessperson operating in Syria and also regarded as benefiting, in the course of his or her activities, from the Syrian regime or supporting it through those same activities. That is apparent, specifically, from the fact that, as is established in recital 6 of Decision 2015/1836, close association with the Syrian regime and support to it by that category of persons are one of the reasons for which the Council decided to establish that category. The fact remains that, even in such a situation, these are separate criteria (judgment of 23 September 2020, Kaddour v Council, T‑510/18, EU:T:2020:436, paragraph 77).
83      Where the Council decides to include a person’s name on the lists in question on account of his or her status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria, it is not required to specify, in the grounds for including that person on the lists in question, that that person benefits from or provides support to the Syrian regime. If the Council does so, it is because it also intends to apply the criterion laid down in Article 27(1) and Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, to that person. That interpretation is the most appropriate for guaranteeing the effectiveness of each of Article 27(1) and (2) and Article 28(1) and (2) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, and for allowing listed persons to determine precisely the criteria on the basis of which their name has been included or retained on the lists in question (judgment of 23 September 2020, Kaddour v Council, T‑510/18, EU:T:2020:436, paragraph 79).
84      The finding made in paragraph 82 above applies, by analogy, to the criterion of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures. A person may be classified as a leading businessperson operating in Syria and be regarded as being associated, in particular by business links, to another person who is subject to restrictive measures through such operating (see, to that effect, judgment of 31 May 2018, Kaddour v Council, T‑461/16, EU:T:2018:316, paragraph 127). Similarly, that person may be associated with the Syrian regime while being associated, for the same reasons, to a person covered by the restrictive measures.
85      In the present case, in the first place, as regards the 2020 reasons, the first sentence of the first paragraph states that the applicant is a ‘leading businessperson with personal and family business interests and activities in multiple sectors of the Syrian economy, including through Aman Holding (formerly known as the Aman Group)’. That sentence relates not only to the criterion of a leading businessperson operating in Syria, but also to the criterion of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures, on account of the family nature of the applicant’s business interests. That family nature must be understood as referring to the applicant’s association with his brother, Samer Foz, whose own name was included on the lists at issue on account, in particular, of his status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria. Those associations are expressed through their shareholdings in or involvement with Aman Holding (Aman Dimashq JSC) and ASM International General Trading, which are mentioned in the identifying information as being the applicant’s ‘relatives/business associates/entities or partners/links’.
86      The second sentence of the first paragraph of the 2020 reasons, according to which, ‘through Aman Holding, [the applicant] benefits financially from access to commercial opportunities and supports the [regime of Bashar Al-Assad], including through involvement in the … development of Marota City [which is backed by the Syrian regime]’, corresponds, as follows from the case-law cited in paragraph 83 above, both to the criterion of a leading businessperson operating in Syria and to the criterion of association with the Syrian regime. While referring to the applicant’s activity with Aman Holding, the Council expressly mentioned the support which the applicant provides to the Syrian regime and the benefit which he derives from his association with that regime.
87      The third sentence of the first paragraph of the 2020 reasons, according to which, ‘since 2012, [the applicant] has also been General Manager of ASM International Trading LLC’, relates to the criterion of leading businessperson operating in Syria.
88      Lastly, the second paragraph of the 2020 reasons relates to the criterion of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures. In addition to the reference to the applicant’s relationship to Samer Foz as a point of fact, that paragraph sets out the date on which Samer Foz’s name was included on the lists at issue, namely January 2019, and a summary of the facts on the basis of which the latter’s name was included, namely that he is a ‘leading businessperson operating in Syria and for supporting or benefiting from the regime’.
89      In the second place, as regards the 2021 reasons, first of all, a conclusion similar to that set out in paragraph 85 above must be drawn in relation to the first sentence of the first paragraph. The applicant is described there as being a ‘leading businessperson with personal … business interests and activities in multiple sectors of the Syrian economy’ and it is also stated there that he has ‘family business interests’ in the context of which it is appropriate to examine whether there are business links between him and his brother, Samer Foz. In that regard, the company Aman Holding is mentioned in the identifying information as being one of the applicant’s ‘relatives/business associates/entities or partners/links’, which means that it cannot be ruled out that he and his brother maintain business links through that company.
90      The second sentence of the first paragraph of the 2021 reasons, according to which the applicant ‘benefits financially from access to commercial opportunities and supports the Syrian regime’, corresponds to the criterion of association with the Syrian regime. The Council expressly referred in those reasons to the support he provides to the Syrian regime and to the benefit which he derives from his association with that regime.
91      The third sentence of the first paragraph of the 2021 reasons, which states that ‘between 2012 and 2019, [the applicant] was General Manager of ASM International [General] Trading LLC’ relates to the criterion of leading businessperson operating in Syria.
92      As regards the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2021 reasons, according to which the applicant ‘is also associated with his brother Samer Foz, who has been designated by the Council since January 2019 as a leading businessperson operating in Syria and for supporting or benefiting from the regime’, it relates to the criterion of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures.
93      As regards the second and third sentences of the second paragraph of the 2021 reasons, they state, respectively, that, ‘together with his brother, he implements a number of commercial projects’, which ‘include a factory that manufactures cables and cable accessories as well as a project to produce electricity using solar power’. They are therefore intended to support both the criterion of leading businessperson operating in Syria and the criterion of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures.
94      Lastly, the fourth sentence of the second paragraph of the 2021 reasons, stating, in essence, that the applicant and Samer Foz ‘also engaged in various activities with ISIL … on behalf of the [regime of Bashar Al-Assad]’, relates to the criterion of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures and to the criterion of association with the Syrian regime, in that the applicant is an intermediary for the Syrian regime.
95      Those clarifications having been provided, it is appropriate to set out the evidence submitted by the Council and then to examine the applicant’s arguments seeking to call into question its relevance and its reliability, before examining the criterion of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures.
Evidence submitted by the Council
96      First of all, in order to justify including and maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, the Council produced document WK 1751/2020 INIT, containing publicly available information, namely links to websites, press articles and screenshots from:
–        a personal profile page of the applicant on the social network Twitter, consulted on 29 July 2019, where he is described as a Dubai-based business leader;
–        the website ‘about.me’, consulted on 29 July 2019, which contains the applicant’s CV, which states, inter alia, that he is General Manager of ASM International General Trading;
–        the website Resumonk, containing a screenshot from a personal page of the applicant, consulted on 31 July 2019, containing his CV, which attests to his professional links with Aman Holding, run by his family; the applicant has been General Manager of ASM International General Trading since 2012 and was Deputy General Manager of the group Aman Holding between 2009 and 2011;
–        the website LinkedIn, the online social network for professionals, containing a screenshot of the applicant’s personal page, consulted on 8 August 2019, on which he described himself as General Manager of ASM International General Trading and wrote that he worked for 15 years at Emmar Industries before settling in Dubai;
–        the website Aliqtisadi, consulted on 8 August 2019, which includes a page featuring the applicant’s CV stating that he was Managing Director of ASM International General Trading, that he is a partner of Aman Holding and that he held various positions of responsibility, including that of Executive Director and Deputy General Manager of Aman Holding between 2009 and 2011 and that of Deputy General Manager of Emmar Industries; that page also mentions that he is involved in various other companies (Syrian Modern Cables JSC, District 6 Company and Easy Life);
–        the website Shaam Times of 9 May 2019, according to which the company District 6 was established by the applicant, who is the majority shareholder;
–        the website Emmar Syria, including the article of 7 April 2019, headed ‘Aman Holding launches a new company in the field of investment complexes and hotels’, which states that Aman Holding purchased 1.5 million shares in the bank Syria International Islamic Bank, with a value of 1.28 thousand million Syrian pounds (SYP) (approximately EUR 2.58 million), then 8 949 842 and 592 250 shares in the Al Baraka Bank Syria, with a value of SYP 8.3 thousand million (approximately EUR 16.77 million) and SYP 841 million (approximately EUR 1.2 million); it is also mentioned that Aman Holding is owned by the applicant, the brother of the applicant, Samer Foz, and their father; according to that article, the company is active in industrial, agricultural, service, commercial, tourism and real-estate projects and in the establishment of joint stock companies or limited liability companies with other parties;
–        the website Al Arabiya, namely the article headed ‘US sanctions Syrian oligarch and his luxury reconstruction business empire’, most recently updated on 12 June 2019, which gives a general description of the business empire of the Foz family and of the links between the applicant and Samer Foz; it is also stated in that article that Aman Holding is a family owned business, of which Samer Foz is the Chairman and General Manager, and that it owns and controls a dozen companies, all of which benefit the latter personally and allow him to invest more in the luxurious reconstruction projects of the Syrian regime; according to that article, ASM International General Trading is involved in the grain and sugar trade and in oil field operations;
–        the website of the United States Department of the Treasury, which published, on 11 June 2019, a press release from the Office of Foreign Assets Control announcing the adoption by the United States of America of sanctions against the applicant, Samer Foz and their business empire; the applicant is described in that press release as the General Manager of ASM International General Trading and Samer Foz as the Chairman and General Manager of Aman Holding; it is stated there that Aman Holding owns and controls over a dozen companies in Syria, which benefit Samer Foz personally and allow him to invest more in the luxury reconstruction projects of Bashar Al-Assad, and that it serves as an umbrella for over a dozen different joint ventures and subsidiaries; Samer Foz shares with, among others, the applicant ownership of and the managerial duties of those ventures and subsidiaries, one of them being ASM International General Trading, which is involved in the grain and sugar trade and in the operation of oil fields; lastly, it is stated there that Samer Foz recently invested in the financial sector by acquiring shares in the Syrian International Islamic Bank and Al Baraka Bank Syria and that he also owns the Four Seasons Hotel in Damascus and the restaurant Orient Club;
–        the website The Syria Report, which contains an article, published on 19 April 2018, headed ‘Factsheet: Samer Foz, Syria’s Most Powerful Businessman’, which states that Samer Foz, the applicant’s brother, has become one of Syria’s most powerful economic players, that he is believed to have close ties to Bashar Al-Assad and that he is responsible for the day-to-day management of Aman Holding, which was founded in 1988 by their father, as well as of subsidiaries of Aman Holding (Foz for Trading and Al-Mohaimen for Transporting & Contracting); according to that article, Samer Foz is the majority shareholder and chairman of the business Emmar Industries; the article also states that Aman Holding established Aman Dimashq, with a share capital of 18.9 million United States dollars (USD) (approximately EUR 17.4 million), and that that joint venture was responsible for developing construction projects, including the Marota City project (Basateen Al-Razi, in the Mazzeh district of Damascus), on expropriated land on which people who were in favour of the opposition to the Syrian regime used to live; in particular, Aman Dimashq was granted the right to build 3 skyscrapers with up to 70 floors each and 5 residential buildings with a value of USD 312 million (approximately EUR 287.2 million); it is also claimed that Samer Foz invested directly or through Aman Holding in numerous fields and companies (in particular in pharmaceuticals, the establishment of a company in order to build a sugar refinery, the Four Seasons Hotel and the Orient Club restaurant); that article also states that the transport of wheat, in particular, in regions controlled by ISIL is carried out by Aman Holding’s subsidiary, which is another factor indicating Samer Foz’s importance in the eyes of the Syrian regime; lastly, it is stated that, due to his international network, Samer Foz might be more influential than Rami Makhlouf;
–        the website The Syria Report, with two other articles, one of 16 January 2018 headed ‘Syrian Investor Signs Deal Over [Basateen] Al-Razi Project’, and another of 1 June 2018 headed ‘Factsheet: Marota City, Syria’s Most Controversial Investment Project’, in which it is stated that the development project for the upscale development referred to as ‘Marota City’ is a project backed by the Syrian regime under Decree No 66/2012, covers an area of 2.15 million square metres and concerns an area that is close to the city centre, the embassies and the security services, which makes it attractive to real estate developers; in addition, according to those articles, the applicant’s brother, Samer Foz, has become one of the most powerful economic players and his influence within the upper echelons of Syria’s business elite is attributed to his close ties to Bashar Al-Assad; lastly, a screenshot of a list of joint ventures from the same website published on 17 April 2018 and the two articles above also state that Aman Holding, which is managed by Samer Foz, established the joint venture Aman Dimashq; in addition, it is stated that Aman Dimashq was granted the right to build 3 skyscrapers of up to 70 floors and 5 residential buildings, with a value of USD 312 million (approximately EUR 278.1 million);
–        the website Factiva, on a page consulted on 14 June 2018, which describes Aman Holding, which was established in 1988 and has 50 employees, as an entity with interests, primarily, in the field of highway, street and bridge construction and, accessorily, in the services, consulting and management sectors;
–        the website Arab News, in particular from an article headed ‘US sanctions Syrian Businessman Samer Foz, entities for links to Assad’, updated on 12 June 2019, which explains that US sanctions were placed on the applicant and his brother, Samer Foz, having regard to the fact that they earned millions of Syrian pounds by building properties on expropriated land belonging to people who had fled the war in Syria; it states that those sanctions were imposed on Aman Holding and ASM International General Trading and on branches throughout the Middle East; lastly, it is mentioned in that article that ASM International General trading is involved in the grain and sugar trade and in the operation of oil fields;
–        the website Reuters, which states, in an article headed ‘Exclusive – [allies of Bashar Al-Assad] profit from Syria’s lucrative food trade’, published on 14 November 2013, that Aman Holding acts on behalf of the Syrian regime in grain deals; in particular, according to that article, that group, run by the Foz family, acts as a broker in the grain trade for Hoboob, a company owned by the Syrian State; it also states that Aman Holding’s website confirms that that group imported wheat into Syria in 2013, after several months of disruption to deliveries of foodstuffs;
–        the website of The Times, which, in June 2019, published an article headed ‘Samer Foz, tycoon who helps [Bashar Al-]Assad, uses [United Kingdom] firm for dealings’ which deals with the US sanctions imposed on Samer Foz and the applicant with a view to removing essential supplies and financial resources from the Syrian regime; according to that article, Samer Foz’s businesses continue to operate despite the EU fund-freezing sanctions imposed on Samer Foz in January 2019; lastly, the article states that the main business of Samer Foz, ASM International General Trading, is established in Dubai;
–        the website Visualize Me, which contains a page dedicated to the applicant’s brother, Samer Foz, consulted on 8 August 2019, setting out his CV, on which he describes himself as having been the General Manager of Aman Holding, before joining ASM International General Trading in 2012 as Chairman of the Executive Committee;
–        the website Syrian Law Journal, which, on a page of 14 May 2018, reveals that Decree No 66/2012 laid down the zoning requirements for the areas of Damascus that would be allocated to the Marota City project;
–        the Syrian Government’s website ‘66.damascus.gov.sy’, which, on a page dated 18 September 2012, reproduces the part of Decree No 66/2012 identifying the two areas in Damascus for a residential and commercial development project;
–        the website The Foundation for Strategic Research, which, in an article published in April 2018, sets out the motives behind the adoption of Decree No 66/2012;
–        the website The Syrian Observer, which, in an article published on 6 April 2018, headed ‘Alliance of Companies Monopolizes New Damascus Development Organizations’, states that businesspersons close to the Syrian regime are investing in new development projects driven by that regime in Damascus and its suburbs; according to that source, those businesspersons are selected by the Syrian regime on the basis of their obedience, loyalty and foreign business links;
–        the website of the Brookings Institution, which published a report dated June 2018, headed ‘Beyond Fragility: Syria and Challenges of Reconstruction in Fierce States’, which mentions, inter alia, Decree No 66/2012 adopted by the Syrian regime and specifies its purpose; in addition, it is stated there that Samer Foz, the applicant’s brother, is the chief executive officer (CEO) or General Manager of Aman Holding and that, during the war, he became one of Syria’s most influential and powerful businessmen, to the extent that he is called the ‘New Rami Makhlouf’;
–        the website of the Atlantic Council, which, in an article published on 7 March 2018 and signed by Joseph Daher, headed ‘Decree [No 66/2012] and the Impact of its National Expansion’, describes the applicant’s brother, Samer Foz, as a businessperson close to the Syrian regime who is involved in the Marota City project and has become one of Syria’s most powerful businesspersons during the war years;
–        the website Eqtsad News, which, in an article published on 14 January 2018 headed ‘You Know Them … Big Businessmen Are Sharing A Project Behind Al-Razi’, describes the Marota City project as a project backed by the Syrian regime through which the regime is supporting loyal businesspersons; one of them, Samer Foz, who is the applicant’s brother, signed a contract involving an investment of SYP 150 thousand million in the construction of a number of buildings;
–        the website News Deeply, which states, in an article published on 5 June 2017 headed ‘Long Read: Elites, War profiteers Take Aim at Syria’s Economic Future’, that only the elite are benefiting from the current economic situation; in particular, Aman Holding, managed by Samer Foz, announced that it has set up Aman Dimashq in order to construct a number of buildings on expropriated land in the Mazeeh district of Damascus;
–        the website Open Democracy, which, in an article published on 5 September 2017 headed ‘Militias and crony capitalism to hamper Syria reconstruction’, mentions that Aman Holding, which is owned and managed by Samer Foz, benefited from the application of Decree No 66/2012 and announced its contribution to the reconstruction of the Basateen Al-Razi area in the Mazeeh district of Damascus, and that Aman Dimashq was established by Aman Holding in order to carry out that project.
97      Next, in order to justify maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists annexed to the 2021 maintaining acts, the Council provided, in addition to document WK 1751/2020 INIT, document WK 4361/2021 INIT, which include publicly available information, namely screenshots from the website Pro-Justice, containing a report headed ‘Funding War Crimes, Syrian businessmen who kept Assad going’. These were from the 2020 edition, as consulted on 26 March 2021. In essence, that report mentions that the applicant implemented a number of commercial projects, notably in the Adra al-Ummaliyya area (Damascus suburbs). These projects include a factory that manufactures cables and cable accessories as well as a project to produce electricity using solar power. Furthermore, that report states that the applicant and his brother are also engaged in various activities with ISIL on behalf of the Syrian regime, including the provision of weapons and ammunition in exchange for wheat and oil, activities which, as confirmed by an ISIL leader, took place when ISIL controlled eastern Syria. Subsequently, the applicant became the General Manager of ASM International General Trading and the Aman Holding group (controlled by his brother, Samer Foz). In addition, he is a founding partner of several companies, including al Buna al-Ra’ida (which is active in the manufacture of cables and plastic granulates and in which he holds 70% of the shares), and is a board member and founding partner of the Syrian Cable Company. Moreover, sources indicate that the applicant takes a third of the value of the contracts implemented by his brother on behalf of the Syrian regime because he holds shares in Aman Holding, which has implemented a number of massive projects in the past. Lastly, the same report states that the Foz family has interests in various sectors of the Syrian economy and outside Syria, which are listed in the report. Furthermore, the Council provided, in document WK 4361/2021 INIT, copies of the applicant’s passport and his residence card for the United Arab Emirates.
The relevance of the evidence submitted by the Council
98      The applicant disputes the relevance of the article from the website The Syria Report headed ‘Factsheet: Samer Foz, Syria’s Most Powerful Businessman’, the article from the Reuters website and the page of the website Visualize Me, in that the information contained therein does not mention his name, but rather that of Samer Foz.
99      The Council contests the applicant’s arguments.
100    It should be noted that 10 out of 24 items of evidence from the websites The Syria Report, Syrian Law Journal, ‘66.damascus.gov.sy’, The Foundation for Strategic Research, Eqtsad News, News Deeply and Open Democracy and from the websites of the Brookings Institution and the Atlantic Council do not mention the applicant’s name.
101    However, as is apparent from paragraph 46 above, the applicant’s name was included and maintained on the lists at issue on account, inter alia, of his association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures, namely his brother, Samer Foz. As the Council submits, the websites The Syria Report, Reuters and Visualize Me, inter alia, provide the context in which the person concerned was designated, in particular in the light of his and his family’s role in the Syrian economy. In addition, some of the websites referred to in paragraph 100 above contain information relating to the Marota City project. The applicant’s involvement in that project, through Aman Holding, is also mentioned in the 2020 reasons. Thus, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 76 above, and although those items of evidence, taken individually, are insufficient in themselves to justify the inclusion and maintaining of the applicant’s name on those lists, that fact does not mean that they are entirely irrelevant for the purpose of examining the lawfulness of the measures referred to above to the extent that they provide contextual information to supplement and support the other items of evidence that mention the applicant specifically.
102    It follows from the foregoing that all the items of evidence contained in document WK 1751/2020 INIT are relevant for the purpose of assessing the lawfulness of the contested measures.
The reliability of the evidence submitted by the Council
103    First, the applicant submits that, on reading document WK 1751/2020 INIT, it appears that the Council relied on numerous unverified, false or obsolete pieces of information, in particular as regards Aman Holding and ASM International General Trading. Second, he claims that the website Aliqtisadi is an informal ‘media platform’ providing around-the-clock news relating to businesses established, inter alia, in the United Arab Emirates and in Syria. That website is not equivalent to a commercial register. On that basis, he argues, the information which it contains should be treated with great caution. It is, moreover, incorrect, not up to date and unreliable. Third, as regards the website ‘about.me’, the applicant submits that there is no rule requiring him to update the information on his social media profiles which have been used by the Council. Fourth, he disputes the reliability of the information on the website Pro-Justice, on the ground that that information relating to ASM International General Trading and Aman Holding is obsolete, as the Council has accepted, at least implicitly, in its written pleadings, by acknowledging that he had sold his shares in one of the companies and liquidated the other.
104    The Council contests the applicant’s arguments. In response to the measures of organisation of procedure adopted by the Court, it observes that certain sources have previously been relied on before the Court. In addition, it reproduces general, publicly accessible information concerning the Twitter social network, the websites ‘about.me’, Resumonk, LinkedIn, Aliqtisadi, Shaam Times, Emmar Syria, Al Arabiya, The Syria Report, Factiva, Arab News, Reuters, The Times, Syrian Law Journal, The Foundation for Strategic Research, The Syrian Observer, Eqtsad News, News Deeply, Open Democracy and Pro-Justice and the websites of the Brookings Institution and of the Atlantic Council and concerning the website of the United States Department of the Treasury.
105    Pursuant to settled case-law, the activity of the Court of Justice and of the General Court is governed by the principle of the unfettered evaluation of evidence, and it is only the reliability of the evidence before them which is decisive when it comes to the assessment of its value. In addition, in order to assess the probative value of a document, regard should be had to the credibility of the account it contains, taking account in particular of the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, on its face, the document appears to be sound and reliable (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 September 2012, Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission, T‑343/06, EU:T:2012:478, paragraph 161 and the case-law cited).
106    In addition, it must be borne in mind that the situation of war in Syria makes it difficult in practice, if not impossible, to gather witness evidence from persons who agree to be identified. The investigative difficulties which this creates and the danger faced by those who provide information make it impossible to adduce detailed evidence of personal conduct in support of the regime (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑605/13 P, EU:C:2015:248, paragraph 46, and Opinion of Advocate General Bot in Anbouba v Council, C‑605/13 P and C‑630/13 P, EU:C:2015:2, point 204).
107    First, it is necessary to examine the applicant’s argument that the Council relied on numerous unverified, false or obsolete pieces of information, in particular information concerning the transfer of the applicant’s shares in Aman Holding and the liquidation and dissolution of ASM International General Trading contained in document WK 1751/2020 INIT. The information relating to those two events is to be found on the websites ‘about.me’, Resumonk, LinkedIn, Aliqtisadi, Emmar Syria, The Times, News Deeply, Open Democracy and that of the United States Department of the Treasury. As is apparent from the description of the evidence submitted by the Council (see paragraph 96 above), those websites were consulted (or the information contained thereon was published) between 7 April 2019 and 8 August 2019, which is not disputed by the applicant. However, it has not been explained how the failure to update the articles on which he seeks to rely in order to substantiate his argument deprives them of any sound and reliable nature. In any event, press articles whose function is to provide information of an ongoing situation at a particular moment cannot be criticised for not having been updated. If the situation changes, it may be the subject of a new press article. Consequently, in the absence of a more detailed explanation from the applicant, the failure to update such sources is not a relevant criterion for assessing whether they are sound and reliable. Moreover, those facts are reported on numerous websites, with the result that the information on them is corroborated.
108    In addition, the applicant argues that, as there is no obligation to update the information on the website ‘about.me’, the information there is obsolete. In that regard, it should be noted that that website is described by the Council as a simple webpage enabling its users, such as the applicant, to insert links to external websites, including links to social networking websites such as LinkedIn. First, the applicant does not claim not to be the user of that webpage. It is true that there is no obligation on the user, and therefore on the applicant, to update the information relating to him or her. However, the applicant cannot, on that basis, formulate an argument in which he takes issue with the Council for having relied on such information. In any event, the information contained on that website is corroborated by the information from the website Aliqtisadi and the website of the United States Department of the Treasury and also from the personal pages of social networking websites, such as Resumonk and LinkedIn, which contain the applicant’s CV and photograph. The information from those websites has not been challenged specifically by the applicant.
109    Therefore, those websites may be considered to be sound and reliable within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 105 above.
110    Second, as regards the applicant’s argument relating to the website Aliqtisadi, it should be noted that he merely calls into question the reliability of the screenshot by making general, unsubstantiated assertions, claiming that the information is incorrect, not up to date and unreliable. In any event, it should be noted that that website is described by the parties as being ‘a business news portal that covers several countries’, published by Haykal Media, which is established in Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates). In that regard, it is not described by the Council as being equivalent to a commercial register, which means that the information it contains should be cross-checked with other information. The information on that website is corroborated by other evidence. That document must therefore be regarded as sound and reliable within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 105 above.
111    Third, as regards the information on the website Pro-Justice, the applicant does not dispute that the report in question was published in 2020. As regards the information relating to Aman Holding, 2020 was the year in which the applicant claims to have transferred his shares in Aman Holding (2 April 2020). Thus, the date of the transfer of the shares and the year in which the report was published coincide, which may mean either that that report must not have been updated to take account of that event or that the transfer had not yet taken place at the time when that report was published. Further, as regards the information relating to ASM International General Trading, a similar conclusion must be drawn, in that the date of liquidation and dissolution of the company coincides with the date of publication of the report in question (see paragraph 149 below). It is appropriate to regard the information relating to ASM International General Trading and Aman Holding as no longer being up to date. However, the applicant has not demonstrated that the other information contained in that report is obsolete. All of that information has been corroborated by other articles from, inter alia, the website Emmar Syria. Therefore, the report in question must be regarded as sound and reliable within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 105 above.
112    In the light of the foregoing, in the absence of any material in the file capable of calling into question the reliability of the sources used by the Council, it is appropriate to regard the documents at issue as sound and reliable, within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 105 above.
The applicant’s association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures
–       The scope of the listing criterion
113    It is apparent, in essence, from the 2020 and 2021 reasons, set out in paragraphs 14 and 25 above, that the applicant’s name was included and maintained on the lists at issue because of, inter alia, his family business interests and his association with his brother, Samer Foz, who has been included on those lists since January 2019.
114    In the first place, according to the applicant, his brother, Samer Foz, has challenged the inclusion and maintaining of his name on the lists at issue in Case T‑258/19. Samer Foz also brought the action in Case T‑481/21, seeking the annulment of the 2021 maintaining acts in so far as they relate to him.
115    In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the review carried out by the Court in the present case can relate only to whether the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists in question is well founded and cannot therefore call into question the lawfulness of the decisions by which the Council included the name of his brother, Samer Foz, on those lists (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 May 2017, Barqawi v Council, T‑303/15, not published, EU:T:2017:328, paragraph 42). In the present instance, the latter’s name was included and maintained on those lists by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13), Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), and Decisions 2020/719 and 2021/855 and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1) and Implementing Regulations 2020/716 and 2021/848. In particular, he was listed because of his status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria and his association with the Syrian regime.
116    In any event, first, it is apparent from the judgment of 24 November 2021, Foz v Council (T‑258/19, not published, EU:T:2021:820, paragraph 154), that, as regards Implementing Decision 2019/87, Decisions 2019/806 and 2020/719 and Implementing Regulations 2019/85, 2019/798 and 2020/716, Samer Foz did not establish before the Court that those measures which included and maintained his name on the lists at issue had to be annulled. Second, with regard to the 2021 maintaining acts, according to settled case-law, the presumption that acts of the institutions of the European Union are lawful means that those acts produce legal effects until such time as they are withdrawn, annulled in an action for annulment or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2011, France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, C‑27/09 P, EU:C:2011:853, paragraph 74 and the case-law cited). Furthermore, the effects of the 2021 maintaining acts with regard to Samer Foz were not suspended following an application for interim measures. Accordingly, all the acts including or maintaining Samer Foz’s name on those lists continue to produce legal effects.
117    In the second place, in response to a measure of organisation of procedure adopted by the Court, the applicant submits that, in order to establish his association with Samer Foz within the meaning of the criterion of association with a person subject to restrictive measures, only a business association should be accepted, which does not include brotherhood links. In addition, he states that association with Samer Foz does not constitute one of the listing criteria set out in Article 28(2)(a) to (g) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, since neither the name of Samer Foz nor that of any other member of the Foz family appears there. The Council submits that it is apparent from the file that the applicant and Samer Foz are professionally closely associated.
118    In that regard, the 2020 and 2021 reasons on the basis of which the Council concluded that there was an association between the applicant and his brother, Samer Foz, are not confined exclusively to their family links, but relate also to their business links. Moreover, the Council does not claim that being a member of the Foz family is an autonomous listing criterion, unlike being a member of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families, which is an autonomous criterion, laid down as such by Article 27(2)(b) and Article 28(2)(b) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, reproduced, as regards the freezing of funds, in Article 15(1a)(b) of Regulation No 36/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1828. Therefore, when examining the criterion of association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures, the existence of that brotherhood link must be examined as a matter of fact.
119    That said, it is at this stage necessary to ascertain whether all the evidence adduced by the Council discharges the burden of proof borne by it, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 73 above, and thus constitutes a set of indicia that is sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to substantiate the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue.
120    In that regard, it is apparent from the 2020 and 2021 reasons that the Council concluded that the applicant was associated with his brother, Samer Foz, due to their activities in Aman Holding and ASM International General Trading. Furthermore, as regards the 2021 reasons, the applicant’s name was also maintained on the lists at issue because he had business links to a number of commercial projects and to various activities with ISIL carried out on behalf of the Syrian regime. It is therefore necessary to examine each of those elements separately.
–       The applicant’s family business interests in Aman Holding
121    In the first place, the applicant and his brother, Samer Foz, are involved with Aman Holding, a family business established in 1988 by their father. In that regard, the Court finds, having regard to the information from the websites Aliqtisadi, Emmar Syria and The Syria Report and, as regards the 2021 maintaining acts, from the website Pro-Justice, that the applicant and his brother are founder shareholders of Aman Holding, which is confirmed by Article 6 of the articles of association of the company produced by the applicant. According to the website Emmar Syria, the applicant and his brother each hold 33.3% of its shares, which is confirmed by Article 8 of those articles of association. The applicant’s father is also a founder shareholder of the company. Lastly, the applicant confirms that he has a business link which he describes as ‘remote’ with Aman Holding.
122    Furthermore, it is apparent from documents WK 1751/2020 INIT and WK 4361/2021 INIT that the applicant and his brother, Samer Foz, hold or have held positions of responsibility within Aman Holding. According to the websites Resumonk and Aliqtisadi, the applicant held the post of Deputy General Manager from January 2009 to December 2011, which he confirms in his written pleadings. Furthermore, Samer Foz manages Aman Holding, as is shown by the websites Al Arabiya, Visualize Me, The Syria Report and the websites of the Brookings Institution and the United States Department of the Treasury. That point is confirmed, in essence, by the applicant.
123    In the second place, Aman Holding has a significant influence within the Syrian economy, as shown by the websites of Al Arabiya and the United States Department of the Treasury, which describe Aman Holding as a ‘business empire’.
124    First, it is a family business with activities in many sectors. Specifically, the websites Emmar Syria, Al Arabiya, The Syria Report, Factiva, Arab News, Reuters, News Deeply and that of the United States Department of the Treasury state that the undertakings forming part of Aman Holding develop activities in the following areas: construction, by participating in the Marota City project through the joint venture Aman Dimashq; foodstuffs as a result, inter alia, of its participation in the wheat market and the creation of a company for the construction of a sugar refinery licensed exclusively to produce sugar; tourism, with a 55% share in the Four Seasons Hotel in Damascus; automotive assembly, as a result of agreements concluded with several renowned car manufacturers; and pharmaceutical products. That element is, in essence, confirmed by the applicant.
125    Second, according to the websites of the United States Department of the Treasury, Al Arabiya and The Syria Report, Aman Holding has a number of shareholdings in several other companies, including a ‘dozen’ in Syria, such as MENA and Al-Mohaimen, a pharmaceutical factory, the joint venture Emmar Industries, the Four Seasons Hotel in Damascus and the restaurant and event space Orient Club.
126    In the third place, Aman Holding carries out a number of significant commercial projects. First, the websites of Emmar Syria and the United States Department of the Treasury state that Aman Holding invested in the financial sector by acquiring 1.5 million shares in the Syria International Islamic Bank (worth SYP 1.28 thousand million) and 8 949 842 and subsequently 592 250 shares in Al Baraka Bank Syria (worth SYP 8.3 thousand million and SYP 841 million).
127    Second, Aman Holding is also involved in the Marota City project. It may be concluded, on reading the articles from the websites The Syria Report, Syrian Law Journal, News Deeply and Open Democracy (i) that Aman Holding established the joint venture Aman Dimashq – which is confirmed by the applicant – and (ii) that Aman Dimashq has USD 18.9 million in capital and was established for the purpose of constructing several buildings in the context of the Marota City project. In particular, according to the website The Syria Report, Aman Dimashq was granted the right to build 3 70-floor skyscrapers and 5 residential buildings. Lastly, Aman Dimashq’s investment amounts to USD 312 million. Furthermore, it is apparent from the websites The Syria Report, Syrian Law Journal, The Foundation for Strategic Research, The Syrian Observer, and those of the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, Eqtsad News, News Deeply and Open Democracy that it is a large-scale development backed by the Syrian regime and carried out on expropriated land in Basateen Al-Razi, in the Mazeeh district, Damascus. That area covers 2.15 million square metres and is close to the city centre of Damascus, the embassies and the security services, which makes it attractive to real estate developers. That project includes building skyscrapers, 12 000 residential units with housing capacity for 60 000 people and commercial and leisure buildings. It should be noted that those elements are, in essence, confirmed by the evidence produced by the applicant, in particular by the ‘illustrated handbook about [that project] and the Basateen Al-Razi area’.
128    In the fourth place, it may be found, in the light of the information from the websites LinkedIn, Aliqtisadi and The Syria Report, that the applicant worked at Emaar Industries for 15 years before settling in Dubai and that his brother holds the position of Chairman. Emaar Industries is a joint undertaking of Aman Holding, as is apparent from the website The Syria Report. The applicant did not dispute those elements.
129    It follows from all of the foregoing that the applicant is linked to his brother, Samer Foz, because of his status as a founder shareholder of Aman Holding, a company with numerous activities in various sectors of the Syrian economy.
130    The applicant puts forward a number of arguments in order to call that conclusion into question.
131    First, the applicant denies that he is a shareholder of Aman Holding since he claims to have definitively and irrevocably disposed of his shareholding. In the reply, he produces, in that regard, a contract of sale dated 2 April 2020 by which he sold the shares he held in Aman Holding to A (‘the contract of sale of 2 April 2020’), a letter from the Syrian Ministry of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection of 22 November 2020 attesting to the new composition of the shareholding of Aman Holding (‘the letter of 22 November 2020’) and the registration certificate of Aman Holding dated 3 December 2020 (‘the registration certificate’).
132    As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, as the Council maintains in the rejoinder, the contract of sale of 2 April 2020 constitutes inadmissible evidence for the purpose of challenging the initial measures and the 2020 maintaining acts, because that contract bears a date that is earlier than the date on which the application and the first statement of modification were lodged. In accordance with Article 85(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, evidence produced or offered is to be submitted in the first exchange of pleadings, but the parties may produce or offer further evidence in support of their arguments in the reply, provided that the delay in the submission of such evidence is justified. At the hearing, the applicant did not put forward any argument to justify the late submission of that evidence. Therefore, that contract constitutes inadmissible evidence in support of his challenge to the initial acts and the 2020 maintaining acts.
133    As regards the initial measures and the 2020 maintaining acts, the letter of 22 November 2020 and the registration certificate attesting to the new distribution of the shareholding of Aman Holding in favour of A are dated after the date of adoption of those acts, that is to say, 17 February and 28 May 2020 respectively. Furthermore, the applicant acknowledges that the formalities relating to the official statement of the share transfer ending the legal procedure were finalised on 7 October 2020, that is to say, after the adoption of those acts and measures.
134    Next, it is settled case-law that the legality of an EU measure must be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when the measure was adopted (see judgments of 3 September 2015, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Commission, C‑398/13 P, EU:C:2015:535, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited, and of 4 September 2015, NIOC and Others v Council, T‑577/12, not published, EU:T:2015:596, paragraph 112 and the case-law cited).
135    Consequently, as regards the initial measures and the 2020 maintaining acts, since the transfer of the shares in Aman Holding held by the applicant happened after the adoption of those measures and acts, it cannot call into question their legality.
136    By contrast, as regards the 2021 maintaining acts, the three items of evidence submitted by the applicant and referred to in paragraphs 131 and 132 above predate the adoption of those acts, namely 27 May 2021.
137    Thus, as regards the 2021 maintaining acts, the applicant has legitimately established that he had transferred his shares in Aman Holding to A prior to the date on which those acts were adopted. It is also apparent from the letter of 22 November 2020 that, following the transfer of his shares, the applicant no longer holds a position of responsibility within Aman Holding. It follows that, in respect of the 2021 maintaining acts, the Council could not rely on the applicant’s shareholding in Aman Holding in order to establish a link between him and Samer Foz.
138    In the second place, the applicant denies that he is actively involved in Aman Holding, arguing that he is merely a founder shareholder ‘on paper’ in order to ensure the legal protection of the ownership of family assets in the event of the death of one of the founder shareholders. He claims that he did not behave like a shareholder and never exercised the theoretical rights associated with that status given, first of all, that he was no longer present in Syria, second, that he neither managed nor followed the activities of the company controlled by his brother and was not interested in it, moreover, that it was ‘agreed’ that he would not receive dividends or profits from Aman Holding and, finally, that he was subsequently to dispose of the shares he held.
139    It should be noted that, in so doing, the applicant does not dispute, in essence, that he is a founder shareholder of Aman Holding, but merely disputes the claim that he enjoys the rights associated with that status. The applicant has not adduced any specific evidence to substantiate his claim. On the contrary, it must be held that Article 6 of Aman Holding’s articles of association, produced by the applicant, does not establish different categories of founder shareholders. Moreover, as the Council points out, the applicant does not rely on any other provision of those articles of association in order to substantiate his claim. Furthermore, as regards the applicant’s claim that he agreed not to receive dividends or profits from the company, first, he has adduced no evidence capable of proving this and, second, Article 59 of the articles of association, headed ‘Net profit distribution’, does not reflect that such a decision was ever actually taken. On the other hand, it is apparent from the website Pro-Justice, in essence, that the applicant benefits from one third of the value of the contracts implemented by Samer Foz on behalf of the Syrian regime because he holds shares in Aman Holding, which carried out a number of massive projects. Consequently, as regards the initial measures and the 2020 maintaining acts, the applicant has not succeeded in calling into question the finding that he is involved in Aman Holding and that he is likely to benefit from that company’s activities.
140    In the third place, the applicant submits that the economic, industrial and commercial importance of Aman Holding has declined because of the health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the sanctions imposed by the United States of America and the European Union in respect of Samer Foz. According to him, numerous projects and activities have been stopped entirely or are functioning at minimal capacity. He adds that Aman Holding has put any new investment on hold and that many jobs are threatened. However, he has produced no evidence to substantiate those allegations or to specify which activities of Aman Holding’s undertakings, in particular, have diminished or been stopped. Accordingly, that argument must be rejected.
141    In the fourth place, the applicant disputes that Aman Holding controls the Syria International Islamic Bank and Al Baraka Bank Syria in that the ‘figures’ concerning the number and value of the shares in those two banks are incorrect. He maintains that the ‘very limited portions of shares’ in those banks were acquired for the sole purpose of trading in order to obtain short- or mid-run capital gains but never with a view to controlling those institutions as a minority shareholder. Moreover, those banks are not subsidiaries of Aman Holding.
142    In that regard, it should be noted, first, that the applicant does not dispute that Aman Holdings has such shareholdings, but disputes rather their objectives, second, that he does not substantiate his claims to that effect and, third, that those shareholdings, amounting to SYP 1.28 thousand million, SYP 8.3 thousand million and SYP 841 million, cannot be described as ‘limited’. His argument must therefore be rejected.
143    In the fifth place, as to the remainder, the applicant denies that he is directly or indirectly involved in the Marota City project. It should be noted that, according to the 2020 reasons, the adoption of the initial measures and of the 2020 maintaining acts is based, inter alia, on the ‘[applicant’s] personal and family business interests and [on the fact that he operates] activities in multiple sectors of the Syrian economy, including through Aman Holding [through which he is involved in the] development of Marota City’. In other words, it is not claimed, in the 2020 reasons, that he has direct involvement in that project. Furthermore, it is apparent from paragraphs 127 and 139 above that Aman Holding is involved in the joint venture Aman Dimashq, which implements that project. Consequently, the applicant, as a founder shareholder, is indeed involved in the project in question. That argument, therefore, must be rejected.
144    Consequently, it must be concluded that, as regards the initial measures and the 2020 maintaining acts, the Council sufficiently substantiated the association between the applicant and Samer Foz on account of their business links with Aman Holding. By contrast, their business links with that company are not sufficiently substantiated as regards the 2021 maintaining acts.
–       His family business interests in ASM International General Trading
145    It is apparent from the information on the websites of the United States Department of the Treasury, ‘about.me’, Resumonk, LinkedIn and Aliqtisadi that the applicant has been General Manager of ASM International General Trading since 2012, established in Dubai. The applicant does not dispute this.
146    Furthermore, according to the websites of the United States Department of the Treasury and Arab News, ASM International General Trading is a joint venture of Aman Holding. The website of The Times states that ASM International General Trading is the main business of the applicant’s brother, Samer Foz, while the websites of the United States Department of the Treasury and Visualize Me specify that Samer Foz holds a position of responsibility in that venture. Lastly, Samer Foz’s involvement is confirmed by the evidence adduced by the applicant.
147    In that regard, the applicant submits that the fact that he and his brother are associated as shareholders in ASM International General Trading is a ‘preposterous allegation’, since that company was liquidated and dissolved on 26 March 2019. In support of his claim, he produces a set of documents relating to that company. In particular, they are, first, minutes of the general extraordinary assembly of 26 March 2019, second, a liquidation certificate of 21 July 2019, third, four ‘certificates’ dated 22 July 2019 and, fourth, a certificate dated 25 February 2020 cancelling a trade licence. In essence, he disputes the relevance of the date accepted by the Council, namely 25 February 2020, which is indicated in the latter certificate, which constitutes another administrative formality which, chronologically, follows the liquidation and dissolution of a company as a legal person.
148    It should be borne in mind that, according to the case-law cited in paragraph 134 above, the legality of an EU measure must be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when the measure was adopted.
149    It is therefore necessary to determine the date on which ASM International General Trading was dissolved and liquidated. In that regard, contrary to what the applicant claims, the date of 25 February 2020 must be accepted. First of all, there is nothing to indicate that the administrative formality relating to the cancellation of the trade licence is not an additional formality required in the context of the procedure for the liquidation and dissolution of that company. In that regard, the applicant produced, in support of his claim, the certificate of 25 February 2020 cancelling the trade licence with all the documents referred to in paragraph 147 above, without specifying that it was a separate administrative procedure from the procedure which leads to the dissolution and liquidation of the company, or showing the chronological progress of the administrative formalities necessary for the dissolution and liquidation of a company in the United Arab Emirates. Next, it is apparent, in essence, from an analysis of that set of documents that the general assembly of ASM International General Trading took the decision to liquidate the company in March 2019. Nevertheless, it appears that the liquidation and dissolution proceedings were pending after that date, as demonstrated, first, by the four certificates, dated 22 July 2019, indicating the entry into force of a grace period of 45 days from their date of issuance and, second, the content of the liquidation certificate of 21 July 2019 issued by ASM International General Trading. That certificate shows that the Dubai Department of Economic Development commenced the procedure for the dissolution of the company by recording in the Dubai commercial register the appointment of a liquidator. Lastly, the content of the certificate of 25 February 2020 cancelling the trade licence indicates that that company was removed from the commercial register. Consequently, the Council did not err in accepting 25 February 2020 as the date of dissolution and liquidation of ASM International General Trading.
150    As regards the initial measures, dated 17 February 2020, it is clear that ASM International General Trading had not yet been dissolved and liquidated on the date of their adoption. Consequently, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 134 above, that fact cannot call into question their legality.
151    However, as regards the 2020 and 2021 maintaining acts, the applicant, by producing the evidence referred to in paragraph 147 above, has shown, without being contradicted by the Council, that the date of liquidation and dissolution of ASM International General Trading was prior to the date on which those acts were adopted (28 May 2020 and 27 May 2021, respectively). Consequently, that company no longer existed at the time of their adoption and, as a result, the applicant and Samer Foz could no longer be associated with it.
152    In the light of all the foregoing, it must be concluded that the applicant and his brother, Samer Foz, maintained, at the time when the initial measures were adopted, business links due to their involvement in ASM International General Trading. By contrast, as regards the 2020 and 2021 maintaining acts, the applicant and Samer Foz no longer had such links on that basis.
153    That conclusion is not invalidated by the Council’s argument that the dissolution and liquidation of ASM International General Trading were relevant only for the purposes of assessing the 2021 maintaining acts. The same applies to the Council’s argument that the applicant did not specify that information in the letter of 10 April 2020, and no information in the file indicates that that company was liquidated before the adoption of the 2020 maintaining acts.
154    In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in reviewing the legality of the inclusion and maintaining of a person or entity on lists drawn up by the Council, it is for the EU judicature to determine whether the facts alleged are made out in the light of the information or evidence provided by the competent EU authority and to assess the probative value of that information or evidence in the light of any observations submitted in relation to them by, inter alia, the person or entity concerned, as recalled in paragraph 75 above. Thus, the EU judicature may rely on all of the evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory, which has been submitted to it by the parties during the judicial proceedings. In that regard, it is apparent from Article 27(4) and Article 28(4) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, and from recital 15 of Decision 2015/1836 that ‘all listing decisions should be made on an individual and case-by-case basis taking into account the proportionality of the measure’. Thus, the assessment of the legality of the inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists in question cannot be restricted on the ground that he did not refer to that information during the review procedure that took place prior to the adoption of the 2020 maintaining acts (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 October 2012, Oil Turbo Compressor v Council, T‑63/12, EU:T:2012:579, paragraphs 21 to 24).
155    Accordingly, it must be concluded that, as regards the initial measures, the Council sufficiently substantiated the link between the applicant and Samer Foz on account of their business links with ASM International General Trading. By contrast, their business links with that company are not sufficiently substantiated as regards the 2020 and 2021 maintaining acts.
–       Implementation of a number of commercial projects in the Adra al-Ummaliyya area (Damascus suburbs)
156    The 2021 reasons state that the applicant implements a number of commercial projects, in particular in the Adra al-Ummaliyya area (Damascus suburbs). Those projects include a factory that manufactures cables and cable accessories as well as a project to produce electricity using solar power. Those details are set out on the website Pro-Justice.
157    According to the Council, the evidence in document WK 4361/2021 INIT shows that companies associated with the applicant and his brother are involved in a number of projects in the Adra al-Ummaliyya area.
158    It should be recalled that the burden of proof is on the Council, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 73 above. In addition, in view of the situation in Syria, the Council discharges the burden of proof borne by it if it presents to the Courts of the European Union a set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to establish that there is a sufficient link between the person subject to a measure freezing his funds and the regime being combated (judgments of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, paragraph 53, and of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑605/13 P, EU:C:2015:248, paragraph 53).
159    In the present case, first, it is not possible to establish with sufficient certainty that the company of which the applicant is a co-founder and which manufactures cables and plastic granulates, as mentioned on the website Aliqtisadi, refers to the ‘factory that manufactures cables’ mentioned in the 2021 reasons. Second, the information on the website Pro-Justice is not corroborated by other evidence from documents WK 1751/2020 INIT and WK 4361/2021 INIT. When it was questioned in that regard during the hearing, the Council did not provide any more details.
160    Consequently, the Council has not submitted a set of indicia that is sufficiently precise and consistent to establish that the applicant implemented a certain number of commercial projects in the Adra al-Ummaliyya area and, therefore, the existence of business links between the applicant and Samer Foz in that context.
–       The various activities with ISIL carried out by the applicant and his brother, Samer Foz, on behalf of the Syrian regime
161    According to the wording of the 2021 reasons, the various activities with ISIL carried out on behalf of the Syrian regime include, inter alia, ‘the provision of weapons and ammunitions in exchange for wheat and oil’.
162    It can be established, in the light of the information from the website Pro-Justice, that the applicant and his brother carried out activities on behalf of the Syrian regime, including the provision of weapons and ammunition in exchange for wheat and oil. According to that website, that trade took place when ISIL controlled eastern Syria, which, moreover, was confirmed by an ISIL leader. The website The Syria Report mentions that the transport of wheat, in particular, in areas controlled by ISIL is carried out by Aman Holding’s subsidiary, which is another factor indicating Samer Foz’s importance in the eyes of the Syrian regime. Aman Holding, which is managed by the Foz family, acts on behalf of the Syrian regime in the grain trade, according to the Reuters website. It is stated on the latter website that Aman Holding acts as a broker in the grain trade for Hoboob, a company owned by the Syrian State. Aman Holding confirms that it imported wheat into Syria in 2013. Finally, ASM International General Trading, established in the United Arab Emirates, also operated in the wheat trade, as is apparent from the websites Arab News and Al Arabiya.
163    Therefore, as is apparent from paragraph 162 above, the Council has adduced a set of indicia that are sufficiently specific, precise and consistent within the meaning of the case-law. Thus, that part of the 2021 reasons is sufficiently substantiated. That conclusion is not called into question by the applicant’s unsubstantiated argument that those accusations are the result of peremptory assertions which are, consequently, unfounded.
164    Therefore, it must be concluded that, as regards that part of the 2021 reasons, the Council sufficiently substantiated the link between the applicant and Samer Foz on account of their various activities carried out on behalf of the Syrian regime with ISIL.
–       Conclusions on association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures
165    In the first place, it is clear from the foregoing that the applicant and his brother, Samer Foz, have links in the context of business. First of all, the Council has demonstrated that, at the time when the initial measures were adopted, the applicant and Samer Foz had business links through the family business Aman Holding and ASM International General Trading. Next, as regards the 2020 maintaining acts, the Council demonstrated that the two brothers had business links through that family undertaking. Finally, as regards the 2021 maintaining acts, the Council has demonstrated that the applicant and his brother had business links, since they carried out activities with ISIL on behalf of the Syrian regime.
166    The business links between the applicant and his brother, Samer Foz, are also reflected in a form of concertation in how their share portfolios are managed. First, it is apparent from the letter of 22 November 2020 and the registration certificate, attesting to the new distribution of the shareholding of Aman Holding, produced by the applicant, that he and Samer Foz both transferred their shares in Aman Holding during the same period (between 22 November 2020 and 3 December 2020). In that regard, the applicant’s argument that the disposal of his shares before the expiry of a period of three years was unlawful under Article 96(1) of the Syrian law on ‘Preventing the trade of shares’ is not sufficiently borne out by evidence. Nor is that argument well founded, since, despite the applicant’s claim that he intended to divest himself rapidly of his shareholding, he establishes only that he signed the sale contract of 2 April 2020, namely more than one month and three weeks after the end of the period prescribed by Article 96(1) of that law. In any event, that circumstance in no way diminishes the fact that the disposal of the shares held by the applicant and Samer Foz took place within a very short period of time. Second, the decision to liquidate ASM International General Trading shows that there was some form of concertation, as the Council maintains. In that regard, it is apparent from the evidence produced by the applicant that the decision was taken on 26 March 2019 by the shareholders comprising the extraordinary assembly of that company, including Samer Foz and the applicant, in reaction to the inclusion of Samer Foz’s name on the lists at issue in January 2019.
167    Finally, in his written pleadings, the applicant does not claim to have broken off his relations with Samer Foz or distanced himself from him. Consequently, the links between the applicant and his brother continue.
168    In the second place, the applicant submits that the evidence annexed to the application shows that he is not associated with the regime, or that he does not exercise influence over it, and that he poses no risk of circumvention.
169    It should be recalled that compliance by the General Court with the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence as regards restrictive measures requires the General Court to respect the principle established in the settled case-law referred to in paragraph 73 above and reiterated most recently by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 11 September 2019, HX v Council (C‑540/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:707, paragraphs 48 to 50), according to which, in essence, the burden of proof lies with the institution in the event of a challenge to the merits of the reasons for listing. The Court of Justice thus held that the burden of proving the existence of sufficient information, within the meaning of Article 27(3) and Article 28(3) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, showing that the person concerned was never, or is no longer, associated with the Syrian regime, did not exercise influence over the regime and did not pose a real risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures adopted in respect of that regime did not fall on the person concerned (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgments of 14 June 2018, Makhlouf v Council, C‑458/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:441, paragraph 86, and of 11 September 2019, HX v Council, C‑540/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:707, paragraphs 50 and 51).
170    Consequently, an applicant can put forward arguments or evidence capable of seriously calling into question the reliability of the evidence submitted by the Council or the Council’s assessment, in particular in the light of the conditions laid down in Article 27(3) and Article 28(3) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, or produce before the EU judicature a set of indicia establishing that he or she was not, or is no longer, associated with the Syrian regime, that he or she did not exercise influence over the regime and that he or she did not pose a real risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures, in accordance with Article 27(3) and Article 28(3) of that decision (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 8 July 2020, Zubedi v Council, T‑186/19, EU:T:2020:317, paragraph 71).
171    First, the applicant claims that there are profound dissensions between [confidential] 2F(2) and the Al-Assad family. Those dissensions, according to the applicant, derive from the fact that [confidential] was imprisoned, as a political prisoner, by Hafez Al-Assad when the latter acceded to power in 1970. In support of that assertion, he produced two letters addressed to the Court signed [confidential] by [confidential], attesting, in essence, to the aversion of [confidential] to the regime. It should be pointed out, first of all, that half a century has passed since [confidential] was imprisoned by Hafez Al-Assad. The applicant, however, has failed to explain how, specifically, that event still constitutes a source of conflict between [confidential] nowadays; nor has he put forward any evidence to support that claim. In that regard, concerning the letters brought by the applicant, the Court notes that those statements, from persons who are [confidential], have only limited probative value (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 31 May 2018, Kaddour v Council, T‑416/16, EU:T:2018:316, paragraph 116).
172    Second, the assertion that the applicant is not part of Bashar Al-Assad’s family, that he has no link to the security services or even that he is not a member of the Alawite community, relies on a truncated reading of the article published on the website The Syria Report. That article states that ‘the Foz family’s strong tie to [the] first cousin of Bashar [Al-Assad], [who is] the person in charge of the personal security of Syria’s two last presidents, Hafez Al-Assad, and [his successor], Bashar [Al-Assad], is believed by several sources in Damascus to be a prime factor behind the ascendancy of the [Foz] family’ and that ‘now, the [Foz] family is believed to be directly tied to Bashar Al-Assad himself’.
173    Furthermore, it should be recalled that, according to Article 27(3) and Article 28(3) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, the persons, entities and bodies within one of the categories referred to in Article 27(2) and Article 28(2) of that decision are not to be included or retained on the lists of persons and entities set out in Annex I to Decision 2013/255 if there is sufficient information indicating, inter alia, that they do not pose a real risk of circumvention. That criterion was reproduced, with regard to the freezing of funds, in Article 15(1b) of Regulation No 36/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1828.
174    In that respect, as regards persons associated with persons providing support to the government in question, it should be noted that, when the funds of the latter are frozen, there is a non-negligible risk that they may exert pressure on persons associated with them in order to circumvent the effect of the measures to which they are subject (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 April 2021, Sharif v Council, T‑540/19, not published, EU:T:2021:220, paragraph 159, and, by analogy, judgment of 4 September 2015, NIOC and Others v Council, T‑577/12, not published, EU:T:2015:596, paragraph 139).
175    In the present case, the applicant’s brother, Samer Foz, who is included on the lists at issue, occupies a privileged position in the Syrian economy. To that effect, the information from the websites of the Atlantic Council and The Syria Report indicates that he is one of the most powerful businessmen in Syria. He is described as ‘the new Rami Makhlouf’ by the websites of the Brookings Institution and The Syria Report. Furthermore, the article from the website of The Times adds that Samer Foz’s businesses continue to operate despite the EU fund-freezing sanctions imposed on him in January 2019.
176    In view of Samer Foz’s privileged position in the Syrian economy and his influence, the current or past business links between the applicant and Samer Foz, the fact that they are brothers, the significance of the family business in which they held shares and occupied positions of responsibility and the fact that it is impossible to rule out concertation between the applicant and Samer Foz in the disposal of their shares in Aman Holding and the dissolution and liquidation of ASM International General Trading, it is reasonable to think that the applicant poses a real risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures.
177    Consequently, in the light of all the foregoing, the Court finds that the reason for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue due to his association with a person subject to restrictive measures is sufficiently substantiated, with the result that, in the light of that criterion, the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue is well founded.
178    According to case-law, given the preventive nature of the decisions adopting restrictive measures, if the Courts of the European Union consider that, at the very least, one of the reasons mentioned is sufficiently detailed and specific, that it is substantiated and that it constitutes in itself sufficient basis to support that decision, the fact that the same cannot be said of other such reasons cannot justify the annulment of that decision (see judgment of 28 November 2013, Council v Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft, C‑348/12 P, EU:C:2013:776, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).
179    Accordingly, it is necessary, without there being any need to examine the merits of the other complaints raised by the applicant seeking to call into question the other reasons for listing, to reject the first plea as unfounded.
Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers
180    The applicant argues that the Council adopted the contested measures in order to target not the Syrian regime but the applicant himself, although he has at all times, first, complied with the sanctions ordered by the European Union and the international community and, second, remained independent of the Syrian regime. The applicant claims that he is excluded from the market in order to favour other business operators.
181    The Council contests the applicant’s arguments.
182    It should be borne in mind that a measure is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence to have been taken with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated or of evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case (see judgment of 25 November 2014, Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council, T‑384/11, EU:T:2014:986, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
183    In the present case, the applicant merely raises suspicions as to the existence of a misuse of powers and does not explain how the Council pursued an objective other than that which is apparent from Decision 2015/1836, namely exerting pressure on the Syrian regime in order for it to change its policies of repression. He has in no way substantiated that claim or adduced any evidence or argument whatsoever in support of it. In the light of the foregoing, the fourth plea must be rejected.
Second and third pleas in law, taken together, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, of the right to property and of the freedom to pursue an economic activity
184    First, the applicant claims that the restrictive measures concerning him are disproportionate. In his opinion, in view of the fact that he was denied any international commercial contact and was therefore expelled from his professional environment, he was forced into unemployment. He claims that, in practice, the restrictive measures concerning him prevent him from pursuing any professional activity and from carrying on any economic activity in his professional and private life. He adds that neither he nor the companies in which he holds shares, whether directly or indirectly, support the Syrian regime, with the result that the restrictive measures concerning him are not appropriate in the light of the objectives of the contested measures.
185    Second, the applicant takes the view, in essence, that the contested measures infringe his right to property and his freedom to pursue an economic activity, which also constitutes an infringement of the First Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950.
186    Third, the applicant submits, in the first and second statements of modification, that the extension of the restrictive measures concerning him under, respectively, the 2020 and 2021 maintaining acts exacerbates the disproportionate consequences of those measures for him.
187    The Council contests the applicant’s arguments.
188    It should be borne in mind that it is apparent from case-law that the fundamental rights relied on by the applicant, namely the right to property, enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter, and the freedom to pursue an economic activity, enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter, are not absolute rights and that their exercise may be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of general interest pursued by the European Union. Thus, any restrictive economic or financial measure entails, ex hypothesi, consequences affecting the right to property and the freedom to pursue an economic activity of the person or entity subject to that measure, so causing harm to that person or entity. The importance of the aims pursued by the restrictive measures at issue is, however, such as to justify negative consequences, even of a substantial nature, for the persons or entities concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 March 2015, Central Bank of Iran v Council, T‑563/12, EU:T:2015:187, paragraph 115).
189    Furthermore, while respect for fundamental rights is a condition for the legality of EU acts, according to established case-law, those fundamental rights do not enjoy absolute protection under EU law, but must be viewed in relation to their function in society. Consequently, restrictions may be placed on the use of those rights, provided that they actually correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the European Union and do not constitute, in the light of the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference which would undermine the very substance of the rights thus guaranteed (see judgment of 13 September 2013, Makhlouf v Council, T‑383/11, EU:T:2013:431, paragraph 97 and the case-law cited).
190    Moreover, it is clear from settled case-law that the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EU law and is referred to in Article 5(4) TEU, 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 (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 November 2012, Al-Aqsa v Council and Netherlands v Al-Aqsa, C‑539/10 P and C‑550/10 P, EU:C:2012:711, paragraph 122; of 25 June 2015, Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council, T‑95/14, EU:T:2015:433, paragraph 60 (not published); and of 14 March 2017, Bank Tejarat v Council, T‑346/15, not published, EU:T:2017:164, paragraph 149).
191    As regards the applicant’s right to property and freedom to pursue an economic activity, it is true that those rights are limited by the restrictive measures concerning him, since he cannot, inter alia, make use of any of his funds which are situated in the territory of the European Union, nor transfer them to the European Union, unless given special authorisation.
192    However, in the present case, the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant is appropriate, since it is compatible with an objective of general interest as fundamental to the international community as the protection of civilian populations. The freezing of the funds, financial assets and other economic resources, and the prohibition of entry into the territory of the European Union, of persons identified as being involved in supporting the Syrian regime cannot, in themselves, be regarded as inappropriate (see judgment of 13 September 2013, Makhlouf v Council, T‑383/11, EU:T:2013:431, paragraph 100 and the case-law cited).
193    As regards the allegedly disproportionate nature of the inclusion and maintaining of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, it should be borne in mind that Article 28(6) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, and Article 16 of Regulation No 36/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1828, provide for the possibility, first, to authorise the use of frozen funds to meet essential needs or to satisfy certain commitments and, second, to grant specific authorisation for the release of certain funds, other financial assets or other economic resources (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgments of 3 September 2008, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461, paragraph 364, and of 15 November 2012, Al-Aqsa v Council and Netherlands v Al-Aqsa, C‑539/10 P and C‑550/10 P, EU:C:2012:711, paragraph 127).
194    It follows that, given the overriding importance of the protection of civilian populations in Syria, any restrictions on the applicant’s rights caused by the contested measures are justified by an objective of general interest and are not disproportionate to the aims pursued.
195    Lastly, as regards the extension of the temporal application of the restrictive measures adopted in respect of the applicant, pursuant to the 2020 and 2021 maintaining acts, which, according to the applicant, exacerbates the disproportionate consequences of those measures for him, it should be pointed out that, in the context of the adoption of such restrictive measures, the Council is required to carry out a periodic re-examination, in accordance with the second and third sentences of Article 34 of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, and with Article 32(4) of Regulation No 36/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1828, which entails each time the possibility for the person or entity concerned to put forward arguments and submit facts supporting its assertions (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 July 2020, Haswani v Council, C‑241/19 P, EU:C:2020:545, paragraphs 106 and 107).
196    Accordingly, the Council was entitled, after examining each time whether to maintain the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, to decide to extend those restrictive measures until 1 June 2021, and then until 1 June 2022.
197    In the light of the foregoing, the second and third pleas, taken together, must be rejected and, consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.
Costs
198    Under Article 134(1) 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.
199    In the present case, 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.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
hereby:
1.      Dismisses the action;
2.      Orders Mr Amer Foz to pay the costs.
Gervasoni
Madise
Martín y Pérez de Nanclares
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 May 2022.
E. Coulon
M. van der Woude
Registrar
President
Table of contents
Background to the dispute and events subsequent to the bringing of the action
Forms of order sought
Law
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons
Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial
First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment
Preliminary observations
Determination of the elements of the reasons for listing in respect of each of the listing criteria
Evidence submitted by the Council
The relevance of the evidence submitted by the Council
The reliability of the evidence submitted by the Council
The applicant’s association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures
– The scope of the listing criterion
– The applicant’s family business interests in Aman Holding
– His family business interests in ASM International General Trading
– Implementation of a number of commercial projects in the Adra al-Ummaliyya area (Damascus suburbs)
– The various activities with ISIL carried out by the applicant and his brother, Samer Foz, on behalf of the Syrian regime
– Conclusions on association with a person or entity subject to restrictive measures
Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers
Second and third pleas in law, taken together, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, of the right to property and of the freedom to pursue an economic activity
Costs
*      Language of the case: English.
1      This judgment is published in extract form.
2      Confidential data omitted.