In the matter of restrictive measures taken against persons supporting the Syrian regime, where: (1) the appointment of the president and vice-president of a business council for promoting the Syrian economy and developing its undertakings and commercial and investment activities requires a government decision; and (2) the function of the person subject to restrictive measures within such a business council can be explained only by a certainty proximity to the regime in power and constitutes an undisputed fact which bears witness to a certain link with that regime, that proximity enables the Council validly to conclude that the said person benefits from the regime, supports it and is associated with it within the meaning of Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255 and Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 36/2012.

Acts imposing restrictive measures on persons, entities and bodies recognised as being either responsible for the violent repression of peaceful demonstrations in various parts of Syria or associated with those responsible, adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU, which apply for 12 months, are constantly monitored and can be extended or modified, if necessary, if the Council considers that their objectives have not been attained, and which do not involve confiscation of the assets of the persons concerned as the fruits of crime, but a protective freezing, do not constitute a penalty or even imply an accusation of that nature. Such acts do not constitute a finding that an infringement has actually been committed, but are adopted in the context and for the purposes of an administrative procedure with a preservative function with the sole aim of enabling the Council to guarantee the protection of civilian populations. Therefore, the entering of a person subject to such measures on lists of such persons, entities and bodies does not infringe the principle of the presumption of innocence.

(see paras 73, 75-79)

Concerning restrictive measures taken against persons supporting the Syrian regime, the freezing of funds and economic resources constitutes a protective measure which is not deemed to deprive the persons concerned of their property. However, those measures undeniably involve a restriction on the use of property rights.

As regards the appropriateness of such measures, having regard to a public interest objective as fundamental for the international community as the protection of civil populations, the freezing of funds, financial assets and other economic resources and the prohibition on entry into EU territory of persons identified as being involved in support for the Syrian regime cannot, as such, be regarded as inappropriate.

As regards their necessity, alternative and less restrictive measures, such as a system of prior authorisation or an obligation to justify, a posteriori, how the funds transferred have been used, are not as effective in achieving the goal pursued, namely the application of pressure on those supporting the Syrian regime, having regard in particular to the possibility of circumventing the restrictions imposed.

Finally, the re-entry of persons subject to such measures on the lists of persons, entities and bodies recognised as being either responsible for the violent repression of peaceful demonstrations in various parts of Syria or associated with those responsible cannot be regarded as disproportionate on the alleged ground of potentially unlimited character, since such re-entry is subject to periodic re-examination with a view to ensuring that persons and entities no longer meeting the criteria for appearing on the list in question are removed from it. It follows that, in view of the primary importance of protecting the civilian populations in Syria and the exceptions allowed by the acts which adopted the measures in question, the restrictions of the right to property and respect for the applicant’s private life caused by the contested decisions are not disproportionate.

(see paras 58, 62-64, 66, 67)