In that context, the person or entity concerned may, in the action challenging their continued listing on a fund freezing list, dispute all the material relied on by the Council to demonstrate that the risk of their involvement in terrorist activities is ongoing, irrespective of whether that material is derived from a national decision adopted by a competent authority or from other sources. In the event of challenge, it is for the Council to establish that the facts alleged are well founded and for the Courts of the European Union to determine whether they are made out. In that regard, the Council cannot do no more than repeat the grounds for a decision of a competent authority while not itself considering whether those grounds are well founded.

With respect to decisions to maintain the imposition of restrictive measures on a person or entity, the Courts of the European Union are required to determine, in particular, first, whether the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU has been complied with and, therefore, whether the reasons relied on are sufficiently detailed and specific, and, second, whether those reasons are substantiated.

The essential question when reviewing whether to continue to include a person or entity on the fund freezing list is whether, since the inclusion of that person or that entity on that list or since the previous review, the factual situation has changed in such a way that it is no longer possible to draw the same conclusion in relation to the involvement of that person or entity concerned in terrorist activities. Consequently, in the context of a review pursuant to Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, the Council may maintain the listing of the person or entity concerned on the fund freezing list if it concludes that there is an ongoing risk of that person or entity being involved in the terrorist activities which justified their initial listing. The continued listing of a person or entity on that list is, therefore, in essence, an extension of the original listing.

Further, if, in view of the passage of time and in the light of changes in the circumstances of the case, the mere fact that the national decision that served as the basis for the original listing remains in force no longer supports the conclusion that there is an ongoing risk of the person or entity concerned being involved in terrorist activities, the Council is obliged to base the continued listing of that person or that entity on that list on an up-to-date assessment of the situation, and to take into account more recent facts which demonstrate that that risk still exists.

If more than ten years elapse between the adoption of the national decisions which served as the basis for the initial listing of a person or entity and the adoption of regulations implementing Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and between the initial listing and the adoption of those acts, that is in itself a factor which justifies a conclusion that the findings made in the national decisions that served as the basis for the initial listing are no longer sufficient for the purposes of determining whether the risk of the involvement of the person or entity concerned in terrorist activities persists at the time when those acts are adopted.

(see paras 52, 53, 69, 70, 95, 97)