Al Zoubi v Council (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Judgment) [2021] EUECJ T-257/19 (24 November 2021)

Judgment Background to the dispute and events subsequent to the bringing of the action The applicant, Mr Khaldoun Al Zoubi (or Al-Zoubi), is described by the Council of the European Union as a businessperson of Syrian nationality with interests and activities in multiple sectors of Syria’s economy. Strongly condemning the violent repression of peaceful protest in Syria and calling on the Syrian authorities to exercise restraint instead of force, the Council 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. The names of the persons responsible for the violent repression against the Syrian civilian population and 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. 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. 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 the persons whose names are listed in Annex I from being admitted to the territory of the European Union 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. 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). 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). 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). As set out in recital 6 of Decision 2015/1836, ‘the Council … assessed that because of the close control exercised over the economy by the Syrian regime, an inner cadre of leading businesspersons operating in Syria [was] only able to maintain its status by enjoying a close association with, and the support of, the regime, and by having influence within it’ and ‘the Council considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to impose restrictions on admission and to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by those leading businesspersons operating in Syria, as identified by [it] and listed in Annex I, in order to prevent them from providing material or financial support to the regime and, through their influence, to increase pressure on the regime itself to change its policies of repression’. 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 and for the funds of ‘leading businesspersons operating in Syria’ to be frozen, unless there is ‘sufficient information that [those persons] are not, or are no longer, associated with the regime or do not exercise influence over it or do not pose a real risk of circumvention’. 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 established by Decision 2015/1836 and inserted into Decision 2013/255. By Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13), and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4) (together, ‘the initial measures’), the applicant’s name was inserted at line 268 of Table A of the lists of the names of the natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex I to Decision 2013/255 and in Annex II to Regulation No 36/2012 (together, ‘the lists at issue’), with the following reasons being given: ‘Leading businessperson operating in Syria, with interests and activities in multiple sectors of Syria’s economy; including his roles as Vice President of Aman Holding and majority shareholder of Fly Aman airline. In this capacity, he is linked to Samer Foz. Aman Holding is represented on the board of, and holds a majority stake in, “Aman [Dimashq]”, a joint venture in the construction of Marota City, a regime-backed luxury residential and commercial development. [Al Zoubi] benefits from and/or supports the regime through his position as Vice President of Aman Holding.’ On 22 January 2019, the Council published in the Official Journal of the European Union a Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/255 and in Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2019 C 27, p. 3). By letter of 20 February 2019, the applicant’s representative objected to the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue and asked the Council to disclose to him the documents supporting that listing. By letter of 12 March 2019, first, the Council informed the applicant’s representative that, in essence, the applicant’s observations were not such as to call into question the decision to include the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. Secondly, the Council provided him with the document bearing the reference WK 47/2019 INIT, dated 28 February 2019, containing the evidence in support of the reasons for that listing. On 17 May 2019, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), which extended the application of the latter decision until 1 June 2020; on the same day, the Council also adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1) (together, ‘the 2019 maintaining acts’). The applicant’s name was maintained at a different line, line 286 of Table A of the lists at issue on the basis of reasons identical to those set out in the initial measures. By letter of 20 May 2019, the Council informed the applicant’s representative of the adoption of the 2019 maintaining acts and of the possibility of submitting a request, before 28 February 2020, that the decision to maintain the applicant’s name on the lists at issue be reconsidered. By letter of 28 February 2020, the applicant, through his representative, objected to his name being maintained on the lists at issue. By letters of 16 and 22 April 2020, the Council informed the applicant, first of all, of its intention to maintain his name on the lists at issue for reasons that differ in part from those set out in the 2019 maintaining acts. Next, the Council invited him to submit his observations on the proposed reasons for listing before 4 May 2020. Lastly, the Council provided him, first, with the document bearing the reference WK 3600/2020 INIT of 6 April 2020, and then the document bearing the reference WK 3600/2020 REV 1 of 20 April 2020 – which included a translation into French of the evidence that was in Arabic – containing the evidence in support of the proposed reasons for listing that differ in part from those set out in the 2019 maintaining acts. By letter of 4 May 2020, the applicant challenged the proposed reasons for listing on which the Council intended to rely as well as the reliability and accuracy of document WK 3600/2020 REV 1. On 28 May 2020, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), which extended the application of the latter decision until 1 June 2021, and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1) (together, ‘the 2020 maintaining acts’). The applicant’s name was maintained at line 286 of Table A of the lists at issue, for reasons that differ in part from those set out in the 2019 maintaining acts. The Council justified the adoption of restrictive measures concerning the applicant by giving the following reasons: ‘Leading businessperson operating in Syria, with interests and activities in multiple sectors of Syria’s economy, including his roles as Vice President of Aman Holding and majority shareholder of Fly Aman airline (until February 2019). In this capacity, he is linked to Samer Foz. Aman Holding is represented on the board of, and holds a majority stake in, Aman [Dimashq], a joint venture in the construction of Marota City, a regime‐backed luxury residential and commercial development. [Al Zoubi] benefits from and/or supports the Syrian regime. Founding member of Asas Iron Company.’ By letter of 2 June 2020, the Council informed the applicant’s representative of the adoption of the 2020 maintaining acts and of the possibility of submitting a request, before 1 March 2021, that they be reconsidered. The Council also informed the applicant’s representative that, in essence, the observations submitted in his letters of 28 February and 4 May 2020 were not such as to call into question the decision to maintain the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. Procedure and forms of order sought By application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 April 2019, the applicant brought the present action for annulment of the initial measures in so far as they concern the applicant. By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 30 July 2019, the applicant modified the application under Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, with the result that the application also seeks annulment of the 2019 maintaining acts in so far as they concern the applicant. The applicant also reiterated the form of order set out in the application. On 8 August 2019, the Council lodged the defence and the observations on the first statement of modification at the Court Registry. The reply was lodged on 1 October 2019. By decision of 17 October 2019, the President of the General Court, pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure, reassigned the case to a new Judge-Rapporteur, attached to the Fourth Chamber. The rejoinder was lodged on 8 January 2020. The written part of the procedure was closed on 8 January 2020. By way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89(3)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, on 23 July 2020, the Court asked the Council to answer a series of questions. The Council replied to the questions within the prescribed period. By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 13 August 2020, the applicant, under Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure, modified the application a second time, with the result that the application also seeks annulment of the 2020 maintaining acts in so far as they concern the applicant. The applicant also reiterated the form of order set out in the application and in the first statement of modification and put forward new arguments. By way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure, on 30 September 2020, the Court asked the Council to produce a document. The Council complied with that request within the prescribed period. At the hearing on 21 October 2020, the applicant did not submit observations on the Council’s replies to the various measures of organisation of procedure ordered by the Court. On 2 October 2020, the Council submitted its observations on the second statement of modification. The parties presented oral argument and replied to the questions put by the Court at the hearing on 21 October 2020. The applicant claims that the Court should: – annul the initial measures, the 2019 maintaining acts and the 2020 maintaining acts (together, ‘the contested measures’) in so far as they concern the applicant; – order the Council to pay the costs. 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 Implementing Decision 2019/87 and of Decisions 2019/806 and 2020/719 be maintained in so far as they concern the applicant, until the annulment of Implementing Regulations 2019/85, 2019/798 and 2020/716 takes effect in so far as they concern the applicant. Law In support of his action, the applicant relies on six pleas, alleging (i) errors 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) ‘abuse of power’; (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. It is appropriate to start by examining the first plea. The first plea, alleging errors of assessment In the first place, the applicant denies being a leading businessperson operating in Syria. In that regard, he disputes the evidence relied on by the Council in order to include his name on the lists at issue. In particular, the applicant argues that there is a clear distinction between the position he held as Head of Executive Directors of Aman Holding JSC and that of Vice President. In addition, the applicant claims that he has now resigned from that position. Next, he admits to being the founder and majority shareholder of Fly Aman LLC, but maintains that he has transferred his entire shareholding. In addition, the Council’s description of the applicant as a ‘leading businessman active in a variety of sectors in Syria and internationally’ is, according to the applicant, unsubstantiated, since document WK 47/2019 INIT refers to only two companies which have their headquarters in Syria and where the Council was able to prove that the applicant worked as well as his alleged status. The applicant is not, he claims, directly or indirectly, involved in the Marota City project, with the result that he cannot have developed expropriated land belonging to persons displaced by the conflict in Syria, which prevented them from returning to their homes. Furthermore, the tasks assigned to the applicant as an employee of Aman Holding – which is a shareholder of Aman Damascus JSC (‘Aman Dimashq’) with development rights over a portion of the plots of Marota City – never included overseeing the activities of Aman Dimashq, which was reserved to another employee, Mr Bashar Assi. Lastly, according to the applicant, the Marota City project does not in any way involve the development of expropriated land, with the result that neither the Marota City project as a whole nor Aman Dimashq can be described as ventures backed by the State. In the second place, as regards the 2020 maintaining acts, the applicant challenges the new reason for listing his name relating to his status as founding member of Asas Iron Company, and submits, in that regard, that he was never the founder or owner of Asas Iron Company and has never been otherwise involved in, or even associated with, that company. In the third place, the applicant submits that the Council has not produced sufficient information proving that he is associated with the Syrian regime. In addition, the evidence relating to the applicant’s obtaining Lebanese citizenship proves that he is not part of the inner cadre of businesspersons who are close to the Syrian regime and that he is in no way associated with that regime. In the fourth place, the applicant argues that much of the evidence concerns Mr Samer Foz or other companies related to Mr Foz but in which the applicant is not involved, such as Aman Dimashq. Furthermore, none of the evidence in document WK 47/2019 INIT expressly refers to the applicant’s supposed link to the Syrian regime. However, the applicant admits that, as a mere employee of Aman Holding, he did previously maintain a professional relationship with Mr Foz. The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments. Preliminary observations It should be borne in mind that the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 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). 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). 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). 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). 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). 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). 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). It should be borne in mind 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, 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 subject to restrictive measures, unless there is sufficient information that they are not, or are no longer, associated with the regime or do not exercise influence over it or do not pose a real risk of circumvention. It should be inferred from the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, referred to in paragraphs 12 and 21 above, that his name was included and maintained on the lists at issue by reason of, first, his status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria and, secondly, his association with the Syrian regime. In other words, the listing of the applicant’s name is based, first, 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), and, secondly, on the criterion defined in Article 27(1) and Article 28(1) of that decision and in Article 15(1)(a) of that regulation (criterion of association with the regime). In that regard, it should be pointed out that, while the Council stated in its pleadings that the applicant was included on the lists at issue solely on the basis of the listing criterion laid down in Article 27(2)(a) and Article 28(2)(a) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, it nevertheless stated at the hearing that the applicant had been listed on the basis of three listing criteria. In addition to the two criteria mentioned in paragraph 52 above, the Council stated that the applicant was listed because of his links to Mr Foz. Consequently, his listing is also based on the criterion defined in the last sentence of Article 27(2) and the last sentence of Article 28(2) of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, and in the last sentence of Article 15(1a) of Regulation No 36/2012, as amended by Regulation 2015/1828 (persons and entities associated with persons and entities falling within one of the criteria for inclusion on the EU lists). However, in the reasons for listing given by the Council in the contested measures, the second sentence of those reasons – which states that the applicant, ‘in this capacity, … is linked to Samer Foz’ – can be understood only by reference to the first sentence, which relates to the leading businessperson criterion. Consequently, the applicant’s name was indeed included and maintained on the lists at issue on the basis of the two criteria mentioned in paragraph 52 above. It is in the light of those considerations that it is necessary to examine the first plea raised by the applicant and, first of all, the arguments seeking, in essence, to challenge the first reason for listing, namely that the applicant is a leading businessperson operating in Syria. The evidence submitted by the Council First of all, in order to justify including and maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists set out in the annexes to the initial measures and to the 2019 maintaining acts, the Council produced document WK 47/2019 INIT containing publicly available information, namely links to websites, press articles and screenshots from: – the website ‘Salon Syria’, a blog consisting of media roundups which brings together new articles relating to Syria, including an article of 7 June 2018 headed ‘Syrian Controversy in Lebanon’; that article includes a declaration by the Lebanese Minister for the Interior in respect of a decree by the Lebanese Government granting Lebanese citizenship to foreign nationals, in particular Syrian nationals; that nationality was granted to 411 foreign nationals, including the applicant, who is referred to as the Vice President of Aman Holding; the applicant is described in the article as a well-known businessman from the inner circle of the Syrian Government; according to the article, the decree under which the applicant was naturalised was not published in advance in accordance with the rules in force and raises doubts as to the motives behind that naturalisation in so far as a significant proportion of the population living in Lebanon for a number of years is still awaiting naturalisation as Lebanese citizens; – the website ‘aawsat.com’, of the British daily newspaper Asharq al-Awsat (The Middle East), the article from which, headed ‘Exclusive – 4 “Suspicious” Names behind Freezing of Lebanon’s Naturalisation Decree’, was published on 8 June 2018 and gives details of the publication by the Lebanese authorities of the names of 400 persons who acquired Lebanese nationality under a controversial government decree; in addition, that article refers to the applicant as one of the foreign nationals who obtained Lebanese nationality and describes him as the director of the office of businessman Mr Foz; – the website ‘meirss.org’ of the Middle East Institute for Research and Strategic Studies (Meirss), the article from which headed ‘Lebanese Nationalisation Decree: Sanction Evasion & Shady Business?’ was published on 20 June 2018 and provides a more detailed analysis of the Lebanese Government naturalisation decree; that article refers to the applicant as Vice President of Aman Holding, a Syrian businessman and majority shareholder owning 90% of the shares in Fly Aman; lastly, the article states that the applicant is under international supervision because of his supposed association with the Syrian regime and his close ties to Mr Foz, a close confidant of President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime; – the Syrian website ‘7al.net’, containing an article headed ‘Two Employees of Businessman Samer Foz Founded an Airline’, published on 10 April 2018, which states that the applicant and Syrian businessman Mr Assi founded a new airline, Fly Aman, in Damascus (Syria); according to that article, the applicant and Mr Assi are employed by a company owned by Mr Foz; that article states that the Syrian Ministry of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection ratified the articles of association of Fly Aman, in which the applicant owns more than 90% of the shares; in addition, Fly Aman carries out information services for passengers and cargo, owns, purchases, leases, charters and invests in aircraft, arranges flight plans and provides consultancy services, ground services and agency services; lastly, according to that article, the civil aviation sector in Syria is experiencing great difficulties as a result of the military operations that have been ongoing for more than seven years, which have led to the cessation of tourist traffic and the termination of services at some airports; – a page from the website ‘LinkedIn’, a professional social network, containing a screenshot of Aman Holding’s page, accessed on 18 October 2018, on which the company described itself as one of the country’s largest, most diversified business conglomerates; Aman Holding is a diversified, privately owned global trading group owning an import company located in Syria; it has a unique standing in the Syrian business world and has many subsidiaries: Foz for Trading, the group’s holding company and one of the region’s largest importers of basic commodities; Al-Mohaimen for Transportation & Contracting, the group’s operational arm, which provides unlimited logistics support to Foz for Trading through a large ground fleet; and Emmar Industries, a strategic partnership in the steel industry (rolling mill plant and car assembly factory); Aman Holding has strategic relations with an extensive network of suppliers in over 30 countries across 4 continents, has a reliable highly skilled workforce, and modern integrated facilities; the group has its headquarters in Damascus and offices in Latakia, Hama, Homs and Tartus (Syria); – the website of Syrian newspaper Wall Street Journal which, in an article published on 5 September 2017, headed ‘Out of Syria’s Chaos, a Tycoon Builds a Fortune’, gives details of Mr Foz’s various business deals, who is reported to have built a fortune out of a war that shattered his country; in addition, the article states that Mr Foz stayed close to the Syrian Government throughout the war and subsequently did business with it; lastly, the article describes the companies owned by Mr Foz and names Aman Holding as the umbrella company; – the website ‘The Syrian Observer’, which, in a first 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; then, a second article, published on 6 August 2018 on the website ‘The Syrian Observer’ but taken from the ‘Salon Syria’ blog; that article is headed ‘Samer Foz is a Primary Target of US Sanctions’; in that article, Mr Foz is described as heading a number of companies and institutions that are under his authority; Mr Foz is thus described as the Executive President of Aman Holding, established in 1988, which was divided into a number of companies, including Foz for Trading, based on various investments in the export and import of foodstuffs, before Foz invested in real estate projects in Syria, Lebanon, Russia and elsewhere, and launched a television channel; – the website ‘The Syria Report’, which, in an article of 1 June 2018 headed ‘Factsheet: Marota City, Syria’s Most Controversial Investment Project’, states that the development project for the upscale city referred to as ‘Marota City’ is a project backed by the Syrian regime under Decree No 66/2012, which allowed the expropriation and redevelopment of certain lower socio-economic tiers of land, including the Mazeeh neighbourhood, called Basateen Al-Razi, situated in Damascus; Marota City is the new name given to the neighbourhood covering 2.15 million square metres; that area is close to the city centre, the embassies and the security services, which makes it attractive to real estate developers; according to that article, private company Damascus Cham Holding is owned by the Damascus Governorate and created, with Mr Foz, in July 2017, the joint venture Aman Dimashq, with a capital of 10 thousand million Syrian pounds (SYP) (18.9 million United States dollars (USD)); that article adds that Aman Holding owns, according to the same source, the majority share in the joint venture and has three representatives on the board of Aman Dimashq; in addition, it is stated that, in September 2017, Damascus Cham Holding granted Aman Dimashq the right to build 3 skyscrapers with up to 70 floors each and 5 residential buildings, valued at USD 312 million (approximately EUR 278.1 million); lastly, that article adds that Mr Foz has become one of the most powerful economic players and his ascent to the upper echelons of Syria’s business elite is attributed to his close ties to President Bashar Al-Assad; – 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; Decree No 19/2015, for its part, enabled private joint-stock companies to be established by public entities with the aim of managing and investing the assets belonging to the various governorates; according to that source, the Damascus Governorate was therefore able to create, in 2016, Damascus Cham Holding with the aim of developing the Marota City project; it is stated that the Damascus Governorate wholly owns Damascus Cham Holding and that the Governor of Damascus is the chairman of that company; – 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 of Damascus designated for a residential and commercial development project; – Damascus Cham Holding’s website ‘Damacham.sy’, the page from which is dated 5 September 2017 and was accessed on 20 September 2018, according to which the founding general assembly of Aman Dimashq took place on 7 October 2017 at Damascus Cham Holding’s headquarters, which is located on the site of the Marota City project; according to that website, Mr Assi was appointed chairman of Aman Dimashq’s board of directors and is a representative of Aman Holding; in addition, the project carried out by Aman Dimashq is, in view of its scale, one of the most important and largest of the Marota City project and the investment value exceeds SYP 150 thousand million; – 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; that source states that, according to the Syrian authorities, Decree No 66/2012 sought to improve the living conditions of inhabitants by replacing poorly constructed properties with more modern and comfortable ones; according to that article, only two residential areas of Damascus, the inhabitants of which supported the opposition, were designated in that decree, while the decree left intact neighbourhoods of Damascus where the inhabitants lived in similar conditions, but, by contrast, supported the Syrian regime; lastly, the article states that the decree will facilitate the rapid development of major development projects as a source of enrichment for businesspersons close to the regime, while serving as a punitive instrument against sections of the population opposed to the Syrian regime; – the website ‘Brookings Institution’, which published a report dated June 2018 headed ‘Beyond Fragility: Syria and the Challenges of Reconstruction in Fierce States’, referring to the measures adopted by the Syrian regime, including Decree No 66/2012, in order to seize land and property, punish opponents, reward persons close to the Syrian regime and governors, reassert authority in the territory, tighten control over the Syrian economy and ‘alter’ Syria’s demography to achieve what Mr Bashar Al-Assad has described as a ‘healthier and more homogeneous society’; according to that report, the Syrian regime, on the basis of new and pre-existing legislation, expropriated neighbourhoods in Damascus that were known as pro-opposition areas and property belonging to displaced persons suspected of supporting the opposition in order to benefit certain businesspersons; lastly, according to that article, the development project for the luxury city ‘Marota City’ is cited in that report as the most vivid example of that policy; – the website ‘Aliqtisadi’, accessed on 12 November 2018, which is a business news website in Arabic stating that the applicant has been the managing director and founding partner of Fly Aman since 2018 and owns 90% of the company’s shares valued at SYP 63 million (approximately EUR 127 342). Next, in order to justify maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists set out in the annexes to the 2020 maintaining acts, the Council produced, in addition to document WK 47/2019 INIT, document WK 3600/2020 REV 1, containing publicly available information, namely links to websites, press articles and screenshots from: – the website ‘Eqtsad News’, the article from which, headed ‘Who was the person sitting next to Samer [Foz] at the Sheraton meeting?’, was published on 2 October 2019 and describes the applicant as a business associate of Mr Foz; with effect from 2018 Mr Foz made the applicant his business partner in Fly Aman, in which the applicant owns more than 90% of the shares; the applicant is also a founding member of Assas lil-Hadid; according to that article, he is also Vice President of the board of Aman Holding, a company that has been owned by Mr Foz since 2017; – the website ‘Aliqtisadi’, the ‘who is who’ page from which, accessed on 12 March 2020, states that the applicant has been the chairman and co-founder of limited liability company Fly Aman since 2018; according to that site, the applicant owns 90% of the shares valued at SYP 63 million and has also been Vice President of Aman Holding’s board of directors since 2017; lastly, that website states that the applicant is a member of the board of Assas lil-Hadid; – the website ‘newturkpost.com’, accessed on 12 March 2020, which concerns a report on the approval, by the Syrian Ministry of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection, of the establishment of a new airline in Syria, dated 4 April 2019, which states that the Syrian Ministry of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection approved, in April 2018, the establishment of a private airline, Fly Aman, in which the applicant – who is deputy chairman of the board of directors of Aman Holding, a company owned by businessman Mr Foz – owns 90% of the shares. It is apparent from the file that the first page of document WK 47/2019 INIT, which contains the evidence in support of the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, bears the date 28 February 2019, whereas the initial measures, which included the applicant’s name on those lists for the first time, were adopted earlier, on 21 January 2019. In response to the measures of organisation of procedure adopted on 30 September 2020 by the Court aimed at confirming the existence of a file of evidence at the time of adoption of the initial measures, the Council maintained that document WK 47/2019 INIT bears the date of 28 February 2019 due to a technical issue. The Council stated that the evidence in document WK 47/2019 INIT formed part of the proposal for the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists annexed to the initial measures. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the legality of an EU measure must be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing 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). Consequently, it is incumbent on the Court to take into account only those facts which existed at the time of the adoption of the contested measures and on which the Council relied at that date (see, to that effect, judgments of 30 November 2016, Rotenberg v Council , T‑720/14, EU:T:2016:689 , paragraph 127, and of 15 June 2017, Kiselev v Council , T‑262/15, EU:T:2017:392 , paragraphs 102 to 104). The Council produced in that respect document ST 10248/20 of 15 September 2020, containing the proposal for listing the applicant’s name, bearing the reference COREU CFSP/0195/18, of 4 December 2018, on which it relied in order to adopt the initial measures. It should be pointed out that the proposal for listing COREU CFSP/0195/18 contains a series of hyperlinks to the evidence produced in document WK 47/2019 INIT. At the hearing, the Council stated that the article from the blog ‘Salon Syria’, taken from the website ‘The Syrian Observer’, published on 6 August 2018 and headed ‘Samer Foz is a Primary Target of US Sanctions’, contained in document WK 47/2019 INIT, did not correspond to any of the hyperlinks set out in the proposal for listing COREU CFSP/0195/18. However, it should be noted that, contrary to the Council’s statement at the hearing, the article from the blog ‘Salon Syria’ taken from the website ‘The Syrian Observer’, cited in paragraph 60 above, is mentioned in one of the hyperlinks to the evidence in document WK 47/2019 INIT which are set out in the proposal for listing COREU CFSP/0195/18. Therefore, it must be held that that article was indeed part of the evidence on which the Council relied in order to adopt the initial measures. The relevance of the evidence produced by the Council At the outset, the applicant claims, in essence, that document WK 3600/2020 INIT does not contain a version of the article from the website ‘Eqtsad News’ translated into English and argues that it is therefore impossible for members of the Council, who in all likelihood do not understand Arabic, to deduce which sentences of that article had been translated or interpreted in the summaries in English. In that regard, it is apparent from the pleadings that, at the applicant’s request, the Council provided a new version of document WK 3600/2020 INIT, namely document WK 3600/2020 REV 1, which contains a French translation of that article, dated 20 April 2020, on which the Member States relied in considering whether to maintain the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. Next, according to the applicant, much of the evidence from document WK 47/2019 INIT concerns Mr Foz or other companies linked to him, but with which the applicant is not associated. It should be noted that, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 49 above, 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. Thus, even if the evidence in question does not directly concern the applicant, that cannot deprive it of all relevance in the review of the legality of the contested measures, since it is capable of providing contextual information that may supplement and reinforce the other evidence referring more specifically to the applicant. In any event, that argument is unfounded. First, the evidence from the websites ‘Salon Syria’, ‘aawsat.com’ and ‘meirss.org’ expressly cites and identifies the applicant in the context of his acquiring Lebanese nationality. Secondly, it is apparent from the reasons for listing the applicant’s name that his links to Mr Foz were taken into consideration by the Council in recognising his status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria. That argument must therefore be rejected. Consequently, all the evidence contained in documents WK 47/2019 INIT and WK 3600/2020 REV 1 is relevant for the purposes of assessing the legality of the contested measures. The reliability of the evidence produced by the Council The applicant disputes the reliability of the evidence submitted by the Council in document WK 47/2019 INIT, claiming that that document is merely a compilation of screenshots of partisan websites and press articles, devoid of any probative value and not ‘seriously documented’. Specifically and first, the applicant submits that the article from the blog ‘Salon Syria’ of 7 June 2018 does not identify its author and uses the wording ‘inner circle of the government’, which is similar to the wording in recital 6 of Decision 2015/1836, as if the author of that article was attempting to foster the adoption of those sanctions. Secondly, as regards the website ‘The Syrian Observer’, the applicant states, first of all, that it is a Syrian news publication company which claims to be ‘editorially and politically independent’. Next, the applicant submits that the main function of that website is to translate articles from Syrian publications into English without, however, verifying the content of those publications. That website also states that it does not endorse the viewpoints expressed in the abovementioned publications. Furthermore, according to that website, articles are selected on the basis of two criteria, namely the seriousness of the publication and the extent to which the articles reflect authors’ political positions. Thirdly, as regards the website ‘The Syria Report’, the applicant notes, first of all, that that Syrian news website is structured around a ‘large database of news, data and statistics, including a database of Syrian institutions’. It is primarily an economic news bulletin. Next, the applicant states that A is the founder and editor of the website ‘The Syria Report’ as well as co-founder of the website ‘The Syrian Observer’. According to the applicant, that explains why the websites ‘The Syria Report’ and ‘The Syrian Observer’ often publish the same information and opinions in different forms and in different publications. In so doing, those websites give the impression that the published information is widely shared by different media and could therefore be considered as objective. Furthermore, the applicant expresses doubts as to the integrity of A, who, according to the applicant, in his capacity as visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, works closely with the EU institutions, including the Council, on issues concerning Syria, in particular in view of the fact that he has published reports on Syria’s war economy and decentralisation during the war. In that context, the applicant claims, in essence, that the Council uses its links with A in order to obtain articles supporting the policies that it intends to apply before those articles are published on those websites, in order to use them subsequently as justification for restrictive measures to be adopted or for newly adopted ones. In support of that claim, the applicant produces a page taken from the website ‘News Deeply’ containing a short description of A and an article headed ‘Analysis: No Funds to Foot Syria’s Reconstruction Bill’. Lastly, the applicant submits that the website ‘The Syria Report’ failed to comply with journalistic rules of professional conduct, since it never approached the applicant in order to verify the content of the information published on its website or to seek his views on that information. In the reply to the measures of organisation of procedure adopted by the Court on 23 July 2020, the Council maintains that it has no information concerning the sources of information on which it relied other than what can be inferred from document WK 47/2019 INIT. Next, it reproduces information that is publicly available on the internet concerning the websites ‘The Syria Report’, ‘The Foundation for Strategic Research’, ‘The Syrian Observer’, ‘Brookings Institution’, ‘Wall Street Journal’, ‘Syrian Law Journal’, ‘Aliqtisadi’, ‘aawsat.com’ and ‘meirss.org’. It should be borne in mind, first, that 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 in order for it to stop the violent repression against the population, and of the difficulty in 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). Secondly, 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, and in particular to 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, judgments of 14 March 2018, Kim and Others v Council and Commission , T‑533/15 and T‑264/16, EU:T:2018:138 , paragraph 224, and of 12 February 2020, Kande Mupompa v Council , T‑170/18, EU:T:2020:60 , paragraph 107 (not published)). In the present case, as regards the applicant’s argument that most of the press articles are not ‘seriously documented’, it should be pointed out that the state of war in Syria makes it difficult, if not impossible, in practice, to gather evidence from persons who are prepared to be identified and the ensuing difficulties of investigation and the danger to which those providing information are exposed constitute a barrier to the production of precise sources 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). Furthermore, as regards the applicant’s claim that the article published on the website ‘Salon Syria’ is unreliable, it should be noted, first of all, that that article, which is reproduced in its entirety in document WK 47/2019 INIT, does not mention the name of the author, with only ‘About Syria in a Week Editors’ being discernible in that regard. Nevertheless, one of the tabs on that website, dedicated to the submission of draft articles, requires prospective authors of such drafts to complete a detailed form with their personal details and professional background. Lastly, the second article from the website ‘Salon Syria’, of 6 August 2018, was published on the website ‘The Syrian Observer’, which gives an indication of its journalistic quality. That argument must therefore be rejected. Furthermore, it should be observed, first of all, that the evidence in document WK 47/2019 INIT, the probative value of which is disputed by the applicant, comes from digital information sources of various origins, not only local but also foreign. Thus, the local information sources include ‘The Syria Report’, the leading source of economic, business and financial information on Syria, which is independent and not connected with any religious, social or political organisation; ‘The Syrian Observer’, an online news service which essentially collects and translates into English news content produced by the official Syrian press, opposition groups to the regime or civil society and which is financed by donors, among which the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs; ‘Aliqtisadi’, 1 of the 10 main websites dedicated to the business world in the Middle East; ‘Syrian Law Journal’, a website specialising in legal matters and covering news from Syria in such matters as well as in finance and business. The foreign information sources include ‘aawsat.com’, an international newspaper in Arabic, which has its registered office in London (United Kingdom) and was founded in 1978; ‘Brookings Institution’, a leading US think tank; ‘The Foundation for Strategic Research’, an independent not-for-profit organisation recognised in France as a public benefit foundation and ‘meirss.org’, the website of a not-for-profit organisation and research centre based in Lebanon, which works with both regional and international researchers and organisations to contribute to evidence-based policy making. In addition, the Council produced pages from the websites of Damascus Cham Holding and the Syrian Government. Those various sources relay corroborating information, with the result that the applicant cannot rely solely on the fact that they are screenshots of websites and press articles in order to challenge their soundness and reliability. Moreover, as regards the applicant’s arguments relating to the website ‘The Syrian Observer’, it should be noted, first of all, that the description of that source of information contains nothing to cast doubt on its reliability. On the contrary, by indicating in a transparent manner that the content of the articles published on that website is not systematically verified, that source informs its readers that it may be necessary to cross-reference the information communicated by the published articles in order to assess its veracity. That is why it is also useful that that website publishes articles from various sources, some close to the Syrian regime and others opposing it. Accordingly, that argument must be rejected. The same applies to the applicant’s arguments concerning the website ‘The Syria Report’. More specifically, as regards the claim that that publication failed to comply with journalistic rules of professional conduct, it is clear that, first of all, the applicant does not specify the rules under which he should have been approached by that website. Furthermore, there is nothing in the file to indicate that the applicant reacted to that alleged failure to comply with such rules, in particular by bringing an action for defamation. Lastly, and in any event, the fact that the applicant was not contacted in order to verify the information relayed, even if that were true, is not, in itself, sufficient to refute the reliability of the information published on that website. That argument must therefore be rejected. Next, as regards, first, the applicant’s claim that the websites ‘The Syrian Observer’ and ‘The Syria Report’ essentially publish the same information in order to make it appear objective, it is clear, first of all, that the applicant has adduced no evidence demonstrating this alleged collusion. Nor does it follow from document WK 47/2019 INIT that the information published on those two websites is so similar as to attest to any such collusion. Furthermore, it is apparent from the applicant’s pleadings that some of the facts reported by the website ‘The Syria Report’ were correct, with the result that, even if the information published on that website was presented subjectively, it is nonetheless reliable. Lastly, it should be noted that, irrespective of the fact that A is the editor of the website ‘The Syrian Observer’ and co-founder of the website ‘The Syria Report’, the fact that two sources publish the same information cannot be sufficient to call into question the reliability of that information, since it is commonplace, in journalism, for different newspapers or news sites to relay the same facts. Accordingly, that argument must be rejected. As regards, secondly, the doubts expressed by the applicant as to A’s integrity, it is clear that the applicant has not put forward any evidence in support of that claim. The applicant’s brief description of A does not mention the existence of relations between A and the Council. Nor can that circumstance be inferred from the article headed ‘Analysis: No Funds to Foot Syria’s Reconstruction Bill’ of which A is the author. Lastly, the applicant also fails to explain what interest A would have in publishing articles supporting the policies which the Council intends to apply, in order for those articles to be used subsequently as justification for restrictive measures to be adopted or for newly adopted ones. That argument must therefore be rejected. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds, in the absence of any material in the file capable of calling into question the reliability of the sources used by the Council, that they must be regarded as sound and reliable, within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 72 above. The status of leading businessperson operating in Syria It is necessary to ascertain whether all of the evidence submitted by the Council discharges the burden of proof incumbent on it under the case-law referred to in paragraph 46 above and thus constitutes a set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to support the first reason for listing. In that regard, the Council took the view that the applicant is a leading businessperson operating in Syria because of his interests and activities in multiple sectors of Syria’s economy. As regards the initial measures and the 2019 maintaining acts, the evidence from document WK 47/2019 INIT relates to two main activities, namely, first, the applicant’s status as majority shareholder of the airline Fly Aman and, secondly, his position as Vice President of Aman Holding, a company represented on the board of Aman Dimashq, which is a joint venture in the Marota City project. Reference is also made to the applicant’s links to Mr Foz. As regards the 2020 maintaining acts, in addition to the evidence referred to above, the additional evidence from document WK 3600/2020 REV 1 mentions the fact that the applicant is a founding member of Asas Iron Company. It is therefore necessary to examine each of those elements. – Status as majority shareholder of Fly Aman At the outset, according to the applicant, the Council made an error of translation or interpretation in the proposed reasons for listing in the 2020 maintaining acts by erroneously referring to Fly Safety Limited Liability as being a different company to Fly Aman. On that point, it is sufficient to note that the 2020 maintaining acts do not mention Fly Safety, with the result that the applicant’s argument is ineffective. It is apparent from the articles published on the websites ‘meirss.org’, ‘Aliqtisadi’ and ‘7al.net’, reproduced in document WK 47/2019 INIT, that the applicant is the majority shareholder of Fly Aman and in that respect owns 90% of the shares in that company. In addition, the article published on the Syrian website ‘7al.net’ states that he founded, in cooperation with businessman Mr Assi, a new airline, Fly Aman. According to that website, the Syrian Ministry of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection ratified Fly Aman’s articles of association. Lastly, it is also apparent from the article from the website ‘Aliqtisadi’, contained in document WK 3600/2020 REV 1, that the applicant is the chairman and co-founder of Fly Aman. The applicant disputes this and claims that he does not own any shares in Fly Aman because he transferred his entire shareholding. In that regard, he produces Fly Aman’s registration certificate of 28 May 2018 and Fly Aman’s articles of association, ratified on 22 February 2018, from which it is apparent, in essence, that he was initially the majority shareholder of Fly Aman together with company B. He also produces Resolution 2274/169/12/3 of 14 February 2019 of the Syrian Ministry of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection referring to a registered letter sent by Fly Aman. Resolution 2274/169/12/3 states that the applicant’s shareholding in Fly Aman was transferred in part to company B (whose shareholding is now 20%) and in part to shareholders C and D, which each have a shareholding representing, in total, 80% of the shares in Fly Aman. It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, the legality of an EU measure must be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing 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). In the present case, as regards the initial measures, it should be noted that the transfer of the applicant’s shares in Fly Aman, as confirmed by Resolution 2274/169/12/3, occurred after those measures were adopted. Accordingly, Resolution 2274/169/12/3 cannot call into question the legality of the initial measures, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 87 above. Furthermore, Fly Aman’s articles of association of 22 February 2018 confirm that the applicant was, when the initial measures were adopted, the majority shareholder of Fly Aman. In any event, as the Council rightly states, the applicant’s claim that he no longer owns any shares confirms that he did once own them. Accordingly, that part of the reasons for the initial measures is well founded. As regards the 2019 maintaining acts, it should be borne in mind that, in reviewing the legality of the listing 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, among others, the person or entity concerned, as recalled in paragraph 48 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 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’. It is apparent from the file that the applicant demonstrated that he had transferred his shares in Fly Aman. In that regard, the applicant produced Resolution 2274/169/12/3, which predates the adoption of the 2019 maintaining acts. It is also clear that the Council acknowledged, in the 2020 maintaining acts, the fact that, as from February 2019, the applicant was no longer a majority shareholder of Fly Aman. The statement of reasons for the 2020 maintaining acts reflects the content of Resolution 2274/169/12/3 since it mentions the actual date on which that shareholding was transferred, namely ‘February 2019’. In addition, the fact that, when adopting the 2019 maintaining acts, the Council could not have been aware of Resolution 2274/169/12/3, in view of its limited distribution to a few administrative bodies, cannot restrict the EU judicature’s review of the legality of the listing of the applicant’s name. Similarly, the assessment of the legality of including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue cannot be restricted because the applicant did not refer to Resolution 2274/169/12/3 in his exchanges with the Council during the reconsideration procedure which took place prior to the adoption of the 2019 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). Consequently, it must be concluded that the applicant has demonstrated, in the present proceedings, that he was no longer a majority shareholder of Fly Aman on the date of adoption of the 2019 maintaining acts. Accordingly, that part of the reasons for the 2019 maintaining acts is unfounded. As regards the 2020 maintaining acts, it should be noted that the Council maintained the applicant’s name on the lists at issue because of his status as majority shareholder, citing, however, the date of transfer of the applicant’s shares in February 2019. In the present case, it is not apparent from document WK 3600/2020 REV 1 that the Council submitted sound and consistent evidence from which it could reasonably be concluded that the applicant maintained links to Fly Aman although he no longer held shares in that company on the date of adoption of the 2020 maintaining acts. The three articles from the websites ‘Eqtsad News’, ‘Aliqtisadi’ and ‘newturkpost.com’ were either accessed or published after Resolution 2274/169/12/3, but do not make reference to the transfer of shareholdings or to the existence of other links between Fly Aman and the applicant. Document WK 3600/2020 REV 1 therefore contains no evidence capable of justifying the fact that, despite the disposal of shares in February 2019, it was necessary to maintain that reference in the reasons for listing. It should also be noted that, at the hearing, although the Council maintained that, despite the fact that the applicant had given up that shareholding, this constituted evidence that he was still a leading businessperson operating in Syria, it did not substantiate its claim. Accordingly, that part of the reasons for the 2020 maintaining acts is unfounded. It follows that, as regards the part of the reasons relating to the applicant’s majority shareholding in Fly Aman, only that concerning the reasons for the initial measures is well founded. – The position of Vice President of Aman Holding It is apparent from the extract from the blog ‘Salon Syria’ of 7 June 2018 and the article from the website ‘meirss.org’, taken from document WK 47/2019 INIT, that the applicant is the Vice President of Aman Holding, which is confirmed by the articles from the websites ‘Eqtsad News’, ‘Alqtisadi’ and ‘newturkpost.com’, contained in document WK 3600/2020 REV 1. In addition, the article from the website ‘7al.net’, contained in document WK 47/2019 INIT, describes the applicant as being an employee of a company owned by Mr Foz. However, without being challenged on this point by the Council, the applicant denies having held the position of Vice President of Aman Holding and claims that he was the Head of Executive Directors of Aman Holding. In order to demonstrate this, he has produced his employment contract, dated 18 January 2017. In support of his claim, he has also produced Aman Holding’s articles of association and ‘outdated’ registration certificate, which clearly demonstrates a distinction between, on the one hand, the board of directors on which he did not sit and, on the other, the executive directors, which included him. The applicant is described there as the Head of Executive Directors. Consequently, the applicant has properly demonstrated, with the help of his employment contract of 18 January 2017 as well as Aman Holding’s articles of association and registration certificate from the Syrian administration, the reliability of which has not, moreover, been disputed by the Council, that he did not occupy the position of Vice President of Aman Holding. It follows that the part of the reasons for the contested measures relating to the applicant occupying the position of Vice President of Aman Holding is unfounded. – The participation of Aman Holding – which is represented on the board of Aman Dimashq, a joint venture in the construction of Marota City – in a luxury residential and commercial development project backed by the Syrian regime As a preliminary point, it must be understood, as the Council confirmed at the hearing, that the reasons for the contested measures in French stating that ‘Aman Holding est représentée au conseil d’administration d’Aman [Dimashq] (dans lequel il détient une participation majoritaire)’ (Aman Holding is represented on the board of Aman [Dimashq] (in which he has a majority stake)) contains a translation error. Contrary to what might be understood, it is Aman Holding which owns a majority shareholding within Aman Dimashq and not the applicant. Accordingly, it is not disputed between the parties that the applicant has no stake in Aman Dimashq. First of all, the applicant maintains that the only connection which might exist between him and the Marota City project lies in the fact that Aman Holding is a shareholder of the joint venture Aman Dimashq. In that regard, it is apparent from the applicant’s pleadings that Aman Holding owns 40% of the shares in Aman Dimashq and that the other shareholders of that joint venture, Foz for Trading and Damascus Cham Holding, hold 11% and 49% of the shares in that joint venture, respectively. On that basis, it can be inferred from that division of the shares that Aman Holding has a certain decision-making power on the board of Aman Dimashq. Next, without it being necessary to analyse the Marota City project in detail, it should be borne in mind that, in paragraph 99 above, it was determined that the Council had erroneously relied on the applicant’s position as Vice President of Aman Holding to demonstrate his status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria. It follows that, a fortiori, the Council cannot plead the participation of the applicant, as Vice President of Aman Holding, in the Marota City project in order to prove such status. In any event, as the Court acknowledged in paragraph 98 above, the applicant has properly demonstrated that he occupied the position of Head of Executive Directors within Aman Holding and not that of Vice President. In that regard, it must be noted that the applicant is well placed in the company’s organisation chart, that a certain degree of authority has been delegated to him and that he is responsible for supervising the executive directors and thus executing Aman Holding’s strategic decisions, but he remains an employee of Aman Holding, which is not disputed by the Council. Furthermore, the applicant rightly claims that the tasks entrusted to him as an employee of Aman Holding never included supervision of Aman Dimashq’s activities. That task is reserved to another employee, namely Mr Assi, who, for that purpose, was appointed chairman of the board of Aman Dimashq in order to keep Aman Holding’s board of directors informed of Aman Dimashq’s development, which is, in essence, confirmed by the page taken from Damascus Cham Holding’s website ‘Damacham.sy’. It is therefore common ground between the parties that the applicant does not sit on the board of Aman Dimashq. Moreover, it is indeed apparent from Mr Assi’s employment contract, dated 4 October 2017 and produced by the applicant, that his position as project manager is carried out under the direction of, inter alia, the Head of Executive Directors of Aman Holding. Nevertheless, neither documents WK 47/2019 INIT and WK 3600/2020 REV 1 nor the Council’s pleadings prove that there was a supervisory relationship between the applicant and Mr Assi in relation to the conduct of the Marota City project on the date of adoption of the contested measures. Accordingly, the Council has not shown that the applicant’s duties within Aman Holding include the exercise of decision-making responsibilities in the context of Aman Holding’s majority shareholding on the board of Aman Dimashq. It follows that the part of the reasons for the contested measures relating to the applicant’s participation, as Vice President of Aman Holding, in the Marota City project is unfounded. – The applicant’s links to Mr Foz As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind, as stated in paragraph 53 above, that the second sentence of the reasons for listing and maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, according to which he ‘in this capacity, … is linked to Samer Foz’, can be understood only by reference to the first sentence, which refers to the activities carried out by the applicant, in particular his status as majority shareholder of Fly Aman and Vice President of Aman Holding. It should be inferred from this that the applicant’s links to Mr Foz, in the context of his professional activities, were regarded by the Council as evidence of his status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria. Furthermore, it should be noted that Mr Foz’s name was inserted, then maintained, at line 278 of Table A of the lists at issue, on account of, first, his status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria and, secondly, his association with the Syrian regime, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 52 above. Next, in the first place, it should be noted that the applicant’s close proximity to Mr Foz is mentioned in the articles from the websites ‘aawsat.com’, which describes him as the director of his office, and ‘meirss.org’, taken from document WK 47/2019 INIT. In addition, it is apparent from the article from the website ‘Eqtsad News’, produced as part of document WK 3600/2020 REV 1, that the applicant is a business associate of Mr Foz. In the second place, it should be borne in mind that it has been determined, in paragraph 99 above, that the applicant is not Vice President of Aman Holding. In addition, he has produced a registration certificate for Aman Holding, dated September 2019, and an exchange of correspondence between him and that company, showing that from 22 January 2019 he no longer held the position of Head of Executive Directors of Aman Holding. It follows that, as regards the initial measures, the links between the applicant and Mr Foz come down to the fact that the applicant was a majority shareholder of Fly Aman. At the hearing, the applicant submitted that Fly Aman was created on the instructions of Mr Foz and that the creation of that company occurred within the framework of his professional relationship, since Mr Foz was his employer at the time. The Council has not adduced, within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 46 above, as part of document WK 47/2019 INIT, a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent set of indicia capable of sufficiently substantiating the argument that the link between the applicant and Mr Foz went beyond the mere professional relationship that might exist between an employer and his or her employee, in order to justify regarding the applicant, who is associated with Mr Foz, as a leading businessperson operating in Syria. As regards the 2019 maintaining acts and the 2020 maintaining acts, it should be noted that, since the applicant was no longer a majority shareholder of Fly Aman from February 2019 and resigned from his position as Head of Executive Directors of Aman Holding, any close ties to Mr Foz which he may have had because of those positions are, in any event, no longer established. Accordingly, the Council has failed to prove that the applicant, on account of his professional activities, has links to Mr Foz. Consequently, in the contested measures, the Council could not rely on the links between the applicant and Mr Foz to demonstrate the applicant’s status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria. – The constitution of Asas Iron Company As regards the new part of the reasons contained in the 2020 maintaining acts, it is apparent from the articles from the websites ‘Eqtsad News’ and ‘Aliqtisadi’ taken from document WK 3600/2020 REV 1, that the applicant is, respectively, a founding member and a member of the board of Assas lil-Hadid. In that regard, it should be noted that, as the applicant submits, the summaries of the articles from those websites produced by the Council indicate the name ‘Asas Iron Company’ instead of ‘Assas lil-Hadid’. It is, however, the same company. The first name is the English translation of the second name, which corresponds to the entity’s Arabic name. Asas Iron Company’s articles of association, ratified by the representative of its founders and by the Syrian Ministry of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection, as well as its registration certificate of 6 November 2019, produced by the applicant, confirm that the two names correspond. Next, the applicant denies being a founding member of Asas Iron Company. He maintains that he was never the founder or owner of that company and that he was never otherwise involved in it or even associated with it, since he is not part of its ‘management and directory bodies’. In that regard, the applicant has produced Asas Iron Company’s registration certificate and articles of association, in which his name does not appear. Furthermore, according to Article 5 of those articles of association, the owners of Asas Iron Company are Mr E and Mr F. They each own 500 shares, representing 50% of the total shares in the undertaking, valued at SYP 1.5 thousand million (approximately EUR 3.03 million). Furthermore, according to Asas Iron Company’s articles of association, the capital amounts to SYP 3 thousand million (approximately EUR 6.06 million), which also corresponds to the amount entered on that company’s registration certificate. Therefore, the applicant has properly demonstrated that he was not the founder of Asas Iron Company. That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the Council’s argument which seeks to challenge the relevance of Asas Iron Company’s articles of association and registration certificate produced by the applicant, and which asserts, in essence, that that evidence shows that, from 6 November 2019, the applicant was no longer one of the company’s owners. It maintains that, by Resolution No 832 of 19 March 2019 of the Syrian Ministry of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection, produced by the applicant, the company’s legal form was changed. Asas Iron Company, which was a single-member limited liability company, thus became Asas Iron Company, a limited liability company, after the owner of the capital ceded 50% of his shares. Asas Iron Company’s articles of association and registration certificate do not confirm the identity of the company’s founding shareholders between the date on which that company was created, namely 30 March 2017, and the date of Resolution No 832, that is to say, before the company’s change of legal form. In other words, the Council claims that the applicant could have been registered as the sole founding member of the single-member limited liability company before disposing of his shares so that he would no longer appear in the official documents relating to Asas Iron Company, without adducing any evidence in support of its claim. In that regard, it is clear that, even if the applicant had in fact been the founder of Asas Iron Company, it is apparent from the documents he has produced that, at the date of adoption of the 2020 maintaining acts, he was no longer associated with that company. It follows from the foregoing that the applicant has properly demonstrated that, on the date of adoption of the 2020 maintaining acts, first, he did not own any shares in Asas Iron Company and, secondly, he was not named as a founding member of that company. Accordingly, the Council could not rely on the applicant’s status as founding member of Asas Iron Company in order to regard him as a leading businessperson operating in Syria. – Conclusion on the applicant’s status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria In the first place, as regards the initial measures, it must be concluded from all of the foregoing that the Council has adduced a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent set of indicia to prove that the applicant was a majority shareholder of Fly Aman. By contrast, the Council made clerical errors in including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue because of his status as Vice President of Aman Holding, since, as is apparent from paragraph 98 above, the applicant has demonstrated that he was the Head of Executive Directors of that company. Consequently, since he is not Vice President of Aman Holding, the applicant does not participate, by virtue of those positions, in the Marota City project and has no links to Mr Foz. Moreover, the Council has not demonstrated, by sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence, the link between the applicant’s status as majority shareholder of Fly Aman and Mr Foz. In the second place, as regards the 2019 maintaining acts, in addition to the considerations mentioned in paragraph 118 above, the Council made a clerical error since the applicant has demonstrated that, from 14 February 2019, he no longer held shares in Fly Aman’s capital. Consequently, the applicant had no links to Mr Foz on that basis. In the third place, as regards the 2020 maintaining acts, in addition to the considerations mentioned in paragraphs 118 and 119 above, the Council made a clerical error in that the applicant has adduced evidence, first, that he did not own any shares in Asas Iron Company and, secondly, that he was not a founding member of that company. It follows from all of the foregoing that, contrary to the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists set out in the initial measures, the applicant does not have ‘interests and activities in multiple sectors of Syria’s economy’. As is apparent from paragraph 118 above, the Council is only able to demonstrate that, as regards the initial measures, the applicant has interests in Fly Aman, which is insufficient to satisfy the criterion of a leading businessperson operating in Syria. Furthermore, as regards the 2019 maintaining acts and the 2020 maintaining acts, the Council has not succeeded in demonstrating that the applicant was, at the date of adoption of those acts, a leading businessperson operating in Syria. Accordingly, the first reason for listing is not sufficiently substantiated. It is therefore necessary to examine the second reason for listing. Association with the Syrian regime As a preliminary point, the Court notes that it is apparent from the initial measures and the 2019 maintaining acts that the applicant supports the Syrian regime and benefits from it on account of his position as Vice President of Aman Holding, whereas, pursuant to the 2020 maintaining acts, he does so on account of all of his activities and interests, as mentioned in the reasons for listing. In addition, it is clear that the reasons why the applicant is regarded by the Council as supporting and benefiting from the Syrian regime are, in essence, the same as those which led it to regard him as a leading businessperson operating in Syria. In that regard, it cannot be excluded that, for a specific person, the reasons for listing 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, those are separate criteria (judgment of 23 September 2020, Kaddour v Council , T‑510/18, EU:T:2020:436 , paragraph 77). In the present case, in the first place, as regards the initial measures and the 2019 maintaining acts, it must be concluded from the findings in paragraphs 99 and 104 above that, since the applicant was not Vice President of Aman Holding at the date of adoption of the contested measures, he cannot be regarded as benefiting from the Syrian regime on that basis nor as supporting it on account of his participation in the Marota City project. In the second place, as regards the 2020 maintaining acts, the Court found, first, in paragraph 126 above, that the applicant could not be regarded as benefiting from the Syrian regime by virtue of his position as Vice President of Aman Holding. Secondly, as is apparent from the article from the website ‘7al.net’, the applicant created an airline although the civil aviation sector in Syria is experiencing great difficulties as a result of the military operations which have resulted in the cessation of tourist traffic and the termination of services at certain airports. However, the Court determined, in paragraph 96 above, that the applicant is no longer the majority shareholder of Fly Aman. Moreover, it is not apparent from any of the evidence contained in documents WK 47/2019 INIT and WK 3600/2020 REV 1 that the applicant benefits, in his capacity as majority shareholder and subsequently as former majority shareholder of that company, from the Syrian regime or that he supports it. It must therefore be concluded that the Council has not adduced a specific, precise and consistent set of indicia capable of demonstrating that the applicant supports and/or benefits from the Syrian regime. Accordingly, the second reason for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue on account of his association with the Syrian regime is not sufficiently substantiated, with the result that the listing of the applicant’s name is unfounded as regards the contested measures. Therefore, the first plea must be upheld and, accordingly, the contested measures must be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant, without it being necessary to examine the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth pleas raised in support of the action. Conclusion on the action and the temporal effects of the annulment of the contested measures Since the first plea, alleging errors of assessment as regards the contested measures, has been upheld, the action must be upheld in that it seeks the annulment of those measures in so far as they concern the applicant. In that regard, the Council claimed, in its third head of claim, that, should the Court annul the contested measures in so far as they concern the applicant, the Court should order that the effects of Implementing Decision 2019/87 and Decisions 2019/806 and 2020/719 be maintained in so far as they concern the applicant, until the annulment in part of Implementing Regulations 2019/85, 2019/798 and 2020/716 takes effect. First of all, as regards Implementing Regulations 2019/85, 2019/798 and 2020/716, it should be borne in mind that, under the second paragraph of Article 60 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, by way of derogation from Article 280 TFEU, decisions of the General Court declaring a regulation to be void are to take effect only as from the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal referred to in the first paragraph of Article 56 of that statute or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, as from the date of dismissal of the appeal. In those circumstances, in the absence of an appeal, the Council has a period of two months, extended on account of distance by 10 days, from notification of the present judgment in order to remedy the infringements that have been established by adopting, if appropriate, new restrictive measures concerning the applicant. Next, as regards Implementing Decision 2019/87 and Decisions 2019/806 and 2020/719, it should be noted that Decision 2020/719 was amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021, amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90), which replaced the list with effect from 29 May 2021 and extended the application of the restrictive measures as regards the applicant until 1 June 2022. Therefore, as at today’s date, the applicant is subject to a new restrictive measure. It follows that the annulment of Implementing Decision 2019/87 and of Decisions 2019/806 and 2020/719, in so far as they concern the applicant, does not entail the removal of his name from the list. Consequently, it is not necessary to maintain the effects of Implementing Decision 2019/87 and of Decisions 2019/806 and 2020/719. Costs 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. In the present case, since the Council has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and 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, in so far as those acts concern Mr Khaldoun Al Zoubi; 2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. Gervasoni Madise Martín y Pérez de Nanclares Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 24 November 2021. E. Coulon M. van der Woude Registrar President Table of contents Background to the dispute and events subsequent to the bringing of the action Procedure and forms of order sought Law The first plea, alleging errors of assessment Preliminary observations The evidence submitted by the Council The relevance of the evidence produced by the Council The reliability of the evidence produced by the Council The status of leading businessperson operating in Syria – Status as majority shareholder of Fly Aman – The position of Vice President of Aman Holding – The participation of Aman Holding – which is represented on the board of Aman Dimashq, a joint venture in the construction of Marota City – in a luxury residential and commercial development project backed by the Syrian regime – The applicant’s links to Mr Foz – The constitution of Asas Iron Company – Conclusion on the applicant’s status as a leading businessperson operating in Syria Association with the Syrian regime Conclusion on the action and the temporal effects of the annulment of the contested measures Costs * Language of the case: English. This judgment is published in extract form. © European Union The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII