Brussels, 21/01/2015 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 21 January, the General Court of the EU confirmed the restrictive measures decided by the Council of the EU in 2011 and 2012 against Mohammad Makhlouf, the maternal uncle of Syrian president, Bashar Al-Assad, due to his links with the Syrian regime (T-509/11).
Since 2011, the name of Mohammad Makhlouf has been on the list (extended in 2012), by the Council of persons to whom the restrictive measures against Syria apply due to the fact that he is a “Close associate and maternal uncle of Bashar and Mahir Al-Assad, business association and father of Rami, Ihab and Iyad Makhlouf”. Thus, Makhlouf has been refused entry to or transit through the territory of the member states of the EU, while his funds and economic resources have been frozen. Makhlouf also contests the maintaining of his name on this list after 2012, in another case currently being examined (T-443/13).
The General Court dismisses Makhlouf's action. It notes that Makhlouf has the right to a fair hearing and that the grounds relied upon by the Council provided him with sufficient indications to enable him to contest their validity before an EU Court; the Council was entitled to take the view that Makhlouf was, merely because of his status as uncle of Bashar Al-Assad and as patriarch of the ruling family, connected with the Syrian rulers, the family's rule in Syria being a known fact which can be taken into account. The Council has succeeded in proving that Makhlouf is a member of the ruling economic class in Syria and it cannot be denied that he maintains links with the regime and has a decisive influence, as a principal adviser, over all the primary circle of rulers of the Syrian regime and he benefits from the policies followed by the regime. Makhlouf was also the main adviser at the time of the opening of the Syrian telecommunications market.
With regard to the argument that the decision to freeze the funds infringed Makhlouf's right to privacy (that decision preventing him from ensuring that his family had a standard of living comparable to that which it had previously), the General Court states that the right to privacy is not intended to protect the individual against a loss of his purchasing power. (FG)