Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on entry into, or transit through, the territory of the European Union - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Fundamental rights.
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber) hereby:
31) It should be recalled that the fundamental right to observance of the rights of defence during a procedure preceding the adoption of a restrictive measure is expressly affirmed in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389), recognised by Article 6(1) TEU as having the same legal value as the Treaties (see, to that effect, Case C-27/09 P France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran  ECR I-13427, paragraph 66).
32) It should also be noted that, according to settled case‑law, the principle of effective judicial protection is a general principle of European Union law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, which has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, this principle having furthermore been reaffirmed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Case C-432/05 Unibet  ECR I-2271, paragraph 37, and Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission  ECR I-6351, paragraph 335; ‘Kadi’).
96) The right to property is one of the general principles of European Union law and is enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. With regard to respect for private life, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises the right to respect for private and family life (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑356/11 and C‑357/11 O and S  ECR, paragraph 76).