—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 July 2024, Makhlouf v Council (T-206/22, ECLI:EU:T:2024:495) (‘the judgment under appeal’), including in so far as it ordered the appellant to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council;

—

dispose of the action on the merits and annul the contested decisions in so far as they include and maintain the appellant on the lists annexed to those acts:

—

award compensation in respect of the harm caused to the appellant and order the Council to pay her EUR 10 000 in damages;

—

order the Council to pay all of the costs incurred by the appellant before both the General Court and the Court of Justice.

1.

The first ground of appeal alleges failure to observe the procedural safeguards which should have been applied to the appellant, since she was not heard prior to the adoption of the initial acts by the Council. According to the appellant, the General Court misjudged the need for the restrictive measures at issue to have a surprise effect, particularly because the appellant’s own estate was small compared with the estate she would inherit and the measures were adopted 11 years after the restrictive measures taken against her father.

2.

In the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in upholding the Council’s assessment concerning her ties to the Syrian regime and her influence over its decisions. With reference to the family membership criterion, the General Court reversed the burden of proof and infringed Articles 26, 29 and 40 TEU, Articles 240 and 275 TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It did so against a background in which the Council had considered the appellant to be an outsider in the area of Syrian political and economic affairs for more than 10 years and had abruptly changed its view 2 years after her father’s death.

3.

In the third ground of appeal, the appellant claims breach of the principle of proportionality and distortion of the facts and also argues that the reasoning set out in the judgment under appeal is inadequate as regards the freezing of her own assets, in addition to the assets forming the estate of Mr Mohammed Makhlouf which were frozen.