New EU General Court sanctions decision: Case T-509/11 Makhlouf

21 January 2015
Author: JHA

On 21 January 2015 the General Court handed down its judgment in Makhlouf, a sanctions case.

Makhlouf concerned an application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP, Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP and Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it applied to Mr Makhlouf. He had been on the Syrian sanctions list since 2011 due to his alleged association and his relationship with the Al-Assad and Makhlouf families.

The General Court held that:

  • The Council had not infringed the applicant’s rights of defence or his right to a fair hearing. Notably, the EU authorities could not be required to communicate the grounds for listing before the name of a person or entity had been entered on the sanctions list. Such prior communication would be liable to jeopardise the effectiveness of the measures. Failure to notify to the applicant Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP and Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP did not breach his rights of defence as the reasons for listing the applicant in those two instruments were the same as for the previous Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP.
  • The grounds relied upon by the Council had provided the applicant with sufficient information to enable him to contest their validity, and the Council had not made an error of assessment. On the basis of the evidence it had brought, the Council was entitled to take the view that Mr Makhlouf was connected with and gave economic support to the Syrian ruling family.
  • The Council had not infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights (including the principle of proportionality, the right to property and the right to privacy). In particular, the right to privacy did not protect against a loss of purchasing power, and thus the asset-freezing measures did not infringe this right by lowering the living standards of the applicant’s family.
  • In conclusion, the application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP, Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP and Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP was rejected.
Case T-509/11 Mohammad Makhlouf v Council, 21 January 2015, currently only available in French
Return to List of Articles by UK Lawyers on Tax Disputes, Tax Litigation, HMRC Tax Appeal Return to Listings
Left Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London

Our Insights

Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

JHA ranked in top tier again in Legal 500 UK 2025

We are happy to announce that JHA's Tax Disputes Team has again been ranked as Tier 1 by Legal 500 today, a ranking we have proudly achieved every year since we began in 2013. A special congratulations to Graham Aaronson KC who has again been recognised in the Hall of Fame category, Iain MacWhannell (ranked as a Leading Partner) and Mei Wong (ranked as a Leading Associate).

This is the latest successful ranking, following previous top-tier rankings in Chambers UK Legal Guide 2024 and Chambers High Net Worth Guide 2024.

Read More
Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

Armour Veterinary Group v HMRC – Warning for Partnership Personnel Changes?

In this decision, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) dismissed an appeal against discovery assessments which disallowed amortisation relief claimed by the Appellant company for three types of goodwill acquired from a partnership. The decision examined the applicability of each of the circumstances set out in s882 CTA 2009 before concluding none of them had been satisfied. It also provided guidance on the meaning of carrying on a business pursuant to s884 CTA 2009. In rejecting the appeal, the FTT reached a number of key conclusions:

  1. partners can potentially rebut the presumption that individual partners do not own the goodwill of the business (in whole or part) by expressly recording the division in a partnership agreement;
  2. whether a partner is an equity or salaried partner has no bearing on whether they can be treated as carrying on the business for the purpose of s884;
  3. when determining whether and when a partner carries on a business, the FTT will consider, inter alia, (1) if they are in a partnership as per the definition in s1 of the Partnership Act 1890 and (2) their role in the day-to-day running of the practice;
  4. a fundamental aspect of the self-assessment regime is that taxpayers must ensure that they retain adequate records (backed up by an external valuation as relevant in the case of a goodwill transfer) sufficient to support the information provided in their returns, including evidence to support claims made for relief.

Read More

Right Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London