80In addition, it is apparent from the considerations set out in paragraphs 41 and 43 above that the General Court correctly held that the Council had not made an error of assessment when it adopted the acts at issue, with the result that the enactment and subsequent maintenance of the restrictive measures against the appellant were justified in the light of the facts and the listing criterion concerned. In those circumstances, the fact that the restrictive measures to which the appellant was subject were renewed twice can neither invalidate the considerations set out by the General Court in paragraphs 102, 103 and 109 of the judgment under appeal, nor imply that the restrictive measures are of a permanent and irreversible nature and that the appellant could not subsequently secure the removal of his name from the list or authorisation to release his funds.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.