- Adib Mayaleh, a Franco-Syrian and former governor of the Syrian Central Bank, initially indicted for complicity in crimes against humanity and war crimes, cannot benefit from the functional immunity he had invoked.
- In a highly anticipated decision, the French Court of Cassation upheld the arguments put forward by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM), civil parties in the case, and ruled that functional immunity does not apply in cases of international crimes.
- However, the Court delivered a disappointing decision by canceling the arrest warrant against Bashar al-Assad in another case related to chemical attacks carried out in Syria in August 2013.
Paris, 25 July, 2025. In a landmark decision handed down today, the French Supreme Court refused to grant immunity to Adib Mayaleh, former governor of the Syrian Central Bank, who was initially charged with complicity in crimes against humanity and war crimes. France’s highest court has thus confirmed that functional immunities do not apply in cases of international crimes.
"This decision is a major victory for the prosecution of international crimes, as it establishes that no agent of a foreign state, regardless of their position, can claim immunity when international crimes are involved," said Mazen Darwish, lawyer and General Director of the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM). "Establishing functional immunity for these agents would have amounted to guaranteeing impunity for these crimes."
Following the arguments put forward by FIDH and SCM as civil parties, the Court found that international customary law had evolved with regard to functional immunities in favor of an exception for international crimes. The Court recognised a general exception to the principle of functional immunity for agents of a foreign State in cases of international crimes. It stated in its decision that "this evolution in international customary law, to which the Supreme Court intends to contribute, defines a new balance between immunities and the fight against impunity".
With this decision, the Court has followed in the footsteps of the War Crimes Unit of the Paris Judicial Court, the Investigating Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, the Paris Criminal Court, as well as several foreign national jurisdictions which had already recognised that functional immunities did not apply to international crimes.
"The French Supreme Court’s decision on functional immunities is the result of a long legal battle waged by our organisations to ensure that those suspected of international crimes can no longer hide behind their status as state agents to escape prosecution", said Clémence Bectarte, lawyer and coordinator of FIDH’s Litigation Action Group. "This decision will have positive repercussions on many cases in France but also around the world, as it contributes to the evolution of international customary law regarding immunities and the fight against impunity."
Adib Mayaleh, a French-Syrian national and the former governor of the Syrian Central Bank, was indicted on 20 December 2022, for complicity in crimes against humanity and war crimes, laundering the proceeds of crimes against humanity and war crimes, and participating in a group or conspiracy formed to prepare crimes against humanity. He challenged the validity of his indictment on the grounds of the functional immunity he claimed to be entitled to. He was placed under the status of assisted witness in May 2024.
A second disappointing decision regarding Bashar al-Assad’s personal immunity
In a disappointing decision handed down on the same day concerning the personal immunity of Bashar al-Assad, who was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the investigating judges of the French War Crimes Unit while he was still in office, the Supreme Court refused to waive his personal immunity.
In this case, the Court overturned the arrest warrant issued against Bashar al-Assad. It rejected the argument that Bashar al-Assad was no longer recognised as the legitimate head of state by the French government, considering that recognition was a "unilateral and political act" that could not have legal consequences with regard to his personal immunity. The Court further considered that there had been no evolution in international customary law in favour of exceptions to the principle of personal immunity of the head of state in cases of international crimes.
