This case concerned applications made to the ECJ in respect of asset freezing orders made against certain individuals, who were suspected of terrorism.

Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1267, it was felt by the EC Council that Community action to implement the Resolution was required, and subsequently Regulations were passed allowing, amongst other things, assets of individuals to be frozen.

The Court made two key holdings. First, that fairness required that the authorities communicate to the individual concerned at least the grounds upon which orders made under the Regulation to freeze assets were made, so that there could be an effective judicial review. As the Council has not afforded the individuals the right to be informed of evidence against them, there had been a breach of their right to be heard, and a violation of the principle of effective judicial protection. Secondly, the Court held that the argument, which was accepted by the Court of First Instance, that because the regulations were passed in accordance with Security Council authorisation there could be no review of their lawfulness, was wrong in law.

The Court held that even where Security Council authorisation is concerned, it must undertake a full review of any action taken in light of fundamental rights.