Curtis Italy succeeds on appeal in a proceeding concerning the annulment of an asset freeze order imposed by the Italian authority

A team composed of Partners Gianluca Cattani and Francesco Caccioppoli and associates Erica Sotgiu and Sofia Forestiere has succeeded before the Italian Council of State in its appeal against the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio’s ruling, which had denied the annulment of an asset freeze order issued by the Italian authority with respect to economic resources allegedly traceable to a designated person under Regulation (UE) 269/2014 imposing restrictive measures against Russia.  

The first-instance ruling was overturned by the Council of State on the grounds of the violation of the plaintiff’s right of defense. Moreover, in its ruling, the appeal court referred to the recent judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C 147/25 to affirm that control situations justifying the imposition of an asset freeze measure shall be based on a well-founded factual basis.

Brief case analysis

Following the asset freeze order, Curtis’ client requested to access the documentation underpinning the asset freeze order and the alleged connection between its frozen assets and the designated person. However, the Italian authority refused to produce such documents by invoking official secrecy. Moreover, the court of first instance did not order their disclosure, deeming such documents non-essential and the grounds presented by the client insufficient to overcome official secrecy.

Conversely, in agreeing with the arguments of the appeal, the Council of State distinguished the substantive rules governing access to documents from the procedural framework regulating the production of evidence underlying contested decision. While recognizing the need to balance the official secrecy with the right of defense under the former, it emphasized that, in the context of the proceedings, the requested documents were indispensable as a matter of law, recalling the administration’s duty to produce them. Moreover, the Council of State further affirmed that if the administration fails to do so, the court has a mandatory duty to order their production to ensure full judicial scrutiny of the reasons substantiating the challenged order. 

Furthermore in its reasoning, the Council of State, endorsing the principles articulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in its recent judgment of 3 September 2026 in Case C 147/25, recalled that the obligation to state reasons, read in conjunction with the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, require the person concerned to be able to ascertain the grounds on which the decision affecting its rights was taken. The CJEU also specified that effective judicial review requires the domestic court to verify that the measure rests on a sufficiently sound factual basis and that its grounds are well-founded, rather than merely plausible.

Hence, the production of the relevant documents is procedurally mandatory to enable the competent court to review the lawfulness of the decision fully, guaranteeing effective judicial review and the exercise of the right of defense.