Kadi argued within the Court of First Instance that the EC lacked competence to sanction individuals and had breached his fundamental rights to a fair hearing, respect for property, and effective judicial review.

[13] [T]he Court cannot, in deference to the views of those institutions, turn its back on the fundamental values that lie at the basis of the Community legal order and which it has the duty to protect.

In arguing this, he cited Van Gend en Loos, "in which the Court affirmed the autonomy of the Community legal order".

[14] He also stated that the top priority of the Court was "to preserve the constitutional framework created by the treaty," even when implementing binding international agreements.

[15] [T]he obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the EC Treaty, which include the principle that all Community acts must respect fundamental rights, that respect constituting a condition of their lawfulness which it is for the Court to review in the framework of the complete system of legal remedies established by the Treaty.

[18] In order to follow the UN to the best of their ability, the Court gave the Commission a three month time frame to correct the infringements before the regulation would be annulled.

[22] A treaty can never enjoy primacy over provisions (including protection of fundamental human rights) that form part of the constitutional foundations of the union...

This contrasted to the US Supreme Court rule from Murray v The Schooner Charming Betsy,[23] that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if other possible constructions are available or it was "fairly possible" to avoid conflicts.