Thepolicy of “proscription” or “designation” of groups and individuals as “terrorist” has been deployed as acrucial legal weapon in the global war on terrorism. Despite its serious humanrights implications, judicial review is excluded from this highly politicisedprocess, which has been embraced uncritically by the international communityand member states' domestic legal system. The essay aims to survey certaincontradictions within legal regimes imposed by the UN Security Council, the EUand the Hungarian Government, aimed at freezing assets and financialtransactions of terrorist organisations and organs associated withanti-democratic political regimes. It is argued that legal regimes that wouldserve the thorough implementation of anti-terrorist sanctions brought by the UNSecurity Council or the European Council are extremely underdeveloped. In otherwords, the three normative levels of sanction measures-(1) legislation passedby the UN Security Council; (2) the implementing legislation of member statesand the EU; (3) sui generis EU sanction-regulations-arenot harmonized. Even though the examples are brought from Hungary, a newEU-member state that so far has not been directly affected by terrorism,arguably the scrutinized controversies point to general Rule of Law questionsthat presumably most European states are bound to face.