According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:

"Referring to Article 23 of the Directive 2013/32 and the judgment of the CJEU in cases C-300/11 (ZZ) and C-159/21 (GM), the Supreme Court did not find a violation of the applicant's right to be heard. Namely, the first-instance court during the oral hearing fully disclosed the classified information to the plaintiff and gave him the opportunity to oppose. The applicant could also read the version of the judgment, which contained classified information, although he was only served a version of the judgment without classified information. 

Regarding the exclusion from subsidiary protection status under Article 17 of Directive 2011/95, the Supreme Court referred to cases C-369/17 (Ahmed), C-57/09 and C-101/06 (B and D), C- 573/14 (Lounani) and C-373/13 (H.T.) and stated that the person's behavior must objectively mean serious participation (active involvement in its support network) in the activities of the terrorist group, and that the person must be responsible for it, i.e. that a person can be attributed part of the responsibility for acts committed by a terrorist organization based on objective and subjective criteria, as stated by the CJEU in the cases of B and D and H.T. "