Page 39 - MONACO LAW REVIEW 2025-2

MONACO LAW REVIEW | DECEMBER 2025 | COURTROOM INSIGHTS
the circumstances in which they may be released, thereby
enhancing legal certainty in a sensitive area.
LL
Seizure and On-the-Spot
Investigations: the Judge’s
Dual Review of the Lawfulness
of the Measure
Court of Revision of Monaco,
19 December 2024
Case R.1886
Appeal No. 2024-000063
SIGNIFICANCE:
The judgment draws a clear distinction between evidential
seizures, which are limited to the search for elements of
proof, and asset seizures, which serve to preserve property
that may ultimately be subject to confi scation. It illustrates the
maturity of Monaco’s system of criminal seizures: respectful
of defence rights, yet suffi ciently fl exible to allow for the swift
preservation of assets that may be confi scated.
SD
BACKGROUND:
A Romanian national was stopped in Monaco while driving
a vehicle registered in France. He was found in possession of
a substantial amount of cash, several bank cards, car keys and
a mobile phone. Acting on instructions from the Prosecutor
General, he was placed in police custody and the items were
sealed. Relying on Article 596-1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Prosecutor General applied to the Liberty and
Custody Judge for an order maintaining the measure and
for the seized property to be placed under the responsibility
of the Offi ce for the Management of Seized or Confi scated
Assets. The judge granted the request, but on appeal by
the person concerned, the Court of Appeal set aside the
order, holding that the sealed items were not necessary for
establishing the truth within the meaning of Article 81-7-3 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
ANALYSIS:
On an appeal brought by the Public Prosecutor, the Court
of Revision overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal
and clarifi ed the interaction between Articles 81-7-3 and 596-
1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whose complementary
nature is often overlooked.
Article 81-7-3 concerns evidential seizures, namely the
preservation of objects or documents required to establish the
truth, regardless of the type of investigation. Article 596-1, by
contrast, governs asset seizures and authorises the provisional
seizure of assets liable to confi scation, including in on-the spot
investigations. In the present case, the Court of Appeal confi ned
its reasoning to the evidential dimension of the measure under
Article 81-7-3, without considering whether the assets could,
pursuant to Article 12 of the Criminal Code, constitute the object,
proceeds or instrumentalities of the offence. However, the judge
must conduct a dual assessment: fi rst, whether the seizure
remains useful to the investigation; and second, whether it may
serve to preserve assets that could ultimately be confi scated.
By restating this distinction, the ourt of Revision reinforced the
procedural framework applicable to seizures carried out during
on-the-spot investigations and strengthened the legal certainty
surrounding measures taken by the Public Prosecutor.
Online Defamation and Territorial
Jurisdiction: the Court of Revision
Defines the Limits of the
Connection to Monaco
Court of Revision of Monaco, 17 June 2025
Case R.5988 - Appeal No. 2025/000021
BACKGROUND:
A Monegasque resident of foreign nationality brought
proceedings before the Criminal Court against several British
nationals for public defamation of a private individual. He
alleged that they had published statements damaging his
honour on the website of a foreign magazine. The Criminal
Court, whose decision was upheld on appeal, declined
jurisdiction on the ground that the Monegasque courts could
not hear an offence committed abroad in the absence of a
suffi cient connecting link with the Principality. Before the
Court of Revision, the appellant relied on a breach of his right
of access to a court and on Articles 21 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and 15 and 24 of Law No. 1.299 of 15 July 2005
on freedom of public expression. He argued that the online
availability of the article from Monaco, together with his
status as a privileged resident, established the jurisdiction of
the Monegasque courts.
ANALYSIS:
The Court of Revision dismissed the appeal and confi rmed
the approach taken by the lower courts. It held that territorial
jurisdiction in criminal matters cannot be inferred solely from
the fact that online content is merely accessible from Monaco. To
establish the jurisdiction of the Monegasque courts, there must
be a specifi c and concrete factual or personal connecting link
with the Principality, such as content specifi cally directed at a
Monegasque audience, facts having a connection with Monaco,
or harm actually suffered on its territory.
The judges noted that the statements at issue, written
in English, related to events that had occurred abroad,
concerned a person of the same nationality as their authors
and were disseminated by a media outlet with no real
audience in the Principality. As to the argument based on
the appellant’s status as a privileged resident, the Court
rejected it, recalling that this purely administrative status is
not suffi cient to create a legal link with the territory where
37