Page 40 - MONACO LAW REVIEW 2025-2

no activity or economic interest is established. In the absence
of any substantial connecting link between the impugned
statements and the Principality, the Court confi rmed that the
Monegasque courts lacked jurisdiction.
SIGNIFICANCE:
By this decision, the Court of Revision adopts a strict
approach to the principle of territoriality in the digital age.
It confi rms that the dissemination of defamatory content
on the internet is not, in itself, suffi cient to establish
jurisdiction, and that an effective territorial connecting link
must be demonstrated. The judgment also underlines that
an administrative residence status, even a privileged one,
cannot be equated with a genuine legal or social anchor
in the Principality, which alone is capable of justifying
territorial jurisdiction.
SD
No Extradition Without Guarantees:
When the Protection of Rights
Prevails Over Cooperation
Court of Appeal of Monaco, sitting in camera,
12 September 2025
Case R.7658– Office of the Prosecutor General File
No. 2025-EXT-000016
BACKGROUND:
Faced with an extradition request issued by the Russian
Federation in respect of a Russian national residing in
Monaco, the Court of Appeal had to determine whether the
Principality could cooperate with a State that is no longer a
party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The
individual concerned, the executive manager of a public
works company, was the subject of proceedings for value-
added tax fraud. He claimed to be the victim of economic
and political persecution after reporting acts of corruption,
and had a pending asylum application under examination
in France. The key issue was whether extradition to Russia
would be compatible with the Convention requirements
prohibiting inhuman treatment and ensuring the right to a
fair trial.
ANALYSIS:
After verifying the formal validity of the request — which was
accompanied by a “resolution” for pre-trial detention issued by
the Moscow court — the Court examined whether extradition
would be lawful in substance. It noted that Russia, excluded
from the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022 and no longer
a party to the European Convention on Human Rights since
16 September 2022, no longer guarantees compliance with
fundamental rights or the enforcement of judgments of the
European courts. The diplomatic assurances provided by the
Russian prosecutor’s offi ce, which contained no mechanism for
38
effective monitoring, were therefore insuffi cient to dispel the
risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of
Article 3 of the Convention. The Court consequently held that
extradition would expose the individual to a real risk of such
treatment and issued an unfavourable opinion on the request.
SIGNIFICANCE:
By its decision, the Court of Appeal reaffi rms the absolute
prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, even in the
context of international judicial cooperation. It establishes a
clear limit: extradition cannot be granted to a State that no
longer offers effective guarantees of respect for human rights.
The ruling falls within the line of European case law, in
particular the judgments in Soering (1989) and Othman (2012),
which hold that a State may not extradite a person where there
is a real risk of a violation of Article 3 or of a serious breach of
the right to a fair trial. By making international cooperation
conditional upon tangible guarantees of fundamental rights,
the Monaco court underscores the responsibility of national
authorities in safeguarding the values protected by the
Convention.
SD
Extradition and Fundamental
Safeguards: A Second Illustration
Court of Appeal of Monaco, sitting in camera, 25
September 2025
Case R.7900 – Office of the Prosecutor General File
No. 2025-EXT-05
BACKGROUND:
Seized of an extradition request issued by Ukraine in respect
of an individual who had since become a Russian national,
the Court of Appeal had to reconcile the requirements of
international judicial cooperation with the guarantees of the
right to a fair trial. The person concerned, sought under an
arrest warrant for organised fraud and money laundering,
had been arrested in Monaco on the basis of an Interpol Red
Notice. He opposed the extradition request on the grounds
that Ukraine, being at war and subject to martial law, had
derogated from certain of its international obligations,
including those arising under the European Convention
on Human Rights. The issue was whether the Principality
could surrender an individual to a State that had temporarily
suspended essential guarantees of fair trial rights and
protection against inhuman treatment.
ANALYSIS:
After verifying and confi rming the formal validity of the
request, the Court examined its compatibility with the
Principality’s international commitments. The Public
Prosecutor, invoking Ukraine’s continuing compliance with
European treaty obligations and the geographical distance