Page 44 - MONACO LAW REVIEW 2025-2

provisions of Law No. 1.529 of 29 July 2022 confi rm the non-
retroactivity of the succession rules set out in the new Code.
ANALYSIS:
The Court of Revision held that successions opened before
2017 remain governed by the earlier confl ict-of-laws regime,
thereby ensuring the stability of vested situations. It further
clarifi ed that Article 24 of the Private International Law
Code, which concerns confl icts of laws, applies immediately,
including to successions predating the reform. This provision
excludes renvoi: when a foreign law is designated as applicable,
the Monegasque court does not follow any onward references
made by that law to other legal systems but applies that
foreign law directly. Confi rming the continued application of
the former splitting regime, the Court held that immovable
property remains governed by the law of the situs, while
movable property is governed by the deceased’s national law.
Accordingly, the renunciation executed in Monaco produces
effect only in respect of the portion of the estate governed by
Monegasque law, and the heir may take a different position
with respect to other portions governed by foreign law. The
plurality of applicable laws implies that succession options are
divisible and excludes any universal renunciation.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The decision consolidates the articulation between the former
and the new regimes of Monegasque private international
law. It illustrates the coherence of the transitional framework:
successions opened before 2017 remain subject to the previous
confl ict-of-laws rules, while the general principles of the new
Code — foremost among them the exclusion of renvoi under
Article 24 — apply immediately.
SD
International Succession: Jurisdiction
and International Lis Pendens.
Estoppel.
Withdrawal of Action
Court of Revision, 30 June 2025
Case R.6314
Appeal No. 2025-000001
BACKGROUND:
A person holding a Monaco residence permit died having
chosen Swiss law to govern his succession. A dispute arose,
and the Monegasque courts held that they had jurisdiction
on the basis of the deceased’s last domicile. One party argued
that only the Swiss courts had jurisdiction and that Swiss
law applied. The case also raised issues of international lis
pendens, the prohibition on inconsistent conduct (estoppel),
and the scope of a withdrawal of proceedings and of the
claim in earlier litigation.
42
ANALYSIS:
The Court recalled that, under Article 2 of the Private
International Law Code, a person holding a Monegasque
residence permit is presumed to be domiciled in the Principality
unless proven otherwise, which had not been established in
this case.
It held that Monegasque courts must determine their
jurisdiction by applying the jurisdictional criteria laid down
in Monegasque law, irrespective of whether a foreign law
grants exclusive jurisdiction to foreign courts or determines
the order in which courts may be seized. In the absence of any
applicable international convention, a foreign decision cannot
take effect in Monaco if it confl icts with the rules governing
Monegasque jurisdiction. The Court drew a clear distinction
between jurisdiction and the law applicable to the succession,
which may be a foreign law designated by the testator.
The Court further held that the principle of consistency and
the prohibition on contradictory positions (estoppel) must
be assessed within each set of proceedings, and that a party
acting in good faith may amend its grounds and submissions
in light of the development of the dispute across successive
proceedings.
Lastly, it held that a withdrawal of proceedings and of the
claim is valid even though Articles 410 et seq. of the Code of
Civil Procedure refer only to a withdrawal of proceedings.
The scope of such a withdrawal falls within the sovereign
assessment of the trial judges.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The judgment lays down the principles governing the
jurisdiction of the Monegasque courts and recalls the
provisions of Article 2 of the Private International Law Code
in matters of succession where that jurisdiction is contested.
Jurisdiction must be assessed by reference to the jurisdictional
criteria of Monegasque law, irrespective of any foreign law
asserting exclusive jurisdiction. In this way, the judgment
is intended to prevent, in future, the lengthy debates which
frequently arise: it lays down the principle that no effect
can be recognised in Monaco for a foreign decision given in
breach of Monegasque jurisdictional rules. These principles
should discourage any party from forum shopping for the
most favourable jurisdiction in disputes that frequently arise
given the highly international composition of Monaco’s
resident population.
The judgment also distinguishes clearly between the question
of jurisdiction and that of the law applicable to the settlement
of the succession, which must be determined once the
Monegasque courts have retained jurisdiction, and may be
a foreign law designated, where appropriate, by the testator.
The decision further clarifi es the limits of the estoppel
principle in the context of multiple sets of proceedings and
complex disputes that evolve over the course of the litigation.
Lastly, it accepts, in addition to the withdrawal of proceedings,