These notes concern the European dimension alone of cases arising before the Monegasque courts. Monaco has been bound by the European Convention on Human Rights since 30 November 2005 and is not a member of the European Union: the European Court of Human Rights is the supranational forum.
Just Rights Europe does not replace the avocats-défenseurs and avocats conducting the domestic proceedings; it works on the Convention dimension alone, in cases that have reached the highest domestic level.
A final domestic decision in Monaco does not settle the Convention question. With a strict four-month time limit and no Protocol No. 1, that question needs its own analysis, and promptly.
A final Monegasque judgment does not by itself open the door to Strasbourg: using the wrong domestic remedy, never raising the Convention issue or missing the four-month deadline can end a case at the admissibility stage.
Because Monaco never ratified Protocol No. 1, a confiscation or asset freeze cannot reach Strasbourg as a property complaint. The question is whether the way the measure was imposed, challenged or reviewed breached another Convention guarantee.
The right to examine a phone or computer is not a right to examine everything on it. Where a lawyer is involved, Article 8 requires specific safeguards from the outset, and the complaint must first reach the Monegasque courts.
What a Monegasque case must look like by the time the Cour de révision has ruled, if it is to survive in Strasbourg.
In Monaco, assets can be frozen even though their owner is not being prosecuted. The protection of third parties then depends on whether they have a real opportunity to understand the measure, to contest it and to have it reviewed.
A spouse may lose their share of a jointly owned asset; a business, the tools of its trade. When the owner is a third party to the criminal proceedings, what must they be able to challenge before the loss becomes final?
In the Stewart case and three other applications, the European Court of Human Rights is examining a practical difficulty. The judge knows the material that justifies freezing an account. How much of it must be disclosed to the account holder so that they can apply effectively for the freeze to be lifted?
Prencipe v. Monaco, no. 43376/06, 16 July 2009, remains the Monegasque authority on Article 5 § 3.
A freezing measure must be argued on the Convention itself: Monaco has not ratified Protocol No. 1.
The Convention questions in play: the origin of funds, third parties outside the proceedings, Article 6 § 1.
These notes are general information on Convention law; they do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship.
After the final decision of the highest national court, a case may be submitted to us directly, by the client or by their lawyer.