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.
It is one of the most frustrating outcomes in European human-rights litigation: a case with a genuinely strong complaint never gets heard on its merits, because of a procedural misstep earlier in the process. As explained in our overview of the gap between Monaco and Strasbourg, a final judgment from the Cour de révision or the Tribunal Suprême does not automatically open the door to Strasbourg.
Before the European Court of Human Rights asks whether a Convention right was actually violated, it first asks whether the application is admissible — and for some cases, that is where the proceedings end. A genuinely serious human-rights complaint can fail to reach the merits stage entirely because of what happened, or did not happen, during the domestic proceedings. Three risks stand out.
Article 35 of the Convention requires applicants to exhaust effective domestic remedies before applying to Strasbourg. That does not simply mean taking a case as far as possible through the courts — the remedy used must be capable of addressing the specific complaint later brought before the European Court.
Perez v. Monaco (dec.), no. 60104/21, 5 October 2023, illustrates the point. The applicant complained in Strasbourg about the excessive length of domestic proceedings, but the Court never assessed whether the proceedings had in fact lasted too long: the complaint was declared inadmissible because the applicant had not first used the specific domestic remedy available for that grievance, the action for State liability for the defective functioning of the justice system under Article 4 bis of the Monegasque Civil Code. The underlying complaint was never examined on its merits.
The national courts must normally have had the opportunity to deal with the substance of the human-rights complaint. It is not always necessary to cite the exact Convention article by number, but the underlying grievance must have been sufficiently raised before the competent domestic authorities — and this distinction can be decisive.
A party may challenge a search, seizure, or procedural decision purely on technical grounds of Monegasque law, without raising the underlying questions of privacy, fairness, or defence rights. If those Convention issues surface only after the final domestic judgment, Strasbourg may find that the national courts were never given the chance to address them.
Bersheda and Rybolovlev v. Monaco, nos. 36559/19 and 36570/19, 6 June 2024 — discussed in more detail in our article on searches and digital privilege — shows the opposite outcome. As regards Ms Bersheda, Monaco argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, because the criminal proceedings were still pending and a plea of nullity could still be raised before the trial court. The Court rejected that objection because the relevant issues had already been put before the national courts: she had sought annulment before the chambre du conseil of the Cour d'appel and then taken the matter to the Cour de révision, and the domestic courts had ruled in last instance with express reference to the Convention. They had therefore been given the opportunity to address the substance of the complaint first. The distinction is fundamental: Strasbourg reviews a complaint that has already been presented domestically — it does not hear an entirely new one.
Even a properly exhausted complaint can be lost through timing. An application must, in principle, be lodged within four months of the relevant final domestic decision. Identifying that decision is not always as simple as pointing to the latest judgment in the file — the relevant final decision depends on the specific Convention complaint and on which remedy had to be exhausted first. The deadline therefore requires its own legal assessment.
Once the Cour de révision or, where applicable, the Tribunal Suprême has given its final decision, three questions become essential:
Only once those questions are answered does the next one arise: whether the facts disclose an arguable violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
These three risks share a common thread: by the time a case reaches Strasbourg, it is often too late to fix them. That is why Just Rights Europe's involvement typically begins immediately after the final domestic decision — assessing exhaustion, the substance of what was actually argued domestically, and the running of the four-month clock, before deciding whether and how to bring a case before the Court.
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 national counsel.