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?
Download the article (PDF, in French)
On 6 July 2022, Julia Stewart’s personal bank account was frozen in Monaco. The measure also covered the accounts of two companies run by her. While she was in police custody, the letter of request (commission rogatoire) was shown to Ms Stewart and her lawyer. In the view of the Monegasque courts, the information thus brought to her attention enabled her to challenge the measure. Ms Stewart maintains, on the contrary, that she did not have access to the documents that would have allowed her to understand the reasons for it and to respond to them. The whole case turns on the gap between these two assessments.
Take an example. A person learns that their account has been frozen because of suspicious transactions. They can produce years of bank statements. If they know that the suspicion concerns one specific transfer, they can do far more: track down the invoice, identify who ordered the transfer or show that the payment predates the facts under investigation. What changes is the precision of the answer they are able to give. It is from this angle that the four applications communicated to Monaco must be read.
On 7 October 2025, the European Court communicated to the Monegasque Government the applications in Stewart, SÀRL Niatri, Parodi and SCI Carosimo, and The Four K Holding Inc.1 They concern bank assets frozen in the course of judicial investigations. Those concerned had the status of third parties to the criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article 105 of the Monegasque Code of Criminal Procedure2. They were able to apply to the courts. Their complaint concerns the conditions under which they had to argue their applications for the freezes to be lifted. The applications are pending.
The Court puts two questions of law to the parties, in an order that matters. Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to these proceedings? If so, did the refusal to disclose the documents underlying the freeze infringe the principle of adversarial proceedings or equality of arms? It also invites Mr Parodi to produce the summons that the investigators had sent him to attend for questioning. That detail shows how precisely Strasbourg intends to reconstruct the proceedings. The communication decides neither the applicability of Article 6 nor the existence of a violation. It identifies the point on which each party will have to convince the Court.
For Monaco, the first question is of particular importance. The Principality has not ratified Protocol No. 1, Article 1 of which protects the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions3. An account holder therefore cannot ask Strasbourg, on that basis, whether the burden that the freeze places on their assets is excessive. Article 6 raises a separate question: when the judge rules on the application to lift the freeze, does the person concerned have the means to participate effectively in a decision that affects their rights? It must still be established, for each application, that the proceedings fall within the scope of that provision.
In Julia Stewart’s case the domestic courts gave specific reasons. The chambre du conseil of the Cour d’appel cited the complexity of the financial checks, the risk of the funds being dissipated and her personal links with Imperial Yachts, of which she was the sole beneficial owner. On 16 October 2023, the Cour de révision pointed out that the original of the letter of request had been shown to Ms Stewart in the presence of her counsel4. These factors must be taken seriously in assessing the fairness of the proceedings.
One question remains, which is not resolved merely by noting that the letter was shown to her: what could Ms Stewart infer from it about the link between the investigations into the company and the freezing of her personal account? Knowing that an investigation targets the business one runs is one thing. Explaining why a particular sum in one’s personal account has a separate origin is another: one needs to know which connection calls for an answer. The statement of facts published by the Court does not make it possible to reconstruct everything she was shown. It does, however, make it possible to pinpoint exactly where the disagreement lies: what defence did the information received make possible?
The cases of Niatri, on the one hand, and Parodi and SCI Carosimo, on the other, shed light on another difficulty. In April 2023, the seizures were based on their usefulness in establishing the truth. In January 2024, their basis changed: the assets were placed in the custody of the court with a view to possible confiscation. The distinction matters to the account holder. To challenge an investigative measure, they may seek to show that the necessary information has already been gathered. To challenge the retention of funds with a view to confiscation, they may need to establish where the funds came from or to dispute the amount that the authorities link to the alleged offence.
This is where the Monegasque file yields its most concrete lesson. The chambre du conseil of the Cour d’appel noted both the commingling of the assets of Mr Parodi and SCI Carosimo and the absence of investigations specific to the latter. It capped the seizure of Mr Parodi’s accounts at the presumed amount of the proceeds of the offence and ordered the release of the SCI’s accounts. The SCI did not appeal to the Cour de révision. It would therefore be inaccurate to present the four applications as four identical paths in which every remedy failed.
These decisions lend weight to both positions. Monaco can argue that judicial scrutiny had tangible effects. The account holder can reply that the amount attributable to a person and the existence of investigations specific to a company are precisely what changed the outcome of the appeal. The question whether the third party had the information needed to contest those two points then becomes decisive. The answer may vary from one account to another, within the same investigation.
Three Monegasque accounts held by The Four K Holding Inc. were frozen on 3 May 2021. On 2 May 2023, the investigating judge refused to lift the freeze, citing in particular investigations in Spain and Liechtenstein, suspicions concerning the beneficial owner, the lack of substantiated explanations as to the origin of the funds and the risk of their being dissipated. The company maintained that it did not have access to the documents. On 21 December 2023, the Cour d’appel held that the application was premature in view of the checks still to be carried out, taking into account in particular the provisional nature of the measure and the secrecy of the investigation. The Cour de révision dismissed the appeal on 18 June 2024.
Here the difficulty lies in what the judge expects of the account holder. If the lack of supporting documents carries weight in the refusal to lift the freeze, does the holder know with sufficient precision which funds they must account for? They may well be able to produce a contract concluded several years earlier. But they must still understand how that contract answers the suspicion. Conversely, if the transactions in question were sufficiently identified to them and they left a specific request unanswered, the assessment of fairness will be altered accordingly. The statement of facts sets out the competing positions. It does not make it possible to decide between these scenarios.
The secrecy of the investigation serves practical needs. Revealing the identity of a source, the recipient of a request for mutual legal assistance or a check that has yet to be carried out may compromise an investigation. In the communicated cases, the Monegasque courts expressly took that risk into account. But not all information is equally sensitive. Indicating a period, a category of transfers or the amount whose origin is in dispute may already enable the third party to give a documented response.
In the Niatri case, those concerned knew which accounts had been frozen and the sums held in them. But does knowing the balance of an account make it possible to tell which transaction calls for an explanation? In my view, the judge should first ascertain whether the information already disclosed enabled the third party to identify what they could usefully contest. Requiring them to point to the decisive document from the outset, or to formulate the exact objection it would have prompted, risks asking them to know what remains hidden from them. This reasoning also opens the way to solutions proportionate to the needs of the investigation: a redacted copy, a sufficiently precise summary, or a fresh examination once the sensitive check has been completed.
That is what gives the Stewart cases a significance that extends beyond the persons concerned. In Monaco, a judge has already shown, in the Carosimo matter, that an account holder’s own situation could justify the release of their accounts. The European question arises a moment earlier: did the third party receive in time the information enabling them to show the judge why their account, in particular, should be unfrozen?
Links to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights open the official text on HUDOC: in English where it exists, otherwise in French.
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.