Defamation on the Internet ● The "destination to the public in Monaco", criterion for the criminal jurisdiction of Monegasque courts

CASE LAW • Public defamation on the Internet • Criteria for the jurisdiction of the Monegasque criminal judge to hear cases involving contentious statements published on the Internet and accessible from the territory of the Principality of Monaco

CASE #2

• Court of Review, 17 June 2025, Appeal No. 2025/000021 (dismissal, confirmation of the position of the trial judges)
• Court of Appeal, 2 December 2024, k. A ((lack of jurisdiction of the Monegasque judge)
• Criminal Court, 10 October 2023, k. A. (lack of jurisdiction of the Monegasque judge)

CASE #1

• Criminal Court, 13 June 2023, v. E. v. j. C. and K. Limited Liability Company (lack of jurisdiction of the Monegasque judge)
• Tribunal correctionnel, 13 juin 2023, v. E. c/ j. C. et la Société à Responsabilité Limitée K. (incompétence du juge monégasque)

* * *

SUMMARY

In both cases, the disputed foreign-language writings submitted to the Monegasque judge by a foreign resident of Monaco concerned events that took place abroad and were disseminated abroad by an online media outlet with no real audience in Monaco.

The Criminal Court of Monaco does not have universal jurisdiction over the disputed writings published on the Internet, even though they are accessible from Monegasque territory and the applicant is a resident of Monaco:

• The publication of defamatory content on the Internet is not, in itself, sufficient to establish a link of criminal jurisdiction with Monaco;
• In order to establish the jurisdiction of the Monegasque criminal court, an effective connection with Monaco must be demonstrated;
• Administrative residence in Monaco does not constitute a real legal or social anchor, which alone can justify Monaco's territorial jurisdiction.

In the absence of any other criterion linking the person to the Principality, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court is subject to the criterion of the destination of the disputed writings to the public in Monaco (a criterion that is lacking in both cases).

The position of the Court of Review of Monaco corresponds to that adopted by the Criminal Division (judgment of 12 July 2016, Appeal no. 15-86.645, Published in the Bulletin) and the Commercial Division (judgment of 20 September 2011, Appeal no. 10-16.569) of the French Court of Cassation.

* * *

IN DETAIL

CASE #2

The dispute

The dispute concerned articles in English published in May 2023 on the website of a British magazine owned by British defendants (journalist, publisher, company registered in the United Kingdom), accused by the complainant, a British national and privileged resident of Monaco, of making allegations or accusations that damaged his honour or reputation.

On the basis of Law No. 1.299 of 15 July 2005 on freedom of public expression, which punishes defamation committed by means of audiovisual communication (Article 22), the complainant asked the Criminal Court to order the defendants to pay him the symbolic sum of €1 for moral damages, €200 in legal costs, and an order for the defendants to bear the costs of publishing the judgment in 10 newspapers of his choice, up to a limit of €20 per insertion, to be paid upon notification of the judgment, subject to a penalty of €1,000 per day of delay.

Judgment of the Criminal Court

The Criminal Court reiterated the lack of universal jurisdiction of the Monegasque criminal judge:

"(...) although it has been ruled that acts of public defamation are deemed to have been committed in any place where the incriminating statements were received, when said statements were disseminated via the internet, strict conditions must nevertheless be imposed on this jurisdiction, which cannot be universal."

It declared itself incompetent on the grounds that there were no connecting factors (neither the disputed writings were intended for the Monegasque public, nor did they concern Monegasque nationals):

"Although accessible from the territory of the Principality of Monaco, the disputed writings must also be intended for the Monegasque population.
However, it must be noted in this case that the disputed articles are in English, implicate K. A., who is certainly a Monegasque resident but of British nationality, and relate to natural persons or entities such as L. clubs and, finally, ‘cases’ or proceedings that all appear to be linked to X.
Thus, even if the publication of these articles on the internet made them accessible to the Monegasque public, they were in no way written and disseminated for their attention and information, so that in the absence of any other criterion linking them to the Principality of Monaco, such as the Monegasque nationality of a party to the criminal proceedings, as provided for in certain cases by the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Court must declare itself incompetent."

Ruling of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld the Criminal Court's ruling that it lacked jurisdiction, citing the absence of any connection to Monaco:

"Whereas it can be inferred from all of these elements that there are no grounds for the Monegasque court to have jurisdiction, both in terms of the place where the offence was committed, given that the incriminating statements have no connection with the territory of the Principality of Monaco, and in terms of the situation of the complainant;"

The disputed writings were not intended for the Monegasque public (eight Monegasque subscribers to the online magazine), had no connection with Monaco or its inhabitants (the statements deemed defamatory relate to old cases linked to the complainant's activities when he was living in that country, which have no connection with Monaco or its inhabitants), and with regard to the complainant's personal situation, although he was a privileged resident in Monaco, he had retained his social and economic interests in Great Britain.

Ruling of the Court of Review

The Court of Review upheld the position of the trial judges:

The criminal jurisdiction of the Monegasque judge is subject to a concrete material or personal connection, such as a publication specifically intended for the Monegasque public, facts relating to Monaco or damage located on the territory of Monaco.

The plaintiff's privileged resident status, which is purely administrative, is not sufficient to create a legal link with Monegasque territory when no economic activity or interest is established there.

In the absence of a substantial connection between the disputed statements and Monaco, the Monegasque judge has no jurisdiction.

* * *

CASE #1

The dispute

The dispute concerned four articles published on the defendants' website, two in Finnish and two in English, relating to a shipyard in Finland and implicating a foreign company owned by the plaintiff, a Belgian national and resident in Monaco.

On the basis of Law no. 1.299 of 15 July 2005 on freedom of public expression, which punishes defamation committed by means of audiovisual communication (article 22), the plaintiff asked the Criminal Court to order the deletion from the defendants' website of all defamatory content relating to him, and claimed compensation for his material and financial loss as well as for non-material damage.

The defendants did not dispute that they were the authors of the disputed articles, but raised in limine litis the territorial incompetence of the Monegasque courts, and in any event requested that they be acquitted, arguing that they were acting in good faith and that their writings were true, and that they were not sufficiently precise to constitute defamation. As a counterclaim, they demanded that the plaintiff be ordered to pay compensation for their financial and non-material loss.

Judgment of the Criminal Court

The Criminal Court ruled that:

"It is established that the Internet and the written material published on it constitute a means of audiovisual communication within the meaning of Article 15 of the aforementioned Act.

On the other hand, while it has been ruled that acts of public defamation are deemed to have been committed in any place where the offending statements were received, when said statements were broadcast via the internet, strict conditions must be applied to this jurisdiction, which cannot be universal.

Although they are accessible from the territory of the Principality of Monaco, the disputed writings must be intended for the Monegasque population in particular."

In this case, the court declared that it did not have jurisdiction, on the grounds that the disputed articles had not been written and distributed for the information of the Monegasque public, in the absence of any other criterion for connecting the articles to the Principality of Monaco, such as the Monegasque nationality of a party to the criminal proceedings.

However, it dismissed the defendants' counterclaim, ruling that the plaintiff could have considered it legitimate to bring the case before a Monegasque court given his status as a Monegasque resident.

* * *