Overview of ECHR decisions concerning Monaco in 2025

In 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on five cases concerning Monaco (all declared inadmissible), relating to insurance law (scope of French law in Monaco under the Exchange of Letters of 18 May 1963 relating to the Convention on the Regulation of Insurance), administrative law (reasons for an administrative decision refusing authorisation to form a Monegasque public limited company) and proceedings before the Supreme Court (fairness of proceedings, appointment procedure, independence and impartiality of members).

It also issued a decision striking two applications from the roll, relating to criminal proceedings (amicable settlement concerning seizures made following searches of homes and offices in execution of an international letter rogatory).

* * *

INSURANCE LAW

ECHR (Fifth Section Committee), decision of 22 May 2025, Irina Maltceva v. Monaco, Application No. 48017/22 (Articles 6 § 1 and 14 ECHR • Inadmissible)

¤ SUBJECT

• Civil proceedings relating to the claims of the applicant, whose husband was seriously injured in a traffic accident and subsequently died as a result of his injuries. The applicant sought, firstly, a declaration that the insurance contract of the driver of the vehicle responsible for the accident was null and void and unenforceable against her and, secondly, that the driver's insurance company be ordered to bear the financial consequences of the accident.
• The applicant complained of a violation of her right to a fair trial and of the unpredictability of the Monegasque courts' refusal to apply the French case law rule that the insurance contract was unenforceable against her (Article 6 § 1 ECHR - Right to a fair trial), and argued that the solution adopted by the Monegasque courts amounted to discrimination against her (Article 14 ECHR - Prohibition of discrimination).

¤ SUMMARY

→ No violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 14 ECHR

• The Court found no violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial, as she was able to exercise her rights effectively at all stages of the proceedings, assisted by her lawyers: to present her claims, put forward her arguments and produce the relevant evidence. The Monaco Court of Appeal expressly took these into consideration and responded to them in a detailed judgment, the analysis of which was taken up by the Court of Review (Cour de Révision).
• The Monegasque courts had ruled in this case that the automatic application of French law under the Franco-Monegasque Convention of 18 May 1963 on insurance regulations was limited to the text of the law and did not include its interpretation by foreign or European courts to which Monaco is not subject. While the contract was certainly subject to the French Insurance Code, this did not imply any transposition of the interpretation of the Insurance Code by the French Court of Cassation in the light of European directives and a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
• It did not appear to the Court that the Monegasque judges had drawn arbitrary conclusions from the facts submitted to them or had exceeded the limits of a reasonable interpretation of the documents in the proceedings and the texts applicable under Monegasque law in the circumstances of the case.
• The solution adopted by the Monegasque courts does not constitute discrimination against the applicant.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

ECHR (Fifth Section Committee), decision of 24 April 2025, M. A.M. v. Monaco, Application No. 9654/24 (Article 6 § 2 and 8 ECHR • Inadmissible)

¤ SUBJECT

• Decision by the Minister of State to reject an application for authorisation to form a Monegasque public limited company (SAM), on the grounds that the applicant founder and future shareholder did not provide all the guarantees of good character that the Monegasque authorities were entitled to expect.
• The applicant argued that this reasoning violated the presumption of innocence (Article 6 § 2 ECHR - Right to a fair trial) and complained of irreparable damage to his reputation (Article 8 ECHR - Right to respect for private and family life).

¤ SUMMARY

→ No violation of Article 6 § 2 ECHR

• The Supreme Court of Monaco, hearing an appeal for annulment on the grounds of misuse of power against the decision to reject the application, considered that the principle of the presumption of innocence cannot be validly invoked against a decision falling within the category of administrative police measures that do not constitute punitive sanctions. See our publication > The principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to administrative police measures without punitive character
• The Court emphasised the importance of the choice of words used by public officials in statements made before a person has been tried and found guilty of an offence, and clarified that, while the choice of words is of decisive importance in this regard, the question of whether a public official's statement constitutes a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence must be decided in the light of the specific circumstances in which the disputed statement was made.
• Thus, although it is true that the measure refusing authorisation to form a company does not fall within the scope of ‘criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 ECHR, the Court considered that it had to examine whether the statements made officially by the Minister of State in his decision to refuse authorisation reflected the view that the applicant was guilty of the offences for which he had been charged and placed under judicial supervision. The Court answered in the negative: in the terms chosen, the Minister of State merely referred briefly to the applicant's placement under judicial supervision, before concluding that he did not meet the moral requirements laid down by Monegasque law for authorisation to form a SAM.
• The Court also noted that, in the specific circumstances of the disputed statements, these had not been brought to the attention of the public, but had been made in the context of an individual administrative decision notified to the applicant at the address he had provided. The applicant did not claim that the domestic authorities had given any publicity to these statements.

→ No violation of Article 8 ECHR

• The Court considered that the damage to the applicant's reputation, which was very minor, was necessary for the defence of the ‘economic well-being of the country’ within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 ECHR.
• The Court indicated that it understood that the applicant may have felt offended on reading the rejection decision, which appeared to be a hasty judgement on his integrity, even though he had not been convicted and had ultimately been acquitted, but considered that the decision of the Minister of State was drafted in cautious terms, inspired by those of Article 3 on administrative investigations in Law No. 1.430 of 13 July 2016 on national security, that it was based on the fact that the applicant had been charged (an investigating judge having considered that there was serious and consistent evidence making it likely that he had participated, as perpetrator or accomplice, in offences), and that it was intended for him alone.
• Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was anonymised before its publication.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREM COURT (Tribunal Suprême)

ECHR (Fifth Section Committee), decision of 12 June 2025, Mr Claude Palmero v. Monaco, Application No. 12042/25 (Article 6 § 1 ECHR • Inadmissible)

¤ SUBJECT

• Fairness of proceedings to annul the appointment of four new members, as well as the president and vice-president of the Supreme Court of Monaco, on the grounds of abuse of power.
• Citing a violation of the right of access to a court and a lack of reasoning, the applicant criticised the Supreme Court's decision to reject his request for annulment on the grounds of abuse of power of the Sovereign Order appointing the members of the Supreme Court, complaining about the procedure for appointing members and the impossibility of challenging the decisions to appoint members of that court.

¤ SUMMARY

→ No violation of Article 6 § 1 ECHR

• The Court found that the Sovereign Order criticised, appointing the members of the Supreme Court, did not concern the applicant personally, and that he could not be considered a ‘victim’ of the alleged violations. The ECHR does not allow complaints in abstracto about violations. It does not recognise actio popularis, which means that an applicant cannot complain about a provision of domestic law, a national practice or a public act simply because they appear to him to be in breach of the Convention. The concept of ‘victim’ must be interpreted autonomously and independently of domestic concepts such as those relating to interest or standing to sue. The person concerned must be able to demonstrate that they have ‘directly suffered the effects’ of the disputed measure, which was not the case in this instance.
  Furthermore, the Court found no indication of any desire or intention on the part of the national authorities to influence the outcome of the proceedings to which the applicant was a party, considering in any event that the applicant had not produced reasonable and convincing evidence to support either the alleged violation consisting in calling into question the impartiality of the new composition of the Supreme Court or the personal and direct damage he had allegedly suffered.

ECHR (Fifth Section Committee), decision of 28 May 2025, SCI Esperanza v. Monaco, Application No. 28275/23 (Article 6 § 1 ECHR • Inadmissible)

¤ SUBJECT

• Independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court of Monaco ruling as a constitutional court, and respect for fairness during constitutional proceedings concerning a real estate transaction.
• The applicant company complained of a violation of its right to a fair trial. On the one hand, it alleged that the Supreme Court lacked independence given the conditions under which its members were appointed and the absence of a constitutional guarantee of the rules of irremovability and incompatibility applicable to them under Sovereign Order No. 2.984 of 16 April 1963 on the organisation and functioning of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, it complained about the lack of impartiality of the President of the Supreme Court and his alleged proximity to persons ‘directly involved in the proposed real estate transaction’, and alleged a violation of its right of access to a court, its rights of defence and equality of arms before the Supreme Court in the absence of any appeal against its decisions.

¤ SUMMARY

→ No violation of Article 6 § 1 ECHR

• The Court concluded that Article 6 § 1 of the ECHR was not applicable to the constitutional proceedings in question, since their outcome was not decisive for determining the applicant's civil rights and obligations. The applicant company's action was primarily aimed at protecting the public interest, not safeguarding its own civil rights.
• In the present case, the applicant company had challenged before the Supreme Court of Monaco a law transferring a plot of land from the public domain of the Monegasque State to its private domain ("Decommissioning Law"). The constitutional proceedings before the Supreme Court were neither a continuation of proceedings before the ordinary courts concerning the applicant's civil rights nor even the last resort available to the applicant to assert an infringement of such rights in violation of constitutional guarantees. They did not concern legislation relating to its civil rights.
• The Court found that it had not been alleged or proven that, at each stage following the adoption of the Decommissioning Law, the applicant company had not had the opportunity, where applicable, to complain of an infringement of its civil rights, whether in relation to its right to property in the event of a risk of depreciation of its building or its commercial interests as a developer.
• The Court therefore considered that the Decommissioning Law, which was merely a prerequisite for a possible future transfer of the disputed plot of land, was not in itself likely to have any impact on the private interests of the applicant company, regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the Decommissioning Law. The outcome of the constitutional proceedings brought by the applicant company before the Supreme Court was therefore not directly decisive for its civil rights.

ECHR (Fifth Section Committee), decision of 22 May 2025, Mr Claude Palmero v. Monaco, Application No. 1624/24 (Article 6 § 1 ECHR • Inadmissible)

¤ SUBJECT

• Fairness of the procedure for examining a request for the recusal of two permanent members of the Supreme Court, one responsible for monitoring the proceedings in progress and the other appointed by the former as rapporteur for an application for annulment and an application for a stay of proceedings filed by the applicant.
• The applicant complains of the alleged bias of the Supreme Court in examining his requests for the recusal of two of its members. In addition to a general challenge to the conditions for appointing members of the Supreme Court, which he considers incompatible with the requirements of the Convention, he believes that the change of president and rapporteur judge initially appointed was intended to influence the course of justice and serve interests that could undermine the fairness of the trial.

¤ SUMMARY

→ No violation of Article 6 § 1 of the ECHR

• The Court found that Article 6 of the ECHR was not applicable to the challenge procedure. The procedure for challenging a judge, which is an incidental procedure, is independent of the main proceedings that gave rise to it. It does not concern the merits of a criminal charge, nor does it involve the determination of the applicant's civil rights or obligations. The right to obtain a judicial decision on the composition of a court is not a civil right, but at most a procedural right which does not entail the determination of the applicant's civil rights.

STRIKING FROM THE ROLL

ECHR (Fifth Section Committee), decision of 4 December 2025, A.H. and S.C.V., P.S.S.M. and others v. Monaco, Application Nos. 48995/22 and 49003/22 (Art. 6 § 1 and 8 ECHR • Striking from the Roll)

¤ SUBJECT

• Seizures carried out following searches of the applicants' homes and offices, in execution of an international letter rogatory.
• Given the similarity of the applications, the Court considered it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
• The Monegasque Government submitted a joint statement to the Court in response to the applications with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicants' complaints, and requested the Court to strike the applications out of its list of cases.

¤ SUMMARY

• The Monegasque Government acknowledged that the seizures of documents and computer equipment carried out during searches in Monaco in execution of the Italian authorities' CRI were extensive and indiscriminate, and that they may have involved documents protected by the confidentiality of the relationship between a solicitor and their client, in breach of the requirements guaranteed by Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR. It also acknowledged that the material conditions under which the seizures were carried out did not fully comply with the procedural guarantees required by Article 8 ECHR, in particular in that the inventory of the documents seized was not drawn up in the presence of the parties.
• The Government therefore offered to pay the applicants sums in respect of a unilateral declaration for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (€20,000 for each natural person and €5,000 for each company).
• As the applicants expressly accepted the terms of the Government's declaration, the Court concluded that there had been a friendly settlement between the parties and did not pursue its examination of the applications concerned.