June 2016

Tribunal Suprême, Monaco, February 2009

Tribunal Suprême, Monaco, February 2009

Press release – 158 (2009), Council of Europe
“The struggle for human rights is also a local affair” says Commissioner Hammarberg

Strasbourg, 02.03.2009 – “Local politicians and public officials should seize the opportunity to enhance the quality of life in their communities by implementing human rights in their ordinary work” says Commissioner Hammarberg in his latest Viewpoint. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights stresses that “authorities at local or regional level take key decisions in areas extremely relevant for individuals’ human rights, such as education, housing, health care, social services and policing. These decision-makers should therefore apply European and international human rights standards when they formulate their policies and ensure that their approach is rights-based.”
Also available at the Commissioner’s website at www.commissioner.coe.int

DENIAL OF JUSTICE

The ruling by the Supreme Court of Monaco of 16 February 2009 constitutes a miscarriage of justice, breaching articles 6, 8 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Consequently, the oldest Constitutional Court in the world has, de facto, relegated the Monegasque legal order to among the latest in Europe for recognising the principle of State responsibility due to jurisdictional activity.

Excerpts of the Supreme Court’s 2008-04 judgement; excerpts of the demands; excerpts of the request before the ECHR; comments.

Translation of the original French documents

Principality of Monaco
SUPREME COURT
2008-04

Case:
Mrs Monica Fristedt
Against:
His Excellency the Minister of State

RULING
Hearing of 9 February 2009
Reading of 16 February 2009

Appeal on the legal basis of Article 90-A-20 of the Constitution of the Principality of Monaco.

In the case of:

- Mrs Monica Fristedt, residing at 6, Lacets Saint Léon, Monaco, having elected domicile at the offices of Maître Jean-Pierre Licari, Counsel for the Defence at the Monaco Court of Appeal, and represented before the court by Maître Ulf Öberg, Barrister and member of the Swedish Bar Association;

Against:

- His Excellency the Minister of State of the Principality of Monaco, having as Counsel for the Defence Maître Joëlle Pastor-Bensa, avocat-défenseur (Defence Lawyer) at the Monaco Court of Appeal, and represented before the court by S.C.P. (Professional Partnership) Piwnica-Molinie, Avocat aux Conseils (Accredited Lawyer);

THE SUPREME COURT,
Holding session and deliberating to the full court and ruling on constitutional and administrative matters,[…]

Decides:
Article 1: Mrs Fristedt’s application is rejected;
Article 2: The costs shall be borne by Mrs Fristedt;
Article 3: Delivery of this decision will be sent to the Minister of State;

Thus considered and deliberated by the Supreme Court of the Principality of Monaco, the ninth February two thousand and nine, composed of Messrs Hubert CHARLES, Officier de l’Ordre de Saint-Charles, President, José SAVOYE, Michel ROGER and Ms Martine LUC-THALER, members, and Ms Magali INGALL-MONTAGNIER, reporting judge, deputy member,

and pronounced in the presence of Mr Jacques RAYBAUD, Crown Prosecutor, on the sixteenth February two thousand and nine, by Mr Michel ROGER, member assisted by Ms Béatrice BARDY, Senior Registrar, Chevalier de l’Ordre de Saint Charles.

Chief Registrar,
[Signed]

The President,
[Signed]

The Minister of State’s lawyer, Maître Joëlle PASTOR-BENSA has been the lawyer of one of the victims in this affair, Mr David Fristedt. The lawyer was one of the called witnesses. Incredible but true!

His Excellency the Ministre of State of Monaco, Michel ROGER – one of the judges of the Supreme Court.

His Excellency the Ministre of State of Monaco, Michel ROGER – one of the judges of the Supreme Court.

Here is what the appellant asked for. The Supreme Court would only comply with demand number 1. Translation of the original French documents:

- By provisional court order:

1. to authorise Maître Ulf Öberg, Barrister, member of the Swedish Bar Association to plead before the Supreme Court,

2. to order pre-trial preparation measures in order to give Mrs Fristedt access to:

* copies of judicial, administrative and police records concerning her and those concerning her son, Mr David Fristedt, and having infringed upon her fundamental rights and freedoms,

* the certified report drawing up an inventory of Mrs Fristedt’s belongings prepared on 29 October 2004 by Mrs Escaut-Marquet, huissier de justice (bailiff), and to photographs of these belongings,

* the internal regulations of the Bar Association of the Principality of Monaco setting the rules of professional ethics for the Monaco Bar.

3. to order pre-trial preparation measures with the aim of stipulating to the Monaco authorities the communication to her of all documents likely to establish the Supreme Court’s satisfaction of the absence of the abuse of powers on the part of these authorities and having infringed upon the fundamental rights and freedoms of Mrs Fristedt,

4. in the event that the demands for the requested pre-trial preparation measures are refused by the Supreme Court, to set aside the explicit and implicit rulings on the refusal of:

a. access to the Director of Judicial Service’s records of 22 October 2007;

b. access to the Procureur Général (Chief Prosecutor) records of 26 October 2007;

c. access to the Président du Tribunal de Première Instance (President of the Court of First Instance) records of 12 October 2007 received on the following 17 October;

d. access to the internal regulations of the Bar Association of the Principality of Monaco, setting the rules of professional ethics for the Monaco Bar of 6 November 2007 by Maître Rémy Brugnetti, President of the Monaco Bar;

The Supreme Court denied the request for access to any of these documents. In order to remedy to such inequality of arms, the appellant asked for the following witnesses to be heard:

Translation of the original French documents:

i. to authorise Mrs Fristedt to summon the following witnesses before the Supreme Court:

~ 1: 1. Mr […] of Château Périgord; 2. Mrs Charlotte Shazada; 3. Mrs Marie Boof; 4. Mrs Corinne Métivier, sworn Deputy Clerk of bailiff Maître Escaut-Marquet; 5. The four police officers called to the premises by Mrs Fristedt on 27 July 2004; 6. Mr […], concierge at Château Périgord; 7. Maître Escaut-Marquet, bailiff; 8. Maître Claire Notari, bailiff: these witnesses are summoned before the Supreme Court to establish the facts and, in particular, several instances of “blatantly unlawful conduct” involving the responsibility of the State committed during the execution of the Court of First Instance orders of 21 July and 9 September 2004;

~ 2: 9. Maître Escaut-Marquet, bailiff; 10. Mr Daniel Serdet, former Chief Prosecutor; 11. Ambassador Rainier Imperti, ex-Delegate of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of State: These witnesses are summoned before the Supreme Court to establish that several instances of blatantly unlawful conduct and abuses of power were committed involving the responsibility of the State during the execution of the Court of First Instance orders of 20 October 2004;

~ 3: 12. Mrs Médard. the only Chief Inspector at the Public Security Department who questioned Mrs Fristedt on 3 December 2004 and 8 June 2005 following her complaints and the interview statements of which remain undisclosed to the applicant to this day; 13. Mr André Muhlberger, Director of the Department of Public Safety; 14. Mr Daniel Serdet, former Chief Prosecutor; 15. Mrs Annie Brunet-Fuster, former Chief Prosecutor; 16. Mr Philippe Narmino, Director of Judicial Services: these witnesses are summoned before the Supreme Court to establish the persistent inaction of the police force, the prosecution, and the Department of Judicial Services to instruct, and to investigate the complaints of Mrs Fristedt, and the refusal of the Director of Judicial Services and the Director of Public Safety to impose the necessary disciplinary sanctions on the parties responsible for the violation of the fundamental rights of Mrs Fristedt and under their authority;

~ 4: 17. Maître Remy Brugnetti, President of the Bar Association of the Principality of Monaco. 18. Maître Joëlle Pastor Bensa, former President of the Bar Association of the Principality of Monaco: these witnesses are summoned before the Supreme Court in order to establish the non-transparent and unjust nature of the envisaged disciplinary proceedings in this case before the Board of the Bar Association of the Principality of Monaco;

None of the called witnesses was allowed to come and testify.

Claire NOTARI – one of the witnesses whose hearing was refused by the Supreme Court, which preferred to let her work as a bailiff during the very same trial before the Supreme Court, despite her being involved in the affair at stake. Incredible!

Claire NOTARI – one of the witnesses whose hearing was refused by the Supreme Court, which preferred to let her work as a bailiff during the very same trial before the Supreme Court, despite her being involved in the affair at stake. Incredible!

Translation of the original French documents:

- On the alternative application to set aside ruling:

Whereas her main application is to be able to have the documents requested through investigation measures granted by a preliminary ruling, to enable the Supreme Court to exercise control over the substance, that it is only in the alternative and in accordance with the rights of the defence that she requested this in her application for the ruling to be set aside. That she would possibly be willing to waive the hearing of most of the witnesses if the investigation measures were ordered by the Supreme Court;

Whereas the appeal may not be reduced to the question of the attitude of the police officers she had called, the on-going or continued violations of her fundamental rights finding their origin not only in acts of mere individuals, but also in a range of positive acts, blatantly unlawful conduct, omissions, excess and abuse of powers by the Monaco authorities and courts, the persistent inaction of the police force, the prosecution, and the Department of Judicial services to instruct, and instigate proceeding based on her repeated complaints, the refusal of the Director of Judicial Services and the Director of Public Safety to take disciplinary action against the parties responsible for violations of her fundamental rights, and finally in the implicit and explicit rulings to refuse access to records by these authorities as well as from the Bar Association of the Principality of Monaco;

Whereas the grievances are the following:

* violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution of the Principality, the rights of the defence and the right to access records, as well as the right to due process and effective recourse by the Monaco courts: by the two orders denying her access to her home and property, by the rulings of successive Presidents of the Court of First Instance of 4 August 2004 and 12 October 2007 making it known to her, firstly, that it was not authorised to respond to her complaint with regard to access to the records and, secondly, denying her access to the two jurisdictional files,

* violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution of the Principality, of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the rights of the defence and the right to access the records, as well as the right to due process by the bailiff, during the execution of the two orders from the Monaco Courts,

* violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution of the Principality by the police officers that she had called,

* violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution of the Principality, of Articles 8, 6 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the rights of the defence and the right to access the records by the Chief Prosecutor,

* violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution of the Principality, of Articles 8, 6 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as the rights of the defence and the right to access the records by the Director of Judicial Services,

* blatantly unlawful conduct and abuse of power in violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution of the Principality by the ex-Delegate for Foreign Affairs to the Minister of State by putting pressure through consular channels on Mrs Fristedt in Sweden in her summer residence during the execution of orders concerning her son,

* violation of Articles 8, 13 and13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the Bar Association of the Principality of Monaco in refusing to send her lawyer a copy of their internal rules,

* violation of Articles 8, 6 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the Monaco authorities due to the attitude of the police officers, judicial errors, blatantly unlawful conduct, excess and abuse of power committed by the judicial, police and administrative authorities,

Some excerpts of Mrs Fristedt’s request before the ECHR :

71. In its ruling of 16 February 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal lodged by Mrs. Fristedt ordering the latter to pay all costs.

72. The Supreme Court noted that, according to article 90 A 2 of the Monegasque Constitution, it was making a definitive ruling in a constitutional case on actions for damages related to a violation of the freedoms and rights enshrined in Volume III of the Constitution and which are not mentioned in paragraph B of this article.

73. By a particularly restricted interpretation of its own competence, the Supreme Court considered that it “is clear from this legislation that, outside the framework where a law is in question, the damage to the freedoms and rights consecrated by Volume III of the Constitution must result from a patently illegal action, i.e. by actions taken by an administrative authority, taken outside any proceedings or any law, but excluding acts by the judiciary or acts by an individual” (our emphasis).
[…]

Concerning the breach of article 8 of the Convention

75. The appellant complains of unjustified interference in her right to guaranteed respect of her private and family life, her home and her correspondence, guaranteed by article 8 of the Convention, which makes provision as follows:

1. Every person is entitled to respect for his/her private and family life, home and correspondence.
2. There may be interference by a public authority in the exercise of this right only if this interference is decreed by the law and it is a measure which, in a democratic society, is necessary for national security, for the police, for the economic well-being of the nation, for the protection of law and order and for preventing criminal offences, for the protection of health or morale, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of anyone else.

Concerning the initial interference in Mrs. Fristedt’s private and family life, her home and correspondence

76. The initial interference in Mrs. Fristedt’s private and family life, her home and correspondence occurred by the unilateral order by the Vice President of the Court of First Instance of the Principality of Monaco of 21 July 2004, and by its immediate enforcement on 27 July 2004 through the bailiff, Maître Marie-Thérèse Escaut-Marquet, the wife of Maître Escaut, Mrs. Shahzada’s defending counsel.

Maître Didier ESCAUT against whom the Chief Prosecutor Jacques Raybaud has refused to lay charges, here present at the trial, fully confident in his not having to fear any action from the judicial authorities.

Maître Didier ESCAUT against whom the Chief Prosecutor Jacques Raybaud has refused to lay charges, here present at the trial, fully confident in his not having to fear any action from the judicial authorities.

77. Through this order, Mrs Fristedt has been evicted from her own home, on no legal grounds whatsoever. Her private archives, as well as all her furniture and personal belongings with which she had filled her home, have been put to the disposal of MadamShahzada with whom she was in judicial conflict, and this before the active help of the Monegasque justice, the Monegasque police, and of any Monegasque state lawyers.
[…]

100. In this respect, Mrs. Fristedt presciently, as early as 3 August 2004 by letter for the attention of the Government Counsellor for Home Affairs drew the attention of the Monegasque authorities to the breach of her privacy and that of the members of her family to which they were exposed continuously, in the following words:

“People who I do not know now have access to everything about the history of my family’s private affairs. Even if nothing is stolen, the chance to take copies of all my sensitive documents is a fact to which I am currently continuously exposed”. […]

122. Consequently, the explicit, implicit and persistent refusals by the Monégasque authorities to investigate or terminate this case have continued to this day. They are not amenable to any remedy.

123. In other words, nobody in any position of responsibility whatsoever in the Principality of Monaco appears willing to accept his/her due responsibilities in ensuring the protection of Mrs. Fristedt’s property and her private life. For a Principality within which prosperity relies very largely on these principles, essential in any rule of law, this is unacceptable.
[…]

139. Consequently, the oldest Constitutional Court in the world has, de facto, relegated the Monegasque legal order to among the latest in Europe for recognising the principle of State responsibility due to jurisdictional activity.

140. The facts are that all member States of the European Union now own this principle of State responsibility because of jurisdictional activity. All of them own this principle for jurisdictional rulings themselves, and therefore they are ignoring the rules of law applicable on their sovereign territory if fundamental rights are breached (see the conclusions of the Advocate General, Philippe Léger, of the European Court of Justice in the Köbler case, C-224/01, Rec. p. I-10239, point 77 et seq.).

141. Regarding the findings of the Supreme Court that acts by the judiciary or acts by an individual fall outside of its remit in accordance with article 90 A 2 of the Monegasque Constitution, Mrs. Fristedt was unable to find an effective remedy before the Court of First Instance of Monaco in order to receive compensation for those instances where her fundamental rights were breached by this same jurisdiction.

142. The facts are that this jurisdiction had previously, on two occasions, without any legal basis for this purpose, deprived Mrs. Fristedt of her own home and the peaceful enjoyment of the property located thereby.

143. The Court of First Instance of Monaco did not therefore fulfil the conditions of impartiality as required by article 6 of the Convention, in order to judge its own errors in law which led to the breaches of Mrs. Fristedt’s fundamental rights. Owing to the very small size of the Principality, there are no other jurisdictions to which this case could be referred so as to ensure impartial judgement.

144. In order therefore to compel an appellant to initiate these steps before the same court which is at the source of the breaches of his/her fundamental rights is equivalent to forcing him/her to resort to procedural devices, for which the chances of success appear non-existent, in order to petition for a review of his case. This goes beyond the “normal” usage of the internal remedies required by article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

145. In other words, the ruling by the Supreme Court of Monaco of 16 February 2009 constitutes a miscarriage of justice, breaching articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
The Monegasque authorities have failed in their obligation to conduct in-depth and effective investigations to lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible for breaching Mrs. Fristedt’s fundamental rights.
[…]

151. However, although article 8 of the Convention is intended essentially to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the authorities, it does not simply order the State to refrain from similar interferences: to this negative commitment can be added positive obligations inherent to true respect for private or family life. They may require adoption of measures targeting respect for private life in the mutual relations between individuals (see judgment Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 57, ECHR 2004-VI).

[The abovementioned judgement is better known as the Caroline judgement]

152. If this principle is imposed on all contracting parties to the Convention in order to protect the private life of a member of the House of Grimaldi, who reigns as sovereign in the Principality of Monaco, it is imposed with equal force on the Principality itself with a view to protecting citizens and residents thereof.
[…]

193. In a letter dated 22 August 2007, sent to the Prosecutor General, Mrs. Annie Brunet-Fuster, Mrs. Fristedt asked for access to the case file, intending to obtain details of the actions which had been taken in response to repeated complaints by the Fristedt family to the Monegasque authorities.

194. In a letter dated 10 October 2007 to the President of the Court of First Instance of the Principality of Monaco, Brigitte Gambarini, Mrs. Fristedt asked to have due access to the court files concerning her, in order to obtain copies of all the documents in these files.

195. However, these requests were not met and, to this day, remain unanswered and the Supreme Court has refused to rule on this matter.

196. In this respect, the Supreme Court noted:
“Given that the opposed rulings by the Director of Judicial Services, the Chief Prosecutor and the President of the Court of First Instance are legal instruments relating to criminal and civil proceedings subject to assessment by the courts of the judiciary; that said rulings may not henceforth be subject to appeal due to abuse of power before the Supreme Court.”

197. Publicity of the legal arguments, including access by interested parties – or even the general public – to the documents in the proceedings, constitutes the application of a fundamental principle enshrined in article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. However, according to long standing case law by the Court (see judgment Sutter v. Switzerland dated 22 February 1984, series A no. 74, § 26; Diennet v. France dated 26 September 1995, series A no. 325-A, § 33, and Exel v. the Czech Republic dated 5 July 2005, § 45):

“Said publicity protects the litigants against covert justice which escapes scrutiny by the general public; it is also one of the means which contributes to maintaining confidence in the courts and tribunals. Through the level of transparency which it confers to the administration of justice, it helps to achieve the aim of article 6, paragraph 1: a fair process of law, a guarantee of which belongs to the principles of any democratic society within the meaning of the Convention.”

198. Mrs. Fristedt claims that the repeated refused access to the administrative and court files concerning her case, in order to be able to use the appropriate remedies before the competent courts, is in itself a breach of article 6 of the Convention.
[…]

On the Chief Prosecutor before the Supreme Court, click here.

On the Chief Prosecutor before the Supreme Court, click here.

The following list of attached documents to the request before the ECHR has not yet been translated. It is, however, followed by important information in English.

LISTE DE PIÈCES ANNEXÉES DE LA REQUÊTE DEVANT LA CEDH

1. Mandat de advokat Ulf Öberg
2. Mandat de advokat Ida Otken Eriksson.
3. Engagement d’hébergement à titre gratuit de Madame Monica Fristedt du 2 juin 2003 au profit de Madame Shahzada.
4. Carte de séjour délivrée par la Principauté de Monaco le 2 juillet 2003 au profit de Madame Shahzada. [expirée un an plus tard] [expired one year later]
5. Lettre adressée par Madame Monica Fristedt à la Direction de la Sûreté Publique en date du 13 mai 2004, et reçue le 17 suivant, informant les autorités monégasques qu’elle avait révoqué l’engagement d’hébergement qu’elle avait pris au profit de son ex belle-fille, Madame Shahzada.
6. L’ordonnance de Madame le Premier Vice-Président du Tribunal de Première Instance de la Principauté de Monaco du 21 juillet 2004, autorisant Madame Shahzada à résider seule au domicile de Madame Fristedt.
7. Note manuscrite de Madame Corinne Métivier, le clerc assermenté suppléant Maître Marie-Thérèse Escaut-Marquet, griffonnée sur un papier vierge, indiquant les noms de Maître Escaut et Maître Escaut-Marquet comme commanditaires de l’exécution de l’ordonnance du 21 juillet 2004.
8. “Procès-Verbal de Constat” du 27 juillet 2004 de Maître Escaut-Marquet, huissier de justice, enregistré le 12 août suivant, établissant pour le compte de Madame Shahzada, cliente de son mari avocat-défenseur, Maître Escaut, un inventaire non contradictoire du contenu de l’appartement de Madame Fristedt, laissant ainsi à la seule discrétion de Madame Shahzada « d’indiquer ce qui lui appartenait et ce qui appartenait à Madame Fristedt”, en exécution de l’ordonnance de Madame le Premier Vice-Président du Tribunal de Première Instance du 21 juillet 2004.
9. Plainte de Madame Fristedt du le 7 août 2004 contre X pour avoir confisqué ses biens, sans ordonnance à cet effet, et les avoir mis à la disposition d’autrui.
10. Ordonnance de référé en date du 9 septembre 2004 de Madame Dorato-Chicouras, Premier Juge faisant fonction de Président du Tribunal de première instance.
11. Lettre du Procureur Général de la Principauté de Monaco du 16 mai 2006, informant Madame Fristedt que sa plainte du 18 octobre 2004 a “fait l’objet d’un classement sans suite au motif suivant : .infraction non caractérisée”.
12. Procès-verbal de constat du 2 décembre 2004 de Maître Notari, huissier de justice.
13. Arrêt du Tribunal de Première Instance de Stockholm du 11 mai 2006, par lequel le mariage entre Monsieur David Fristedt et Madame Shahzada a été dissous.
14. Courriel de advokat Ulf Öberg du 9 octobre 2007 au Bâtonnier du Barreau de Monaco, Maître Joëlle Pastor-Bensa
15. Réponse de Madame le Bâtonnier du 18 octobre 2007 à advokat Ulf Öberg
16. Courriel de advokat Ulf Öberg du 18 octobre 2007 à Madame le Bâtonnier Maître Joëlle Pastor-Bensa
17. Lettre de Madame le Bâtonnier du 29 octobre 2007 à advokat Ulf Öberg
18. Lettre de advokat Ulf Öberg du 30 Octobre 2007, adressée au nouveau Bâtonnier du Barreau de Monaco, Maître Rémy Brugnetti.
19. Réponse du 6 Novembre 2007 de Monsieur le Bâtonnier Maître Rémy Brugnetti
20. Décision du Tribunal Suprême du 16 février 2009.
21. Jugement du Tribunal de Première Instance du 12 mai 2005, déboutant Madame Charlotte Shahzada de sa demande en divorce introduite contre Monsieur David Fristedt.
22. Ordonnance du 20 octobre 2004 de Madame la Juge Bitar-Ghanem, Juge au Tribunal de Première Instance, condamnant Monsieur David Fristedt par défaut à verser une somme de 4 000 € à titre de pension alimentaire à Madame Shahzada.
23. Requête rectificative de Madame Fristedt du 14 janvier 2008 devant le Tribunal Suprême de la Principauté de Monaco.
24. Contre-requête du Ministre d’État du 25 février 2008 devant le Tribunal Suprême de la Principauté de Monaco.
25. Réplique de Madame Fristedt devant le Tribunal Suprême de la Principauté de Monaco.
26. Duplique du Ministre d’État du 30 avril 2008 devant le Tribunal Suprême de la Principauté de Monaco.
27. Mémoire en réponse de Madame Fristedt aux moyens nouveaux de l’État de Monaco du 25 juin 2008 devant le Tribunal Suprême de la Principauté de Monaco.
28. Observations du Ministre d’État du 30 juillet 2008 devant le Tribunal Suprême de la Principauté de Monaco.
29. Lettre de Madame Fristedt du 3 août 2004 à l’attention de Monsieur le Conseiller du Gouvernement pour l’Intérieur.
30. Plainte de Madame Fristedt du 14 octobre 2008 pour violation du secret médical, de son domicile et de sa vie privée et familiale.
31. Lettre de Madame Fristedt du 31 juillet 2004 à Monsieur le Président du Tribunal de Première Instance Philippe Narmino, attirant l’attention sur le fait que ses œuvres d’art, ses dossiers confidentiels et sensibles ainsi que des bijoux lui appartenant se trouvaient dans son domicile mis à la disposition de son ex belle-fille par la justice monégasque.
32. Plainte de Madame Fristedt du 18 octobre 2004, adressée à Monsieur le Procureur Général Daniel Serdet.
33. Plainte de Madame Fristedt du 25 juin 2008 contre Maître Didier Escaut, avocat-défenseur, Maître Christophe Sosso, avocat, et Maître Escaut-Marquet, huissier de justice, au Procureur Général, Monsieur Jacques Raybaud, pour instruction.
34. Lettre du Tribunal de Première Instance de la Principauté de Monaco, du 4 août 2004, par lequel le Président du Tribunal de Première Instance a fait connaître à Madame Fristedt qu’il n’était pas habilité à répondre à son courrier du 31 juillet 2004.
35. Lettre de Monsieur Philippe Narmino, Directeur des services judiciaires du 23 août 2006 par lequel il a informé Madame Fristedt, que «les violations de la Constitution et abus de pouvoirs que vous alléguez n’apparaissaient pas caractérisées ».
36. Lettre de advokat Ulf Öberg du 20 juin 2007 au Directeur des services judiciaires, Monsieur Philippe Narmino.
37. Lettre de Monsieur Philippe Narmino, Directeur des services judiciaires, du 24 juillet 2007, indiquant qu’il n’avait pas la qualité pour engager l’État monégasque et que, en tant que responsable de l’administration de la justice, il n’était en tout état de cause pas enclin à réserver une suite favorable à la requête de Madame Fristedt.
38. Lettre de Madame Fristedt, du 22 Septembre 2005 adressée à Son Altesse Sérénissime, le Prince Souverain Albert II.
39. Lettre de Madame Fristedt, du 31 mars 2006 adressée à Son Altesse Sérénissime, le Prince Souverain Albert II.
40. Lettre de Madame Fristedt, du 5 mars 2007 adressée à Son Altesse Sérénissime, le Prince Souverain Albert II.
41. Lettre de advokat Ulf Öberg, du 17 août 2007, adressée à Son Altesse Sérénissime, le Prince Souverain Albert II.
42. Lettre de advokat Ulf Öberg, du 12 juin 2009, adressée à Son Altesse Sérénissime, le Prince Souverain Albert II.
43. Demande d’accès au dossier du 22 août 2007 de Madame Fristedt auprès du Directeur des services judiciaires.
44. Lettre de advokat Ulf Öberg du 22 août 2007 adressée à Madame le Procureur Général Annie Brunet-Fuster.
45. Lettre de advokat Ulf Öberg du 10 octobre 2007 à Madame le Président du Tribunal de Première Instance de la Principauté de Monaco Brigitte Gambarini.
46. Lettre du 25 octobre 2007 de Monsieur Georges Lisimachio, Chef de Cabinet de Son Altesse Sérénissime le Prince Souverain Albert II, indiquant qu’il lui était impossible pour Son Altesse Sérénissime, s’agissant de décisions de justice et de leur exécution, d’intervenir, de quelque manière que ce soit dans le dossier, en l’état du principe de l’indépendance des juges.

The premeditation of the actions of the challenged persons will be demonstrated through the incredible “staples, marker pen and IT-bug Affair”. It will be given a chance for the new chief prosecutor to deal with it once and for all before its publication here, in accordance with the declaration of Mr Thomas Hammarberg, of the Council of Europe, published within two weeks after Monaco’s Supreme Court’s judgement of rejection.

Press release – 158 (2009), Council of Europe
“The struggle for human rights is also a local affair” says Commissioner Hammarberg

Strasbourg, 02.03.2009 – “Local politicians and public officials should seize the opportunity to enhance the quality of life in their communities by implementing human rights in their ordinary work” says Commissioner Hammarberg in his latest Viewpoint. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights stresses that “authorities at local or regional level take key decisions in areas extremely relevant for individuals’ human rights, such as education, housing, health care, social services and policing. These decision-makers should therefore apply European and international human rights standards when they formulate their policies and ensure that their approach is rights-based.”
Also available at the Commissioner’s website at www.commissioner.coe.int

To be continued…