23-APP-1993
16:38
BRITISH EMBASSY PAPIS
16 1 48 23 91 48
3.31
28
Should one even underline that the Cour de Cassation does not exercise any control over the characterisation of the facts; it results from the precedent of 17th May 1984 and the decision of 5th December 1986 that the Cour de Cassation examines the appeal for cassation only when it is made on the basis of a breach of the law which, supposing it shown, would be such as to deprive the decision rendered from the essential conditions for its legal existence (see in this sense also the decisions rendered by the Cour de Cassation on 17th September 1984 DS 1984 J536 Note leandidier; on all that concerns the control of the Cour de Cassation, see Jurisclasseur of Penal Procedure 1st Appendix ss Articles 689 to 696, binler 25 and in particular nos. 106 et seq); the Cour de Cassation reminded that Article 16 of the law of 1927 excludes that one could criticise the reasons which support the decisions of the Chambres d'Accusation (Cassation Criminelle, 9 August 1989, Tannaury, and the decision rendered on 12th March
1991 in this case, on the third ground).
4.3
As to the counts of indictment nos. 21, 22 and 23, the grounds which are raised do not resist
examination.
The argument actually purports to say that the administration would be bound by a favourable advice of
the Chambre d'Accusation, the pleadings go so far as to say (p. 25) that:
"The advice of the Chambre d'Accusation was therefore controlled by the Cour de Cassation in
respect of the counts of indictment at stake. The administration could not substitute its own
assessment for that of the judicial Court having jurisdiction in compliance with the terms of the statute of 10 March 1927 aid which precisely rendered its decision under the control of the Cour
de Cassation".
This reason cannot delude (the judges); an advice of the Chambre d'Accusation favourable to an
extradition is and remains a mere advice and the Prime Minister is never bound to comply with it, even
if the Cour de Cassation now exercises a control on the regularity of the form of the decisions.