TNAG-2954-FCO40-4231-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1993 — Page 80

33-APP-1993

16:34

BRITISH EMBASS

FORIS

15 1 32 F22 91 48

11.

223

Actually, this decision which is a decision rendered in sub-section (not by the full litigation body of the

Conseil d'Etat), is probably not a precedent, and has not been published in the recuell Lebon [the collection of the major precedents of the Conseil d'Etaf).

The Franco-British treaty is, in addition, much more precise than the treaty between France and the United States as it requires that the request be presented by "the Ambassador or another diplomatic agent of Her Britannic Majesty in Francé .

One will observe, in addition, that, upon an appeal of the General Prosecutor with the Court of Appeal of Paris, the Cour de Cassation perfectly made the distinction between an Embassy, in the case at stake "the Embassy of the United States which does not have any legal personality", the head of mission who "represents the foreign State" and the latter "personally" (see Cassation Civile 1ère, 7 January 1992, B.I. no.3 p. 2). It would be very regrettable that there should be diverging opinions between the two Supreme Courts, precisely in the matter of international relations.

Once again, the Embassy is not the Ambassador, and a note signed anonymously by a person who does not indicate his identity can not be deemed nor actually be signed by the Ambassador, nor signed by a

diplomatic agent.

The request for extradition was not, therefore, entertainable, which as a consequence renders unentertainable any action purporting to challenge the refusal opposed to that request.