Τ
ON THE MERITS
A.
ON THE REASONS
The plaintiff raises an error at law which would have been the reason for the decision not to extradite.
One must recall that the request for extradition to Hong Kong is made in compliance with the Franco-British Treaty of Extradition of 14th August 1876.
From this text, it does not result for the requested State any obligation to give reasons for its decision to refuse to extradite.
There are treaties in which France accepted an obligation to give reasons for a refusal. So is it with respect to the European Extradition Convention.
In the absence of any such provisions, and as it only exercises discretionarily its sovereign authority, the French Government cannot be subject to any such obligation.
The Conseil d'Etat cannot, therefore, exercise any control over the reasons which, although stated in the letter destined [sic] to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are only indicated for reasons of international curtesy.
The obligation to give reasons for decisions in favour of the extradition results from the provisions of the statute of 11th January 1979 which allows individuals and corporate bodies to be informed of the reasons for adverse individual decisions which restrict public liberties.
Those provisions do not have any reason to be complied with in the case at stake.
B.
ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH IS EMPOWERED TO TAKE THE DECISION TO REFUSE TO EXTRADITE
One has already answered partly this issue.
The decision to extradite or not to extradite is a governmental decision.
Thus, to accept a recourse against the decision of the Government not to follow a positive advice would inevitably lead to accepting such a recourse against a direct refusal to submit the matter to the Chambre d'Accusation, whether made for legal reasons or on the basis of an assessment of the political nature of the reproached facts. One should also accept, then, a recourse against a refusal to enforce the agreement of the
the requested individual [presumably: to be extradited] when the conditions for the extradition are not satisfied.
-
Now, the statute of 10th March 1927, because of the consequences on individual freedom resulting from a decision in favour of the extradition, imposed the formality of the double signature of the extradition decree.
The decision refusing the extradition to a foreign State, even if the law does not impose any specific form, is nevertheless a governmental decision. In practice, the Minister of Justice, as member of the Government, signs most of these decisions but the most important of them of them are signed by the Prime Minister.
4
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.