The University of Texas at Austin   School of Law

Main menu:

Case:
Conseil d’Etat (Contentieux) No.164421 Case Angelika Voss
Date:
27 January 1995
Translated by:
J t Brown
Copyright:
Professor B. S. Markesinis

Conseil d’Etat (Contentieux)
No.164421
Case Angelika Voss

27 January 1995

(…)

Given that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 15 of the Law (…) of 10 March 1927 relating to the extradition of foreigners, if , on the occasion of his appearance before the Indictment Chamber (“chambre d’accusation”) mentioned in Article 14, “the person in question states that he waives the benefit of this law and formally agrees to be handed over to the authorities of the applicant country, the court takes formal note (“il est donné acte par la cour”) of such statement. A copy of this decision is sent without delay by the chief prosecutor (“procureur général”)to the Ministry of Justice for whatever action may be necessary”;

Given that (i) when the person being pursued agrees to be extradited and the Indictment Chamber takes formal note of that consent, these provisions permit the authorisation of the handing over the person in question to the applicant country without the Indictment Chamber having delivered a reasoned favourable opinion required by Article 16 of the Law; (ii) it falls however to the French authorities to decide upon the application for extradition by observing the rules set out in such Law; and (iii) pursuant to these, extradition can only be granted by a reasoned decree of the Prime Minister, countersigned by the Minister of Justice;

Given that (i) Madame Voss, pursued by the Italian authorities with a view to carry out the execution of a judgement of the Court of Lodi dated 27 November 1990 which found her guilty in her absence, consented on 1 April 1993 to be handed over to those authorities as requested by their application; (ii) even if, in a judgement delivered on the same day, the Indictment Chamber of the Nancy Appeal Court took formal note of her consent, this fact did not mean that the person in question could be handed over to the applicant State without there having been issued, under the signature of the Prime Minister and the countersignature of the Minister of Justice, a decree authorising her extradition; and (ii) as a result, Madame Voss, who has standing to contest being handed over to the Italian authorities even though she consented to being extradited, has good grounds to argue that the decision under attack, is, in the absence of such a decree, tainted with ultra vires, and to claim, for this reason, that it be quashed;

DECIDES:
Article 1: the decision authorising that Madame Voss be handed over to the Italian authorities in view of the execution of the judgement dated 27 November 1990 of the court of Lodi is quashed;
Article 2: (…)

Back to top

This page last updated Friday, 30-Sep-2005 17:17:06 CDT. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.