Taking into account that it is essential to ensure the protection of adults who, because of an impairment of their personal capacities, are unable to protect their interests in a cross-border context, the Principality of Monaco ratified on 4 March 2016 the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults ("the 2000 Hague Convention").

The purpose of the 2000 Hague Convention is to determine the State whose authorities have jurisdiction to take measures aiming to protect the person or their property.

The Convention provides that the judge located in the jurisdiction of the adult's habitual residence is competent to take measures protecting the person or their property.

If the adult's habitual residence changes to another Contracting State of the 2000 Hague Convention, the authorities of the State of the new habitual residence have jurisdiction over the case.

What about the permanence of the protective measures taken by the Contracting State of the former habitual residence?

The question arises as to what happens to the protective measure ordered by the previously competent court.

In such case, the 2000 Hague Convention provides that the protection measure remains in force even in the event of a change of circumstances, as long as the new judge who now has jurisdiction over the case has not modified, replaced or lifted these measures.

The Explanatory Report to Hague Convention 2000 confirms that the permanence of the protection measure is ensured without the need for the previous Contracting State to remain seized.

This is the consequence of the application of the principle that measures taken by one Contracting State are recognised automatically in the other Contracting States of the 2000 Hague Convention.

This provision makes it possible to ensure the continuous protection of the vulnerable adult.

Notwithstanding the above, in a recent case concerning the transfer of the habitual residence of the protected adult to another Contracting State of the 2000 Hague Convention, the Monegasque Judge has considered that there was no reason to order the release of the Monegasque protective measure either, since this could only be pronounced if the situation which had caused the application of these measures (alteration of mental faculties) had disappeared1, which was not the case in this instance.

Consequently, the Monegasque Judge expressly considered that he no longer had jurisdiction to ensure and control the exercise of the judicial protection measure introduced in favour of the vulnerable adult.

Footnote

1 Article 410-28° paragraph 1 of the Civil Code

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.