Background
In November 2019, a French investigating judge issued an arrest warrant against M. [O] [J] covering five sets of charges: armed extortion in an organized gang against M. [Z] [E]; participation in a criminal association for the preparation of assassinations against two other individuals; and armed extortion plus related criminal-association charges against M. [W] [L]. During the subsequent investigation, a partial dismissal (non-lieu) was entered in April 2020 in respect of all charges relating to M. [L]. In November 2021, the Paris Assize Court tried [J] in absentia and acquitted him of the criminal-association-for-assassination count while convicting him of armed extortion in an organized gang against M. [E], sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment and maintaining the effects of the November 2019 arrest warrant. The prosecution did not appeal the acquittal.
M. [J] was arrested in Morocco in March 2025. The French authorities formally requested his extradition in April 2025, framing that request by reference to the single extortion conviction. Morocco’s decree of 30 September 2025, however, granted extradition expressly “to execute the arrest warrant issued on 8 November 2019” — the original warrant covering all the charges, not merely the conviction. [J] was surrendered to France in November 2025 and placed in pre-trial detention. Crucially, he did not waive the specialty principle and did not acquiesce in the default judgment, which under Article 379-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure caused that judgment to be rendered void in all its provisions.
M. [J] applied for release, arguing that his detention was unlawful. He contended that because the French extradition request had only covered the extortion conviction, he could lawfully be held only for that offense; and that since the default conviction was annulled by his non-acquiescence, several of the charges listed in Morocco’s decree had already been disposed of by a final dismissal or acquittal. The Paris Chambre de l’instruction rejected his application, and he petitioned the Court of Cassation.
The Court’s Holding
The Criminal Chamber rejected the petition in full. On the specialty principle, the Court held that compliance must be assessed by reference to the requested state’s extradition decision, not the requesting state’s application. Because Morocco’s September 2025 decree granted extradition on the basis of the November 2019 arrest warrant in its entirety, M. [J] was surrendered for all facts covered by that warrant. The fact that France’s own request had been narrowed to the extortion conviction did not govern; what mattered was what Morocco actually authorised. The Chambre de l’instruction had therefore correctly found no violation of the specialty principle.
On the effect of the voided default judgment, the Court confirmed that although the entire default judgment (including its conviction provisions) becomes void when the accused is arrested without having acquiesced, a partial acquittal pronounced in such a judgment becomes definitive in the absence of an appeal by the Prosecutor General. Accordingly, the acquittal for criminal-association charges stood as final and [J] cannot be prosecuted on those counts.
The Court further clarified the basis of [J]’s actual detention. Under the second paragraph of Article 379-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the arrest warrant issued before a default conviction judgment operates, upon the accused’s arrest, as a committal order (mandat de dépôt) limited to the offenses for which the accused was convicted. Since [J] was convicted only of extortion against M. [E] — a charge squarely within Morocco’s extradition decree — he is not being held for any fact beyond those that motivated the extradition. No violation of Article 5 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights or of the Franco-Moroccan extradition convention of 18 April 2008 was established.
Key Takeaways
- The specialty principle in extradition is measured against the requested state’s authorisation, not the requesting state’s formal demand; a broader Moroccan decree overrides a narrower French extradition request.
- A partial acquittal in a French default (par défaut) assize-court judgment becomes definitive if the Prosecutor General does not appeal, even though the conviction provisions of the same judgment are annulled when the accused surrenders.
- Under Article 379-4, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a pre-judgment arrest warrant converts into a committal order (mandat de dépôt) limited to the offenses resulting in conviction; a person cannot be held on acquitted or dismissed charges through that mechanism.
- An accused extradited from Morocco who has not waived the specialty principle is nonetheless lawfully detained when the Moroccan extradition decree encompasses the factual basis of the detention.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies a rarely litigated intersection of extradition specialty law and French default-judgment procedure. It confirms that French courts must look to the foreign state’s decree — not merely the French extradition request — when evaluating the permissible scope of post-extradition detention, a principle with direct practical significance for any accused surrendered under a warrant that is broader than the specific charges for which surrender was sought.
The ruling also provides useful guidance on the interplay between Articles 379-4 and 696-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: the automatic voiding of a default judgment does not extinguish the specialty protection otherwise enjoyed by the accused, nor does it expose an acquitted person to renewed detention, because the surviving arrest warrant/committal order is cabined to the convicted offenses. Defence practitioners and prosecutors handling complex multi-charge extraditions will need to pay close attention to the precise scope of the foreign state’s authorisation decree, as that document — not the requesting state’s application — defines the outer boundary of lawful detention.