In re Extradition of the Duke of Geiselnau (2005) was the Constitutional Court decision that blocked the extradition of Prince Viktor, Duke of Geiselnau to the Republic of Kaskiv after Kaskiv issued an international warrant in The Republic v. Geiselnau. The Court held that an archaic royal-immunity clause still covered immediate members of the Royal Family.
Background
Viktor had fled Kaskiv after a fatal crash and securities-fraud allegations. The SWL and Digital Ecology Front demanded that King Frederik V strip the titles and surrender his son. The King instead invoked the immunity clause, recalled Viktor to Creuzholz, and confined him to the Geiselnau estate. Prosecutors and opposition MPs asked the Constitutional Court whether the clause survived the 1964 reforms and whether Diet majorities could override it for extradition.
Holding
By 10–6, the Court held the immunity clause remained operative for extradition of covered royals; the Diet could not waive it by ordinary statute. The Court separately upheld the King’s internal-exile conditions (allowance stripped, travel restricted) as lawful exercises of remaining prerogative short of extradition. The dissent called the result “aristocratic exceptionalism incompatible with equality before the law.”
Legacy
The judgment is Kruhlstutt’s most contested living precedent — a standing grievance for the Atonement Bloc and a permanent irritant in every Kaskivian state visit. Catalogue: Landmark Cases (Kruhlstutt).