Case law • Supreme Court of Monaco (2026)

The Public law and Family Office Departments of 99 AVOCATS ASSOCIÉS offers you an overview of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Monaco in 2026, updated as new decisions are handed down, concerning:

• authorisation to practise within a firm (over-representation, reputational risk),
• company incorporation (revocation of authorisation),
• residence in Monaco (residence permit, asylum),
• employment of foreign nationals (revocation of work permit),
• civil service (disciplinary measures),
• tax litigation (transfer duties),
• construction (building permit).

* * *

¤ REFUSAL TO GRANT AUTHORISATION TO PRACTISE (over-representation, reputational risk)

TS 2025-46, 12 June 2026, v A v State of Monaco
Refusal to grant authorisation to practise as a co-managing partner of an already authorised company (market saturation) • Ground not enforceable • Error of law (yes) (Annulment)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application by a Lithuanian national who had acquired 33 per cent of the share capital of a company already authorised to carry on business in the Principality providing consultancy services relating to digital products and services, for authorisation to act as a co-managing partner in that company.
• The appellant seeks the annulment, on the grounds of misuse of powers, of the decision by the Minister of State refusing the authorisation sought on the grounds that the activity of "commercial strategy" was "sufficiently represented" in the Principality, and of the decision rejecting the administrative appeal.
• He alleges a manifest error of assessment (this has no bearing on the number of entities carrying out the activity in the Principality, as the limited liability company already holds the required authorisation), an error of legal classification (a misunderstanding of the true nature of the activity carried out, which falls within the information and communication technologies sector, and not that of commercial strategy), an error of fact (not all of the 107 entities referred to by the Minister of State operate in the digital sector, and there is no evidence to establish that the limited liability company’s business is in fact over-represented in its relevant sector).

Supreme Court ruling:

• An error of law was committed in rejecting the application on the grounds that the commercial strategy activity is sufficiently represented in the Principality of Monaco: where the individual authorisation provided for in Article 5 of Law No. 1.144 of 26 July 1991 is sought by an applicant with a view to acting as a co-manager of a company already authorised to carry on business in Monaco, the Administration may not lawfully, on the grounds of the Principality’s own economic public policy, rely on considerations relating to the number of operators already authorised and the state of the market to refuse to grant the authorisation sought.

TS 2025-04, 12 June 2026, c A v State of Monaco
Refusal to grant authorisation to practice as a director of an already authorised company (over-representation of the business) • Error of law (yes) • Compensation (no) (Annulment)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application for the annulment of the decision refusing authorisation to act as a director of a Monegasque public limited company (SAM) on the grounds that the sector is sufficiently represented in the Principality, and of the explicit decision rejecting her informal appeal, and an order requiring the State of Monaco to pay the sum of 10,000 euros by way of damages for harm to her image and reputation.
• The applicant submits: a direct breach of Article 3 of Law No. 1.439 of 2 December 2016 establishing the multi-family office activity and of Sovereign Order No. 6.271 of 13 February 2017 setting out the conditions for its application, which make the authorisation of directors subject to only two conditions, professional competence and good character; the ground based on the "over-representation" of the business is unrelated to the legal conditions for authorisation and constitutes a confusion between the regulation of the number of entities and the appointment of an additional director within an existing entity; the refusal to approve her appointment constitutes an unjustified breach of equality in comparison with other companies having a greater number of directors than the company in question; a manifest error of assessment regarding the state of the market, as six multi-family offices had ceased trading in the twelve months preceding the applicant’s request; the business cannot therefore be regarded as "over-represented"; a disproportionate infringement of her private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as the ban on serving as a director in a company where she has worked for more than fifteen years undermines her professional development and reputation, and this interference is neither justified by a legitimate aim nor proportionate.

Supreme Court ruling:

• Annulment of the contested decisions on the grounds of an error of law, without it being necessary to rule on the other grounds of the application: in the event that the authorisation provided for in Article 3 of Law No. 1.439 of 2 December 2016, which refers to Law No. 767 of 8 July 1964, and Sovereign Order No. 6.271 of 13 February 2017, is sought by an applicant with a view to obtaining the status of shareholder, director or board member of a company already authorised to carry on business in Monaco, the Administration cannot lawfully, under the Principality’s economic public policy, rely on grounds relating to the number of operators already authorised and the state of the market to refuse to grant the authorisation sought.
• Dismissal of the claims for damages, on the grounds that the applicant has not established the existence of any personal and specific harm, namely a deterioration in her professional situation or reputation, or a specific impact on her private life or her professional development.

TS 2025-43, TS 2025-44, 12 June 2026, a A et n C v a An C
Refusal to grant authorisation to act as joint managing partners within a company (reputational risk) • Insufficient grounds (no) • Error of fact (no) • Error of law (no) • Manifest error of assessment (no) (Dismissed)

Subject of the appeal:

• Applications for the annulment of the decision by the Minister of State refusing to grant two Italian nationals authorisation to act as joint managing directors of a company whose objects include the importation of timber from Africa, on the grounds of reputational risk to the Principality arising from forestry offences committed by a Cameroonian company in which one of the applicants held the position of director; that company had had its forestry licence suspended for unauthorised logging, transporting timber without a licence, fraud involving administrative documents and failure to comply with technical standards, before this suspension was lifted following a settlement.
• The applicants contend that the decision is inadequately reasoned and disproportionate (the presumption of an offence proved unfounded as the company was cleared of any wrongdoing, and the matters in question having been regularised are no longer relevant), and that it involves a manifest error of assessment (the decision was based on a ground of public interest: a reputational risk to the Principality, whereas since those past events for which the sanction was lifted, there have been no prosecutions, complaints or sanctions, and their licences have been consistently renewed).

Supreme Court ruling:

• A decision sufficiently reasoned to conclude that granting the application for authorisation would pose a reputational risk to the Principality: it states that the forestry and sawmill company based in Cameroon, in which Mr N.C., the future co-manager and partner of the proposed entity, serves as director, is the alleged perpetrator of unauthorised logging.
• The alleged error of fact is unfounded, as the sanctioned acts, as set out in the contested decision, are not marred by any material inaccuracy: it is established that the company’s licence was suspended for three months by decision of the Minister for Forests and Wildlife of Cameroon for unauthorised logging, the transport of timber without a waybill, fraud involving documents issued by the forestry authority, and failure to comply with technical logging standards; the lifting of the suspension following a settlement could not remove the allegations against the company.
• The claim of an error of law is unfounded, as the Minister of State did not misinterpret the provisions of Law No. 1.144 of 26 July 1991 by taking into account the conduct of the company in which Mr N C previously worked when assessing the risks that the proposed activity was likely to pose to the Principality’s own economic public order or to other objectives of general interest.
• The Minister of State did not commit a manifest error of assessment in considering that the granting of the licence would have been likely to pose a reputational risk to the Principality of Monaco, given the forestry offences committed by the company for which Mr C worked, (given that the risk associated with the lawfulness of timber harvesting is very high in Africa, and in Cameroon in particular), as well as Monaco’s strong commitment to combating deforestation over the past several years.

¤ COMPANY INCORPORATION (revocation of authorisation)

TS 2025-31, 9 April 2026, SAM D v State of Monaco
Revocation of authorisation to incorporate a company (activities outside the company’s corporate purpose, lack of authorisation) • multi-family office • Lack of reasoning (no) • Error of fact (no) • Manifest error of assessment (no) (Dismissed)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application for the annulment, on the grounds of misuse of powers, of the ministerial order revoking the authorisation to incorporate the applicant (a Monegasque public limited company ("SAM") operating as a multi-family office), as well as the letter notifying it of that order, on the grounds of non-compliance with the articles of association (carrying out activities not authorised by the corporate purpose) and breaches of statutory and regulatory provisions (failure to obtain prior ministerial approval following a change of shareholder and director).
  In support of its claim, the applicant relied on: a failure to state reasons pursuant to Article 1 of Law No. 1.312 of 29 June 2006 on the statement of reasons for administrative acts; an error of fact; and a manifest error of assessment.

Supreme Court ruling:

• The decision is sufficiently reasoned in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 1.312 of 29 June 2006: the notification letter, which forms an integral part of the contested ministerial order, set out the applicable legislation and the two grounds on which the revocation decision was based (the carrying out of activities not authorised by the company’s objects and the failure to obtain prior ministerial approval following a change of shareholder and director). Moreover, the adversarial proceedings held before the Special Commission had already enabled the applicant company to be informed of the two allegations levelled against it and to contest them through written and oral submissions;
• The ground of non-compliance with the articles of association relied upon in the contested decision is not vitiated by any error of fact: the company offered its clients services comprising accounting assistance, management of private property companies, personnel management, registered office provision, tax returns and concierge services, which went beyond the scope of wealth advisory services and the coordination of other service providers involved in wealth management authorised for a multi-family office within the meaning of Article 1 of Law No. 1.439 of 2 December 2016.
• The ground based on a failure to comply with the applicable legislative or regulatory provisions is not vitiated by an error of fact: the applicant company cannot validly rely on the conduct of the administration (which allegedly persuaded it that it did not require authorisation) to justify its own failings. The change of shareholder and director was required to be preceded by authorisation from the Minister of State. However, the person concerned had been authorised as a shareholder and appointed as a director by the company before such authorisation had been obtained, as the formalities completed with the Trade and Industry Register cannot serve as a substitute for it.
• No manifest error of assessment: given the personal nature of the authorisation and its limited scope, the revocation resulting from the application of the law is not disproportionate.

TS 2025-28, 20 February 2026, SAM A v State of Monaco
Revocation of authorisation to incorporate a company (failure to open a bank account in Monaco and to carry on business) • Error of law (no) • Manifest error of assessment (no) (Dismissed)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application for the annulment of the ministerial order revoking the authorisation to form a Monegasque public limited company (SAM) which had been granted to it by a ministerial order of 1994, on the grounds that the applicant company had failed, without legitimate reason, to carry out any significant activity in accordance with its articles of association, for more than two years (the purchase and sale of motor vehicles to businesses and private individuals, consultancy in this field and a range of activities relating to this corporate purpose), had failed to file accounts for two financial years, and had not provided evidence of the opening of a bank account in the Principality of Monaco in its name.
• The applicant company put forward the following grounds in support of its claim: a manifest error of assessment, even though, in accordance with the undertakings given during its appearance before the special committee established by Article 2 of Law No. 767 of 8 July 1964 concerning the revocation of authorisations to form public limited companies and limited partnerships with share capital, it had filed the accounts for the financial years ended within the time limit granted to it, and that the revocation of the authorisation to form the company had taken place without even waiting for the fifteen-day period available to the designated bank to open the deposit account in accordance with Article 3 of Law No. 1.492 of 8 July 2020 on the introduction of a right to a bank account, without taking into account the difficulties encountered by the company in opening a business account, which were beyond its control; an error of law, given that points 1 and 6 of Article 1 of Law No. 767 may only be invoked in the event of a lack of significant activity without legitimate cause and the failure to file accounts, but not in the event of a failure to provide evidence of a bank account.

Supreme Court ruling:

• The ground of appeal alleging an error of law is dismissed. It follows from Article 1 of Law No. 767 and the second paragraph of Article 13 of Law No. 1.492 that a SAM which has failed to comply with the obligation to hold a deposit account for the purposes of carrying on its professional activity with a credit institution established in Monaco must be regarded as having failed to comply with the statutory provisions applicable to it. It is undisputed that, at the date of the contested decision, the applicant company did not have the bank account required for the conduct of its professional activities and was therefore in breach of the obligations laid down in Article 1(6) of Law No. 767, and that it follows from this absence of a bank account that, having failed to carry on any business for more than two years, it has also failed to comply with Article 1(1) of that Law.
• The ground of appeal based on a manifest error of assessment is dismissed. The applicant SAM has not produced any correspondence with the bank or with the Budget and Treasury Directorate. It did not bring legal proceedings against the designated credit institution’s rejection of the application to open a bank account on the basis of Article 8 of Law No. 1.492. It did not make any enquiries with other banks in the Principality of Monaco for a considerable period of time. She did not implement the procedures provided for under the right to a bank account in a timely manner, requesting in her informal appeal that the deadline be extended to 30 September 2024, whereas it was not until 11 October 2024 that she invoked the provisions of Article 4 of Law No. 1.492.

¤ RESIDENCE IN MONACO (residence permit, asylum)

TS 2025-41, 12 juin 2026, a A c/ État de Monaco
Foreign nationals • Renewal of residence permit • Criminal conviction (breach of trust) • Procedural irregularity in the investigation (no) • Insufficient reasoning (no) • Error of fact (no) • Error of law (no) • Disproportionate measure (no) (Dismissed)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application by a Belgian resident since 2012, the director of a car hire company of which he is the principal shareholder, seeking the annulment on the grounds of misuse of powers of the decision by the Director of Public Security rejecting the renewal of his residence permit, on the grounds that, following his conviction by the Criminal Court for breach of trust, he no longer met the appropriate safeguards and that his conduct was incompatible with holding a residence permit.
• The applicant alleges: 1. a procedural irregularity, in that the investigation into residence permits should have been conducted in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 3 of Law of 13 July 2016, rather than the first; 2. a procedural irregularity, arising from insufficient reasoning in breach of Act No. 1.312 of 29 June 2006; 3. an error of fact, as the decision refers to a conviction for offences of breach of trust and fraud, whereas in reality it related solely to breach of trust; 4. a twofold error of law: the decision is based on the existence of a criminal conviction, whereas it follows from the case-law of the Supreme Court that the administrative authority may only validly base such a decision on established facts - taking into account inappropriate legal characterisations; 5. a disproportionate measure, as the decision compelled him to leave Monaco within two months, even though, at the date of the decision, he met all the necessary character requirements to continue residing in Monaco.

Supreme Court ruling:

• The ground of appeal alleging a procedural irregularity in relation to the investigation conducted is in fact unfounded: the second paragraph of Article 3 of Law of 13 July 2016, to which the contested decision expressly refers, does not preclude the investigation from being conducted for the purpose of determining whether the applicant for a residence permit offers the appropriate guarantees for their application to be granted and whether their conduct is compatible with holding a residence permit.
• The ground of appeal alleging insufficient reasoning is dismissed, as the decision contains the legal and factual considerations on which it is based: it refers to the provisions on which it was based; it mentions the applicant’s conviction for breach of trust and fraud; it finds that he no longer offers the appropriate guarantees and that his conduct is incompatible with holding a residence permit.
• A clerical error relating to the charges (conviction by the Monaco Criminal Court “for breach of trust and fraud”, whereas it concerned breach of trust alone) does not constitute an error of fact.
• The ground of appeal alleging an error of law is dismissed: the grounds of the contested decision refer to the "actions" of the applicant, who misappropriated assets belonging to the company of which he is the principal shareholder for his own benefit.
• The ground of appeal alleging that the contested decision is disproportionate is dismissed: the dismissal is based on facts constituting a breach of trust committed by the applicant, which characterise conduct that may be regarded as a threat to public order, particularly in economic and financial matters.

TS 2025-36, 9 April 2026, f B épouse A et b.A v State of Monaco
Foreign national • First application for a residence permit • Refusal of settlement • Obligation to state reasons (no) • Manifest error of assessment (no) (Dismissal)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application by two Romanian nationals for the annulment of the decisions of the Director of Public Security rejecting their applications for their first residence permits in Monaco.
• The applicants argued that the decisions to reject their applications should have been substantiated and that they were vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, given that they met the regulatory conditions for residence and had no criminal convictions.

Supreme Court ruling:

• It follows from Article 1 of Law No. 1.312 of 29 June 2006 on the statement of reasons for administrative acts that the contested decisions, rejecting an application for a first residence permit in the Principality, are not among the decisions subject to the obligation to state reasons.
• The administrative authority has broad discretion in matters relating to first applications for a resident’s residence permit. As the purpose of administrative police measures is to prevent potential breaches of public order, it is sufficient that the facts relied upon reveal sufficiently substantiated risks of a breach of public or private peace or security to justify such measures. In the present case, the rejection is based on facts whose existence the applicants do not dispute: proceedings for VAT fraud conducted in France, which were settled through an agreement with the tax authorities; a request for mutual legal assistance concerning them, submitted by the French National Financial Prosecutor’s Office in 2018 on charges of money laundering, public corruption and favouritism; a request for information concerning them, submitted in 2022 by the Central Bureau in Bucharest as part of an investigation into money laundering.

TS 2025-48, 12 June 2026, d A v State of Monaco
Right of asylum • Refusal to grant refugee status (United Nations Convention of 28 July 1951) • Insufficient reasoning (yes) • Application for an injunction (inadmissibility) (Annulment)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application by a Russian national of Ukrainian origin, a former colonel in the Russian army who has since become an electoral lawyer and runs a Telegram channel critical of Russian actions in Ukraine, for recognition as a refugee in the Principality after leaving Russia in 2022, pursuant to the provisions of the United Nations Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees. His application for asylum was unsuccessful in France.
• Application for the annulment, on the grounds of misuse of powers, of the decision by the Government Councillor – Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, acting in the capacity of Minister of State, to reject his application for refugee status, on the grounds that it should have been substantiated in accordance with Article 1 of Law No. 1.312 of 29 June 2006, and that it was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, given the risks of being conscripted into the Russian-Ukrainian war and of being subject to the criminal penalties provided for under Russian law.
• The applicant seeks an order requiring the State to re-examine his application.

Supreme Court ruling:

• The contested decision is inadequately reasoned, as it does not set out the factual considerations on which it is based, since it merely states that the applicant “does not meet the eligibility criteria for refugee status”, without providing any further details.
• The claims seeking an injunction are inadmissible, as the Supreme Court does not have the power to issue injunctions to the administration.

¤ EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN NATIONALS (revocation of work permit)

TS 2025-35, 9 April 2026, m A v State of Monaco
Employment of foreign nationals • Revocation of a work permit following a criminal conviction • Hospital care worker • Substitution of grounds • Manifest error of assessment (no) (Dismissed)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application for the annulment, on the grounds of misuse of powers, of the decision by the Director of Labour revoking the applicant’s (a French national) work permit as a qualified hospital care worker following his criminal conviction for driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, possession, transport, acquisition and importation of cocaine, and loss of control of a vehicle, as well as the decision by the Minister of State rejecting his appeal through the chain of command.
• The applicant argued that the revocation of his work permit would prevent him from resuming any paid employment in the Principality.

Supreme Court ruling:

• It follows from Article 1 of Law No. 629 of 17 July 1957, which aims to regulate the conditions of recruitment and dismissal in the Principality, that the revocation of a work permit which authorises only the performance of the specific job specified therein, does not entail a general prohibition on carrying out any paid employment in the Principality of Monaco.
• Substitution of grounds: whilst the Director of Labour’s initial decision referred to conduct incompatible with that expected of an employee working in Monaco, the Minister of State’s decision rejecting the appeal to a higher authority substituted this ground with a more limited one, based on the incompatibility of the acts committed with the post held. The Minister of State’s grounds supersede those relied upon by the Director of Labour.
• No manifest error of assessment: the exemption from entry in section 2 of the criminal record and the obligation to carry out professional activity under the terms of the probationary period did not preclude the revocation of the work permit attached to that specific post. The favourable references produced by the applicant, his professional integration and his role as a staff representative are not sufficient, given the seriousness of the offences and the requirements of good character and exemplary conduct applicable to staff in the public hospital service, to constitute a manifest error of assessment.

¤ CIVIL SERVICE (disciplinary measures)

TS 2025-34, 12 June 2026, m-c A v State of Monaco
Civil servant • Disciplinary proceedings (compulsory retirement) • Psychological harassment and workplace violence (Act No. 1.457 of 12 December 2017) • External unlawfulness (no) • Internal unlawfulness (no) • Compensation (no) • Order for reinstatement (Dismissed)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application for the annulment, on the grounds of misuse of power, of the sovereign order ordering the compulsory retirement of a civil servant holding the post of Deputy Director, following disciplinary proceedings initiated in respect of psychological harassment and workplace violence against five staff members in her department.
• Application for reinstatement, for the publication of the forthcoming decision, and for an order requiring the State of Monaco to pay the sum of 1,000,000 euros in damages for all losses and harm suffered, together with full costs.
• The applicant argues, in particular, that: the procedure for determining the sanction is vitiated by a procedural irregularity (failure to comply with the reporting procedure laid down and formalised by Circular No. 2021-001 of 17 June 2021), which undermines the principle of the right to be heard and the rights of the defence; the investigation conducted lacked impartiality and fairness; the investigation was not conducted in a manner that allowed both sides to be heard; the requirement for a reasonable timeframe for the proceedings was not met; the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, as the Supreme Court is required to review the factual basis of the alleged offences, their disciplinary classification and the proportionality between, on the one hand, the seriousness of the offences found and, on the other hand, the severity of the sanction imposed and, in the event of the lawfulness of that sanction, to remedy the harmful consequences thereof; significant non-pecuniary damage (the length of the proceedings having deteriorated her psychological state, leading to her being prescribed strong medication; damage to her honour and dignity preventing her from finding work; considerable financial and economic loss).

Supreme Court ruling:

External lawfulness

• Un vice affectant le déroulement de la procédure de recueil de signalements de faits de harcèlement (concertation alléguée entre les plaignants, rédaction directe des signalements par ceux-ci plutôt que leur consignation par le Référent Harcèlement, information délivrée par la hiérarchie sur les voies de signalement disponibles), procédure administrative préalable distincte de la procédure disciplinaire, ne saurait, en lui-même, entacher d'irrégularité la procédure disciplinaire ; au demeurant, il ne ressort pas de la lecture des rapports d'instruction de l'enquête administrative que celle-ci aurait été conduite à charge ou en méconnaissance des principes d'impartialité et de loyauté, toutes les parties ont été entendues, y compris la requérante, et ont pu faire valoir leurs observations et présenter des éléments matériels à l'appui de leurs déclarations, et il a été procédé à une comparaison entre les différents témoignages afin de déterminer s'ils constituaient des faits contraires à la loi ou non.
• A defect affecting the conduct of the procedure for collecting reports of harassment (alleged collusion between the complainants, the complainants drafting the reports themselves rather than having them recorded by the Harassment Officer, information provided by management on the available reporting channels), a preliminary administrative procedure distinct from the disciplinary procedure, cannot, in itself, render the disciplinary proceedings irregular; moreover, it does not appear from a reading of the investigation reports of the administrative inquiry that the inquiry was conducted in a biased manner or in breach of the principles of impartiality and fairness, all parties were heard, including the applicant, and were able to put forward their observations and present material evidence in support of their statements, and a comparison was made between the various testimonies in order to determine whether or not they constituted acts contrary to the law.
• A disciplinary sanction does not constitute a court decision within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and entrusting the Administration with the investigation and disciplinary prosecution of offences committed by a civil servant is not contrary to this Convention, which is complied with provided that the person concerned may bring the matter before the Supreme Court; Article 43 of Law No. 975 of 12 July 1975, which merely sets out the arrangements for the remuneration of a suspended civil servant, does not require the disciplinary authority to reach a decision within four months of the suspension, failing which the decision would be invalid.

Internal lawfulness

• It is for the Supreme Court to review the factual basis of the allegations, their disciplinary classification and the proportionality between the seriousness of the offences committed and the penalty imposed. There is no provision requiring an administrative investigation to be based on written evidence to establish the facts of certain mattersand, in the light of the investigation reports,the applicant repeatedly committed acts and omissions (exerting pressure, belittling others, making hurtful remarks) which had the effect of deteriorating the working conditions of the five complainants, infringing upon their dignity and health, and constituting psychological harassment and workplace violence within the meaning of the Article 2 of Law No. 1.457 of 12 December 2017.
  
• The sanction of compulsory retirement, imposed on the grounds of conduct incompatible with the person’s continued employment, having regard to the obligations of dignity and exemplary conduct incumbent upon her, is not disproportionate.

Consequently, following the dismissal of the application for annulment, the claim for compensation is dismissed.

The submissions seeking an order for reinstatement are inadmissible, as the Supreme Court does not have the power to issue orders to the administration.

TS 2025-27, 20 February 2026, j A v State of Monaco

Civil servant (police) • Disciplinary proceedings (dismissal) • Humiliating and degrading behaviour, remarks and gestures of a sexual nature • External unlawfulness (no) • Internal unlawfulness (no) • Compensation (no) • Order for reinstatement (Dismissed)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application for the annulment, on the grounds of abuse of power, of the decision of the Director of Public Security and of the Sovereign Order ordering the dismissal of a police officer, appointed as a probationary Police Lieutenant, following incidents that occurred during a selection exercise for candidates intended to join a unit responsible for the protection of the Princely Family, during which, as part of a stress exercise simulating a hostage-taking, they were subjected to humiliating and degrading behaviour, accompanied by remarks and gestures of a sexual nature.
  
• Application for reinstatement and an order requiring the State of Monaco to pay the sum of 60,000 euros by way of damages for all losses and harm suffered, together with full costs.
  
• The applicant argued that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed due to the Disciplinary Board being improperly constituted in light of the Article 45 of Law No. 975 of 12 July 1975 on the status of civil servants, the members summoned and who sat on the committee did not fall within the remit of the relevant joint committee, as they did not hold a rank at least equivalent to that of Police Lieutenant in Category B, but rather in Categories C and D; the administrative inquiry conducted was neither fair nor thorough, thereby vitiating the contested decision with a manifest error of assessment; breach of the rights of defence and the principle of adversarial proceedings, as certain elements of the administrative inquiry were not disclosed to him; material loss (suspended from duty between May and November, resulting in a 50 per cent reduction in his salary and the loss of financial benefits associated with his membership of the Princely Family Protection Division; and, since his dismissal, he has had no income and is unable to register with an organisation providing back-to-work allowances); non-pecuniary damage (dismissed from the profession he had practised with passion, integrity and dedication for fifteen years; damage to his honour and dignity as a result of the allegations made against him, which has had repercussions on his personal and family life).

Supreme Court ruling:

External lawfulness

• It follows from Article 45 of Law No. 975 of 12 July 1975, Article 14 of Sovereign Order No. 6.365 of 17 August 1978 laying down the conditions for its application, and Article 1 of Ministerial Order No. 77-126 of 30 March 1977 concerning the composition and the conditions governing the appointment and operation of the joint committees established by the Statute of Civil Servants that the matter had been duly referred to the relevant joint committee, as a probationary civil servant remains, until he is granted permanent appointment, in his original grade, category and service, the applicant still falling within category C at the time of his appearance, and not within category B.
  
• The complaints alleging a breach of the right to be heard are unfounded, as the preliminary administrative inquiry does not constitute a stage of the disciplinary proceedings, and the circumstances in which it was conducted do not render the contested decision unlawful.

Internal lawfulness

• It is for the Supreme Court to review the facts of the case, their legal characterisation and the proportionality between, on the one hand, the seriousness of the offences committed and, on the other hand, the penalty imposed and, where appropriate, to provide redress for any resulting harm. In justifying the proposed sanction, the Disciplinary Board relied on “behaviour that was particularly humiliating and degrading towards the female candidates, notably touching certain candidates’ faces or making remarks and gestures of a highly sexual nature”. The alleged facts have been substantively established and are not disputed. Even when viewed within the specific context of an exercise simulating a hostage-taking scenario, designed to test the candidates’ resilience to intense stress, torture and psychological violence in the event of a kidnapping the humiliating and degrading remarks and gestures of a sexual nature exceeded the limits of what is necessary for the assessment and thus constitute misconduct justifying disciplinary action; the dismissal imposed on the basis of these facts, which must be assessed in the light of the obligations of dignity and exemplary conduct incumbent upon the individual concerned and which are such as to make it impossible for them to remain within the Public Security Directorate, does not appear disproportionate.

Consequently, following the dismissal of the application for annulment, the claim for compensation is dismissed.

The submissions seeking an order for reinstatement are inadmissible, as the Supreme Court does not have the power to issue orders to the administration.

¤ TAX LITIGATION (transfer duties)

TS 2025-26, 9 April 2026, r B c/ État de Monaco
Tax litigation • Recovery of transfer duties on immovable property (Order of 29 April 1828) following the revocation of authorisation to practise as a property dealer • Lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Dismissal)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application for the annulment of the decisions of the Tax Services Directorate (DSF) requiring the applicant (a former property dealer) to pay transfer duties, additional charges and late payment interest in respect of three properties held in stock, and refusing to refund the registration fees paid on the sale of another property.
• According to the DSF, the revocation of authorisation to carry on business as a property dealer resulted in the loss of VAT-registered status and rendered the disputed duties payable.
• According to the applicant, the revocation of his licence to practise as a property dealer did not affect his entitlement to the preferential tax regime applicable to transactions already carried out, and he claimed that the exemption from transfer duties should remain in force.

Supreme Court ruling:

• Decisions determining the tax liabilities of a taxpayer may only be challenged before the tax court (Court of First Instance) by means of an appeal under the full tax litigation procedure, and not before the court dealing with cases of abuse of power (Supreme Court).
• An application seeking the annulment of these decisions and the refund of the registration fees paid in connection with the sale of a property may therefore only be brought before the Court of First Instance, which, on the basis of Article 62 of Order of 29 April 1828 on registration, stamp duty, court fees and mortgages has sole jurisdiction to determine the legality of tax assessments or the regularity of tax collection.

¤ CONSTRUCTION (building permit)

TS 2025-29 and 2025-33, 9 April 2026, c A et Syndicat des copropriétaires de l’immeuble B v State of Monaco
Town planning & Construction • Building permit • External unlawfulness (no) • Internal unlawfulness (no) (Dismissed)

Subject of the appeal:

• Application by neighbouring residents and the co-owners’ association seeking annulment, on grounds of misuse of powers, of the planning permission for the construction of a high-rise building granted by ministerial order of the Minister of State, and of the implied decision rejecting the administrative appeals lodged against that decision.
• The applicants argued: breach of Article 3 of Sovereign Order No. 3.647 of 9 September 1966 concerning town planning, construction and roads due to the petitioner’s lack of standing or ownership; the incomplete nature of the building permit application file (Article 98 of Ministerial Order No. 2018-613 of 26 June 2018, Article 59 of Sovereign Order No. 3.647 and Appendix 4 thereto); the absence of prior consultation with the Technical Commission for Health, Safety and Environmental Protection (Sovereign Order No. 2.214 of 9 June 2009); a procedural defect arising from insufficient consultation of the advisory committee, the Communal Council and the Council of Government under (Article 7, paragraph 1, of Sovereign Order No. 3.647, Article 26 of Law No. 959 of 24 July 1974); the absence of an environmental impact assessment (Article L. 141-1 of the Environmental Code); inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the building permit application file; breach of the applicable construction index and the unlawfulness of Sovereign Order No. 10.619 of 14 June 2024 amending Sovereign Order No. 4.482 of 13 September 2013 delimiting and regulating town planning in the planned districts sector, as amended; breach of the rules on parking spaces (Article 15 of Sovereign Ordinance No. 3.647, Article 118 of Ministerial Order No. 2017-893 of 21 December 2017 implementing Law No. 1.441 of 5 December 2016 on the accessibility of the built environment); breach of Articles 7, paragraph 2 and 15, paragraph 6, of Sovereign Order No. 3.647; and breach of Sovereign Order No. 4.482 relating to the landscape plan and the tree code.

Supreme Court ruling:

External lawfulness

• The applicant company owned part of the plots and, in respect of the remaining part, held a valid power of attorney from the owner; the ground of appeal alleging the signatory’s lack of authority is without merit in law, since the managing director was entitled to submit the application for planning permission on behalf of the company to which the planning permission was granted, without any further formalities.
• The application for planning permission included the required feasibility study on energy supply, and was not required at that stage to include the statutory thermal assessment of the buildings’ characteristics, which must only be provided before the start of the structural works; the Article 59 of Sovereign Order No. 3.647 and Annex 4 thereto do not preclude a planning permission from containing requirements designed to clarify or supplement aspects of the project, and the contested planning permission does not have the effect of leaving it to the applicant to determine substantial aspects of the project, but rather requires approval of the project prior to its implementation.
• There is no provision in any applicable legislation requiring consultation with the Technical Commission for Health, Safety and Environmental Protection prior to the issue of a planning permission, which, incidentally, met after the planning permission had been granted.
• The Advisory Committee, the Municipal Council and the Governing Council had given their views on the draft before it was finalised, and the additional information provided in response to a request for further documents did not necessitate consulting these bodies again.
• In particular, in the absence of the adoption of the ministerial order provided for by the Article L. 141-1 of the Environment Code, it follows from these provisions that the carrying out, in this case, of an environmental impact assessment or an environmental audit was not mandatory, and Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (respect for private and family life) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms do not require an impact assessment to be carried out in this case.

Internal lawfulness

• The inaccuracies and inconsistencies identified in the application for planning permission, in particular regarding the number of storeys in the building, were not, given their minor nature, such as to distort the administrative authority’s assessment, particularly with regard to the height of the building.
• The lawfulness of an administrative decision is assessed as at the date of its adoption; on the date on which the contested decision was adopted, the building coefficient had been increased by Sovereign Order No. 10.619 of 14 June 2024; this follows from Article 5 of Annex 9 to the Sovereign Order No. 4.482 of 13 September 2013, as amended by Sovereign Order No. 10.619 of 14 June 2024 that the reference building index of 12 m³/m² does not apply to the built-up area corresponding to the project’s site footprint; iit does not appear from the documents in the file that the maximum elevation of the building’s uppermost level, set in January 2021 by the regulatory site plan at +132 NGM (Monaco General Levelling) was disregarded in this case; if Sovereign Order No. 10.619 of 14 June 2024 whilst enabling the implementation of a specific property development project, it pursues an objective in the public interest, and does not contravene either the constitutional rules relating to legislative competence or the constitutional principle of equality before public burdens.
• If the number of parking spaces in the building to be constructed is thirteen short according to Article 15 of Sovereign Order No. 3.647, it is recorded that twenty-two additional parking spaces located in a building in the immediate vicinity have been made available to the petitioner and allocated to the proposed property development; according to Article 118 of Ministerial Order No. 2017-893 of 21 December 2017, the building to be constructed must include at least five parking spaces suitable for people with disabilities, and the proposed project provides for eight.
• The contested authorisation, granted subject to the provision of studies and analyses concerning the parking of two-wheeled vehicles on public roads, the turning manoeuvres of vehicles accessing the car park, and vehicle flow, does not manifestly contravene the obligations relating to the safeguarding of public safety in respect of road traffic of Article 7(2) and the Article 15(6) of Sovereign Order No. 3.647.
• The mineralisation of the area in question does not contravene Article 27 of Annex 1 to Sovereign Order No. 4.482 of 13 September 2013, concerning green spaces or gardens to be protected or restored, Article 5 of Annex 9 (“Specific town-planning provisions applicable to the regulated district of Monte Carlo”) of the Sovereign Order No. 4.482 of 13 September 2013 as amended by the Sovereign Order No. 10.619 of 14 June 2024, and Ministerial Order No. 2012-38 of 25 January 2012 on the classification of heritage trees and plants, adopted on the basis of Sovereign Order No. 3.197 of 25 March 2011 laying down measures for the protection of trees and certain plants, insofar as both the application for a demolition permit and the application for a building permit provide for the replanting of the Chamaerops humilis, which is classified as a heritage tree, present on the site.