Case law • Supreme Court (December 2025)

The Administrative Law Department of 99 AVOCATS ASSOCIÉS reviews the decisions handed down in December 2025 by the Supreme Court of Monaco (Tribunal Suprême) ruling as a judge of excess of power, concerning the dismissal of a staff representative and measures for refoulement from the territory.

This overview puts into perspective the arguments raised by the applicants, the method of review and the reasoning of the Supreme Court.

* * *

Supreme Court, 1 December 2025, m A-B v. State of Monaco, TS 2024-28 (dismissal) — Dismissal of a staff representative • Dismissal committee (Law No. 459 of 19 July 1947) • Justification of administrative acts (Law No. 312 of 29 June 2006) • Review of the grounds for the proposed dismissal (Sovereign Order No. 2.528 of 3 June 1961) • Basis of the decision in fact (link between the dismissal and the duties of staff representative)

Subject matter of the appeal

• Decision of 2024 by which the Dismissal Commission approved the dismissal of the applicant by her employer on the grounds of professional incompetence and breaches of internal rules.
• Appeal for annulment on the grounds of misuse of power based on the lack of scrutiny of the reasons for the proposed dismissal, Law No. 1.312 of 29 June 2006 on the reasoning behind administrative acts (lack of reasoning behind the Dismissal Commission's decision), Article 1 of Sovereign Order No. 2.528 of 3 June 1961 on the procedures for dismissing staff representatives (failure to observe the fifteen-day period between the date of receipt of the request for approval from the Dismissal Committee and the date of dismissal), and the manifest lack of factual basis.
• Intervention by the employer in support of the State's claim.

Supreme Court decision (dismissal of the application)

INTERVENTION

The intervention in support of the State's claim is admissible. The employer has a sufficient interest in the dismissal of the application seeking annulment of the Commission's decision to dismiss.

TIME LIMIT BETWEEN THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL AND THE DATE OF DISMISSAL

Article 1 of Sovereign Order No. 2.528 of 3 June 1961 on the procedures for dismissing staff representatives stipulates that a period of fifteen clear days must elapse between the receipt of the request for approval by the Dismissal Commission by the labour inspector and the date of dismissal.

In this case, the dismissal was notified 10 days after the employer's request for approval.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument based on failure to comply with the time limit between the date of receipt of the request for approval and the date of dismissal, "Considering that the legality of an administrative decision is assessed on the date of its enactment" and that the failure to comply with the provisions of Sovereign Order No. 2.528 of 3 June 1961 after the contested decision was made had no bearing on its legality.

REASONS FOR THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DISMISS

Article 1 of Law No. 1.312 of 29 June 2006 on the grounds for administrative acts stipulates that "Individual administrative decisions must be justified on pain of nullity if they: / [...] 2°- impose a penalty [...]".

Article 3 of Sovereign Order No. 2.528 of 3 June 1961 on the procedures for dismissing staff representatives provides that "The decisions of the committee [...] shall not be reasoned, but minutes shall be drawn up and signed by all members".

The Supreme Court dismissed the argument based on the lack of reasoning, "Considering that it does not follow from these provisions that the decisions by which the Commission gives its consent to the dismissal of a protected employee must be reasoned".

REVIEW OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE PROPOSED DISMISSAL

Staff representatives (both permanent and substitute) enjoy exceptional protection.

Article 16 of Law No. 459 of 19 July 1947 amending the status of staff representatives stipulates that "Any dismissal of a permanent or substitute staff representative must be subject to the approval of a commission composed as follows: /a) The labour inspector, chair; /b) Two representatives of the employers' union representing the employer's profession; /c) Two representatives of the workers' union representing the staff representative's profession [...]".

Furthermore, Article 1 of Sovereign Order No. 2.528 of 3 June 1961 on the procedures for dismissing staff representatives stipulates that "The request [for approval] must specify the reasons and circumstances invoked by the employer in support of its decision".

In this context, the Dismissal Commission must "ensure, after having established the materiality of the facts invoked in support of the request submitted to it, that there is no link between the employee's mandate as staff representative and the proposed dismissal". This review is the responsibility of the Supreme Court, which rules on abuses of power.

However, the Commission is not required, "in view of the circumstances in which [the request] is made, even where the request is based on misconduct, to verify whether the facts relied on in support of that request are sufficient to justify dismissal". Such verification falls, where appropriate, within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

The Supreme Court did not uphold the argument based on the lack of review of the grounds for the proposed dismissal, considering that the Commission had not committed an error of law "in this case, by finding that “there is no evidence to establish a link between the employee's status as deputy staff representative and the proposed dismissal”".

BASIS FOR THE DECISION IN FACT

The employer's request for approval of the dismissal was based on the applicant's professional incompetence. The file showed that she was criticised for not having achieved the objectives for publications in scientific journals, unlike other permanent teachers at the institution, despite the support measures taken by her employer to help her.

To demonstrate the link between the dismissal and her duties as staff representative, the applicant relied on an email from management dated November 2023 expressing regret at the way she seemed to "want to fuel a feeling of mistrust towards management, but also towards the incumbent representative", and on the draft internal regulations of the establishment, which were the subject of discussions with the staff representatives, announced for July 2024 and then postponed to August 2024, after her dismissal.

The Supreme Court dismissed the argument that the dismissal Comission's decision was unfounded, considering that the evidence put forward by the applicant was not sufficient to demonstrate a link between the dismissal and her duties as staff representative.

It concluded that the application should be dismissed.

* * *

Supreme Court, 1 December 2025, e.A v. State of Monaco, TS 2025-01 (annulment) — Refoulement (expulsion) from the territory • Entry and residence of foreigners (Sovereign Order No. 3.153 of 19 March 1964, as amended) • Presumption of innocence (Article 6 § 2 ECHR) • Manifest error of assessment

Subject matter of the appeal

• Refoulement decision of 2024 by the Minister of State and decision to reject the informal appeal, on the grounds that the applicant's presence on Monegasque territory would be likely to compromise public order, peace and security.
• Appeal for annulment on the grounds of abuse of power on the basis of Article 22 of Sovereign Order No. 3.153 of 19 March 1964 on the conditions of entry and residence of foreigners and Article 6 § 2 of the ECHR (the facts on which the contested expulsion measure was based have not been established; only a conviction can justify legal recognition of guilt; the facts of occasional soft drug use do not present a degree of seriousness that would justify the refoulement measure).

Supreme Court decision (annulment of the refoulement decision)

PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE POLICE MEASURES

The purpose of administrative police measures is "to prevent potential breaches of public order’, and ‘it is sufficient that the facts in question reveal sufficiently clear risks of disturbance to public or private peace or security to justify such measures".

MANIFEST ERROR OF ASSESSMENT

The Minister of State had ordered the refoulement on the grounds of acts of violence without incapacitation against a spouse (2022), theft (2022) and drug use (2023).

The applicant contested the materiality of the acts of violence and theft with which he was charged, for which he had not been convicted, but acknowledged that he had been fined for occasional personal use of cannabis.

The Supreme Court considered that no evidence had been produced to establish the reality of the acts of violence and theft, and "that, although the person concerned had been convicted of occasional personal use of cannabis and given a fixed penalty, the Minister of State could not, without committing a manifest error of assessment, order a measure of expulsion based on that ground alone".

The Supreme Court annulled the decisions on expulsion and rejection of the administrative appeal.

* * *

Supreme Court, 1 December 2025, v A wife B v State of Monaco, TS 2025-05 (annulment) — Refoulement (expulsion) from the territory • Entry and residence of foreigners (Sovereign Order No. 3.153 of 19 March 1964, as amended) • National security (Law No. 1.430 of 13 July 2016) • Reasons for administrative acts (Law No. 312 of 29 June 2006) • Manifest error of assessment

Subject matter of the appeal

• Decision of 2024 by the Minister of State rejecting the request to revoke the decision to expel the applicant from the territory of the Principality of Monaco taken in 2010 (for "forgery and use of forged documents", which she admitted to during her hearing" following the complaint filed against her with the Monegasque police), on the grounds that the applicant had not presented any new evidence that would call into question the reasons for the expulsion order.
• Appeal for annulment on the grounds of misuse of power on the basis of Article 1 of Law No. 1.312 of 29 June 2006 (insufficient grounds for the administrative decision), Article 22 of Sovereign Order No. 3.153 of 19 March 1964 on the conditions of entry and residence of foreigners, and Article 1 I- of Law No. 1.430 of 13 July 2016 on various measures relating to the preservation of national security (in the absence of a risk to public peace or security, a measure of refoulement cannot be maintained indefinitely without being illegal).

Supreme Court decision (annulment of the decision rejecting the request)

PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE POLICE MEASURES

The purpose of administrative police measures is "to prevent potential breaches of public order’, and ‘it is sufficient that the facts in question reveal sufficiently clear risks of disturbance to public or private peace or security to justify such measures".

MANIFEST ERROR OF ASSESSMENT

Since the refoulement decision of 2010, the applicant had been acquitted of all charges brought against her by the Criminal Court and the Criminal Court of Appeal, and had not committed any offences.

The evidence produced by the applicant concerning her personal and professional situation attested to her full social integration since the decision of 2010.

For his part, the Minister of State did not report any circumstances revealing behaviour prejudicial to public order.

The Supreme Court concluded that "in these circumstances and in view of the length of time that had elapsed since the events that justified the refoulement measure, these events no longer revealed, at the date of the contested decision, a sufficiently serious risk of disturbance to public or private peace or security such as to justify maintaining the refoulement measure; that, therefore, by refusing to revoke the refoulement measure taken against V, wife of B, the Minister of State had made a manifest error of assessment in his decision;".

Without ruling on the other grounds of the application, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of 2024 rejecting the request for revocation.

* * *