Page 47 - MONACO LAW REVIEW 2025-2

MONACO LAW REVIEW | DECEMBER 2025 | COURTROOM INSIGHTS
exercise a discretionary veto over another union’s accession
amounts, in practice, to the creation of a statutory trade-union
monopoly, incompatible with freedom of association and with
organisational pluralism.
Thus, a signifi cant part of the Monegasque regime governing
collective agreements, in force since 1945, is called into question.
The Court did not impose any sanction on either party (no
damages were awarded), but merely remedied the Convention-
incompatible effects of the statute by disapplying it.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The judgment reaffi rms the primacy of the European
Convention on Human Rights over domestic law, even
longstanding legislation. It confi rms that freedom of
association, as interpreted by the Strasbourg Court,
encompasses participation in collective bargaining and
prohibits statutory mechanisms that establish a trade-union
monopoly or quasi-monopoly. The ruling represents a
structural development in Monegasque labour law.
The judgment also orders provisional enforcement in order to
put an end to a long-standing deadlock, and requires that the
applicant union henceforth be included in the negotiations
on the collective agreement for performing musicians, with
the employer being required to provide it with the minutes
of the bargaining sessions.
YS
CAUTIONARY NOTE
Scope of Article 238-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 238-1 allows a litigant, upon request, to obtain compensation for costs not included in recoverable court
costs (commonly referred to as irrecoverable costs) that they have incurred in bringing proceedings. The party
liable for such payment is “the party ordered to pay the costs or who loses the case”. As the Court of Revision has
recalled, the judge must “determine the matter by taking into account considerations of fairness or the fi nancial situation of
the party ordered to pay” (Court of Revision, 25 March 2025, C.A v. S.F., Appeal No. 2024/000062).
However, the benefi t of this provision may be sought only before civil courts and only where the Code of Civil
Procedure applies. Unlike French law, where Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure has its counterpart in
Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no equivalent exists in Monegasque criminal procedure.
Consequently, no amount may be awarded on the basis of Article 238-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure before
criminal courts, including when they rule on civil claims arising out of the offence. The Criminal Division of the
Court of Appeal has held that “since Article 238-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies solely to proceedings brought
before the civil courts, the claim must be dismissed” when such a request is made before the criminal judge (Court of
Appeal (Criminal Division), 30 June 2025, R.6300, PG File No. 2023/001020).
These provisions likewise do not apply before the Justice of the Peace when ruling on attachment of earnings under
Law No. 741 of 25 March 1963, which is a special statute derogating from the civil procedure set out in the Code
of Civil Procedure. Article 16 of that statute provides: “The costs of the attachment of earnings and distribution shall be
borne by the debtor. They shall be deducted from the amount to be distributed.
All costs of an unsuccessful challenge shall be borne by the party who has failed.”
AB
45