Page 52 - MONACO LAW REVIEW 2025-2

FROM THE
EUROPEAN
PERSPECTIVE
Appointment to the Supreme Court
and Victim Status: The Limits of
actio popularis
ECtHR, 12 June 2025,
Palmero v. Monaco, No. 12042/25
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, who had previously served as Administrator
of the Sovereign Prince’s assets, contested the validity of
the Sovereign Ordinance of 6 October 2023 appointing
the President, the Vice-President and several members of
the Supreme Court. He maintained that this institutional
reorganisation undermined the impartiality of the bench
that would subsequently hear his actions challenging his
dismissal.
ANALYSIS:
The Court declared the application inadmissible on the
ground that the applicant did not qualify as a “victim” within
the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. Reaffi rming that
the Convention does not recognise actio popularis, the Court
stressed that an applicant cannot complain in abstracto about
a domestic measure without demonstrating that it has caused
him personal, direct and concrete prejudice.
In this case, the impugned Sovereign Ordinance did not
target the applicant and produced no specifi c legal effect
in his regard. The judges concerned had been appointed
strictly upon the expiry of their respective mandates, and
no provision of domestic law had been disregarded. The
Court noted that the appointments formed part of a regular
institutional process and that there was no objective indication
of an intention to infl uence pending proceedings concerning
the applicant. Drawing on its settled case-law, the Court
reiterated that victim status cannot be based solely on the
existence of a general measure perceived by an applicant as
irregular or politically questionable. The protection afforded
by the Convention presupposes a concrete link between the
applicant’s individual situation and the alleged violation. In
the absence of such a link, the Court held that the application
was incompatible ratione personae, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3
and 4 of the Convention.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The decision illustrates the strict approach adopted by
the European Court to the requirement that applicants
demonstrate personal and direct prejudice before its
supervisory jurisdiction may be engaged. It draws a clear
distinction between challenges relating to the organisation of
the judiciary, which fall within the remit of domestic law, and
complaints concerning individual procedural rights, which
may fall within the Court’s jurisdiction.
Without addressing the internal legality of the appointments,
the Court observed that they had been made upon the
expiry of the relevant mandates and that nothing suggested
an attempt to interfere with any pending proceedings. The
judgment thereby recognises the wide margin of appreciation
enjoyed by States in determining the composition of their
constitutional courts, provided that appointments comply
with domestic law and are not aimed at infl uencing the
outcome of a particular case.
SD
Inapplicability of Article 6 § 1
of the European Convention on
Human Rights to Purely Normative
Constitutional Proceedings
ECtHR (Fifth Section), 12 June 2025,
SCI Esperanza v. Monaco, No. 28275/23
BACKGROUND:
The case arose from the Esplanade des Pêcheurs real-estate
project, jointly promoted by the company Caroli Immo SAM and
the Monegasque State. The applicant company challenged the
Law of 29 July 2022, which declassifi ed a plot of land from the
public domain in order to transfer it to the State’s private domain,
without yet authorising either its sale or the commencement of the
construction project. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention,
SCI Esperanza alleged a lack of fairness in the constitutional
proceedings conducted before the Supreme Court.
ANALYSIS :
The Strasbourg Court declared the application inadmissible. It
reiterated that proceedings before a constitutional court may
50