On 17 June 2026, on the occasion of the joint publication of the review of the contentious activity of the French financial courts and the 2025 Case Law Digest, the Court of Accounts and the Financial Court of Appeal (CAF) held a symposium devoted to the financial liability regime for public managers (RFGP), which was extensively reformed in 2023. Three years of hindsight make it possible to identify trends, without closing the debate on this body of punitive public financial law, which since that date has unified the liability of authorizing officers and accountants, and indeed of all public managers, before a single judge, the Court of Accounts.

A rise in contentious activity, marked filtering

The number of referrals — reports brought to the attention of the General Prosecutor's Office — increased by 54% between 2023 and 2025. This figure does not reflect a continuous expansion of litigation: only 47% of referrals led to prosecution, the others being dismissed, most often with an alternative measure (70% of dismissals were accompanied by a formal warning). Over the period as a whole, the Disputes Chamber issued 37 judgments, the CAF 9, and 4 appeals were lodged before the Council of State. For 2025 alone, the Court issued 19 decisions, sentencing 22 managers to a total of €82,500 in fines, an average of €3,750.

What the financial judge penalizes: five representative cases

The case law of the first three years makes it possible to identify key trends, through several cases cited in the Digest.

Department of Eure (Court of Accounts, 3 May 2024, upheld on appeal by the CAF on 6 February 2025): the General Prosecutor had referred to the Court the deputy of the departmental paying officer and the deputy director of finance of the department, in respect of the offence set out in Article L. 131-9 of the Code of Financial Jurisdictions (breach of expenditure rules which, through gross negligence, caused significant financial harm). The alleged facts concerned the payment, through a series of negligent failures and regulatory control failures, of a fraudulent invoice of approximately €800,000 to the benefit of a fraudster who had impersonated the department's genuine creditor. The Court found the offence established against both referred persons and imposed an identical fine of €2,500 on each.

Municipality of Richwiller (Court of Accounts, 16 December 2024, then CAF, 20 June 2025): the mayor had been referred on the basis of the offence of granting an unjustified advantage (Article L. 131-12 of the CJF), for having caused a year-end bonus devoid of any legal basis to be paid to staff. On appeal, the CAF clarified that the existence of a personal interest, a condition of that offence, cannot be inferred solely from the manager's breach of his obligations, nor from his sole desire to preserve the social climate. Although the bonus was irregular, the offence was therefore not established.

Lot-et-Garonne Departmental Chamber of Agriculture (Court of Accounts, 14 November 2025): the General Prosecutor had referred to the Court the president, two vice-presidents, a member of the bureau and an employee of the accounting department of a chamber of agriculture, in respect of several cumulative offences — breaches of rules which, through gross negligence, caused significant financial harm; granting of an unjustified advantage; failure to produce accounts; non-execution of a court decision; and de facto management. The alleged facts concerned in particular the unauthorized construction of a water retention structure, the irregular payment of aid to livestock farmers in the department, the non-execution of court decisions, the handling of public funds without authority, and annual accounts that were neither accurate nor reliable. All the offences were found established; the Court noted, as aggravating circumstances, the deliberate accounting concealment of the operation. On appeal (CAF, 17 July 2026), the penalties were even increased (fines ranging from €7,000 to €20,000).

Biarritz Tourist Office (Court of Accounts, 21 November 2025): the former president, director and accountant of this local public establishment had been referred, in particular on the basis of gross management negligence causing significant financial harm. Considering that the complexity of the applicable texts and the administration's contradictory interpretations made the state of the applicable law uncertain with regard to two allowances paid, the Court ruled out the gross nature of the fault on that ground. However, it imposed fines of €1,000 and €6,000 on two of the three referred persons, other offences having been established (commitment of expenditure without authority in several cases; irregular discounts granted, causing harm).
Institut des sciences et des industries du vivant et de l'environnement (AgroParisTech) and Direction nationale des ventes domaniales (DNID), sale of the furniture of the Château de Grignon (Court of Accounts, 19 December 2024): historic furniture had been sold at a derisory price by the administration, in disregard of numerous rules for the protection of public property in general, and property of heritage value in particular, which was held to constitute the offence punishing breach of rules on expenditure and management of property which, through gross negligence, caused financial harm to the State. Offence upheld on appeal (CAF, 7 October 2025).

Case law now better defined

These cases draw a fairly clear dividing line. Gross negligence is not limited to an isolated error: it is assessed over time, by repetition, by the scale of the irregularities and financial stakes, and deliberate concealment constitutes an aggravating circumstance. An unjustified advantage, for its part, requires proof of a personal interest on the part of the manager, whether direct or indirect — a breach of the rules, even if established, is not sufficient to characterize it. The President of the Disputes Chamber, Emmanuel Glimet, summarizes this architecture in a formula that has become central to the debate on the regime: the RFGP is not mass litigation; it is exemplary litigation, based on a system of successive filters.

A measured prosecution policy

The General Prosecutor, Véronique Hamayon, set out at the symposium the priorities guiding the action of the General Prosecutor's Office: to prosecute only misconduct causing significant harm to public financial interests; to favor alternatives to prosecution where the seriousness of the facts does not justify it; to ensure a balance between the different types of bodies concerned, with the local public sector currently accounting for the majority of referrals; to work in coordination with the judicial authority, in compliance with the principle of non bis in idem; and to pay particular attention to cases of non-execution of court decisions, where the pre-litigation action of the General Prosecutor's Office is sufficient, in almost all cases, to secure rapid regularization.

Consolidating financial liability rather than reforming in haste

Opening the symposium, the First President, Amélie de Montchalin, announced the continuation of regulatory adjustments already under way, as well as a strengthening of training for managers and of dialogue with the State, local and regional authorities and social security bodies. A six-month review clause, under which the investigating magistrate will inform the parties of the provisional timetable for the investigation, is due to be introduced shortly. In closing, the General Prosecutor recalled that it was too early for a definitive assessment of the reform: case law needs time to stabilize and to be understood by those concerned.

👉  Consult the 2025 Case Law Digest
👉 For further information on this liability regime, the judgments, annotated case law and the operation of the Disputes Chamber, see the "Litigation" section of the financial courts' [website]