In this case, the public-interest grounds cited in the challenged decision are not sufficient to justify a restriction on the appellant's freedom of establishment.
Given the nature of his work in the service of the State of Geneva, there is no reason to require him to reside in the cantonal territory.
Without such a public interest, his conduct, although reprehensible, which confronted the respondent with a fait accompli because he sold his house in France, is still not sufficient to justify refusing him an exception.
Any constraints arising from on-call duty can be addressed through occasional accommodation nearby.
It would be different only if he refused to perform on-call duties or other tasks under the job description, or could not perform them because of the distance from his residence.
Within this framework, overriding weight must be given to his free choice in determining his place of residence.
Source
Federal Supreme Court, judgment 1D_4/2026 of 21 August 2026, consideration 2.4.4 and operative part; published on 10 September 2026.