Council of State Ruling on Firefighter's Personal Fault

Extract

[...] For the Council of State, the voluntary fire lit by the firefighter constituted a personal fault detachable from the service, due to its intentional and malicious nature. Therefore, this fault could not engage the responsibility of the commune. The ruling specifies that, although the firefighter used his knowledge acquired within the framework of his service, his deliberate intention to harm and the gravity of the acts broke any link with the public service. Thus, only the personal responsibility of the agent could be engaged. [...]

[...] In fact, for the Council, the responsibility of the administration is only to be sought if an agent commits a fault during his service or in connection with his service. However, in this case, the fire was not lit during working hours, and the latter was not connected to the service. The Council of State has indeed clarified the issues of cumulation of personal fault and fault of service (CE Anguet) or cumulation of personal and administrative responsibility (CE Spouse Lemonier). However, in this case, the Council of State refuses to consider that the firefighter's actions are linked to the service. [...]

[...] In doing so, the Council of State reaffirms its distinction between personal fault and service fault. This distinction was made for the first time in the decision of the Court of Conflicts Pelletier from 1873. When the fault is committed within the scope of the service, then the responsibility of the administration is engaged. On the other hand, if the fault is personal, outside the service, then it is the personal responsibility of the agent that will be sought. In a context of dual jurisdiction, this difference in regime is reflected in the jurisdictional competence: the administrative judge is competent to seek the responsibility of the administration while the judicial judge will be competent to seek the responsibility of the agent. [...]

[...] He acted on his own initiative, committed a personal fault, outside the service, and without using the means of the public service, which was the case in the decision Raszewski of 1988 leading to administrative liability. It is therefore quite logically that the administrative judge rejects the liability of the Echirolles commune, which has not committed a fault in the organization of the public service of firefighters. [...]

[...] The need for a direct link with the public service to engage the administration's liability For the Council of State, the liability for fault of the administration can be engaged in case of specific fault in the organization of the service However, in this case, nothing allows to characterize this fault of organization of the service A - The recall of the administration's liability for a fault in the organization of the service The Council of State emphasizes that the damage 'is not imputable to the action of the service'. It thus renews the general rule of the administration's liability for the organization of its service. [...]