Council of State Clarifies Administrative Responsibility for Personal Faults Linked to Public Service
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Administrative responsibility, personal fault, service fault, Council of State, Rajewski decision, State liability, public agent, jurisprudence, gendarme fault, administrative law
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
Unlock the nuances of administrative responsibility with our comprehensive document on the link between personal fault and fault of service. Discover how the Council of State's landmark decision in Rajewski (1988) revolutionized the understanding of State liability for personal faults indirectly linked to public service. Learn about the classic distinction between personal fault and service fault, and how the Council maintains this distinction while clarifying the conditions under which administrative responsibility is engaged. Explore key jurisprudence developments, including the Quitman decision (2004), and understand the implications for public agents' actions outside of service. Dive into the complexities of administrative law and uncover the subtleties of State responsibility in cases of personal fault.
Extract
[...] In this case, for the Council of State, if the gendarme's fault is a personal fault, it 'is not devoid of all link with the service'. In fact, 'his belonging to the gendarmerie contributed to allowing him to escape the searches and to continue his criminal activities for a prolonged period.' In other words, factually, belonging to the service had an impact not on the initial faults, but on the prolonged nature of these, and specifically on the assassination of Mrs. [...]
[...] Council of State November 1988, Spouses Rasjewski, No - What is the responsibility of a public agent who commits a personal fault outside of service? Council of State November 1988, Raszewski In this decision of 18 December 1988, the Council of State has clarified the link that must exist between the personal fault of the agent and the public service in order to engage the responsibility of the administration. It considers that the responsibility of the administration is engaged as soon as the service has been used to commit the fault, or to avoid its judicial consequences. [...]
[...] By a decision of 12 November 1985, the Administrative Court of Amiens condemned the State to compensate the Y. family for the damages they suffered. It considered that although the damage itself was caused outside of his working hours, and with a personal weapon, the fault was not devoid of connection with the service. The Minister of Defense appeals to the Council of State against this decision. Before the Council of State, he considers in opposition that the fault of the gendarme is purely personal, and therefore the State is not responsible. [...]
[...] The Council of State must therefore rule on the State's responsibility for the illicit actions of a gendarme outside of his service. More broadly, the question that the administrative judge must settle is therefore that of the responsibility of a public agent who commits a personal fault outside of service, but who uses the means of the service to pursue certain illicit activities or to evade prosecution. For the Council of State, although the faulty facts in themselves are not linked to the service, since the agent used the means of the service to commit the faulty facts. [...]
[...] The Council of State draws up a list of intentional infractions committed. Thus, 'he had committed several car thefts and three armed attacks; that cars he had rigged after stealing them had injured a police officer and an auxiliary gendarme; that he had shot and injured a passerby.' He also murdered Mrs. Y. The Council of State does not explicitly qualify the gendarme's fault, but it is undeniable that it is a personal fault of the agent, that which reveals 'the man with his weaknesses, his passions, his imprudences', to quote the conclusions of Laferrière under the 1877 decision of the Tribunal of Conflicts Laumonnier-Carriol. [...]
