Extract
[...] This rejection of exoneration causes contributes to a recentring of the litigation around the faulty lack of public authority. The administrative judge abandons all complacency towards installations created by the community for recreational purposes, but lacking any supervision. Conversely, when the danger is inherently known to the administration, it is up to the administration to ensure its signaling or to strictly regulate the use of the site, without being able to take refuge behind the imprudence of the victims. The decision of the Council of State of 9 May 1980, Commune of Ladignac-le-Long, considered that the absence of prohibition or information engaged the responsibility of the commune. [...]
[...] This obligation is heightened when the place has a high frequency or specific activity, even seasonal, as jurisprudence has recalled in the matter of arranged bathing areasCE nov Bujon, n°422655, TA Mayotte mars 2023, Commune de Bandrélé, n°21-00.510). The mayor's obligation to be vigilant is therefore not diminished by the non-permanent nature of the site's use. On the contrary, jurisprudence imposes a constant adaptation of municipal action to the real conditions of site use, both in terms of layout and frequency. [...]
[...] This general administrative policing mission manifests itself by an appreciation power as to the opportunity of the measures to be taken, but it remains nonetheless framed by an obligation of vigilance, in particular when municipal installations are the origin of a specific danger. The structure, although mobile, was integrated into a facility for welcoming bathers, frequented by minors to perform dives. From then on, the case law imposes on the mayor a particular diligence of the risks exceeding the usual dangers. [...]
[...] Furthermore, the floating nature of the installation does not exempt the commune from its responsibilities. The jurisprudence, although reluctant to consider movable property as a support for public works October 1973, Commune of Saint-Brévin-les-Pins, n°84798), tend to integrate certain movable property into the field of public law as soon as they are affected to collective use. In this case, the installation, even floating, was subject to a public use supported and structured, involving a reinforced obligation of secure management. The Council of State, recognizes that the special competence of the mayor is fully exercised on this type of installation, as soon as it is inscribed in the maritime public domain and generates identified risks. [...]
[...] However, it rejected, on March this indemnity claim. On July the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nantes, ruling on referral from the Council of State after a first Cassation, rejected their request again. The parties arrived in Cassation at the present judgment rendered on November 19, 2013. The main arguments presented by the applicants concern a faulty lack of authority from the municipal authority, arguing in substance that the mayor failed to fulfill his obligations of prevention and protection by not informing about the risks and dangers of using the platform as a diving board, and not having any surveillance measures in place. [...]
