State Liability for Minors under Educational Assistance Measures

Extract

[...] This minor had been subject, for several months, to an educational assistance measure ordered by the juvenile court judge of Evry. More specifically, in accordance with Article 375 of the Civil Code, the care of the minor had been entrusted to the Special Institution for Supervised Education of Savigny-sur-Orge, a service of the Youth Protection Judicial Service of the Ministry of Justice. Following this intentional fire, significant material damage was found in the premises of the departmental institute, valued at 371,531.37 euros. [...]

[...] II) The growing standardization of the principles governing liability for minors The judgment of 11 February 2005 marks a jurisprudential evolution responding to the objective of legal certainty for victims, by unifying the rules applicable to their right to compensation The High Assembly has also made the principle of full compensation for damages a determining criterion in defining the liability regime applicable to damages caused by minors in care Enhanced consideration for legal certainty for victims In the judgment of 11 February 2005, the Council of State indicated that "the liability of the State is likely to be incurred towards the department solely due to the actions of the minor". This jurisprudential clarification is in line with the logic of the judgments CE Ass March 1995, Lavaud and CE Ass January 1938, Fleurette, according to which the administration must ensure compensation when its decision causes special and abnormal harm. By extending the principle of no-fault liability of the State to all minors in care, and no longer just to certain hypotheses, the CE pursues the stated objective of legal certainty. [...]

[...] This weakens the scope of its unifying approach. By prioritizing indemnification efficiency over conceptual rigor, the Conseil d'État chooses a practical but imperfect solution on a doctrinal level, reducing the scope of the reversal carried out." One can also regret that the CE did not take advantage of this ruling to clarify the conditions for engaging such a liability of right linked to custody, in order to strengthen legal security. [...]

[...] By basing the State's liability on its mission to care for placed minors, the Council of State is in line with the classical case law according to which the administration may see its liability engaged without fault due to an objective generating fact. This is what it has already admitted in judgments of principle such as CE Ass March 1919, Regnault-Desroziers, for damages caused by hazardous activities, or CE Ass June 1949, Lecomte, for the operation of a public industrial and commercial service. [...]

[...] In this constrained budget context, the question of the distribution of the economic burden resulting from the damaging acts committed by minors in care has been posed with acuity. The departments demanded a clarification of the State's responsibility in this matter, in order to limit their contribution to the compensation of victims, when the administration's fault was not engaged. In this case, on 3 July 1994, a fire broke out in the premises of the Departmental Institute 'Enfance et Famille'. The investigation established that the fire had been intentionally set by a 15-year-old minor. [...]