The Concept of Administrative Fault as the Basis for Administrative Responsibility

Comparative study

Abstract

This study examines the concept of administrative (service) fault as the foundation of administrative liability, while explaining how the judiciary assesses such faults, given that the public service bears the consequences and is obliged to provide compensation upon the occurrence of damage. The study revealed the diversity of administrative fault cases, which led the administrative courts to interpret them flexibly to protect individuals and ensure the proper functioning of public services, whereas French legal scholars attempted to categorize and define these cases. It also emerged that administrative doctrine has not established a unified standard to distinguish between service fault and personal fault, leaving the judiciary solely responsible for assessing each case based on its circumstances. The research confirms that the mere illegality of an administrative decision does not trigger liability unless the fault reaches a level of severity that warrants compensation, with the degree of severity varying according to the nature of the public service activity. The study concludes that the theory of administrative fault is primarily judicial rather than legislative, as the judiciary has played a central role in establishing and developing the rules of administrative liability, becoming the cornerstone of the theoretical framework of liability in public law.