6. Conclusion

The approach to alternative means of redress is very different in England and France. We have seen that English public authorities often grant payments on an ex gratia basis. This contrasts starkly with the French authorities' behaviour, where there has been resistance to settling claims when liability is clear, let alone when there is no legal liability. In fact, the making of ex gratia payments stricto sensu in France is very rare. There is a general principle in French administrative law that a public body cannot pay more than it owes,¹⁸⁴ and this has been interpreted as a prohibition on making payments for which the public body is not legally liable.¹⁸⁵ In this perspective, the only real example of ex gratia payments in French law are those made by authorities on the recommendation of the Médiateur exercising his equitable jurisdiction.¹⁸⁶

It is instructive to set the different attitudes to alternative means of redress within the context of the broader administrative law traditions in the two countries.¹⁸⁷ With the fine-tuned French administrative law principles and concepts born of the separate administrative jurisdiction, contrasting with the common law (and Scandinavian) interest in administrative control within and outside the courts, summarized helpfully by Bell as a ‘strong tradition of administrative non-law, rather than administrative law’,¹⁸⁸ it is perhaps unsurprising that the English courts' approach to compensation for administrative wrong-doing is supplemented by the non-judicial sources of redress such as statutory schemes, (p.259) ex gratia payments, and the intervention of Ombudsmen.¹⁸⁹ Moreover, it is perhaps typical of the general English approach to governmental liability that the inadequacies of the regime of public authority liability are patched up by flexible and informal mechanisms of ex gratia payments.¹⁹⁰

We will conclude by making some short comments about the two systems individually. Some comments will first be made about England, to be followed by some remarks on France.

We have seen that in England there has been a marked improvement in alternative means of redress. Steps have been taken to inject greater consistency and fairness into complaints-handling and redress procedures. Indeed, some bodies have gone as far as codifying the practice of financial redress.¹⁹¹

The soft law rules of administrative compensation in English law can reflect legal concepts. So we encounter references to notions of causation,¹⁹² or to the fear of setting expensive and repercussive precedents.¹⁹³ In other ways, the rules are far removed from the principles of liability laid down by the courts. We have seen that the notions of ‘maladministration’ and ‘injustice’ are more generously conceived than the equivalent legal concepts. Whereas the common law does not recognize a general right to compensation for administrative wrongs,¹⁹⁴ the ombudsmen—and now much of the administration¹⁹⁵—would seem to accept that loss caused by administrative malpractice warrants the provision of redress. Consequently, it would often be more beneficial for a complainant to seek remedies through internal complaints mechanisms or the ombudsmen than by recourse to the courts.

Despite good progress in the provision of redress by English public bodies, the situation is by no means perfect.¹⁹⁶ Studies have indicated that much still needs to be done to improve the manner in which public services deal with complaints.¹⁹⁷ Moreover, there are signs that the provision of (p.260) redress has slipped down the Government's agenda.¹⁹⁸ Although local authorities do make ex gratia payments without the intervention of the LGO,¹⁹⁹ the statutory authority for doing so is not entirely clear.²⁰⁰ The ombudsman system also has its flaws, and confusion has been caused amongst the public by the fragmented nature of the ombudsman system, with three different bodies handling similar complaints.²⁰¹

In France, there has not yet been a broad drive towards the consistent provision of redress outside the judicial system. Although some pressure has been exerted on public authorities to improve their response to claims for redress, this has had mixed results. In many sectors of administrative activity, due partly to administrative ‘culture’,²⁰² there is a marked reluctance to resolve claims other than before the courts. We have seen that the major exception to the reliance upon the courts to resolve disputes is the Médiateur. The Médiateur system has proved to be particularly effective. The wide jurisdiction of the Médiateur, the speed of the system,²⁰³ the efforts that have been made to publicize his work, and the role of the regional representatives²⁰⁴ help to explain the success of this institution.

Notes:

(1) See generally C. Harlow and R. Rawlings, Law and Administration (London, 1997) chap. 12 ; P. Birkinshaw, Grievances, Remedies and the State (London, 1994) .

(2) Harlow, pt. 4. This is particularly so given the increased emphasis that is now placed by the judiciary on settling disputes without recourse to the courts. In the public law sphere see the comments of Lord Woolf in Cowl v Plymouth CC [2001] EWCA Civ 1935.

(3) See generally J.-F. Brisson, Les Recours Administratifs en Droit Public Français (Paris, 1996) ; B. Delaunay, L'Amélioration des Rapports entre l'Administration et les Administrés (Paris, 1993) ; Conseil d'Etat, Régler autrement les conflits: conciliation, transaction, arbitrage en matière administrative (Paris, 1993); Brown and Bell, 29–34 and 302–3.

(4) Due to the règle de la décision préalable: see the explanation in Chap. 3, sect. 2.1, n. 6.

(5) A. Lyon-Caen, ‘Sur la Transaction en Droit Administratif’, AJDA 1997.48.

(6) Régler autrement les conflits.

(7) Ibid., 65. See also J. Bell, ‘French Judicial Overload’ [1987] PL 175, 179.

(8) See Chap. 5, sect. 2.2.3. In 1991, over 7,000 such cases were settled out of court for a total of 150 million FF, in contrast to just over 900 judicial decisions on this topic amounting to 25 million FF: Régler autrement les conflits, 65–6.

(9) Ibid., 66.

(10) ‘Public works’ ibid., 67. An interview with administrators in the legal department of the Direction Générale de l'Urbanisme, de l'Habitat et de la Construction confirmed that this is still the case.

(11) Régler autrement les conflits, 74.

(12) Circular of 6 Feb. 1995, D.1995 Législation 196.

(13) Minister of Finance, Circular N^oB-1B-98 of 19 Oct. 1990 ‘limiting litigation against the administration’. See A. Lyon-Caen, ‘Sur la Transaction en Droit Administratif’, AJDA 1997.48, 53.

(14) Sustained attempts have been made to increase the number of settlements in medical malpractice cases: A. Levasseur, ‘Les Transactions: l'Exemple de l'Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris’, AJDA 1997.54; Le Règlement des Conflits dans les Etablissements Publics de Santé (UNAF, Paris, 1999).

(15) Interviews with administrators from various government Services de Contentieux suggest that there is still a good deal of reluctance to settle claims.

(16) See generally B. Delaunay, L'Amélioration des Rapports entre l'Administration et Les Administrés (Paris, 1993) 740 ; J.-F. Brisson, Les Recours Administratifs en Droit Public Français (Paris, 1996) 224 .

(17) Régler autrement les conflits, 72; B. Valette, ‘Quelles Perspectives pour la Médiation Administrative’, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 138, 13 July 1999, 12; B. Delaunay, L'Amélioration des Rapports entre L'Administration et Les Administrés (Paris, 1993) 705 . This was confirmed in an interview with administrators in the legal department of the Direction Générale de l'Urbanisme, de l'Habitat et de la Construction.

(18) Ibid., 758 .

(19) See n. 13 above.

(20) Régler autrement les conflits, 72. See also B. Delaunay, L'Amélioration des Rapports entre L'Administration et Les Administrés (Paris, 1993) 757 .

(21) A. Levasseur, ‘Les Transactions: l'Exemple de l'Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AJDA 1997.54, 55. This was confirmed in interviews with administrators in various government departments.

(22) Régler autrement les conflits, 47.

(23) A. Lyon-Caen, ‘Sur la Transaction en Droit Administratif’, AJDA 1997.48, 53.

(24) A. Levasseur, ‘Les Transactions: l'Exemple de l'Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris’ AJDA 1997.54, 56. It is difficult to determine with certainty whether the amounts proposed by the administration are inadequate in legal terms, or whether the claimant simply has unrealistic expectations.

(25) See generally Régler autrement les conflits, chap. II; J.-P. Jouguelet, ‘Conciliation, Transaction et Arbitrage’, Fascicule 1005, 8 Juris-Classeur Administratif, F. Munoz, ‘Pour une Logique de la Conciliation’, AJDA 1997.41.

(26) Art. L 3.

(27) Jouguelet, n. 25 above, para. 20.

(28) R. Chapus, Droit du Contentieux Administratif (5th edn, Paris, 1995) para. 380 ; Régler autrement les conflits, 18; B. Delaunay, L'Amélioration des Rapports entre L'Administration et Les Administrés (Paris, 1993) 705, 750 ; J.-F. Brisson, Les Recours Administratifs en Droit Public Français (Paris, 1996) 212–15 .

(29) Namely the Commission des Règlements Amiables du Contentieux de l'Urbanisme; as well as Modérateurs: B. Delaunay, L'Amélioration des Rapports entre L'Administration et Les Administrés (Paris, 1993) 749 .

(30) See pp. 255–6 below.

(31) See generally Brown and Bell, 32–4; B. Delaunay, Le Médiateur de la République (Paris, 1999) ; F. Stacey, Ombudsmen Compared (Oxford, 1978), chap. 6 ; J. Georgel, ‘Médiateur de la République’, Fascicule 1007, 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif.

(32) Law 73–6 of 3 Jan. 1973.

(33) B. Delaunay, Le Médiateur de la République (Paris, 1999) 5 .

(34) It is also possible for a deputy or senator to refer a question on his or her own initiative.

(35) Law 73–6 of 3 Jan. 1973, Art. 6.

(36) Even if the body has acted in accordance with the law: see Le Médiateur de la République: une Autorité Indépendante au Service du Citoyen (Médiateur de la République, Paris, 1999) 31.

(37) Law 73–6 of 3 Jan. 1973, Art. 9.

(38) F. Stacey, Ombudsmen Compared (Oxford, 1978) 108 ; B. Delaunay, Le Médiateur de la République (Paris, 1999) 88 .

(39) J. Georgel, ‘Médiateur de la République’, Fascicule 1007, 8 Juris-Classeur Administratif, para. 48.

(40) See the comparison in Brown and Bell, 34. Extreme care must be taken in making any such comparison. The figures given do not reflect the fact that some of the cases which are covered by the French Médiateur, e.g. complaints concerning France Telecom would in fact be investigated by private sector ombudsmen in Britain.

(41) Given the fact that many complaints are not pursued—e.g. they are outside the Médiateur's jurisdiction—about 20% of the total complaints received are actually resolved by the Médiateur: B. Delaunay, Le Médiateur de la République (Paris, 1999) 5 and 104 .

(42) Complaint N^o 91–4154, Médiateur, Rapport 1992 au Président de la République et au Parlement, (Paris, 1996) 198.

(43) For example see the large number of such complaints in the Rapport 1993, 211, and Médiateur Rapport 1995 (Paris, 1996) 201 .

(44) See, e.g., Rapport 1995, n. 43 above, 187.

(45) A whole section of the 1998 Annual Rapport is devoted to illustrating the success of the Médiateur in facilitating ‘reparation for loss caused by planning and development’: Médiateur, Rapport 1998, (Paris, 1999) 220.

(46) Complaint N^o95–3995, Médiateur, Rapport 1997 (Paris, 1998) 142.

(47) Complaint N^o94–4480, Médiateur, Rapport 1995, n. 43 above, 130 .

(48) Complaint N^o93–0342, ibid., 165 .

(49) e.g. Complaint N^o94–1281, ibid., 169 .

(50) Complaint N^o90–2214, ibid., 130 .

(51) The compensation obtained in Complaint N^o93–0342, n. 48 above, was rather meagre.

(52) e.g. Complaint N^o92–5511, Rapport 1993, n. 43 above, 34; Complaint N^o93–0342, Rapport 1995, n. 43 above, 165.

(53) For instance, the Parisian Médiateur was created in 1977. This post is in fact very different from that of the Médiateur de la République, in particular due to lack of independence: see B. Delaunay, L'Amélioration des Rapports entre L'Administration et Les Administrés (Paris, 1993) 726 .

(54) Brown and Bell, 30.

(55) Protocole d'Accord of 8 Feb. 1995 ‘rélatif au médiateur de La Poste’.

(56) M. Guillaume-Hofnung, ‘La Médiation’, AJDA 1997.30, 37.

(57) Both at a national and local level: Décret N^o98–1082 of 1 Dec. 1998 [1998] Journal Officiel, 18163.

(58) See generally C. Harlow and R. Rawlings, Law and Administration (London, 1997) chap. 18 ; Harlow, pt 4; Arrowsmith, 244–5.

(59) See ‘Dear Accounting Officer: Financial Redress: Maladministration and Charter Standards’, DAO (Gen) 7/96, para. 36.4.7 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DAO (Gen) 7/96’); Government Accounting, chap. 36, para. 36.3.7.

(60) But see the discussion by C. Harlow: Administrative Liability: A Comparative Study of French and English Law (Thesis, University of London, 1979) 283.

(61) Note that reform of the public sector ombudsmen is underway. In response to a Cabinet Office paper entitled Review of the Public Sector Ombudsmen in England (Apr. 2000), which inter alia recommended combining the present autonomous ombudsmen bodies into a new collegiate structure, the government has confirmed that ‘[w]e therefore intend to replace the existing arrangements by a unified and flexible ombudsman body for central and local government and the national health service’ (Mr C. Leslie: Hansard, HC Written Answers, vol. 372 col. 465W (20 July 2001)).

(62) National Health Services Reorganisation Act 1973, consolidated in the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993.

(63) In 1998–99, only 5 such recommendations were made. There are some indications that the policy is changing and that more recommendations for financial reparation will be made in the future: Sixth Report of the HSC, 1998–99, Annual Report for 1998–99 (1998–99, HC 498) para. 4.11. However in his Annual Report for 1999–2000, the HSC stated that ‘[a]lthough there is no restriction on my power to recommend financial redress, I have, like my predecessors, largely confined such recommendations to cases in which some financial element was already present—for example, compensation for the loss of a patient's money or property…. I have not recommended compensation for physical or psychological damage, or for pain and suffering, caused by clinical shortcomings. I have taken this approach because, in part, I believe that it is the responsibility of Ministers and the NHS Executive to develop policy and practice in this area’: Third Report of the HSC, Annual Report for 1999–2000, para. 1.14.

(64) Fifth Report of the HSC, 1997–98, Annual Report for 1997–98 (1997–98, HC 811) para. 2.20.

(65) Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

(66) Officially known as the Commission for Local Administration, (CLA) and instituted by the Local Government Act 1974.

(67) See generally M. Seneviratne, Ombudsmen in the Public Sector (Buckingham, 1994) ; P. Birkinshaw, Grievances, Remedies and the State (London, 1994) ; Craig, 230–48. There has been a recent extension of the PCA's remit: Sweeping Extension of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Jurisdiction (Cabinet Office, 10 Feb. 1999).

(68) e.g. the so-called Crossman catalogue of ‘bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, turpitude, and arbitrariness’ (Hansard, HC Debate, vol. 734 col. 51 (18 Oct. 1966)), updated by the PCA in Third Report of the PCA, 1993–4, Annual Report 1993 (1993–94, HC 290) para. 7.

(69) See K. Gregory and G. Drewry [1991] PL 192. The PCA has declared that the position is ‘rather like Alice in Wonderland, maladministration is what I say it is’: Mr William Reid, Third and Fourth Reports of the Select Committee on the PCA, 1993–94 (1993–94, HC 345 and 371) para. 68.

(70) How to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman, available on the LGO's website: www.lgo.org.uk.

(71) See p. 104 above. For comparisons between the ECtHR's approach to just satisfaction and that of the LGO see Sir Robert Carnwath, ‘Welfare Services—Liabilities in Tort after the Human Rights Act’ [2001] PL 210; D. Fairgrieve, ‘The Human Rights Act 1998, Damages and Tort Law’ [2001] PL 695, 708.

(72) See Chap. 7, sect. 2.2.2.

(73) PCA: Case 1142/94 in Fifth Report of the PCA, 1997–8, Annual Report 1997–1998 (1997–1998, HC 845) para. 5.4.

(74) LGO: Report 91/B/3837, Torbay BC [1997] JPL 81.

(75) The English courts have generally flinched from compensating grief and distress unconnected with the claimant's own physical injury, unless this amounts to psychiatric harm: see Chap. 7, sect. 4.2.

(76) PCA: Case 154/97 in Fifth Report, n. 73 above, para. 5.4. LGO, Guidance on Good Practice 6: Remedies (London, 1997) 7 .

(77) PCA: Case 900/95 in Fifth Report, n. 73 above, para. 3.7. LGO: Report 95/B/1447, Welwyn Hatfield DC [1998] JPL 166: £5,000.

(78) LGO, Annual Report 1996/97 (London, 1997) 14 .

(79) A Third Report of the Select Committee on the PCA, 1992–93, Compensation to Farmers for Slaughtered Poultry (1992–93, HC 593) p. ix and 13.

(80) First Report of the PCA, 1989–90, The Barlow Clowes Affair (1989–90, HC 76); Observations by the Government on the Report of the PCA (1989–90, HC 99).

(81) A. R. Mowbray, ‘A Right to Official Advice’ [1990] PL 68, 84.

(82) Fifth Report of the PCA, 1997–98, Annual Report 1997–1998 (1997–1998, HC 845) para. 1.12. Note that financial redress may also be gained for a complainant as a result of an informal approach of the PCA (total of £38,000 in 1998–9: Seventh Report of the PCA, 1998–99, Annual Report 1998–1999 (1998–1999, HC 572) para. 2.7).

(83) e.g. LGO, Report No 93/B/2224, Colchester BC [1998] JPL 516, (£300).

(84) PCA: Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, s 5(2). LGO: Local Government Act 1974, s 26(6)(c). But both also have a discretion to undertake an investigation where it is not reasonable to expect the person aggrieved to have resorted to such a remedy.

(85) See the discussion of this by A. Bradley, ‘The Role of the Ombudsman in relation to the Protection of Citizens' Rights’ [1980] CLJ 304; M. MacPherson, ‘Local Ombudsman or the Courts?’ [1987] JPL 92; C. Crawford, ‘Complaints, Codes, and Ombudsmen in Local Government’ [1988] PL 246; Craig, 240.

(86) Local settlement 96/A/3552, cited in the Commission's Digest of Cases 1997, Section J: Social Services (Commission for Local Administration, London, 1998) 125 .

(87) Report 91/A/1176, London Borough of Haringey, cited in F.G. Laws, Guide to the Local Government Ombudsman Service (Harlow, 1990) paras. 6.13–18 .

(88) Report 90/B/2032, Cambridgeshire CC, cited in, ibid., para. 6.4.1–07 .

(89) [1995] 2 AC 633.

(90) Ibid., 762.

(91) e.g. Report 95/B/1447, Welwyn Hatfield DC [1998] JPL 166.

(92) Guidance on Good Practice 2: Good Administrative Practice (Commission for Local Administration, London, 1995).

(93) Tidman v Reading BC [1994] 3 PLR 72. It was held that only in the truly exceptional circumstances of a council responding to formally requested advice with knowledge of the serious implications could a duty of care arise.

(94) Report 92/B/2911, North Norfolk DC [1996] JPL 318; Report 93/A/3566, Reigate and Banstead BC [1998] JPL 603; Report 95/C/4589, Rushcliffe BC [1997] JPL 1164. See also Report 98/C/2319, Digest of Cases 1999, Section A: Commercial (Commission for Local Administration, London, 2000) 5 (incorrect advice about the work required to a building in order to obtain a public entertainment licence).

(95) Generally, the wrongful granting of planning permission does not give rise to an action in negligence by neighbouring land owners: Lam v Brennan [1997] PIQR P488, P502–3.

(96) Compensation was paid: Report 95/B/5108, Digest of Cases 1997, Section H: Planning (Commission for Local Administration, London, 1998) 100.

(97) e.g. in the Barlow Clowes affair the government agreed to pay compensation, whilst arguing that there would not be any civil liability of regulators in such circumstances: n. 80 above.

(98) Reeman v Department of Transport [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 648.

(99) Case N^oC557/98, First Report of the PCA, 1999–2000 (1999–2000, HC 20).

(100) The PCA recorded that the Department accepted that the complaint was justified and undertook to consider a quantified compensation claim.

(101) See, e.g., Report 92/B/1337, Babergh DC [1997] JPL 771.

(102) Non-compliance of local authorities with the ombudsman's reports has been a problem: M. Seneviratne, Ombudsmen in the Public Sector (Buckingham, 1994) 98–101 ; P. Birkinshaw, Grievances, Remedies and the State (London, 1994) 223 . It may be that government departments are more co-operative. The Treasury's own guidance on financial redress asserts that the PCA's recommendations are seldom departed from (DAO (Gen) 7/96, para. 8).

(103) See the text accompanying n. 81 above.

(104) The closest the ombudsmen's recommendations have come to this is a recommendation of £1,500 compensation for ‘the loss of educational opportunity’ (Report 96/A/679, cited in Digest of Cases 1997, Section A: Education (Commission for Local Administration, London, 1998) 20).

(105) with a discretionary exception: Local Government Act 1974, s 26(4); Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, s 6(3).

(106) Limitation Act 1980, s 11.

(107) Local Government Act 1974, s 26(8) and Sch 5.

(108) Local Government Act 1974, Sch 5; Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, Sch 3.

(109) The Citizen's Charter, Raising the Standard (Cm 1599, 1991) 5.

(110) If Things Go Wrong…Complaints Systems: Redress, Discussion Paper 6 (Cabinet Office, 1994); Putting Things Right (Cabinet Office, 1995); Redress Under the Citizen's Charter: Guidance for Departments and Agencies (Office of Public Service, 1996); How to deal with complaints (Cabinet Office, Feb. 1999).

(111) See the discussion of the earlier attitude by C. Harlow, Compensation and Government Torts (London, 1982) pt. 4 .

(112) Under the aegis of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

(113) First Report of the Select Committee on the PCA, Maladministration and Redress (1994–1995, HC 112).

(114) Ibid. The PCA made even more forceful criticism, describing some aspects of the Treasury Guidance as ‘outdated, restrictive and doctrinaire’ (ibid., para. 36).

(115) The government accepted many of the recommendations made by the Select Committee (see Government Response to the First Report from the Select Committee on the PCA, Maladministration and Redress (1994–95, HC 316) and it undertook to rewrite the Treasury guidance on redress, and amend the accounting rules to reflect its response to the Select Committee's report (DAO (Gen) 7/96; Chap. 36 of Government Accounting).

(116) Inland Revenue, Mistakes by the Inland Revenue, Code of Practice 1 (available on its website: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk); Department of Social Security, Financial Redress for Maladministration, London, (Sept. 1998) ; Customs & Excise, Notice 1000: Complaints and Putting Things Right (London, 1999) .

(117) All DSS Agencies provide this information in their Annual Reports, e.g. Social Security Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999/2000, pt. 2, para. 26.

(118) DAO (Gen) 7/96, para. 36.4.5; Financial Redress for Maladministration (DSS, London, Sept. 1998) paras. 30 and 81.

(119) How to deal with complaints (Cabinet Office, Feb. 1999) para. 2.33.

(120) Customs & Excise, Notice 1000: Complaints and Putting Things Right; Inland Revenue, Mistakes by the Inland Revenue, Code of Practice 1.

(121) How to deal with complaints (Cabinet Office, Feb. 1999) para. 2.31; DAO (Gen) 7/96, para. 35.4.6.

(122) Restraints on space precludes an exhaustive examination of this topic. Generally, see Harlow, 144, and P. Cane, Tort Law and Economic Interests (2nd edn, Oxford, 1996) 378 . For statutory compensation deriving from property dispute, see Pt. 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (see further Chap. 5, sect. 3.4) and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see further Chap. 7, sect. 2.2.2).

(123) For further information see the following website: www.haemophilia.org.uk.

(124) Law 91–1406 of 31 Dec. 1991, Art. 47.

(125) M. Sousse, La Notion de Réparation de Dommages en Droit Administratif Français (Paris, 1994) 461 .

(126) France: Law of 1 July 1964, now enshrined in Art. L 10–1 of the Code de la Santé Publique. England: Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 (in June 2000, this scheme was substantially modified: see S. Pywell, ‘A Critical Review of the Recent and Impending Changes to the Law of Statutory Compensation for Vaccine Damage’ [2000] JPIL 246). Interestingly, on a direct comparative note, a British government Minister explained the basis of the English fund in terms reminiscent of the French principle of égalité devant les charges publiques: ‘the community as a whole has sought to share a responsibility for the hardship that has fallen upon [the victims]’ (cited by C. Harlow, n. 60 above, 317).

(127) England: Criminal Justice Act 1988, s 133. France: Law of 8 June 1895 and Law of 17 July 1970 (compensation for wrongful conviction and detention).

(128) Paillet, para. 376.

(129) France: Law of 9 Sept. 1986 (for terrorist acts); Law of 6 July 1990 and Art. L 706–3 of the Code de Procédure Pénale (for crimes generally). England: Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, now regulated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (see also Riot (Damages) Act 1886).

(130) See CE 28 Sept. 1990, Armentières [1990] Rec. 260.

(131) Paillet, para. 404.

(132) C. Harlow and R. Rawlings, Law and Administration (London, 1997) 610 . Bell sees this compensation as akin to social welfare payments: J. Bell, ‘The Law of England and Wales’ in J. Bell and A. Bradley, Governmental Liability: A Comparative Study (London, 1991) 42 .

(133) England: Mistakes by the Inland Revenue, Code of Practice 1 (Inland Revenue, 2000). France: see Régler autrement les conflits, 19.

(134) The only other examples are a scheme for settling claims arising from the Couitéas case law (Ministre de la Justice, Circular N^o94–68 of 26 Aug. 1994) and a slightly less structured scheme for settling road accident claims (Régler autrement les conflits, 66).

(135) Now incorporated into the Department for Work and Pensions.

(136) Guide to Financial Redress for Maladministration (London, Mar. 2001).

(137) Annual Report and Accounts 1998–99 (London, HC 580) 66.

(138) First Report of the Select Committee on the PCA, Maladministration and Redress (1994–1995, HC 112) 43.

(139) Home Office Annual Report 1998, (London, 1999) Annex 8.

(140) See also information about the scheme given by Harlow, 154–5.

(141) The scheme would seem to cover both personal injury and property damage: Prison Service Order on Finance (PSO 7500) para. 24.7 published in Nov. 1998.

(142) e.g. in making payments, the Prison Service will consider ‘whether there was contributory negligence by the victim’: ibid., para. 24.7. It is also stipulated that the ‘the loss or damage occurred near enough and soon enough to be regarded as part of getting away from the area of escape’. The causal element thus seems to be more strictly conceived than that in French law (see Chap. 5, sect. 2.1.1).

(143) See Home Office Memorandum reproduced in First Report of the Select Committee on the PCA, Maladministration and Redress (1994–1995, HC 112) 43–4.

(144) For debate in the UK on this topic see p. 277 below.

(145) Law 2002–303 of 4 Mar. 2002, Gazette du Palais, 4 Apr. 2002, Bulletin Législatif 2002.113 (Loi relative aux droits des malades et à la qualité du système de soins). See generally C. Rade, ‘La Réforme de la Responsabilité Médicale après la loi du 4 Mars 2002 rélative aux droits des maladies et à la qualité du système de santé’ [2002] Responsabilité Civile et Assurances 4; Y. Lambert-Faivre, ‘La loi N^o 2002–303 du 4 mars 2002 relative aux droits des malades et à la qualité du système de santé: L'indemnisation des accidents médicaux’, Dalloz 2002 Chroniques 1367, 1371; M. Deguergue, ‘Droits des Malades et Qualité du Système de Santé,’ AJDA 2002.508.

(146) Covering topics as diverse as medical confidentiality, patients' right to information, and provisions designed to overturn the controversial Cour de cassation decision in Perruche (Cass Ass Plen 17 Nov. 2000, D 2001 Jurisprudence 316) which allowed a wrongful life claim brought by a handicapped child.

(147) The statute amends the Code de la Santé Publique, Code des Assurances, and Code de la sécurité sociale.

(148) Parliamentary Debate of 2 Oct. 2001 [2001] Journal Officiel—Assemblée Nationale, 5321–2.

(149) Art. L 1142–1 of the Code de la Santé Publique.

(150) Thus excluding doctors in their private capacity.

(151) Art. L 1142–1(2) of the Code de la Santé Publique. This provision seems to have modified or, perhaps more accurately, extended, the position of the administrative courts which had held that a strong presumption of fault applied in such circumstances: see further Chap. 4, sect. 3.3.

(152) See the provisions on product liability in the Code Civil, Arts. 1386–1 ff.

(153) No definition is given of these terms. See M. Deguergue, ‘Droits des Malades et Qualité du Système de Santé’, AJDA 2002.508, 515; C. Rade, n. 145 above, 11.

(154) Art. L 1142–1 of the Code de la Santé Publique.

(155) Art. L 1142–1 of the Code de la Santé Publique.

(156) This figure could be reduced (or increased) by the decree.

(157) This percentage relates to the extent of incapacity or invalidity of the victim, and ranges from a low figure for scars up to 100% for paralysis.

(158) Y. Lambert-Faivre, n. 145 above, 1371.

(159) C. Rade, n. 145 above, 5.

(160) Y. Lambert-Faivre, n. 145 above.

(161) Ibid.

(162) Ibid., 1371.

(163) For the exact procedures see Décret N^o 2002–886 of 3 May 2002 (relatif aux commissions régionales de conciliation et d'indemnisation des accidents médicaux, des affections iatrogènes et des infections nosocomiales prévues à l'article L. 1142–5 du code de la santé publique): [2002] Journal Officiel 9025.

(164) Art. L 1142–5 of the Code de la Santé Publique.

(165) Art. R 795–52 of the Code de la Santé Publique. Currently 25% according to the taux incapacité permanente.

(166) Art. L 1142–9 of the Code de la Santé Publique.

(167) Ibid., Art. L 1142–9.

(168) Ibid., Art. L 1142–8.

(169) The new procedure seems to be inspired by that covering road accidents in France (Law N^o 85–677 of 5 July 1985): Y. Lambert-Faivre, n. 145 above, 1373.

(170) Art. L 1142–14 and 15 of the Code de la Santé Publique.

(171) If the judge considers that the offer is ‘manifestly insufficient’ then, over and above the damages payment, the offender may be liable to pay a penalty of up to 15% of the sum to the Office national d'indemnisation (Ibid., Art. L 1142–14).

(172) Ibid., Art. L 1142–17.

(173) Ibid., Art. L 1142–15. In which case the Office national d'indemnisation may in turn bring an action against the insurer.

(174) Ibid., Art. L 1142–22.

(175) Ibid., Art. L 1142–23. Which is financed inter alia by contributions from employers and employees. Note that the Office national d'indemnisation is thus not directly financed by insurers.

(176) Ibid., Art. L 1142–14.

(177) C. Rade, n. 145 above, 5.

(178) Art. L 1142–2 of the Code de la Santé Publique, with a severe penalty for breach: 45,000 Euros (Ibid., Art. L 1142–25).

(179) C. Rade, n. 145 above; Y. Lambert-Faivre, n. 145 above.

(180) Art. L 1142–7 of the Code de la Santé Publique.

(181) Ibid., Art. L 1142–7.

(182) See commentary on the law on the following web site: www.jurisques.com.

(183) Information gained from an interview with a major French hospital insurer.

(184) See Chapus, para. 1405.

(185) CE 19 Mar. 1971, Mergui [1971] Rec 235.

(186) However, Harlow also records that sometimes the Conseil d'Etat, acting through its Commission du Rapport, may recommend an ex gratia payment where no legal liability exists: C. Harlow, Administrative Liability: A Comparative Study of French and English Law (Thesis, University of London, 1979) 281.

(187) See, e.g., J. Bell, ‘Mechanisms for Cross-Fertilisation of Administrative Law in Europe’ in J. Beatson and T. Tridimas (eds.), New Directions in European Public Law (Oxford, 1998) ; S. Cassese, La Construction du Droit Administratif: France et Royaume Uni (Montchrestien, Paris, 2000) .

(188) J. Bell, ‘Mechanisms for Cross-Fertilisation of Administrative Law in Europe’ in J. Beatson and T. Tridimas (eds.), New Directions in European Public Law (Oxford, 1998) 150 .

(189) Whereas, on the other hand, French administrative ‘culture’ means that civil servants are simply not inclined to attempt to reach settlement or try alternative means of avoiding litigation (B. Valette, ‘Quelles Perspectives Pour la Médiation Administrative’, Les Petites Affiches, N^o138, 13 July 1999, 14).

(190) J. Bell, ‘The Law of England and Wales’ in J. Bell and A. Bradley, Governmental Liability: A Comparative Study (London, 1991) 43 .

(191) See the DSS scheme, and the text accompanying n. 136 above.

(192) DAO (Gen) 7/96 para 36.4.31.

(193) Government Accounting, chap. 36, paras. 36.3.8 and 36.3.14; DAO (Gen) 7/96, para. 36.4.31. See comments by Harlow, 130.

(194) W v Home Office [1997] Imm. AR 302, 311 (Lord Woolf).

(195) See DAO (Gen) 7/96, para. 36.4.5.

(196) D. Leabeater and J. Mulcahy, Putting It Right for Consumers (London, 1996) .

(197) A MORI Survey undertaken for the Citizen's Charter Unit in 1997 illustrated that satisfaction with the way public bodies dealt with complaints was still low: Citizen's Charter Unit, Complaints Handling 1997 (London, 1997) .

(198) In a relatively recent guide, it was recognized that one of the two main reasons for having a complaints system is to provide a remedy. Ironically, however, fewer than four out of 100 pages of this guide were actually devoted to the question of remedies, and only very superficial guidance was given on this question: How to deal with Complaints (Cabinet Office, Feb. 1999).

(199) e.g. Information from the Cambridge City Council Internal Ombudsman. In fact, the government urges local authorities to provide financial compensation in appropriate cases: How to Deal with Complaints (Cabinet Office, Feb. 1999) 39.

(200) Indeed, Arrowsmith argues that such payments are unlawful (Arrowsmith, 250). Statutory authority exists for making such payments following the LGO's intervention: Local Government Act 1974, s 31(3). Beyond that the position is unclear. Some authorities rely upon the Local Government Act 1972, s 137, whereas others prefer to seek permission from the Secretary of State to make ex gratia payments (under the Audit Commission Act 1998, s 17) (information from civil servant at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).

(201) See discussion in the LGO's Annual Report 1998/99 (London, 1999) . Note that reform of the public sector ombudsmen is however underway: see further n. 61 above.

(202) French administrative ‘culture’ means that civil servants are simply not inclined to attempt to reach settlement or try alternative means of avoiding litigation: B. Valette, ‘Quelles Perspectives Pour la Médiation Administrative’, Les Petites Affiches, N^o138, 13 July 1999, 14.

(203) The average time for dealing with a complaint is well under a year: see Rapport 1998, 36.

(204) For further discussion see B. Delaunay, Le Médiateur de la République (Paris, 1999) 54 .

Copyright © 2015. All rights reserved.

• Privacy policy and legal notice

• Credits

• Log out

Access brought to you by: Higher School of Economics