- •(P.V) Preface
- •(P.XV) Abbreviations
- •Introduction Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Comparative Law Approach
- •2. Delimitation of the Study
- •Overview of State Liability in English and French Law Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. The Historical Evolution of State Liability
- •2.1. The Early Period of State Liability
- •(P.9) 2.2. The Pre-modern Era
- •2.3. The Inception of Modern State Liability
- •(P.14) 2.4. Conclusion: Vestiges of Immunity?
- •3. Overview of Modern State Liability
- •4. State and Servant
- •(P.20) 4.1. France
- •4.2. England
- •4.3. Elements of Convergence
- •Public Law Unlawfulness and Liability in Damages Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. The Illegality–Fault Equation in French Law
- •2.1. Illegality as a Necessary Condition of Liability
- •2.2. Illegality as a Sufficient Condition of Fault
- •2.2.1. Traditional Theory
- •(P.33) 2.2.2. Modern Theory
- •(P.36) 3. The Role of Ultra Vires in English Tort Liability
- •3.1. Civil Action for Breach of Statutory Duty
- •3.2. Ultra Vires and Negligence Liability
- •3.2.1. The Status Quo Ante: Unlawfulness as a Precondition of Liability
- •3.2.2. The Barrett and Phelps Cases: Re-evaluating the Role of Public Law Unlawfulness
- •3.3. Public Law Unlawfulness and Other English Torts
- •3.3.1. Community Law
- •3.3.2. Damages under the Human Rights Act 1998
- •4. Conclusion
- •Beyond Illegality: Liability For Fault in English and French Law Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. English Law
- •(P.59) 2.1. Breach and Duty in the English Law of Negligence
- •2.1.2. The Notion of Proximity and the Test of Fairness, Justice, and Reasonableness
- •(P.64) 2.1.2.1. The Restrictive Approach to Duties of Care of Public Authorities
- •2.1.2.2. Recent Cases on Public Authority Liability: a Shift in Emphasis?
- •2.1.2.3. The House of Lords' Decisions in Barrett and Phelps
- •2.1.2.4. The Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
- •2.1.2.5. The New Approach to Public Authority Liability
- •2.1.2.6. Move Away from Duty: a More Nuanced Approach to Policy Considerations
- •2.1.2.7. Move Away from Duty: a Shift to Breach
- •2.2. Beyond Negligence: Public Authority Liability in Tort
- •2.2.1. Misfeasance in Public Office
- •2.2.1.1. Introduction
- •2.2.1.2. Constituent Elements of Misfeasance in Public Office
- •2.2.1.3. The Place of Misfeasance in State Liability
- •2.2.2. Nuisance
- •2.2.3. Conclusion
- •3. French Law
- •3.1. The Notion of Faute de Service
- •(P.106) 3.2. Graded Standards of Fault in French Administrative Law
- •3.2.1. The Notion of Faute Lourde in French Administrative Law
- •3.2.1.1. Medical Sphere
- •3.2.1.2. Regulatory Authorities
- •3.2.1.3. Administrative Police
- •3.2.1.4. Emergency Services
- •3.2.1.5. Conclusion
- •3.2.2. Defining Faute Lourde
- •3.2.3. Theoretical Foundations of Faute Lourde
- •3.2.4. The Future of Graded Standards of Fault in French Administrative Law
- •3.3. Presumptions of Fault
- •3.4. Procedural Impact
- •4. Comparative Law Remarks
- •(P.125) 4.1. Signs of Similarity?
- •4.2. Comparative Lessons for the Application of Policy Concerns
- •Lawfully Caused Loss Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. French Law
- •2.1. Risk-based No-fault Liability
- •2.1.1. Risks Arising from Dangerous Operations
- •2.1.2. Risks of Assisting in Public Service Activities
- •2.2. Egalité devant les Charges Publiques
- •2.2.1. Legislation and Compensation
- •2.2.2. Liability Arising from Treaties
- •2.2.3. Liability for Lawful Administrative Acts
- •2.2.4. Conditions of Actions for Breach of Egalité
- •2.3. Miscellaneous Categories of No-fault Liability
- •2.3.1. Loss Arising From Public Works
- •2.3.2. Facilitating Reparation in the Medical Sphere
- •2.3.3. Statutory Regime
- •2.4. Conclusion
- •3. English Law
- •(P.155) 3.1. Nuisance
- •3.2. Rylands V Fletcher
- •(P.159) 3.3. The Influence of Human Rights Law
- •3.4. Other Regimes of No-fault Liability
- •(P.162) 4. Conclusion
- •Assessing the Causal Link Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. An Overview of the Tests of Causation in English and French Law
- •2.1. English Law
- •2.2. French Law
- •2.2.1. Orthodox Approach
- •2.2.2. Nuanced Approach
- •3. Comparing Approaches to Causal Problems
- •3.1. Multiple Causes
- •3.1.1. Act of a Third Party
- •(P.177) 3.1.2. Contributory Fault of the Injured Party
- •3.1.3. Act of Nature
- •3.2. Causation and Unlawful Administrative Acts
- •4. Conclusion
- •Damage and Compensation Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •1.1. French Administrative Law
- •(P.192) 1.2. English Law
- •2. Economic Loss30
- •2.1. Contrasting Stances Regarding Pure Economic Loss
- •2.1.1. English Law
- •2.1.2. French Law
- •2.2. Signs of Convergence
- •2.2.1. French Law: Limitations on Recovery?
- •2.2.2. Alternative Remedies in English Law
- •2.3. Conclusion
- •3. Loss of a Chance
- •3.1. The Lost Chance Doctrine in English Law
- •3.2. Damages for Lost Chances in French Law
- •3.3. Doctrinal Debate
- •(P.210) 3.4. Conclusion
- •4. Moral Damage in English and French Law
- •(P.211) 4.1. Préjudice Moral in French Law
- •4.1.1. Reluctance in Awarding Damages for Préjudice Moral
- •(P.213) 4.1.2. Status Quo
- •(P.214) 4.2. Non-pecuniary Loss in English Law
- •4.3. Comparative Law Comments
- •5. Damages for Injury to the Person
- •5.1. Basic Principles
- •(P.222) 5.2. Points of Divergence
- •5.2.1. General Comparative Remarks
- •(P.225) 5.2.2. Comparing the Treatment of Collateral Benefits348
- •6. Death and Damages Liability
- •6.1. Death Extinguishing a Right of Action
- •6.2. Right of Action Deriving From Death: Compensating Secondary Victims
- •6.2.1. French Law
- •6.2.2. English Law
- •6.2.3. Comparative Law Remarks
- •7. Property Damage
- •8. Conclusion
- •Alternative Means of Redress Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Introduction
- •2. France
- •3. England
- •3.1. Investigation by Ombudsman
- •(P.250) 3.2. Internal Procedures Providing Redress for Maladministration
- •4. Compensation Schemes in England and France
- •(P.254) 5. The French Medical Compensation System
- •6. Conclusion
- •Conclusion Duncan Fairgrieve
- •Abstract and Keywords
- •1. Similarities and Differences
- •(P.265) 2. Accounting for the Differences
- •2.1. Introduction
- •2.2. Difference in Philosophy
- •2.3. Procedural Factors
- •3. Learning from Comparative Law
- •3.1. Comparative Law and the Courts
- •3.2. Comparative Law and State Liability
- •3.2.1. Public Law Unlawfulness and Liability
- •(P.275) 3.2.2. Alternative Methods of Redress
- •3.2.3. Challenging Policy Concerns
- •3.2.4. Establishing a Balanced Approach to State Liability
- •(P.279) 3.2.4.1. Breach of Duty
- •3.2.4.2. Quantum of Damages
- •3.2.4.3. Causation
- •4. Conclusion
- •(P.285) Appendix
- •Illegality entails fault.
- •(P.287) 1. Tc 8 February 1873, Blanco, d.1873.3.17
- •1. Decision in French
- •(P.288) 2. Translation
- •(P.289) 2. Ce 21 June 1895, Cames [1895] Rec 509
- •1. Translation
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •1. Translation
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •(P.297) 6. Ce 26 January 1973, Driancourt [1973] Rec 78
- •Illegality entails fault
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •(P.301) 7. Ce 27 January 1988, Giraud [1988] Rec 39
- •1. Decision in French
- •(P.303) 2. Translation
- •(P.304) 8. Ce 29 December 1999, Communauté Urbaine de Lille [1999] Rec 436
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •(P.310) 9. Ce 28 June 2002, Magiera, Req 239575
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •1. Decision in French
- •2. Translation
- •(P.325) Bibliography
1. Decision in French
Conseil d'Etat
Société anonyme des produits laitiers « La Fleurette »
14 janvier 1938
Req 51.704
Vu la requête présentée pour la société anonyme des produits laitiers « La Fleurette » (anciennement société « La Gradine »), dont le siège social est à Colombes (Seine), 36–38, rue des Renouillers…tendant à ce qu'il plaise au Conseil d'annuler une décision implicite de rejet résultant du silence gardé pendant plus de quatre mois par le Ministre de l'Agriculture sur la demande d'indemnité formée par la société réquerante en réparation du préjudice qui lui aurait été causé par la loi du 29 juin 1934 relative à la protection des produits laitiers;
Vu les lois des 29 juin 1934 et 24 mai 1872, art. 9;
Considérant qu'aux termes de l'art 1er de la loi du 29 juin 1934 relative a la protection des produits laitiers: « Il est interdit de fabriquer, d'exposer, de mettre en vente ou de vendre, d'importer, d'exporter ou de transiter: 1° sous la dénomination de «crème» suivie ou non d'un qualificatif ou sous une dénomination de fantaisie quelconque, un produit présentant l'aspect de la crème, destine aux mêmes usages, ne provenant pas exclusivement du lait, l'addition de matières grasses étrangeres étant notamment interdite »;
Considérant que l'interdiction ainsi édictée en faveur de l'industrie laitière a mis la société requerante dans l'obligation de cesser la fabrication du produit qu'elle exploitait antérieurement sous le nom de (p.291) « Gradine », lequel entrait dans la définition donnee par l'article de loi precitee et dont il n'est pas allégué qu'il présentât un danger pour la sante publique; que rien, ni dans le texte meme de la loi ou dans ses travaux préparatoires, ni dans l'ensemble des circonstances de l'affaire, ne permet de penser que le législateur a entendu faire supporter à l'intéressée une charge qui ne lui incombe pas normalement; que cette charge, créée dans un intérêt général, doit être supportée par la collectivité; qu'il suit de là que la société «La Fleurette» est fondée à demander que l'État soit condamné à lui payer une indemnité en réparation du préjudice par elle subi;
Mais considérant que l'état de l'instruction ne permet pas de déterminer l'étendue de ce préjudice; qu'il y a lieu de renvoyer la requérante devant le Ministre de l'Agriculture pour qu'il y soit procédé à la liquidation, en capital et intérêts, de l'indemnité qui lui est due; […] (Décision annulée; société renvoyée devant le Ministre de l'Agriculture, pour y être procédé à la liquidation de l'indemnité à laquelle elle a droit, en capital et intérêts).
2. Translation
[…]
Whereas according to Article 1 of the Law of 29 June 1934 regarding the protection of dairy products: ‘it is forbidden to produce, display, put on sale, sell, import, export or transport: 1° under the designation of “cream”, whether or not this is accompanied by qualifying words, or under any imaginary name, any product which in appearance is similar to cream, or used for the same purpose, or intended to be used in the same manner, and which is not exclusively derived from milk; the adding of non-dairy fat is in particular unlawful.’
Whereas the prohibition laid down in favour of the dairy industry resulted in the claimant company having to cease fabrication of the product, previously sold under the name of ‘Gradine’, which fell within the definition given by the article of the aforementioned statute and in respect of which it is not alleged that it presented a danger to public health; that nothing in the wording of the law or the travaux préparatoires, or in the circumstances of the case, could lead one to think that the legislator intended to place a burden on the claimant which would not normally have fallen upon it; that that burden, [deriving from activities] for the common good, must be borne by the community; that it therefore follows that the ‘La Fleurette’ company is justified in claiming that the state should be liable to pay reparation for the loss suffered by it. (p.292) Whereas, however, the state of the dossier does not make it possible to assess the extent of the loss; that the claimant should be sent back before the Minister of Agriculture for assessment of the sum, including the principal and interest, which it is owed.
[…]
Copyright © 2015. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy and legal notice
Credits
Log out
Access brought to you by: Higher School of Economics
(p.293) 4. CE 28 March 1919, Regnault-Desroziers [1919] Rec 329
No-fault liability for risks arising from dangerous operations
Summary: state found liable for the extensive damage caused to a residential area by the explosion at a military munitions dump.
For further discussion of this case, see Chapter 5, at pages 138–9.