2. Translation

[…]

Concerning the liability of the Urban District of Lille:

Whereas it appears from the instruction ¹ that the firemen from the Halluin Rescue Centre, who had been called out at 00.37, arrived at the scene of the fire at 00.44 and immediately commenced fighting the fire which had broken out on the ground floor of the building; that the flames were extinguished at 00.50; that as soon as it seemed possible, in view of the heat and smoke, to rescue the three people who were lying unconscious in a room on the first floor overlooking the street, a rescuer used a sliding ladder to get into the room through the window; that the first person rescued was able to be brought down by this ladder at 01.05 and resuscitated by the medical team at the scene;

Whereas, on the other hand, it appears from the instruction ¹ that, in order to bring the other two people down, the emergency services decided, even though the window through which they were to be evacuated was only four metres above the ground, to use the automatic extendable ladder which had served to fight the fire; this decision, which required a ‘pod’ to be fitted onto the extendable ladder, resulted in the rescuers (p.309) having to keep Jerome Merlot (a minor), still unconscious, by the edge of the first-floor window for fourteen minutes; that having been brought down to the ground, the child could not be resuscitated in spite of the treatment he was given;

Whereas on the facts of the case, particularly in view of the victims being situated in a low storey of the building, the manpower and equipment available to the rescuers and the time taken to lower Jerome Merlot to the ground, the execution of the rescue operation was marred by faults, which are capable of incurring the liability of the Urban District of Lille; that it follows that the Merlot couple are entitled to succeed in their appeal from the decision of the Lille Tribunal administratif which had rejected their claim against the Urban District for damages for the moral harm they had suffered as a result of the death of Monsieur Jerome Merlot:

Concerning the loss suffered by the Merlot couple:

Whereas on the facts of the case, the pretium affectionis ² experienced by the Merlot couple is properly compensated by the award of the sum of 100,000 Francs to Monsieur Jean-Paul Merlot, father of the victim, the sum of 25,000 Francs each to Messieurs Jean-François and Mario Merlot, half-brothers of the victim, and 5,000 Francs to his half-sister Mile Mylene Merlot, who was only eight months old at the time of the incident.

Translator's Notes

1. 1. The full elements of the case against the defendant as established by the inquisitorial procedure. For further analysis of the inquisitorial procedure before the French administrative courts see Chapter 4, section 3.4.

2. 2. Corresponding to the emotional distress suffered to the injury or death of another person. For further discussion of douleur morale in French administrative law see Chapter 7, section 4.1.