When the State defends its contentious decisions: hospitalisation, vehicles and civil status

In the darkness of a psychiatric hospital room, a man awaits the decision of the liberty judge, a situation that raises questions about the right to liberty. responsibility of the State and its judges. At the same time, a family is seeking compensation for an accident caused by a government vehicle. Elsewhere, a person is contesting a refusal to issue a certificate of French nationality. These situations have one thing in common: the State Judicial Agent (AJE) plays a central role.

Psychiatric hospitalisation without consent

The system of psychiatric care without consent underwent a major upheaval with the law of 5 July 2011, which strengthened judicial control. This law replaced the term "hospitalisation" with "care", introduced the procedure for Psychiatric Care in Cases of Imminent Peril (SPI) and, above all, transferred almost all litigation to the judicial judge from 1 January 2013.

Article L. 3216-1 of the French Public Health Code now states: "The legality of administrative decisions taken pursuant to Chapters II to IV of this Title may only be challenged before a court of law. This principle is part of the broader framework of the State liability for malfunctioning of the public justice service.

For disputes arising prior to 2013, the dual jurisdictional system persists. The judicial judge assesses the necessity and validity of the internment measure, while the administrative court reviews its formal legality.

When it comes to litigation, a number of key principles apply:

1. Appropriateness of the measure The judge looks to see whether the prefectoral order is justified by the factual circumstances. The damage compensated may be moral or material.
2. Notification of the order Essential requirement in accordance with Article 5§2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Failure to notify gives rise to a right to compensation.
3. Motivation for decisions : The prefectoral order must be based on a detailed medical certificate and state precisely the circumstances justifying the treatment.

In 2015, the Court of Cassation clarified the division of responsibilities: the medical certificate must describe the mental disorder in detail, while the prefect assesses its impact on personal safety or public order.

Hospitalisation at the request of a third party (SDT) or in imminent danger (SPI) is a different matter. Decided by the director of a health care establishment, the State is rarely held responsible for such decisions, unless the prefect, having been informed, did not examine the situation in good time.

Liability for damage caused by a vehicle

Act No. 57-1424 of 31 December 1957 unified the litigation of damage caused by administrative vehicles by assigning exclusive jurisdiction to the courts, applying the rules of civil law, thus illustrating the role of the courts in this area. the State as a subject of law.

This law introduces an original mechanism: substitution of liability. The public entity takes the place of its agent who caused the damage, guaranteeing that the victims will be compensated by a solvent entity.

Three fundamental concepts structure this litigation:

1. The concept of a vehicle is broadly interpreted as any machine capable of moving by its own "own device". It doesn't matter whether it's on land, at sea or in the air. This includes public works machinery, even when stationary.
2. The cause of the damage determines jurisdiction. When a vehicle is involved, the judge looks to see whether it was the determining cause of the accident.
3. Performance of duties The agent must have acted in the performance of his or her duties for the State to be held liable.

A notable development in case law concerns accidents in the line of duty. In its "Belhafiane" decision of 16 November 2015, the Tribunal des conflits clarified that the judicial jurisdiction remains competent when the victimised public servant explicitly chooses to act on the basis of the 1957 Act.

Civil status and nationality litigation

Litigation concerning civil status is the responsibility of the courts, which are the guardians of personal status under article 29 of the Civil Code. In this area, where the AJE only intervenes when a claim for compensation is made, it is part of the specific litigation in which the State may be called to account for its actions.

There are several types of request:

1. Issuing passports The court has no jurisdiction except in cases of assault. Refusal of a passport without legal justification constitutes an infringement of the freedom to come and go.
2. Certificate of French nationality The State may be held liable for gross negligence or denial of justice.
3. Civil status documents abroad transcripts: Article 47 of the Civil Code provides for their validity unless proven otherwise. The Service central d'état civil de Nantes is involved in disputed transcriptions.

For these cases, the court with territorial jurisdiction is the court in Nantes, the headquarters of the Central Civil Status Department, which carries out its functions under the supervision of the public prosecutor.

Guardianship litigation

The Act of 5 March 2007 radically reformed the systems for protecting adults and modified the State's liability regime.

Article 412 of the Civil Code for minors and article 422 for adults introduce a derogatory system: the State may be held liable for a simple fault committed in the organisation and operation of guardianship.

This fault may concern :

• Insufficient monitoring of accounts
• The inappropriateness of certain methods of organising guardianship
• Lack of appropriate authorisation for disposals

Case law requires a direct causal link between the fault and the damage. For example, the Orléans Court of First Instance found against the State when the guardianship judge did not promptly relieve a defaulting legal administrator, thereby contributing to the misappropriation of funds.

The limitation period is five years from the age of majority for minors or from the end of the measure for adults. This action is only open to the protected person, their legal representative or their successors in title.

These specific types of litigation demonstrate the diversity of AJE's interventions in defence of the State. The complexity of these proceedings and the constant development of case law make it essential to have the support of an expert in the field. lawyer specialising in litigation with the State.

If you have any questions about proceedings involving the liability of the State, our firm offers an initial assessment meeting to examine the particulars of your situation and determine the most effective strategy.

Sources

• Law 2011-803 of 5 July 2011 on the rights and protection of persons under psychiatric care
• Public Health Code, article L. 3216-1
• Act No. 57-1424 of 31 December 1957 on litigation relating to the liability of public bodies
• Tribunal des conflits, 16 November 2015, Belhafiane, no. C4035
• Civil Code, articles 29, 47, 412 and 422
• TGI Orléans, 12 June 2019, RG n° 15/00083
• Law no. 2007-308 of 5 March 2007 reforming the legal protection of adults
• Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Division, 28 May 2015, no. 14-15.686