Beyond judicial review for abuse of power, which only seeks the annulment of an unlawful decision, a second type of remedy allows genuine financial compensation to be obtained when the administration's action or inaction has caused real harm. This liability claim, often less known to the general public, follows a different logic and different conditions worth understanding clearly.
Two Remedies, Two Different Purposes
A judicial review claim asks the court to annul an unlawful decision; a liability claim asks the court to order the administration to pay a sum of money as compensation for harm. Both remedies can perfectly well coexist in certain situations — a decision annulled for abuse of power may also have caused financial harm justifying a separate compensation claim — but they follow different procedural and evidentiary rules that should not be confused.
Fault-Based Liability
The most common basis for administrative liability rests on demonstrating a fault committed by the administration or one of its agents: an error in processing a file, negligence in maintaining a public structure, a faulty delay in handling a request, or wrongful conduct by a civil servant in the course of their duties. The claimant must then establish three cumulative elements: the existence of the fault, the reality and extent of the harm suffered, and a direct causal link between the two.
No-Fault Liability
In certain situations, the administration's liability can be engaged even absent any fault on its part, particularly when public works cause abnormal and specific harm to an individual, or when the application of a law or regulation, however perfectly lawful, breaks equality before public burdens to the detriment of a person or a limited group. This form of liability, rarer to invoke, rests on a different rationale: it is not the fault that is being sanctioned, but the disproportionate harm inflicted on an individual in the name of the general interest.
Damage Caused by Public Works
Damage linked to public works — ground subsidence, damage caused by pipelines, prolonged nuisance from a public construction site — forms a particularly frequent category of disputes before Moroccan administrative courts. The victim of such damage generally does not need to prove a specific fault by the administration or the company carrying out the works: it is enough to establish the link between the public structure and the harm suffered, which considerably eases access to compensation in this type of situation.
Assessing and Proving the Harm
The compensation obtained depends directly on the ability to precisely quantify the harm suffered and provide proof of it: invoices, repair estimates, expert assessments, statements of lost income depending on the nature of the damage. Poorly documented harm, even if real, risks being compensated at a level far below its actual scale, or worse, dismissed for lack of sufficiently convincing evidence of its reality.
The Role of Judicial Expert Assessment
In many cases, particularly where the harm involves real estate, a damaged structure, or physical injury, the court appoints an expert tasked with objectively assessing the extent of the damage and its link to the triggering event relied on. This expert assessment, though conducted under the judge's oversight, is something to actively prepare for: attending the operations, providing all useful documents, and submitting written observations in response to the preliminary report where the procedure allows it. A claimant who stays passive during this key phase risks seeing the harm undervalued in a report they failed to adequately inform.
Trying an Amicable Settlement Before Litigation
Before starting contentious proceedings, which are often lengthy, it is generally advisable to send the administration concerned a detailed, quantified claim accompanied by whatever supporting evidence is available. Some administrations, particularly when their liability appears difficult to dispute, prefer to settle the matter amicably rather than face public litigation and additional procedural costs. This amicable stage, far from a mere formality, can sometimes secure compensation faster than a full court procedure, while preserving the option of going to court if the response received proves insufficient.
Deadlines to Respect
A liability claim against the administration is also subject to deadlines that must be scrupulously respected, generally counted from the moment the harm and its administrative origin become reasonably known to the victim. A prior claim addressed to the administration before any court filing is, moreover, often required, which lengthens the overall timeline of the procedure and should be anticipated from the very first steps.
Enforcing a Judgment Against the Administration
Obtaining a court decision ordering the administration to pay compensation does not always guarantee prompt, spontaneous payment: enforcing judgments against public bodies faces, in practice, its own delays and difficulties, different from those encountered with a private debtor. Rigorous follow-up after obtaining the decision, including, where necessary, the reminder or formal notice procedures provided for this purpose, often remains essential to actually obtain payment of the amounts owed.
When Should You Consult a Lawyer?
Identifying the most appropriate legal basis for one's situation, correctly quantifying the harm, and building a solid body of evidence are decisive steps for the success of a liability claim against the administration. The Cabinet Kaboury, in Rabat, supports clients through these steps, from the initial assessment of the file to following up on the enforcement of a favorable decision.