Estimating the elbow error in light of administrative judiciary rulings: a comparative study

Abstract

Usually, individuals in every society resort to public authorities to get their needs, as the administration or public authority has a representative and moral status resulting from the law of its inception. However, these authorities are not able to perform their objectives except by natural persons as its employees in order to manage the public facility to provide services to the public. It may happen that individuals from the public are harmed or their interests are harmed as a result of faults committed by employees of public authorities. One of its employees may make a fault that causes harm to individuals, hence the public facility must be asked about this fault as long as it is related to the public facility`s responsibility. Damage may also occur due to a fault whose perpetrator cannot be identified, while all employees perform their duties without negligence.

It is inevitable that fault is related to the organization of the facility itself, but it is not possible to know the exact responsible employee. Hence, the fault will be attributed to the facility and will be considered a public facility fault. Undoubtedly, this indicates negligence by the facility, so it must bear the responsibility and held accountable. Whether the fault can be attributed to a particular employee or not, the facility itself is held responsible for compensating the harm caused.

Since the fault is the main pillar for establishing the administrative responsibility, this is what prompted this study to discuss the fault in terms of its nature, form, scope, degree of severity and how it is evaluated by the administrative judiciary in the countries of dual judiciary. The study also considers the extent to which the Yemeni judiciary is affected by the administrative court rulings.