جایگاه عنصر زیان در مسوولیت مدنی دولت

در خصوص ارکان مسئولیت مدنی، به‌طور عام تحقیقات و تالیف‌های متعددی انجام گرفته است اما در حوزه مسئولیت مدنی دولت به دلیل وجود تنوع در فعالیت های دستگاه های دولتی، پیچیدگی و ابهام برخی مباحث و دشواری تشخیص رژیم حقوقی حاکم همچنان در حد قابل‌توجهی پابرجاست. چنین وضعی اقتضای آن دارد تا به ویژگی های خاص مسئولیت مدنی دولت به‌طور دقیق تر توجه شود. یکی از مباحث تعیین‌کننده در این خصوص، پاسخ به این پرسش است که عنصر زیان چه تاثیری بر سایر ارکان مسئولیت مدنی دولت دارد؟ این نوشتار بر این ادعاست که ماهیت زیان به لحاظ کمی و کیفی در مواردی می‌تواند در تشخیص نوع تقصیر، ضرورت وجود و نحوه احراز رابطه استنادی، مسئله جبران‌پذیری خسارت، مبنای مسوولیت مدنی و حتی تعیین صلاحیت قضایی موثر واقع شود. یافته‌های این پژوهش با استفاده از روش تحلیلی عبارت از این است که مسئولیت مدنی دولت صرفاً در حوزه تسبیب، مبتنی بر عنصر تقصیر است و موارد معافیت قانونی نیز مشروط به عدم ایراد خسارت عینی است.

the position of the “damage” element in the civil liability of the government

numerous research and writings have been conducted on the pillars of civil liability in general. however, when it comes to the civil liability of the government, due to the diverse activities of government institutions, the complexity and ambiguity of certain topics, and the difficulty of distinguishing the applicable legal regime, challenges still persist to a significant extent. such a situation calls for greater attention to the distinctive features of government civil responsibility. one crucial question in this regard is: what impact does the element of loss have on other aspects of government civil liability? this article asserts that the nature of loss, both quantitatively and qualitatively, can, in some cases, play a role in determining the type of fault, establishing the necessity of existence, determining the reference relationship, addressing compensability of damages, establishing the basis of civil liability, and even determining jurisdiction. using an analytical approach, the findings of this research demonstrate that government civil liability is rooted in the element of fault, considering the various regulations related to attribution. furthermore, legal exemptions are conditional on the absence of objective damages. in most cases where the government causes harm to individuals, the resulting damage is the consequence of administrative decisions, which cannot directly cause harm. therefore, such cases should be analyzed in terms of causation. moreover, the concept of legal exemptions for the government solely covers non-objective damages or damages resulting from utilization. in other words, the government is only exempted from civil liability when it derives legal benefits from individuals' properties, which necessitates specific provisions in the law and does not grant automatic exemption. based on these premises, article 11 of the civil liability law regarding government sovereign acts can be interpreted as follows: only actions that harm individuals within the scope of the government's legal duties are immune from liability because the law permits such behavior. however, it is worth noting that this legal permission may have been implicitly abrogated by subsequently enacted laws, particularly after the islamic revolution's victory. to explain the aforementioned cases, this article proceeds in two steps. first, it discusses the concept of damage within the realm of government civil liability, examining various types and categories of damages. the identified categories include actual loss vs. judgmental loss, material loss vs. spiritual loss, objective loss vs. loss of profit, and liability resulting from utilization in contrast to direct damages. second, it explores the relationship between damage and the elements of government civil liability, focusing on the liability associated with key government actions such as policy-making, general construction projects, assimilation of benefit and benefit, limiting property ownership, case-by-case prohibition of utilization, and disciplinary measures involving the abandonment of expedient actions. regarding the second pillar, attention is given to the correlation between losses and causality. this entails addressing citizen security and losses within the framework of risk and loss theory, as well as losses stemming from decision-making (administrative decisions). the element of fault and its relationship with loss present specific issues in the realm of government civil liability. noteworthy topics include considering loss as a presumption of error, the impact of loss on proving a lawsuit and initiating legal action for administrative errors, and the association between the loss ratio and the nature of the administrative error.