معيار التمييز بين الخطأ المرفقي والخطأ الشخصي في المسؤولية الإدارية عن أخطاء المنصات الحكومية الرقمية -دراسة مقارنة بين النظام السعودي والقانونين الفرنسي والمصري الباحث عبدالرحمن بن مذكر بن خليوي السحيمي الحربي

Abstract This study addresses a pivotal issue in contemporary administrative law: the legal characterization of errors arising from the use of digital government platforms, and their classification as either a service fault (faute de service) attributable to the public service, or a personal fault (faute personnelle) attributable to the civil servant — a distinction that decisively determines the liable party and the competent jurisdiction. Adopting a comparative descriptive-analytical approach, the study weighs French administrative jurisprudence (the cradle of the theory), Egyptian administrative jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence of the Saudi Board of Grievances (Diwan al-Mazalim), while grounding administrative liability in Islamic jurisprudence. It concludes that the four classical judicial criteria — personal motives, connection of the act to the function, gravity of the fault, and purpose — are, on their own, insufficient to capture the specificity of the digital environment, which has disrupted the notions of time and place. It therefore proposes a reasonable functional connection criterion and a set of five criteria for allocating liability among multiple actors, culminating in the external interface principle: the government entity bears full liability towards the beneficiary while retaining an internal right of recourse against the actual wrongdoer. The study reached several conclusions, most notably: administrative liability is a well-established principle in the Saudi system, with Islamic jurisprudential roots that predate Western legal thought; service fault predominates in platform errors, since they reflect a deficiency in the digital public-service system rather than the deviation of an individual employee, which eases the claimant's recourse directly against the solvent authority; the four classical judicial criteria are, individually, insufficient to capture the digital environment that has disrupted the notions of time and place, and the Board of Grievances uses gravity as a condition for establishing liability rather than as a criterion for distinguishing the two types of fault; the proposed reasonable functional connection criterion, together with the five-criteria framework (actual control, technical fingerprint, professional contract, reasonable foreseeability, and external interface), is the optimal tool for characterizing digital fault and allocating liability among multiple actors; and the external interface principle affords the beneficiary a facilitated path to sue the government entity directly, while the entity retains an internal right of recourse against the actual wrongdoer. Keywords: Administrative liability; service fault; personal fault; digital government platforms; Board of Grievances; compensation; digital governance.

تحميل البحث (PDF)