المرتقب في قواعد نهوض المسؤولية المدنية و الإعفاء منها : دراسة تحليلية معمقة للقانون المدني الفرنسي في ضوء مشروع قانون إصلاح نظرية المسؤولية المدنية "Plrrc Urvoas 2017"

الملخص EN

This research presents a jurisprudential study of one of the most recent aspects of the draft law amending the provisions of civil liability in the French legislation of 2017, concerning the rules for the rise of civil liability and release from it, for the purpose of clarifying the most expected modifications in such rules, the extent of success of its texts in dealing with the problems experienced by these rules in the current civil legislation.

These objectives are performed in an originality, comparative, in-depth, critical analytical study of the reality of these rules in the previous, current, and forward-looking civil law, in two main sections: First, we examine the rules for the advancement of common liability, jurisprudentially known as: "the elements of liability".

In the second section, we address the releasing rules of liability as per the concept of "force majeure".

The research concluded that the draft law presented on both sides legal and jurisprudent remedies worthy of praise in many aspects.

However, they require approach and correction in other areas, setting forth how the rules of liability rise from the triple dimension, to the binary dimension, leading to the unilateralism, which is "damage." That aspect led to a change in the philosophy of this liability from wrongful personal theory to non-wrongful objectivity theory.

The research also explained the efforts of the authors of the law draft to unify the legislative vision of the concept of force majeure.

as a collective cause of the various cases of release from civil liability, and at the same time, praising the role of the current legislator, who re-positioned this theory within the theory of contract, rather than the theory of commitment.

At the same time, the research highlighted some of the legislative implications of the bill, especially in linking it to the idea of the right to compensation for the liability of the contract, wishing that the situation would be reconsidered.

Furthermore, the research highlighted the confusion in the law draft between the concept of harm and damage within the conditions of the rise of liability, hoping to adopt a clearer position to clarify the limits of the theory of harm, and to separate it from the theory of liability rather than compensation.

The research also stressed that the real source of the theory of force majeure is in the theory of liability.

At the same time, it stresses that its legal treatment in the current bill needs to be reconsidered, either in terms of clarifying the sole sufficient condition for the advancement of this liability, or in terms of legal re-positioning of its provisions within the scope of the theory of civil liability.