Abuse of pupils by teachers at school: the State must pay

The Court of Cassation (judgement 37607/2026) has clarified that the State is liable for damages arising from abuse committed by a teacher against pupils within the school, because the role of teacher is the circumstance that makes the tort possible. The situation is different in the case of private tuition at home: in such cases, the administration’s liability must be reassessed.

This is a shocking case. A special needs teacher has been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for the repeated sexual abuse of three young boys, all of whom were his pupils. The incidents took place in the classroom, in the special needs support room, and also during private tuition sessions at home. The incidents date back a few years and the victims, two of whom had learning difficulties, were among the most vulnerable. The Ministry, ordered to pay damages alongside the teacher, has lodged an appeal: it argues that abuse is a personal and unforeseeable act, which has nothing to do with public service.

The Court of Cassation says no. A public body is liable even when an employee acts for their own purposes, even in breach of their duties, if they exploit the position entrusted to them in order to do so. It is not necessary for the organisation to have intended, or been able to foresee, that conduct: it is sufficient that the role served as the means. And a support teacher has a close, individual, trusting relationship with the pupil and their family: it is precisely this proximity, guaranteed by the school, that makes the abuse possible. There is therefore nothing unusual about linking the harm to the role. Common sense dictates this. The Ministry also argued that it was not known what preventive measures it could have taken: an argument that is not sufficient to break the link between the role and the offence.

When it comes to private tuition, the situation is different. In this case, the Court has quashed the civil judgement against the Ministry and referred the case back for further consideration: activities carried out outside school hours and beyond the scope of school duties do not automatically constitute the performance of public duties. It is necessary to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether, even during those hours, the teacher exploited the position conferred upon them by the school. It is a fine line, but a decisive one for those liable for compensation and for the families.

The other objections were also dismissed. The defendant’s appeal is inadmissible: the judges carefully explained why the children were capable of giving evidence – even with a cognitive delay – and why their accounts were credible, having remained consistent over time. The victim’s testimony, if credible and consistent, may in itself be sufficient to justify a conviction, subject to a more rigorous scrutiny than that applied to an ordinary witness. The appeal by the regional office is also inadmissible, as it was never a party to the appeal proceedings and therefore had no standing to challenge the decision: its position had already been determined at first instance, and no one had contested it.