With the stamp of approval from the Supreme Court, municipalities are responsible for repairing sidewalks to ensure there are no potholes, broken tiles, etc.

In the event of a pedestrian injury, municipal officials (mayors or deputy mayors) bear criminal liability in addition to their civil liability to compensate the injured party for medical expenses, moral damages, and more.

A 64-year-old woman, while walking on a sidewalk with detached, damaged, and elevated tiles far from her family home, tripped over a raised tile and fell, sustaining injuries.

She was taken to a public hospital, where it was determined she had dislocated her left elbow, which required resetting. Additionally, she suffered a head fracture. A cast was placed on her arm, and she underwent physical therapy. Following the incident, the 64-year-old filed a lawsuit against the mayor and the deputy mayor responsible for the municipality’s Technical Services.

The deputy mayor, who had been delegated responsibilities for the construction and maintenance of sidewalks as head of the Technical Services Department, was sentenced to four months in prison with a three-year suspension. This decision factored in the mitigating circumstance of his prior good personal and family conduct, and the conviction was for causing bodily harm through negligence.

In contrast, the mayor was acquitted, as the responsibilities for sidewalk maintenance had been delegated to the deputy mayor. Moreover, the mayor had not been informed by any authority—especially the deputy mayor—about the condition of the sidewalk where the accident occurred.

Appeal for Annulment

The deputy mayor appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the conviction issued by the Three-Member Misdemeanor Court. However, the judges of the Sixth Criminal Division dismissed all his arguments as unfounded. They ruled that the conviction was well-founded and detailed, ordering him to pay €250 in legal costs.

According to the Supreme Court ruling, “the municipality is liable for her injuries because its officials failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the accident. They were obliged to repair the sidewalk tiles and place appropriate signage at the location to inform pedestrians (sidewalk users).”

Who Holds Responsibility

The Supreme Court also noted that, under the Municipal and Community Code, “exclusive responsibility for managing local affairs lies with municipalities. Furthermore, the Building Code stipulates that adjacent property owners are obligated to repair and maintain sidewalks and related structures (curbs, gutters, sublayers, and coverings) in front of their properties.”

The judges emphasized that municipalities, in accordance with principles of good governance, are obligated to oversee and inspect the condition of sidewalks, taking appropriate measures for their maintenance and repair. This ensures the smooth flow of pedestrian traffic on sidewalks and protects the physical integrity of users (including individuals with disabilities, children, and the elderly).

In another section of the ruling, the judges added: “The fact that adjacent property owners are responsible for the repair and maintenance of sidewalks does not absolve municipal officials from their duty to supervise and inspect sidewalks or take necessary measures for their maintenance and repair. Nor does it shift this obligation to private individuals or other entities. This responsibility falls within the management of local affairs and concerns the safe circulation of pedestrians in public spaces and the protection of citizens’ physical integrity.”

Awareness of the Problem

The deputy mayor claimed he was unaware of the problem and that no one had reported it to him. However, this argument was rejected as it was proven that the 64-year-old woman had repeatedly complained to him over two consecutive years about “the condition of the sidewalk.”

He had promised to “inform the mayor about the issue” but never did so. Nor did he inform the Directorate of Technical Services, Environmental Protection, and Urban Planning, or advise the woman to file a written complaint with the appropriate department.

Additionally, he argued that the 64-year-old was responsible for repairing the sidewalk. However, the court noted that “the injured party did not fall on the sidewalk in front of her family home” and was therefore not obligated to undertake restoration work.

Furthermore, the court stated that after the lawsuit was filed, the municipality, on the mayor’s orders, repaired the sidewalk without charging the adjacent property owners for the expense.

Finally, the deputy mayor’s claim that he had not been delegated responsibilities for the repair, maintenance, and construction of sidewalks was dismissed. This was contradicted by Article 14 of the municipality’s Internal Services Regulations.

The accompanying photo is AI-generated.