With the evolution of civil liability regulations, the scope of governmental accountability for the compensation of damages has expanded. In cases where the government or its agents cause harm through a wrongful act, the establishment of the elements of civil liability generally encounters no serious obstacles, provided that the legal conditions are met. However, where damage results from an omission or failure to act by the government or its agents within the scope of their legal powers and duties, the acceptance and application of civil liability rules face significant theoretical and practical challenges. In such cases, determining the extent of the government’s duty to act, establishing the causal link between the omission and the damage, and identifying administrative fault constitute the most important legal challenges. Accordingly, the main question of this research is: “How can omission be recognized as a harmful act attributable to the government, thereby giving rise to its civil liability?”

This study addresses the issue through a descriptive–analytical approach, relying on judicial decisions, and examines issues such as the attribution of damage to the government, the elements required for the realization of liability, and the criteria for establishing administrative fault. The findings indicate that the difficulty in proving governmental liability for omissions stems from ambiguities surrounding concepts such as customary causation, the scope of the agent’s legal duty, and the nature of compensable damage. A reconsideration of the foundations of public law—particularly the principle of public service—and a re-reading of traditional civil liability rules can pave the way for the establishment of an effective accountability system in Iranian administrative law.