The Judiciary Competent to Hear the Problems of Implementation in the Judicial Decisions of the Administrative Courts “Comparative Study Between Egypt and Jordan”

Abstract

DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/89-23

Publication date:September 30^th 2019

1. Introduction

1.1    The importance of study

The judicial verdict may not be suspended except by the Court of Appeal. If the verdict is issued by the highest judicial body such as the Supreme Administrative Court in Jordan or in Egypt, it shall be enforceable. The sovereignty of the State whose entity and sovereignty derives from the judicial authority that adjudicates disputes shall be exercised by the State. This is confirmed by the text of article 50 of the Egyptian Council of State Law No. 47 of 1972, which stipulates that “Appeal before the Supreme Administrative Courts shall not suspend the execution of the contested judgment unless the Appeals Examination Chamber has ordered otherwise. Judgments issued by administrative courts shall be suspended unless the court orders otherwise. In the same vein, Article 28 of the Jordanian Administrative Judiciary Law No. 27 of 2014 stipulates that “Appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court shall not suspend the execution of the contested judgment unless the court orders otherwise that).

This study dealt with a very important topic related to the judicial authority competent to consider the problems of implementing the judgments issued against the administration in case the administration refuses to implement them, in the light of the inability of the administrative judge to interfere in the work of the administration pursuant to the principle of separation of powers that prevents administrative interference in The work of the administration or its replacement.

There is no doubt that the administration's failure to implement judicial rulings is a violation of this principle and constitutes a prejudice to the power of the judiciary as a constitutional institution, as well as a violation of the democratic approach of States, as the amount of respect for states is determined by the extent of respect for the judiciary. Moreover, the administration's failure to implement the judgments constitutes a dangerous precedent that destroys the principle of legality so that it loses its historical and sovereign value unless the administration respects its content, elements and sources.

1.2    The limits of the study

The limits of the study in this research are to determine the court competent to hear these problems and the extent of the limits of the jurisdiction of the administrative judiciary in general to consider the problems of implementation in both Jordan and Egypt and to remove the confusion between the problems in implementation and suspension of execution from the Court of Appeal exploring the position of legislation and jurisprudence and administrative judiciary in both countries in an analytical study And in-depth following the descriptive, analytical and applied approach. However, it will be beyond the limits of this study to go into the justification for the failure of the administration to implement and the reasons for the abstinence and responsibility resulting from this abstinence, civil and administrative, although we will only refer to it as a preliminary introduction for the purpose of understanding the subject of this study in all its aspects.