الحكم القضائي الإداري الضمني “دراسة مقارنة”

The implicit administrative judicial ruling “a comparative study”

This study was devoted to examining the meaning of the implicit administrative ruling, determining its distinct subjectivity, the mechanisms for discovering it by reviewing the means of expressing it by the trial court, and the extent to which this ruling is accepted according to the existing legal system in the country. This from of administrative judicial rulings has intrinsic components that give it a distinct nature, as it is often indicated by some the phrases included in the ruling, as well as the interpretation of the explicit administrative ruling. It is clear that there are many legal effects that the implicit ruling creates without the court explicitly indicating them. This imposes many obligations to parties to the original dispute, the first of which is to respect it and implement its requirements. Therefore, this study was keen to highlight the conditions and distinctive elements of these rulings.
It is assumed that the study of the implied provision is a study that must be conducted, not only because it belongs to the provisions that gain this importance, but also because it has special importance. In most cases, the party against whom a lawsuit is filed maintains, in order to prevent the court from examining the merits of this lawsuit, that the latter has been decided by a previous ruling, and that this previous ruling, even if it did not decide on it explicitly and has decided on it implicitly. Perhaps many of the issues that are presented to the judiciary relate to rights or legal positions that have been raised before the judge, but in the absence of an explicit ruling on them and in the absence of a clear theory of the implicit ruling that specifies its conditions and controls for extracting it, it will be relatively difficult to determine the extent of the existence of an implicit ruling, which leads to raise new judicial disputes over these rights and legal positions.