Clarifying the Legal Framework for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions: A Comparative Study between Iraq, Iran, and Egypt

Abstract

Judicial review of administrative decisions represents the fundamental constitutional guarantee for the rule of law, as it prevents the tyranny of the executive authority and safeguards individuals' rights from administrative injustice. This comparative doctoral dissertation has monitored the system of judicial review in three legal systems: Iraq, Iran, and Egypt, examining their structures, principles, problems, and paths for reform.

The research has revealed that these three systems intersect in common problems, even if their institutional structures vary; in Iraq, the system relies on the State Council established under the 2016 law; in Iran, it is based on the Court of Administrative Justice under the supervision of the Guardian Council; while in Egypt, the State Council, with its ancient history, leads the scene. Despite the differences in these structures, the three systems share suffering from: weak judicial independence, expansion of exceptions, slowness of procedures, and enforcement problems.

The 2005 Iraqi Constitution established the principle of judicial oversight of administrative decisions through Article (100), which explicitly prohibits immunizing any administrative act or decision from judicial review, and Article (19/First), which guarantees the independence of the judiciary and ensures that it is subject to no authority other than the law. The administrative judiciary in Iraq has witnessed gradual development. The Administrative Court was established by Law No. (106) of 1989, which amended the State Council Law No. (65) of 1979. Then came the fifth amendment by Law No. (17) of 2013, which established the Supreme Administrative Court within the Council's structure. Thus, the Iraqi administrative judiciary now has three levels: the Civil Service Courts, the Administrative Court, and the Supreme Administrative Court.