Administrative law is based on a set of principles that include concepts and terms summarizing its essence. It is one of the branches of public law that regulates how the executive authority in the state performs its administrative functions and also governs the relationship between the central government and administrations and bodies. Moreover, it explains how disputes arising between the state and individuals are resolved and identifies the judiciary authority responsible for them.
In an article by Aya Al-Rashidi in Al-Siyasa newspaper of Kuwait, explaining the difference between public and private law, she stated that “public law is a set of rules that govern relationships in which the state is a party, considering it as a sovereign authority, whereas private law is a set of rules that govern relationships between individuals, or between them and the state, considering it as an ordinary person, not as a sovereign authority.”
One might find it strange that the state prosecutes itself if it fails in its duties to its citizens. However, justice becomes inevitable with the judiciary’s independence from the executive and legislative branches.
The law must essentially ensure that judges are independent and irremovable except according to its provisions and that their decisions are not tampered with or interfered with. Therefore, it was necessary to seek an idea on which administrative law could rely in its application.
In his book Principles of Administrative Law, Youssef Al-Bashir says that these considerations were considered in France, the cradle of administrative law, when they established an independent specialized administrative judiciary to investigate administrative disputes alongside the ordinary judiciary, which handles disputes arising between individuals but with different standards, applications, and authority.
Al-Bashir adds that “when administrative law emerged in France with the French Revolution in 1789, the revolution leaders wanted to implement reforms without the interference of judicial courts, which used to meddle in administrative affairs. Therefore, the revolution deprived the courts of overseeing the actions of public administration and gave the administration the right to resolve related disputes.”
In a study by Ahmed Moumni discussing the principle of the independence of the administrative judiciary as a guarantee for consolidating the principle of legality in light of Algerian legislation, he noted that the principle of the independence of the administrative judiciary is fundamental for protecting human rights and consolidating the principle of legality against administrative arbitrariness, within a legal hierarchy topped by the constitution, followed by ordinary laws, and below them the actions of the executive authority.
The term “administration” refers to the state, which is considered one of the parties in a dispute within the public law framework. It includes its institutions, bodies, and facilities, as well as the decisions issued by its representatives, whether they are rulers, ministers, or employees. Everything they issue is considered to be issued by the state.
The same applies to any entity representing governmental interests, such as health, education, transportation, etc. Even the actions and decisions of licensed associations, centers, and unions are subject to administrative judicial oversight to ensure the principle of legality.
This can be observed in various matters, such as elections they conduct, taxes they collect, the removal of buildings that violate their laws, and disputes between government employees and their facilities.
For instance, if an employee is dismissed from their job, the administrative judiciary intervenes to review the dismissal decision, which has become a dispute between the employee and their administration, in order to restore the employee’s lost rights.
In a study published by King Abdulaziz University, the concept of legality was explained as follows: “The state, with all its bodies and individuals, must be subject to the provisions of the law and not deviate from its limits. This principle requires the administration to respect the provisions of the law in its actions; otherwise, its actions are deemed illegal and subject to nullification.”
The foundation of this principle depends on varying political, social, and economic circumstances. Compelling reasons, such as war, earthquakes, or revolutions, may force the state to disregard the principle of legality, creating exceptional standards for making various administrative decisions.
Qatar sought to follow this path to achieve justice and stability and to protect its citizens from potential abuses by state representatives, especially those with corrupt motives who might exploit their positions and authority in the worst ways.
In 2007, Qatar issued Law No. (7) concerning the resolution of administrative disputes, which established chambers in the primary court to look into disputes related to this matter and a chamber in the Court of Appeal to hear appeals.
However, Article 3 of the same law specified certain administrative disputes that the two chambers would consider “disputes related to salaries, pensions, bonuses, and allowances owed to employees or their heirs, regardless of their job grades.”
It also considered “requests submitted by concerned parties to cancel final administrative decisions issued regarding the promotion of employees of the first grade and below or their equivalents, or the termination of their services, and disciplinary decisions issued against them.”
The law excluded orders, decisions, and decrees issued by the Emir, and in the amendment made to the law in 2013, it was clearly and explicitly stated that “the courts shall not directly or indirectly consider acts of sovereignty and nationality issues.”
It also excluded “decisions issued under laws related to political asylum, permanent residence, entry and exit of expatriates, their residence and deportation, private associations and institutions, religious centers, publications and publishing, licenses to issue newspapers and magazines, licenses for weapons, ammunition, and explosives, expropriation for public benefit, decisions related to determining the permanent address of the voter, and decisions related to titles and affiliation to tribes and families.”
Additionally, it excluded decisions issued under Law No. (17) of 2002 on the protection of society, which grants the Minister of Interior the right to detain an accused person in crimes related to state security, honor, public morality, or public decency “if there are strong justifications for doing so, based on a report of the incident submitted by the Director General of Public Security.”
The scope of lawsuits filed in Qatar is not broad enough to include all state representatives, but rather it is narrow, encompassing a specific body or administration, within a formal criterion that looks at the procedures of the decision only, or within a substantive criterion that looks at the content of the decision and its validity in detail, thereby limiting the scope of the administrative judiciary’s authority.
The law concerning the resolution of administrative disputes also includes provisions that regulate the annulment of administrative decisions and the compensation of claimants.
For example, if a government employee files a lawsuit to annul their dismissal and the administrative judiciary establishes that the dismissal was arbitrary, the decision is annulled, and the employee returns to their job as before. The employee may remain without work during the period of their lawsuit, in which case they can claim compensation for the damages resulting from not receiving a salary during this period, for instance.
Based on Article 7, the administrative chamber can order “the continuation of payment of all or part of the salary until a decision is made regarding the annulment of the termination of service if the circumstances of the case justify it.”
Qatar is generally considered to have been relatively late in adopting an administrative judiciary, which means its experience is not as extensive as that of administrative judiciaries in other Arab countries. Therefore, legislators should seriously consider developing it and learning from the experiences of others. The judiciary is a source of justice, and the more accessible it is to individuals, the more they will feel secure and at peace, thereby increasing the country’s stability.
The administrative judiciary, in particular, is one avenue that allows the state and individuals to review and amend legislation, laws, and decisions. It should be characterized by flexibility, confidentiality, and secure procedures followed independently to achieve justice in dispute resolution.
