When is a State decision challenged before the Administrative Judiciary Court?
A question often arises after a ministry or a department issues a decision: is it challenged before the Administrative Judiciary Court (Mahkamat al-Qada’ al-Idari), before the Court of Employees’ Judiciary (Mahkamat Qada’ al-Muwazzafin), or before a third body? Mixing these doors may put the challenge in the wrong place, and it may lose a written time limit. This article explains when a challenge is brought before the Administrative Judiciary Court, and how that path differs from a grievance against a disciplinary penalty, and how the time limit is counted under Article 7 of State Shura Council Law No. 65 of 1979 as amended.
The difference between the two courts is also set out in The difference between the Court of Employees’ Judiciary and the Administrative Judiciary Court.
What does the Administrative Judiciary Court hear?
The Administrative Judiciary Court is a body within the State Council, after the State Council Law No. 71 of 2017, which replaced the name of the State Shura Council and transferred the administrative courts to it. In general terms, it hears challenges to final administrative decisions issued by State authorities, except where a special text sends the dispute to another court or board.
Not every paper issued by a department is an “administrative decision” that may be challenged directly, and not every decision is final in the sense that opens the court’s door. The description is read from the nature of the act: did it create, amend or bring to an end a legal position, and has it exhausted its administrative stages, or is it a preparatory step, an opinion or a recommendation that has not yet settled? What matters is the decision placed before the court and the text in force rather than an abstract list of categories.
The person who challenges is the person with a legal interest affected by the decision, not everyone who has heard of it. The detail of the interest requirement is read from State Consultative Council Law No. 65 of 1979, as amended, and from the court’s case-law.
When is the Administrative Judiciary Court not the forum?
Three doors are sometimes confused, and they should be separated before any grievance is filed:
- A disciplinary penalty under Article 8 of the Law on the Discipline of State and Public Sector Employees No. 14 of 1991: its path is a grievance before the body that issued the penalty, then a challenge before the Court of Employees’ Judiciary, under Article 15 after the 2008 amendment. That path is set out in Grievance and appeal to the Court of Employees’ Judiciary, and it is not the subject of this article.
- Public-service disputes — promotion, an allowance, or a transfer, within what falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of Employees’ Judiciary — are read first before that court, unless a text sends them to another body. See Public-service disputes.
- An act that appears to be a crime: its forum is the Investigating Court, then the misdemeanor or felony courts, not the Administrative Judiciary Court and not the Court of Employees’ Judiciary. That line is explained in When is a State employee referred to the courts.
The Court of Employees’ Judiciary replaced the General Discipline Council under the Fifth Amendment to the State Shura Council Law, Law No. 17 of 2013, and then settled within the State Council under Law No. 71 of 2017. Its replacement of the council changes the forum for official appeals. It does not make that court the Administrative Judiciary Court, and it does not make it the criminal court.
The administrative grievance before a challenge is filed
On the path to the Administrative Judiciary Court, the law often requires a grievance before the body that issued the decision, prior to filing the case. That administrative grievance is not the grievance in Article 15 of the discipline law, even if the number of days looks similar in the mind. The law requires, before a challenge is filed, a grievance to the administrative body within thirty days of notification of the decision; that body must decide it within thirty days of registration; the challenge is then filed with the Administrative Judiciary Court within sixty days of the grievance being refused expressly or by operation of the law (Article 7(7) of State Shura Council Law No. 65 of 1979 as amended).
Those time limits are the ones in Article 7 of State Shura Council Law No. 65 of 1979 as amended: a grievance within 30 days, a decision within 30 days, silence is a deemed refusal, then a challenge within 60 days. What matters is the date of notification, or of knowledge as the law treats it. A person who misses the period may have the challenge rejected on form, even if the objection to the substance of the decision is sound.
In practice, the grievance identifies the decision, the date of knowledge of it, and the ground of the objection, and it is filed with the body that issued the decision, not with another body by mistake.
What does the court usually examine?
The court usually begins with form: jurisdiction, standing and interest, exhaustion of the grievance if it is a condition, and the time limit. It then turns to the lawfulness of the decision: whether it was issued by the person who had power to issue it, its cause, the limits of discretionary authority, and its conformity with the text. The decision may be upheld, annulled, or amended within what the law allows, according to what the file establishes and what the court has power to order.
What is usually reviewed in this kind of file includes: a copy of the decision; what proves notification or knowledge of it; the wording of the grievance if one was filed, and the body’s reply, or what shows that the period passed without a reply; and any special text that may send the dispute to another court. The absence of one of these elements does not necessarily mean that the right is lost, but it delays an understanding of form before substance.
What this challenge must not be mixed with
A challenge before the Administrative Judiciary Court is not a cassation challenge against a civil judgment before the Federal Court of Cassation, and it is not an appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal. Those are doors for court judgments in civil cases, not for an administrative decision issued by a ministry or a department. This path also does not replace a civil claim before the Court of First Instance if the subject of the dispute is a civil right, not an administrative decision.
Filing an administrative challenge also does not replace the criminal path if the facts bear the description of a crime. Each door remains on its own ground: the administrative court examines the lawfulness of the decision, the Investigating Court examines the crime, and the Court of Employees’ Judiciary examines the official decision within its jurisdiction.
If one file contains both a decision refusing a request and a decision imposing a penalty, the two are not automatically joined in a single petition before a single court. Each decision is described on its own, and the question is asked about its court and its time limit. Joining them without a basis exposes the form of the case to rejection. For that reason, each decision is read from its source and from the date of its notification before the court is chosen.
A judgment of the Administrative Judiciary Court may be challenged in cassation before the Supreme Administrative Court within thirty days of notification or deemed notification; a judgment of that court that is not challenged, and a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, are final and binding.
Legal basis and sources
- State Council Law No. 71 of 2017
- Fifth Amendment to the State Shura Council Law, Law No. 17 of 2013
- Law on the Discipline of State and Public Sector Employees No. 14 of 1991
- State Shura Council Law No. 65 of 1979, as amended
Frequently asked questions
Is every decision issued by a ministry challenged before the Administrative Judiciary Court?
No. The first questions are whether the decision is a final administrative act that may be challenged, and whether a special text has sent it to another court — in particular the Court of Employees’ Judiciary, if it is a disciplinary penalty or a public-service dispute within that court’s jurisdiction.
Do I use the thirty-day time limit written in the discipline law?
Not by automatic analogy. That time limit is written for the grievance against a disciplinary penalty and for the challenge to it. The time limit for challenging a general administrative decision is set by Article 7 of State Shura Council Law No. 65 of 1979 as amended: a grievance within 30 days, a decision within 30 days, silence is a deemed refusal, then a challenge within 60 days.
If my department refuses a request that is not a penalty, where do I go?
The description of the decision is examined. If it is not a disciplinary penalty and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Employees’ Judiciary, the forum usually considered is the Administrative Judiciary Court, after a grievance if the law requires one.
Does a grievance before the minister replace the case?
A grievance, when it is a condition, is a prior stage. Its silence or its refusal does not replace filing the challenge within its time limit, if the person concerned wants to reach the court.
Is the investigative committee’s recommendation itself challenged before the Administrative Judiciary Court?
The committee’s recommendation is not, as a rule, the final decision imposing the penalty. If a penalty is issued, the challenge to it is brought before the Court of Employees’ Judiciary after the grievance, not before the Administrative Judiciary Court, unless the decision is of another kind that falls outside that jurisdiction.
Is the administration’s silence after a grievance treated as a refusal?
In some paths, the law treats the expiry of the period without a reply as a deemed refusal that opens the time limit for a challenge. Whether that applies to a general administrative decision is set by Article 7 of State Shura Council Law No. 65 of 1979 as amended: a grievance within 30 days, a decision within 30 days, silence is a deemed refusal, then a challenge within 60 days, not by an automatic analogy with Article 15 of the discipline law.
How are the time limits for a grievance and a challenge against a general administrative decision counted?
The time limits for a grievance and a challenge against a general administrative decision are set by Article 7 of State Shura Council Law No. 65 of 1979 as amended: a grievance within 30 days, a decision within 30 days, silence is a deemed refusal, then a challenge within 60 days, not by an automatic analogy with the periods in Article 15 of the discipline law.
The choice of court and the time limit are built on the description of the decision and on the text in force, not on the name of the department alone. If the decision is a disciplinary penalty or an official decision within the jurisdiction of the Court of Employees’ Judiciary, the path is that laid down in the discipline law. If it is a general administrative decision, the time limits for a grievance and a challenge are set by Article 7 of State Shura Council Law No. 65 of 1979 as amended: a grievance within 30 days, a decision within 30 days, silence is a deemed refusal, then a challenge within 60 days before the Administrative Judiciary Court, not by an automatic analogy with the periods in Article 15 of the discipline law.