تنفيذ الأحكام الإدارية كضمانة للحفاظ على الأمن القضائي

الملخص EN

Study is intended to identify implications of abstention from enforcing administrative judgements which conflicts with the general interest and adversely impacts judicial security within society.

Study turned the spotlight on forms of management’s abstention from enforcing administrative judgements; methods of abstention; penalty for abstention; legal means of enforcing judgements and their effectiveness in addressing such problem.

Using inductive, descriptive methods, this study is centered primarily on management’s abstention from enforcing administrative judgements against it.

Study developed proposals and recommendations for the operationalization of the enforcement of administrative judgements in a bid to curb management’s abstention from enforcing the said judgments.

Study concluded with some findings, chief among them was that the Egyptian legislation endorsed some legal means to assist or prompt management to enforce judgements issued against it depending on the circumstances.

However, despite numerous legal means prompting the management to enforce judgements against it, such means failed to achieve the desired end.

Key recommendations of the study included: abstention from enforcing the judgment should always be deemed a personal fault as deeming it an institutional fault may affect successful party’s access to compensation.

Among the recommendations were also: administrative judge should avoid literal application of the principle of separation of powers, and should interfere to force the management to implement issued judgements and the need for applying penalty payment system in Egyptian law as this obliges management to enforce administrative judgements against it>