الأطر التنظيمية لمنازعات التنفيذ في الدعوى المدنية وفقا لأحكام النظام السعودي

Abstract EN

This study came under the title of Regulatory Frameworks for Execution Disputes in Civil Cases According to the Provisions of the Saudi Law, and it dealt with Civil Execution Disputes in the Saudi Law given the practical importance it enjoys and its clear impact on the course of the implementation procedures, as it represents protection for the parties to the implementation and others from the consequences of illegal implementation and the consequent damages that may sometimes be difficult to redress.

The regulator has realized the importance of providing an opportunity for the parties and others who fear that he will be harmed by the implementation to remedy this by submitting an executive dispute lawsuit with the aim of nullifying the implementation procedures or even stopping them temporarily, on the other hand, and in an attempt to balance the conflicting interests of the implementation parties, and for fear that implementation disputes will be used as a pretext to unjustly disrupt the procedures, it was necessary to establish certain and clear controls.

To regulate those disputes, their nature, the conditions for accepting them claim, the judge competent to hear them, how they are considered, the judgment issued in them, and their validity are determined, and this is what the study aims to shed light on.

In order to reach scientific results that contribute to enriching legal thought and to draw attention to some organizational shortcomings with regard to the subject, the study relied on collecting and extracting information from its sources.

the main references, books, scientific papers, articles, and national legislation.

The study followed the descriptive analytical approach in dealing with topics and extrapolating the various legal texts in the Saudi system.

Perhaps the most prominent findings of the study are that the Saudi system did not provide a definition of substantive or timely implementation disputes, nor did it address the impact of the ruling in them on implementation despite the importance of the matter.

Accordingly, the recommendation was that they should be clearly defined, and the legal implications of separating them should be stated.