The Newly Introduced Authorities of the Administrative Judge under Law No. 22-13

Abstract

When the administration refuses to execute an administrative judicial decision annulling a disciplinary administrative act, the Code of Civil and Administrative Procedures provide mechanisms enabling the litigant to compel the administration to comply. However, reliance on the classical principle of separation of powers to prevent issuing orders against the administration in cases of non-execution has become outdated. The contemporary understanding emphasizes cooperation and complementarity between authorities to ensure enforcement and proper application of the law. Accordingly, the administration’s departure from the bounds of legality and failure to respect the authority of res judicata constitutes an excess of its legal function. The judiciary is therefore obliged to guarantee the effectiveness of judicial decisions by ensuring their execution, which represents the final stage of litigation. The administration’s persistence in refusing to enforce judgments issued against it prompted the legislator to adopt financial mechanisms affecting the administration’s assets, thereby exerting significant pressure and compelling it to reconsider before refusing execution. To this end, the judge may resort to coercive measures such as the astreinte (penalty payment), in addition to the criminal liability established by the legislator for public officials who refuse to enforce administrative judicial decisions.