[ad_1]
Superior Directives Establishing a Mechanism for the Implementation of Judgments Against State Organs
Informed sources told "Okaz" that the Grievance Review Committee had completed the preparation of a draft law on the implementation of administrative decisions, pursuant to the Supreme Guidelines, which called for the setting up of a mechanism allowing the implementation of judicial decisions rendered by the administrative courts. Grievances Prepare an in-depth study of the mechanism, propose the necessary modifications to the regulations in force and raise the objectives achieved.
The sources indicated that the Claims Review Committee had examined complaints about the non-execution of some of the judgments rendered, as well as the growing problems with the execution of the judgments on the grounds that the general system of implementation was not competent to execute judgments rendered by public bodies, which shows the existence of an organizational vacuum to which the competent bodies are concerned.
According to the bill (seen by "Okaz"), it aims to address the physical and systemic causes and obstacles that lead to delay or refrain from implementing administrative provisions and to provide a legal guarantee and a review of the implementation procedures and litigation with a view to achieving the objectives of the Grievance Review Committee and its mission of establishing administrative justice and finding solutions Impossible to execute .
The bill criminalizes non-compliance with the decisions of the grievance review board and punishes those who refrain from or abstain from performing them, as well as any employee who uses his influence or functional authority to prevent the execution of the sentence imposed, for a period not exceeding seven years, and a fine of 700,000 riyals. The court has the right to publish its judgment at the expense of the author.
The provisions of the law also stipulate that the administrative body that is ordered to implement the fast-track provisions can not oppose the orders of the Department of Enforcement. All its provisions are subject to established rules and procedures.
The bill states that the use of influence or functional authority by the official to prevent the execution of the judgment to be executed or to deliberately refrain from the execute is deemed to be within its jurisdiction 8 days after being informed of the ultimatum or causing a delay in the execution of the judgment that must be executed as a major offense.
Necessary measures
Article 10 stipulates that the enforcement service may order the administrative authorities (ministries and public bodies) to implement the necessary measures, in particular by informing them of budgets, functions and procedures, as well as any documents to which they have access, and that those authorities apply those decisions within the prescribed time.
Article 12 of the law stipulates that the enforcement service shall order the convicted entity if the time limit provided for in Article 10 expires without having been implemented or if the the authority declares its refusal, that in case of execution of the judgment, certain measures, in particular: The administrative decisions, including the order of execution making it possible to determine it, and inform the ministry public copy of the order to open a criminal case against the offender.
Regarding the implementation of financial provisions, Article 13 states that "If the enforcement department finds that the party ordered to pay a sum of money or its deconcentration has fulfilled the procedures necessary for the execution of the judgment without being executed on behalf of the Ministry of Finance, the charge is transferred. The execution of the execution at the Ministry and the department shall issue the warning of execution and apply the procedures stipulated in this law.
Article 14 authorizes the execution to circumvent the procedure so that, if the execution is not carried out within the period provided for in Article 10 of this Law and the execution is in the interest of the third-party convicted person, the enforcement service may, at the request of the sentenced person, order that person to consider the judgment as enforceable. Take charge of this interest.
Functions and tasks of implementation services
The bill of implementation decides to create departments responsible for the execution of judgments rendered by the courts of the SAI against the administrative bodies of ministries and public bodies and all the organs of the State, and to review disputes relating to the enforcement of administrative and disciplinary judgments.
It stipulates that the enforcement service will communicate to the convicted entity, if the time limit expires without having been executed, or if the authority declares to reject an order, to take certain measures, in particular by making certain administrative decisions. Initiate criminal proceedings against the offender.
According to the bill, the administrative enforcement departments are competent to execute judgments rendered by the courts of the SAI against the administrative authorities and to review disputes relating to the execution of administrative judgments and disciplinary.
Article 36 states that administrative cases arising from implementation must be dealt with promptly.
The bill emphasizes that the orders of the enforcement service should not be challenged and that all its provisions are subject to established rules and procedures.
4 categories of sentences for crimes
Clause 32 of the bill specifies the crimes and penalties in the bill.It states that any employee who uses his influence or his functional authority to prevent the execution of the sentence that is to be executed is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years and a maximum fine of R $ 700,000 or one of these penalties.
Second: Any employee who intentionally fails to perform, if the execution is within his jurisdiction after 8 days after being warned of the warning provided for in Article 10 of this Act or after the arrival of the procedures of execution, is punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment and a fine of up to 500,000 Riyals. Or one of these penalties.
Thirdly, any public official who voluntarily refuses to execute or exploit his influence or functional authority will be punished and will deliberately prevent the execution of the judgment to be executed by imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years and a fine of not more than 400. 000 riyals.
Fourth: a non-official who disrupts the execution of the judgment to be executed will be punished with imprisonment for up to three years and a maximum fine of 300,000 riyals or any of these two sentences.
Article 34 allowed the competent administrative court to publish its sentence at the expense of the convicted convict to prevent or impede the execution of the sentence.
Article 37 stipulates that those who have suffered damage as a result of non-performance or delay in bringing an action for compensation before the competent court, and in case the ministry or the governmental authority would see themselves grant compensation, he would be allowed to refer to the author and collect the amount. Procedures stipulated in the system electronically.
Regulatory gap and growing complaint behind the birth of the project
In an explanatory memorandum, the SAI explained the draft law and explained, inter alia, that the reasons for its drafting reinforced the complaints concerning the non-application of certain decisions rendered by the courts of the Grievance Chamber, as well as the growing problems raised by the implementation of these judgments and, at the same time, the absence of IAS mechanisms and dispute settlement mechanisms.
The implementation system has excluded judgments in administrative cases from the jurisdiction of the general executive judiciary, which shows that there is an organizational vacuum to resolve it.
The draft law gave the Administrative Judicial Council, where appropriate, the power to form one or more executive departments formed by a single judge in the administrative courts and determined their territorial jurisdiction, to execute judgments rendered by the SAI courts against administrative authorities and to review disputes relating to the execution of administrative and disciplinary judgments. The orders of the Department of Enforcement and all its provisions are subject to the prescribed rules and procedures.
[ad_2]
Source link
