Jurisdiction disputes in administrative courts

Abstract

Abstract: judiciary as one of the most significant challenges arising within judicial systems characterized by a plurality of judicial bodies, particularly under the dual judicial system that distinguishes between administrative courts and ordinary courts. The importance of this study lies in the fact that jurisdictional conflicts may result in delays in adjudicating disputes or in the issuance of contradictory judgments, thereby undermining the principle of legality and adversely affecting the guarantees of justice and the protection of individual rights. Accordingly, the research seeks to clarify the concept of conflict of jurisdiction, its causes, its various forms, and the competent authorities responsible for resolving it, with particular emphasis on the legal regulation within Iraqi legislation while drawing on selected comparative applications. The study adopts the descriptive method to present the theoretical framework of the concept of jurisdictional conflict by defining its legal meaning and identifying its types. From an institutional perspective, the conflict may arise either between courts belonging to the same judicial branch or between different judicial bodies. From a substantive perspective, it manifests in the form of positive conflict, negative conflict, or conflict resulting from contradictory final judgments. In addition, the analytical method is employed to examine the legal provisions governing the distribution of jurisdiction and to analyze the deficiencies or ambiguities that may give rise to such conflicts. Among the most prominent causes identified are the lack of precise criteria for allocating jurisdiction, ambiguity or instability in legislation, frequent legislative amendments, delays in issuing implementing regulations, and the multiplicity of judicial authorities within a federal system. The study concludes that the existence of a competent judicial authority to resolve jurisdictional conflicts constitutes a fundamental safeguard for the proper administration of justice and the prevention of denial of justice, whether by determining the court competent to hear the dispute or by addressing conflicts between final judgments. It further emphasizes the necessity of reforming procedural legislation, unifying judicial interpretation, and strengthening coordination between administrative and ordinary courts in order to reduce instances of jurisdictional conflict, promote legal certainty, reinforce confidence in the judicial system, and ensure effective protection of rights and freedoms. © 2023 TUJR, College of Law, Tikrit University