Judicial oversight of the administration's assessment of the proportionality of the reason with the place in the administrative decision - Comparative Analytical Study –

Abstract

This study deals with the issue of proportionality control over administrative decisions, as it deals with clarifying the concept of the principle of proportionality as an element of appropriateness in the administrative decision, and then clarifying its relationship with similar terms (such as discretionary authority, appropriateness), clarifying the aspects and parties of the relationship in proportionality, and clarifying the issue of recognizing the principle of proportionality. Proportionality between its supporters and opponents, and the basis on which the principle of proportionality is based. This study also deals with the statement of the methods used by the administrative judge when controlling proportionality to reveal the error that the administration made when issuing its decision in terms of appropriateness, specifically the error in estimating the importance and seriousness of the reason and its proportionality with the place that is called Disproportionateness in the administrative decision, and among these methods (the theory of clear error), which the French State Council adopted to monitor proportionality, especially in administrative control decisions, and (the theory of exaggeration), which was adopted by the Egyptian administrative judiciary as a tool to control proportionality in the administrative decision, especially in the field of disciplinary decisions This study deals with some judicial applications in France, Egypt and Iraq, analyzing and comparing them, and then this study deals with some recommendations or suggestions. For the Iraqi administrative judiciary to follow the example of the French and Egyptian in this field.