Balance Theory as an Effective means of Achieving Balance between Benefits and Harms in Administrative Decisions (Analytical and Comparative Study)

Abstract

This study deals with the issue of monitoring the balance between benefits and harms, which is considered the highest level of oversight carried out by the judiciary in order to balance the effects of the subject of the administration’s decision represented by the benefits and the extent of the harm resulting from it. In the event that the balance of benefits is outweighed, this decision is considered legitimate. However, in the event of A gross discrepancy in damages at the expense of benefits. This decision is considered illegitimate and revocable. This control differs from proportionality control, despite the presence of points of intersection between them, in that it falls on one pillar, which is the subject. As for proportionality control, it falls on the two pillars of cause and cause and the extent of their compatibility with each other. It also differs from error control. It is apparent that oversight of the apparent error falls on the cause side only, while budget oversight falls on the shop side, as we said. It is worth noting that achieving the budget in administrative decisions was within the jurisdiction of the administration and was within its discretionary authority, and there was no oversight to eliminate it except within the scope of legitimacy through Monitoring the defect of violating the law in its forms. As for an advanced and bold step, the judiciary intervened in the process of balancing the benefits and harms carried out by the administration, in order to create a balance between the benefits and harms resulting from the administration’s decision. By conducting this monitoring, the judiciary has put a significant limit to the administration’s discretionary power. Specifically in the corner of the store. Hence, this control is no longer within the limits of legality, but rather extends to the outskirts of the scope of appropriateness, and this is embodied in the intervention of the judiciary in what is considered the discretionary authority of management, which is estimating the benefits and harms of any administrative decision. In conducting the balancing between the benefits and harms, the judiciary has relied on some The criteria are the financial and economic cost criterion, the private property right criterion, the social effects criterion and the superiority of public benefit criterion.