The Development of the Expedited Administrative Judiciary in Relation to the System of Suspending the Implementation of Administrative Decisions

An analytical comparative study

Abstract

Striking a balance between the public interest in the implementation of administrative decisions and the private interests of individuals has become one of the most important areas of jurisprudence in the comparative administrative judiciary. This balance is necessary to ensure that public facilities continue to operate smoothly and consistently, in parallel with individuals' rights. As a result of adhering to this intended dynamic equilibrium, the non-stop effect rule of appeals concerning the nullification of administrative decisions was abandoned, and it became possible to suspend the implementation of administrative decisions in exceptional circumstances. Also, the adverse administrative decisions may become the subject of a lawsuit for cancellation before the administrative judiciary, and they have the potential to be appealed before the administrative courts through the initiation of a litigation seeking their revocation, whereby the complainant may lodge a petition demanding the suspension of the enforcement of such decisions irrespective of the challenges that would grow out of this issue before the jury and the involvement of contrasting perspectives that scholars may have pertaining to the permissibility of this assumption. This research concentrates on the breakthroughs that have recently been accomplished in the field of employing the non-stop effect rule in regard to the appeal to abolishment and deterring the implementation of adverse administrative decisions in accordance with the most important applications of the comparative administrative judiciary, as well as an examination of the degree to which its adoption has been achieved by the administrative judiciary in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region.