الرقابة القضائية على سكوت الإدارة من الطلبات المقدمة لها سببا لتطويرها

The administration performs a great task in the life of modern societies, through its intervention to satisfy public needs through the establishment and management of public utilities that aim to achieve the public interest and respond to the requirements and necessities of daily life, as well as protecting public order, and regulating the relationship between them and individuals with constitutional and legal texts, as well as The organizational rules that lay down the general framework for public liberties and individual rights, all to prevent them from practicing any activity outside the framework of legality.
Originally, the administration is not obligated to issue its decisions in a specific form, as it is free to choose the external form of these decisions, unless the law requires it otherwise. This requires that the decision be embodied in an external form in order for individuals to know the will of the administration and to adjust their behavior according to its requirements.
However, the implementation of this rule on its launch, may negatively affect the rights of individuals, because the administration may sometimes deliberately remain silent about deciding the requests submitted to it, or it may neglect at other times to respond to these requests. Existence of apparent decisions in an external legal form, meaning that the matter remains in the hands of the administration, if it wants it will respond to the requests of individuals, and if it wants to be silent, which constitutes a waste of their rights, a violation of the principle of equality, and confiscation of the right to litigation guaranteed by the constitution, it requires protection of individuals from the inconvenience of the administration And the abuse of their rights, and put an end to the neglect of employees and their indifference to the requests or grievances submitted to them, in addition to the fact that the requirements of the public interest require that the administrative staff exercise the powers entrusted to them by law at the present time. ( )
For these justifications, the legislator intervened in many countries, including France, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq, to ​​suppose that the administration had announced its will, even if it remained silent or silent about deciding on the request presented to it, and this resulted in an implicit administrative decision of rejection or approval.
As a result of the large number of state intervention in the economic and social fields in recent times, it has led to the multiplicity and diversity of state agencies and institutions, and the public administration often does not provide its services to individuals except at the request of individuals. Therefore, it may be difficult for individuals to identify a competent administrative authority to submit their request to. to get those services. He makes a mistake and submits it to a non-competent administrative body. When this authority is silent and does not transfer the request to its competent authority, and the legal period granted to the administration to respond to their requests has passed, individuals resort to the judiciary, and submitting the request to the non-competent authority prevents the judiciary from accepting their claim, which wastes their rights and thus harms them.
Therefore, the administrative judiciary in many countries has extended its control over this case to consider the application submitted to a non-competent administrative body as if it was submitted to its competent authority, given that the state is a single public legal person. Accordingly, the request submitted to any party starts from the legal period available to the administration to meet the requests of individuals and in its absence the implicit administrative decision of rejection or acceptance arises. Accordingly, we will study the jurisprudence of the French, Lebanese, Egyptian and Iraqi judiciary in this study.
The importance of the study lies in the implications of the subject of requests submitted to the administration, the delay in their completion, the silence of the administration, and the consequent effects and exposure to the rights of individuals. And that it will show how to confront this silence, neglect and intransigence of the administration.
The idea of ​​implicit administrative decisions, resulting from the administration’s silence on the requests submitted to it, is an effective means, which makes the administration more positive and enables individuals to confront the administration’s silence, and prevents its intransigence, arbitrariness or neglect.
The problem of the research is that can silence be an expression of the will? How do individuals protect themselves from the actions of the administration, and who guarantees its non-bias, arbitrariness and deviation? Does submitting the application to a non-competent body protect the rights of individuals? ? And the extent of judicial oversight on the authority of the administration.? And the extent of the compatibility and divergence of the positions of the administrative judiciary in France, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq regarding this.?
From the above in explaining the importance of the study and its problem, we can deduce the scope of the study, which is the study of judicial control over the requests submitted to the administration by taking an overview of the nature of the requests, their types and distinguishing them from others, and the position of each of the legislation, the judiciary and jurisprudence from it. The research consists of two sections, the first deals with the nature of the request and what is related to it, and the second is judicial control over the applications submitted to the administration, as follows