The Judge's Oversight of The Balance Between Benefits and Harms in Administrative Decisions

Abstract

This research deals with a modern judicial method called the theory of balancing or the control of the balance between benefits and damages, as it is considered a maximum control within the degrees of judicial control over the administrative decision, through which the judge conducts a balance between the effects of the place of the administration’s decision represented by the benefits and the extent of the damages resulting from it. The balance of the benefits is considered the decision correct, i.e. irrevocable, but if there is a significant discrepancy between the damages at the expense of the benefits, then the administrative decision in this case is considered incorrect. Together, it is also distinguished from the oversight of the obvious error in that the oversight of the overt error is located on the corner of the cause only, and the oversight of the budget is located on the corner of the shop only, as we indicated. The budget procedure in administrative decisions was within the discretionary power of the administration without the existence of oversight to eliminate it except within the limits of legality Through monitoring the defect of violating the law in a different way. However, this trend did not continue as it was previously, but rather changed in both jurisprudence and administrative judiciary to the recognition of the intervention of the judiciary in the process of As a result of balancing the benefits and harms in the administrative decision in order to establish a balance between the benefits and damages resulting from the administrative decision, and this control means that the judiciary has put an end to the discretionary power of the administration with regard to controlling the corner of the shop, and then this control is no longer within the limits of the scope of legality, but rather exceeded To the scope of control of adequacy,the judiciary, when extending its control, based the balance between benefits and damages on a set of criteria, namely: the financial and economic cost - the right of private ownership - the social effects - the highness of the public interest.