الفهرس 
الفصل التمهيدييوجد فقط 14 صفحة متاحة للعرض العام
 |  | from | 477 |  |  |
| | | from | 477 | | |
المستخلص
Administrative decisions are considered one of the most important means that the administration resorts to in performing its function of ensuring the regular and steady functioning of public facilities, and the performance of work and services and the speed of their completion in order to achieve the public interest. Therefore, the administration relies for most of its work mainly on administrative decisions in implementing its tasks and requirements. Administrative jurisprudence and jurisprudence have unanimously agreed on the necessity of the presence of the pillars of an administrative decision in order for it to have the status of legitimacy, and those pillars are represented by the pillar of jurisdiction, the pillar of form and procedures, the pillar of subject matter, the pillar of reason, and the pillar of purpose. If one or some of them are absent, the decision is considered defective and illegitimate, which necessitates its cancellation. Or compensation for it before the administrative judiciary, and sometimes the failure of one of the pillars of the administrative decision results in the lack of administrative decision. The legal system for administrative decisions grants the administrative authority the privilege of issuing administrative decisions of its own volition without depending on the approval of the concerned parties to whom they are addressed. However, the administrative authority issues administrative decisions with the powers and privileges it has on the condition that they adhere to the public interest and without abusing its authority, and in application of the principle of legality in democratic countries. The administration, as it carries out its legal work, is subject to all kinds of oversight, whether that oversight is political, administrative, or judicial. Judicial oversight is the real safety valve to protect the rights of the individuals concerned who are addressed by the decision from the administration’s abuse and deviation in using its authority, in order to uphold the principle of legality. In reality, the divisions that have been said about administrative decisions vary according to their basis. Decisions are divided in terms of their composition, in terms of their scope, in terms of the extent of the administrative judiciary’s control over them, in terms of the extent to which they produce legal effects, and in terms of the extent to which they continue to produce legal effects, and the latter is divided into Immediate decisions, temporary decisions, and ongoing decisions. Immediate decisions are those that have their legal effect all at once or at once and are not renewed at all after that. Such as decisions to appoint or terminate service from a public office, as they have their legal effect on the legal status of the concerned parties immediately, all at once, and for one time. Temporary decisions are those that create legal effects for a specific period of time, such as the decision issued to grant a license to practice an activity for a specific period of time of one calendar year. As for continuous decisions - which are the subject of our study - they do not exhaust their content once they are implemented, that is, they keep their resulting effects renewed and continuous in the present and future for an indefinite period of time until they expire in the legally prescribed ways for the expiration of administrative decisions, and by their nature their effect is renewed whenever necessary. For issuance, examples of which include the decision issued banning travel or detention, or the decision issued to confiscate the passport. Continuing administrative decisions are not a new idea in the world of law. In criminal law, there is what is called a continuing crime, and in job discipline there is what is called a continuing behavioral violation. In fact, the idea of a continuing administrative decision arose because administrative decisions, in terms of the extension of their legal effects, are divided into decisions. Immediate and temporary decisions, and continuing decisions as we saw previously, and they are called continuing decisions in reference to their continuous and renewable effect, which remains in place and in effect until the continuing decisions expire in the legally prescribed ways. Continuing administrative decisions are equal to being continuous positive decisions, and they are equal to being continuous negative decisions, as long as their effects are present and renewed. A continuous positive decision is made by the administrative body expressing its will in a positive and visible manner to those concerned through external indicators that leave no room for doubt, assumption or guesswork, meaning The administrative authority takes a positive stance regarding the requests submitted to it by stakeholders, whether by granting or prohibiting. As for the continuous negative decisions, which arise as a result of the administrative authority’s abstention or refusal to issue a decision that it is legally obligated to issue, the administrative authority regarding requests submitted to it by interested parties takes a position Negatively, whether through its abstention or silence, the administration does not express its will by any apparent means that can be inferred from its existence. In order to protect the concerned parties from the effects resulting from its abstention or refusal to respond to the requests of the concerned parties, the legislator gave the status of an administrative decision to abstention or silence as long as it has jurisdiction to issue The decision is restricted, and the negative decision is considered a continuing decision as long as the administration remains stubborn and refrains from issuing the decision that it is legally required to issue. Continuing administrative decisions are, by nature, like other administrative decisions, and are characterized by the same elements and pillars of administrative decisions in general. They are not unique to a special legal system that distinguishes them from other administrative decisions. They are subject to the same legal system as administrative decisions in general, except for what conflicts with their continuous nature. In this regard, the administrative judiciary has adopted a good position with regard to ongoing administrative decisions, both positive and negative, to the effect that it is permissible to appeal those decisions without being restricted by the legally prescribed appeal deadline, which is sixty days as long as their effects remain continuous and renewed and have not expired in any of the legally prescribed expiration methods. According to it, no The concerned parties addressed by the continuing decisions shall abide by the legal restriction specified for filing an annulment claim.