Peculiarities of Proof in Actions for the Annulment of Administrative Decisions: A Comparative Study (Khususiyt al-Ithbat fi Da'wa Ilgha' al-Qarar al-Idari)

Abstract

What is commonly known in the judicial systems is that the evidence is on the one who claimed and the oath is on the one who denied, and upon this judicial work and jurisprudential opinions were settled. This fundamentalist rule is the basis for all cases, but regards the case for annulment, this rule is not fully applied, because even if the plaintiff has a burden proving the illegality of the administrative decision, except that the administration does not have to take the oath, but in the event that the burden is transferred to it, it must present its material and moral evidence through the documents that are left to the judge to study and scrutinize them in order to reach the right judiciary in relation to the lawsuit filed before him, and thus it can be said that applying this rule differs according to the stage of the lawsuit between that proof burden is on the plaintiff or the defendant administration, in all cases the administrative judge has broad authorities confronting the parties to the case and in examining their evidence, even in raising some issues on his own without the need to request or provoke

a payment from the parties. Therefore it could be said that the administrative judge is the trustee of the legality of the administrative decision.