Proving the Abuse of Power in Administrative Decisions: A Comparative Study

A Comparative Study

Abstract

Abstract 

Evidence theory is one of the most important legal theories and the most practically applied, and this appears clearly before the courts in all disputes.

Where administrative proof is one of the means of persuasion provided by individuals to defend a specific fact that requires it.

Administrative proof is based and depends mainly on the nature of the administrative lawsuit that arises from a litigation between two unequal parties, namely the administration as a public authority and the individual.

Accordingly, the administrative judge intervenes in order to eliminate this great disparity between the two parties and restore a fair balance between them, in order to give preference to the right of the weak position, which is the plaintiff, and in some cases he does not have any evidence to present to the judge in order to prove what he claims. Indirect access to the truth and the achievement of administrative justice.

The issue of proving a defect in the abuse of power or deviation in it is considered the most difficult defect in proving for both the administrative judge and the plaintiff alike, because this defect is not one of the formal defects such as the defect of form or lack of jurisdiction that is easy to prove, nor is it one of the objective defects such as the defect of the place or the cause So that it is easy to detect, but it is a hidden defect that is hidden by a manifestation of formal legitimacy and lies in the intentions and purposes of the management man, the source of the decision, and his existence depends on the integrity of these intentions and those purposes