Manifestations and Sanctions of the Administration's Refusal to Implement Judicial Rulings

This study addressed the manifestations and penalties of the administration's failure to implement a judicial ruling. Administrative bodies are essentially obligated to implement judicial rulings, which acquire the force of res judicata. Conversely, the administrative body may refrain from implementing these rulings for various reasons, pretexts, and justifications, some of which are based on preserving the public interest and public order, or other times due to the difficulty of implementation. Therefore, this study must address binding penalties to deter the administration if it is proven that its failure to implement a judicial ruling is due to bad faith rather than to achieving the public interest. This study yielded several findings, the most important of which are: The implementation of judicial rulings issued against the administration may encounter several difficulties that prevent the administration from implementing the judicial ruling. There are numerous methods and approaches the administration can take to implement judicial rulings, ensuring the rule of law.

The study also reached a number of recommendations, including: Utilizing the regulations and laws in force in other countries to issue orders to the relevant administrative body and impose threatening fines. The Libyan legislature is required to abandon traditional methods of deterring the administration's refusal to implement a court ruling, and Law No. 88 of 1971 must include all modern methods for deterring an administration that refuses to implement a court ruling. Local expertise should be leveraged to establish a judicial body to which reference can be made in the event of disagreement over certain judicial matters.

 Keywords: refusal, implementation, court ruling, administration, employees