12
ALRAQABA . ISSUE 15
to the nullification of the adverse administrative
decision, then the decision is flawed and
required to run through a cassation course.”
When a concerned party resorts to an
administrative body for a decision, and the
result was clearly rejected, in this case,
there is no adverse administrative decision.
There is only a clear administrative decision
of “rejection.”
When an administrative body refrains from
taking action or rejects a request supported by
the law from the concerned party, the act of not
taking such action is an adverse administrative
decision. Adverse decisions require a
legal or regulatory provision that enforces
the administrative body to issue a specific
administrative decision. The administration
may refrain from doing so when the required
conditions are met. However, in case these
conditions were not met, then there is a definite
case of an adverse administrative decision.
In this context, the Court of Cassation stated
that “…if the appealing party was enrolled in
Visayas University in the Philippines during the
year 2008, and completed their undergraduate
degree in engineering, then the acquired
qualification is not accredited. The education
in this university lacks scientific and academic
standards; therefore, the qualifications granted
by such an institution are not accredited nor
accepted in Kuwait. It does not meet the
requirements of decision no. 2000/20. The
appealing administrative entity in this scenario
is not obliged to recognize it. Ergo, refraining
from conducting an equivalence process
or presenting it before the qualifications’
equivalence committee is not considered an
adverse administrative decision that permits
nullification through appeals”.
In this research, refraining refers to abstaining
from issuing an individual or organizing
administrative decision or the discontinuance
of the execution of a judicial decision , “…
the administration’s abstention from carrying
out a physical procedure whenever meant to
achieve unlawful legal impacts which may harm
the concerned party is considered an adverse
administrative decision whenever all the other
conditions were met.”
As for the reason behind this condition, it
revolves around the fact that “…this abstention
is considered an expression of will, and
projection of the administration’s adamancy
and failure to comply with the binding legal
provisions” .
An adverse administrative decision is
distinguished with several traits, such as being
ongoing and not subjected to causation and
exposure.
1. The Adverse Administrative Decision is an
Ongoing Decision:
An ongoing administrative decision means that
its implications do not immediately pass. They
exist as long as the legal condition -relevant to
the decision- is still ongoing. The implications
of a decision on promoting a person normally
passes as soon as the decision’s provisions are
met in the actual act of gaining the promotion.
This decision is not considered ongoing.
However, banning someone from travel is an
ongoing decision, since the implication of this
decision is a travel ban. It is ongoing and shall
not pass unless there is a positive condition for
the decision to be made.
The adverse administrative decision is an
ongoing decision, since “…an administrative
body abstention from taking action or issuing
a specific decision enforced by law is an
ongoing process as long as the entity remained
refraining from taking such action”.
Legislations
