14
ALRAQABA . ISSUE 15
request- refraining from providing response
with either rejection or approval. Among these
laws, article no. (7) of Law no. (20) of the year
1981 on establishing a department within the
High Court to address administrative disputes.
It is based on the amended law no. (61) of
the year 1982, stipulating the following: “the
deadline to file a nullification case is 60 days
starting from the announcement of the appealed
administrative decision in the official gazette
or other publications issued by the public
departments or announced by the concerned
party, or to confirm their actual knowledge of
the decision”.
The deadline is nullified when a grievance is
submitted to the administrative body that issued
the decision or to its leading entities. Decisions
on the grievance must be settled within 60
days of its delivery. If a rejection decision is
issued then it should be justified. When the
-60day-deadline of submitting the grievance
is over without getting a response from the
relevant authorities, it is then considered
rejected. The date of filing the case is taking
into consideration starting off the date of the
explicit or implicit rejection, according to the
given context. We will find that the legislator
would take the decision as a rejection, after the
passing of 60 days of submitting the grievance
to the administrative body.
Among the examples to demonstrate the
previous point is what has been stated by
the Civil Service System in its Article no. (74)
stipulating that “An employee is permitted to
submit his/her resignation and an approval
decision from the Minister may be issued if
the employee held a leadership position. For
other posts, the Ministry’s Undersecretary shall
issue relevant decisions. The body to accept
the resignation may reconsider this decision
within 30 days of its submission, otherwise, it is
considered legally approved”. In this scenario,
we can find that an administrative approval
decision is given by default after 30 days of
submitting a resignation without receiving a
response.
Therefore, an implicit decision is similar to an
explicit decision since the administration is
willingly headed towards a particular impact,
where its purpose is clearly displayed. On
the other hand, an implicit decision takes
a particular shape to indicate not only the
administration’s individual will but also the
surrounding presumptions among the most
significant ones. It shows the missing legally
pronounced deadlines without giving a
response.
The implicit decision has an immediate effect as
soon as the legally set deadline is over, whether
in approval or rejection. As a consequence,
the nullification of this decision is subject to the
defined deadlines for annulment, which is within
60 days of publishing, disclosing, or any actual
methods of informing.
If the previously mentioned statement came
into life, it is important to be able to distinguish
between an implicit and adverse administrative
decision. This may be achieved through
considering the following points:
1. An implicit decision is a decision that takes
place after the missing of a legal deadline
for a request submitted by a concerned
party to the administrative entity without
receiving a response. An adverse decision,
on the other hand, is formed when the
administrative body fails to carry out its
duties as specified by the law.
2. An implicit decision may be formed either
with rejection or approval; however, an
adverse decision may only constitute
rejection.
Legislations
