The effectiveness of civil service court rulings on the administrative organization associated with the ratification of ordinary court judgments in iraqi law

The effect of the judgments issued by the Employees Judiciary Court on administrative decisions, particularly those related to the ratification of rulings of the ordinary judiciary in Iraq, lies in determining the extent to which a disputed judicial ruling may be enforced against an administrative decision, and which of the two judgments prevails. It is well established that the rulings of administrative judiciary courts, in both of their forms, have the authority to enforce administrative decisions even when such decisions originate from ordinary judiciary courts.The reasons behind this overlap stem from the ongoing conflict and ambiguity in the division of subject-matter jurisdiction between the ordinary and administrative judiciaries in countries adopting a dual judiciary system. Iraq became one of these dual-system countries with the issuance of Law No. (106) of 1989, the Second Amendment to the State Shura Council Law No. 65 of 1979, and later with the adoption of the federal system under the 2005 Constitution.

This research examines one of the consequences of the jurisdictional conflict reflected in the conflicting judgments issued by the two judicial bodies, as well as the causes of this conflict, including confusion, lack of independence, and the absence of clear delineation of jurisdiction between courts in Iraq. The Iraqi legislator ultimately succeeded in identifying the competent authorities responsible for resolving these disputes. The task of adjudicating conflicts between the ordinary and administrative judiciaries was assigned to a specialized body called "the Body that Determines Jurisdiction" . In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court was granted the power to resolve jurisdictional disputes between the Administrative Judiciary Court and the Employees Judiciary Court.