The principle of the rule of law has several implications, including the need
to implement the ruling as a title of the truth, and its clear that implementation is
done through a competent authority that shall take the necessary measures to
ensure implementation. And its known that a ruling for an individual vs another is
easier in implementation than those rulings issued against the administration,
because of the existence of an executive ways defined by law and penalties for
abstainers, while the implementation of judgments against the administration is
harder, mainly because the administration appears in these conditions as the
opponent and the port at the same time, making the implementation of judicial
decisions entrusted to the administration alone, which means the loss of the
wisdom of the judicial rulings originally.
On the other hand, the non-implementation of the court rulings issued
against the administration without a valid reason constitutes a violation of res
judicata, which hits at the heart of sanctity and prestige of the judiciary and sows
doubt about the effectiveness and feasibility of the administrative judiciary.
The phenomenon of non-implementation of rulings is not a new problematic,
it is a well-known phenomenon since ancient times, as it is not linked to a state, so
that all contemporary states are complaining about them, but their importance
varies from a state to another, according to the different types of means set by the
legislator for the administrative to compel to the rulings issued against it.