Judicial principles and studies
Appointing the Reference in Negative Jurisdictional Conflict — Territorial Subordination Criterion
A brief outline of how the competent judicial reference is determined in a negative conflict between courts under the same Court of Appeal, and the Court of Cassation’s shift to the territorial subordination criterion.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
This summary addresses how the competent judicial reference is appointed when a negative jurisdictional conflict arises between a magistrate court and a court of first instance that both fall under the same Court of Appeal. According to the official points, the Court of Appeal is competent to appoint the reference in that scenario; the Court of Cassation appoints the reference only when the conflict is between courts that do not belong to the same Court of Appeal or between appellate courts.
Summary
The official material records a change in the Court of Cassation’s jurisprudence: by decision No. (8331/2023) dated 26/2/2024, the Court adopted the territorial subordination criterion to identify the competent reference, while preserving legal positions where the reference had been previously appointed by judicial rulings. A designation issued by a non‑competent court is annulled by the Court of Cassation, and the conflict remains unresolved until the competent reference is appointed in accordance with the law. The appeal number cited in the points is: Distinction — Public Authority Rights No. (9199-2024). This content is an educational summary and is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.