Judicial principles and studies
Unconstitutionality of Referring Forest and Rangeland Claims to Magistrates or Administrative Rulers
A brief summary of a statutory provision in the Agriculture Law deemed to create a parallel judiciary breaching separation of powers and declared unconstitutional. The ruling also addressed a related phrase in Article 39.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The available points address a provision in Agriculture Law No. 13/2015 that assigned hearing of forest and rangeland claims to magistrate courts or to administrative rulers under expedited procedures, and a related phrase appears in Article 39 referring to "or the competent administrative ruler."
Summary
The Constitutional Court found the challenged provision created a parallel adjudicative mechanism alongside the constitutionally established judiciary, breaching the separation of powers, disregarding judicial guarantees and immunities, and affecting the right to be tried by one's natural judge. Consequently, the court declared the challenged wording—and the linked phrase in Article 39—unconstitutional. The judgment is recorded as No. (6 / 2024).
Practical significance
The declaration of unconstitutionality prevents reliance on the challenged wording to authorize administrative rulers to adjudicate forest and rangeland claims, impacting the application of those statutory provisions. This content is a general educational summary and not a judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.