THE EFFECT OF THE JORDANIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS DECISION NO. (10)FOR 2013 TO REFER A LAWSUIT TO THE LACK OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS

This study looks into the nature of administrative judiciary through the Constitutional Court‟s decision no. [10] for 2013, which stipulates considering administrative courts as regular courts, and the effect of this decision on referring a lawsuit to the lack of jurisdiction, specifically between civil and administrative courts. The basis for this decision were not sound, and according to the provisions of the Constitution and the Regular Courts Formation Law, administrative judiciary is but a legal entity independent of regular courts and cannot be considered as such.The Constitutional Court‟s decision must be abided by, yet it does not affect the impermissibility of referring a lawsuit to the lack of jurisdiction between regular and administrative courts. The legal jurisprudence was consistent prior to the Constitutional Court‟s decision that was based on Article [112] of the Civil Procedure Law, which is limited in effect to regular courts and thus does not apply to administrative courts, considering that there are other justifications to decide on the impermissibility of referring lawsuits between civil and administrative courts. The primary justification is the disparity between the legal procedures followed before each of these courts.This study calls forthe interference ofthe constitutional legislator with an explicit text that specifies the nature of administrative judiciary as an independent legal entity. It also recommends amending Article [112] of the Civil Procedure Law, with an explicit text, to not include the referral to the lack of functional jurisdiction.