The Harms of Administrative Abstention: A Study of the Consequences of Negative Decisions
Abstract
Administrative abstention, also known as a negative administrative decision, represents a major challenge to the principle of legality and the rule of law in any administrative system. This abstention occurs when an administrative body fails to fulfill an explicit legal duty or rejects a request due under laws and regulations, without providing a clear or explicit justification. This administrative behavior, even if it begins as mere silence or inaction, carries serious repercussions for individuals, institutions, and affected parties. These repercussions manifest in the deprivation of rights holders from obtaining their legitimate entitlements, whether licenses, approvals, or job promotions. This often results in significant financial losses, in addition to moral damages such as frustration and lost opportunities. Furthermore, affected parties are forced to resort to administrative courts to file annulment or compensation lawsuits, a process that drains time, effort, and financial resources and prolongs disputes. At the administrative level itself, the proliferation of negative decisions obstructs workflow and delays projects, negatively impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. It also contributes to the erosion of public confidence in the administration and its ability to achieve justice and enforce the law. This may result in administrative liability, leading to court rulings to annul negative decisions and provide compensation for the resulting damages. Therefore, judicial appeal mechanisms, such as annulment suits, are essential and vital to ensuring that the administration is held accountable, protecting the rights of those harmed by its inaction, and promoting the principle of accountability and the rule of law.
How to Cite
