Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 157

Provisions of laws and instruments having equivalent force, and ministerial decisions. Their application from their effective date. Their effects are not retroactive to what occurred beforehand. Its implication. A new ministerial decision may not be applied to relationships arising before its entry into force. The judge must ascertain the ministerial decision in force when these relationships arose and when they produced these effects. Acquired rights must be respected even if derived from regulatory or individual administrative decisions, to ensure the stability of legal positions. - Legal positions and acquired rights. They may not be impaired except by a law providing for retroactive effect. Article 179 of the Constitution. Its effect. Administrative decisions, whether regulatory or individual, apply only to what occurs from their date of issuance. An administrative decision providing for its effects to extend into the past in a manner inconsistent with the interests of the individuals concerned by it is vitiated by violation of the law. Its implication. It has no effect as regards its retroactivity. - The Council of Ministers issuing Decision No. 495 of 2008 specifying the conditions for the entitlement gratuity for military personnel wishing to retire early - the army, police and National Guard - and identifying three categories to which it applies. Its reversal of this decision and restriction of entitlement to that gratuity to the first category, and addressing the competent authorities concerning it under the same number and date as the previous decision. Its import. Two decisions were issued, each containing a rule different from the other, separated by a period sufficient to give rise to the effects and legal positions arising from them. - 37 - Law Considering the latter decision as having provided for its effects to extend into the past in a manner inconsistent with the interests of the individuals concerned by it. Its retroactive effect may not be applied to the respondent. The challenged judgment concluding that he is entitled to the entitlement gratuity because the conditions for entitlement under the decision before its amendment were established. This does not vitiate it.