Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 170

Provisions of laws and instruments having equivalent status, and ministerial decisions. Their application from the date they enter into force. Their effects are not retroactive to matters occurring beforehand. Its implication. A new ministerial decision may not be applied to relationships arising before it took effect. The judge must ascertain the ministerial decision in force when those relationships arose and when they produced those effects. Acquired rights must be respected, even if derived from regulatory or individual administrative decisions, to ensure the stability of legal positions. - 370 - Procedure - Legal positions and acquired rights. They may not be prejudiced except by a law providing for retroactive effect. Article 179 of the Constitution. Its effect. Administrative decisions, whether regulatory or individual, apply only to matters occurring from the date of their issuance. An administrative decision providing for its effect to extend to the past in a manner inconsistent with the interests of the individuals concerned is vitiated by violation of the law. Its implication. It has no effect as regards its retroactivity. - The Council of Ministers’ issuance of Decision No. 495 of 2008 specifying the conditions for the entitlement bonus for military personnel wishing to take early retirement—army, police and National Guard—and identifying three categories to which it applies. Its reversal of this decision, restriction of entitlement to that bonus to the first category, and communication thereof to the competent authorities under the same number and date as the previous decision. Its implication. Two decisions were issued, each containing a rule different from the other, separated by a period sufficient for the effects and legal positions arising from them to be established. The latter decision is considered to have extended its effect to the past in a manner inconsistent with the interests of the individuals concerned. Its retroactive effect may not be applied to the respondent. The challenged judgment’s conclusion that he is entitled to the entitlement bonus because it was established that the conditions for entitlement under the decision before its amendment were met. Does not vitiate it.