Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 115

Summary: - The judicial authority, like the executive and legislative authorities, exercises part of the powers of the State, whose source is the nation. Meaning thereof. The judgments it issues are conclusive of disputes and an expression of the truth once they acquire the force of res judicata. Effect thereof. The authorities of the State are obliged to abide by them and give effect to their requirements. - The Supreme Judicial Council. Its empowerment to issue decisions for the administration and organisation of the affairs of justice or relating to the affairs of its members. Reason therefor. The explanatory memorandum to the Judicial Authority Law. Meaning thereof. The Council's decision is effective and binding on the administrative authority. Effect thereof. The plea raised by the administrative authority that the application is inadmissible for lack of the negative decision constituting the basis of the dispute, because there is no provision in a law or regulation requiring it to implement Supreme Judicial Council Decision No. 8 of 2013. Unfounded. - Legislative authority. Exercised by the Amir and the National Assembly. Article 15 of the Constitution. - The organisation and administration of justice. Entrusted to the Supreme Judicial Council as the body in charge of the affairs of the judicial authority. Its word is final in every matter of a judicial nature. Reason therefor. Rule: It is established in the jurisprudence of this Court that, when an act is issued satisfying its legal constituent requirements and completing its legally required stages, it is effective immediately upon issuance, provided that it does not require ratification by a higher authority. It is also established in legal scholarship and jurisprudence that the judicial authority, like the executive and legislative authorities, possesses authority and exercises part of the powers of the State, whose source is the nation. The judgments it issues conclusively determining disputes are regarded as an expression of the truth once they acquire the force of res judicata, and the authorities of the State are obliged to abide by them and give effect to their requirements. It also issues decisions for the administration and organisation of the affairs of justice or relating to the affairs of its members. The Supreme Judicial Council has been empowered to issue these decisions in implementation of the principle of separation of powers, in respect for the independence of the judiciary and in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution. From this standpoint, the legislature, in the Judicial Organisation Law, took care to reinforce the powers of the Supreme Judicial Council in a manner ensuring its ability to exercise them, as explained by the explanatory memorandum to that Law, which states: (Since the Supreme Judicial Council is the foundation of judicial independence and the manifestation and guarantee of that independence, the bill has taken care to reinforce its powers and enable it to exercise them. Whereas its opinion had been advisory in all matters relating to the judiciary and the prosecution—under Decree No. 19 of 1959 promulgating the Judicial Organisation Law, repealed by Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 23 of 1990 concerning the Judicial Organisation Law currently in force—the bill required its approval in many of these matters and also empowered it to issue decisions in certain cases ....) It did not withhold from it or prohibit it from issuing other decisions. Accordingly, from all the foregoing, decisions issued by the Supreme Judicial Council relating to the affairs of its members are effective decisions binding on the administrative authority and possess the constituent elements of an administrative decision. On that basis, the Court considers that the plea raised by the administrative authority has no basis in sound law, and it must therefore be rejected. Whereas, on that basis, the Court gives the application its true description and correct legal characterisation in accordance with what the parties intended by their requests, the true nature of the relief sought in the application is that the applicants and the interveners asserting independent claims seek a judgment annulling the two decisions of the administrative authority—the respondents—refusing to provide a mobile telephone with a line with paid calls as a benefit in kind to the deputy presidents and counsellors of the Courts of Cassation and Appeal, on a par with senior officials and advocates-general, and refusing to implement Supreme Judicial Council Decision No. 8 of 2013 insofar as it provides for issuing a fuel-consumption card for the vehicles allocated to the counsellors and deputy presidents of the Courts of Cassation and Appeal, on a par with senior officials and advocates-general, together with the effects ensuing therefrom.