Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 444

Summary: - The judicial authority, like the executive and legislative authorities, exercises part of the powers of the State, the source of which is the Nation. Its import: the judgments it issues are conclusive of disputes and represent the truth once they acquire the force of res judicata. Its effect: the State authorities must abide by them and give effect to their requirements. - The Supreme Judicial Council. Its empowerment to issue decisions for the administration and organization of the affairs of justice or relating to the affairs of its members. The reason: the explanatory memorandum to the Judicial Authority Law. Its import: the Council’s decision is effective and binding on the administrative authority. Its effect: the administrative authority’s plea that the application is inadmissible for lack of the negative decision forming the basis of the dispute, on the ground that no provision in a law or regulation obliges it to implement Supreme Judicial Council Decision No. 8 of 2013, is unfounded. - Legislative authority is vested in the Amir and the National Assembly. Article 15 of the Constitution. Rule: It is established in this Court’s jurisprudence that, once an act is issued satisfying its legal constituent elements and completing its legally required stages, it is effective immediately upon issuance where 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, the source of which is the Nation. The judgments it issues that conclusively resolve disputes are regarded as representing the truth once they acquire the force of res judicata; the State authorities must abide by them and give effect to their requirements. It also issues decisions for the administration and organization 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 judicial independence, and in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution. From this standpoint, the legislature, in the Law on the Organization of the Judiciary, was keen to support the powers of the Supreme Judicial Council in a manner ensuring their exercise, as explained in the explanatory memorandum to that Law: (Since the Supreme Judicial Council is the foundation of judicial independence and the manifestation and guarantee of that independence, the bill was keen to support its jurisdiction and enable it to exercise its powers. After its opinion had been advisory in all matters relating to the judiciary and the Public Prosecution—pursuant to Decree No. 19 of 1959 concerning the Law on the Organization of the Judiciary, repealed by Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 23 of 1990 concerning the Law on the Organization of the Judiciary currently in force—the bill required its approval in many of these matters and also empowered it to issue decisions in certain cases ....). It neither withheld from it nor prohibited it from issuing other decisions. Consequently, from all the foregoing, decisions issued by the Supreme Judicial Council relating to the affairs of its members are effective and binding on the administrative authority and possess the constituent elements of an administrative decision. Accordingly, the Court considers that the plea raised by the administrative authority has no basis in the correct application of the law and must therefore be rejected. Whereas, on that basis, the Court gives the application its true description and correct legal characterization in accordance with what the litigants intended by their claims, the true nature of the claims in the application is that the applicants and the interveners asserting independent claims seek a judgment annulling the 2 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 an equal footing 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 an equal footing with senior officials and advocates-general, together with the consequences arising therefrom.