عدم الصلاحية كسبب من اسباب امتناع القاضي عن نظر الدعوى
Date
2025-05-06
Authors
ولاء انور اسماعيل عوض
Walaa Anwer Awad
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Al-Quds University
Abstract
هدفت هذه الدراسة إلى التعرف على عدم صلاحية القاضي كسبب من أسباب امتناعه عن النظر في الدعوى في إطار قانون أصول المحاكمات المدنية والتجارية الفلسطيني رقم 2 لسنة 2001م، وتبين من خلال الدراسة بأن هذا النظام يهدف إلى إبعاد القاضي عن كل ما من شأنه أن يوقعه في شباك الاتهام أو التحيز سواء لدى الفقه أو التشريع أو القضاء، ولما كان القاضي بشر قد يضعف ويتهاون، فقد وضع المشرع نظام عدم الصلاحية كضمان ليحول دون أن يتحول القاضي إلى حكم وخصم في ذات الوقت، فتختل بذلك موازينه لاختلاف (وزن) الخصوم ويصبح طرفاً منضماً يساند خصماً على حساب الآخر.
واعتمدت هذه الدراسة على المنهج الوصفي التحليلي بهدف توضيح ما نصّ عليه قانون أصول المحاكمات المدنية والتجارية الفلسطيني في موضوع تنحي القضاة، وردهم، وعدم صلاحيتهم، كسبب من أسباب امتناعهم عن النظر في الدعوى، كذلك سيتم استخدام هذا المنهج لبيان رأي الفقه والقضاء في هذا الموضوع.
وتبين من خلال هذه الدراسة بأن المشرع الفلسطيني ضمن نظام عدم الصلاحية في إطار ثلاثة أقسام: القسم الأول: مُتعلق بعدم الصلاحية المطلقة للقاضي والتي يتوجب على القاضي فيها التنحي من تلقاء نفسه، حتى ولو لم يطلب الخصوم رده، وأما القسم الثاني: فيتعلق بعدم الصلاحية النسبية، والتي تتوقف على طلب الخصم رد القاضي، فإن لم يطلب أحد الخصوم رده، كان له نظر الدعوى والحكم فيها، في حين نجد أن القسم الثالث: يرتبط بضمير القاضي ذاته، حيث أجاز له المشرع التنحي عن نظر الدعوى عند استشعار الحرج.
وأوصت الدراسة بالعديد من التوصيات، أهمها: وجوب إزالة التناقض بين نص المادة (142) والمادة (147) من قانون أصول المحاكمات المدنية والتجارية الفلسطيني رقم 2 لسنة 2001م، بحيث يجب على المشرع الفلسطيني ألا يحدد وقت لإثارة حالات عدم صلاحية القاضي، كون هذه الحالات تتعلق بالنظام العام ويجوز إثارتها في أي مرحلة تكون عليها الدعوى.
This study aimed to identify the incompetence of a judge as a reason for his refusal to hear a case under the Palestinian Civil and Commercial Procedure Law No. 2 of 2001. The study revealed that this system aims to keep the judge away from anything that might lead him to accusation or bias, whether in jurisprudence, legislation, or the judiciary. Since judges are human and may become weak and negligent, the legislator established the system of incompetence as a guarantee to prevent the judge from becoming both a judge and a litigant at the same time, thus upsetting his balance due to the difference in the (weight) of the litigants, and thus becoming a joined party supporting one litigant at the expense of the other. This study relied on the descriptive analytical approach with the aim of clarifying what the Palestinian Civil and Commercial Procedure Code stipulates regarding the recusal of judges, their dismissal, and their lack of competence as a reason for their refusal to consider the case. This approach will also be used to clarify the opinion of jurisprudence and the judiciary on this subject. This study revealed that the Palestinian legislator has divided the system of incompetence into three sections. The first section relates to the absolute incompetence of the judge, in which the judge must recuse himself, even if the parties do not request his recuse. The second section relates to relative incompetence, which is contingent upon the party requesting the recuse of the judge. If none of the parties requests his recuse, the judge is entitled to hear and rule on the case. The third section relates to the judge's conscience, as the legislator has permitted him to recuse himself from hearing a case if he feels embarrassed. The study recommended many recommendations, the most important of which is: the necessity of removing the contradiction between the text of Article (142) and Article (147) of the Palestinian Civil and Commercial Procedures Law No. 2 of 2001 AD, such that the Palestinian legislator must not specify a time for raising cases of the judge’s incompetence, since these cases relate to public order and may be raised at any stage of the lawsuit.
This study aimed to identify the incompetence of a judge as a reason for his refusal to hear a case under the Palestinian Civil and Commercial Procedure Law No. 2 of 2001. The study revealed that this system aims to keep the judge away from anything that might lead him to accusation or bias, whether in jurisprudence, legislation, or the judiciary. Since judges are human and may become weak and negligent, the legislator established the system of incompetence as a guarantee to prevent the judge from becoming both a judge and a litigant at the same time, thus upsetting his balance due to the difference in the (weight) of the litigants, and thus becoming a joined party supporting one litigant at the expense of the other. This study relied on the descriptive analytical approach with the aim of clarifying what the Palestinian Civil and Commercial Procedure Code stipulates regarding the recusal of judges, their dismissal, and their lack of competence as a reason for their refusal to consider the case. This approach will also be used to clarify the opinion of jurisprudence and the judiciary on this subject. This study revealed that the Palestinian legislator has divided the system of incompetence into three sections. The first section relates to the absolute incompetence of the judge, in which the judge must recuse himself, even if the parties do not request his recuse. The second section relates to relative incompetence, which is contingent upon the party requesting the recuse of the judge. If none of the parties requests his recuse, the judge is entitled to hear and rule on the case. The third section relates to the judge's conscience, as the legislator has permitted him to recuse himself from hearing a case if he feels embarrassed. The study recommended many recommendations, the most important of which is: the necessity of removing the contradiction between the text of Article (142) and Article (147) of the Palestinian Civil and Commercial Procedures Law No. 2 of 2001 AD, such that the Palestinian legislator must not specify a time for raising cases of the judge’s incompetence, since these cases relate to public order and may be raised at any stage of the lawsuit.
Description
Keywords
Citation
عوض، ولاء انور. (2025). عدم الصلاحية كسبب من اسباب امتناع القاضي عن نظر الدعوى [رسالة ماجستير منشورة، جامعة القدس، فلسطين]. المستودع الرقمي لجامعة القدس.