Explained: Administration of State Judicial Cases

In 2023, state lawyers represented public entities in 160,000 legal cases, collecting SYP 40 billion for the state treasury in 60,000 final, enforceable judgements, Salah Wannous, the head of the Administration of State Judicial Cases (ASJC), told the semi-official newspaper Al-Watan on March 14.  Mr Wannous estimated that SYP 700 billion are expected to be collected from ongoing cases.

The ASJC is a judicial body responsible for representing the state in legal cases before the courts, as per the Administration of State Judicial Cases Law No. 55 of 1977. This body consists of a central administration in Damascus and branches and divisions in the governorates, established by a decision from the Minister of Justice. The body employs lawyers, known as state lawyers, who meet the same qualifications as judges.

This administration can represent the state and its public entities, including ministries, departments, public agencies, and administrative units, in lawsuits filed by or against them in courts of all levels and jurisdictions, and also before judicial entities such as arbitration and disciplinary bodies.

The primary responsibility of the administration is to protect public funds from theft, embezzlement, waste, plunder, seizure, and abuse, and to collect rights adjudicated in favour of the state.

The Syrian Civil Law No. 84 of 1949 defines public funds as movable and immovable properties belonging to the state and designated for public benefit, or for a public purpose under a specific law, such as the Forestry Law, which considers state lands with forestry growth as state forests. Public funds are a term synonymous with state-owned properties, particularly real estate, such as Amiri lands, dissolved and abandoned properties, and others.

Public Funds and Judicial Representation by the Administration

In real estate cases, the ASJC represents public entities. This includes filing claims against others who damage or unlawfully seize public property, or against those who violate building regulations, such as constructing on public roads or overstepping urban planning boundaries. This involves applying Building Violation Law No. 40 of 2012, and all other laws where the state is a party. The role of the ASJC is to represent the public entity, including administrative units, in court and to pursue the case against the defendant until a decision is rendered.

If a property owner whose property has been expropriated sues the expropriating public entity to invalidate the decision, the Administration then represents the public entity in court. Similarly, if someone sues an administrative unit council due to damage to their property caused by public works, the Administration must represent the unit’s council in court.

In cases where a public entity sues another public entity, each side must have its own state lawyer from the Administration. According to judicial precedents set by the Court of Cassation in Decision No. 857 dated June 30, 1976, a single lawyer from the Administration cannot represent two departments with conflicting interests in the same lawsuit.

Law No. 55 of 1977 grants the Administration the right to propose settlements on behalf of the public entity it represents, which can either accept or reject these proposals. However, the public entity cannot settle or negotiate the terms of a case that is being heard in court without first consulting the Administration.

How the Administration of State Judicial Cases

When a lawsuit is initiated by or against a public entity, the court notifies the ASJC to send a lawyer to represent the public entity in the case. In this situation, the lawyer acts on behalf of the head of the public entity, whether they are a minister or a general director, in their official capacity. The state lawyer communicates with the entity they represent to obtain documents, evidence, and to follow up on proceedings in the case.

After a judgement is issued, the state lawyer must prepare a report outlining their opinion and submit it to their superiors in the Administration, who then forward it to the head of the Appeals Department. If the head of the Appeals Department finds that the judgement aligns with the public entity’s interests, they will escalate it to the head of the Administration with a recommendation not to appeal. Otherwise, the head of the Appeals Department may choose to appeal the judgement at the Court of Appeals.

If the judgement is eligible for cassation (final appeal), it is sent in the same manner to the Cassation Department of the Administration to be challenged before the Court of Cassation.

Provisional Property Seizure by the Administration of State Judicial Cases

Mr Wannous told Al-Watan that the Administration is in the process of establishing an electronic system for provisional seizure. This system will directly register the names of those whose properties are subject to provisional seizure, facilitating reconciliation with them and the collection of dues for public entities.

If implemented, this system would impose an additional constraint on defendants involved in cases brought by public entities. Typically, in most cases represented by the Administration, the court issues a decision in a private session to place a provisional seizure marker on the defendant’s property and sends the decision to the Ministry of Finance. An assessment by the court of a probable right for the plaintiff is sufficient to place the provisional seizure on the defendant’s property. The Court of Cassation does not have oversight authority over the court’s discretion in placing this provisional seizure.

Furthermore, when a lawyer from the Administration requests a provisional seizure in a case, it often pressures the court, which usually agrees to the request to avoid accusations of negligence in protecting state funds.

The seizure marker is placed even before the defendant is notified of the lawsuit to ensure the collection of state rights if the judgement favours the public entity. If the final judgement in the case is in favour of the public entity, the state lawyer informs the defendant with an enforcement notice attached to the judgement and requests the execution judge to convert the provisional seizure into an executive seizure. Subsequently, the judgement is enforced either through the Ministry of Finance according to the usual legal procedures for public fund collection or through the execution department in accordance with the civil procedure law.

However, if the final judgement is in favour of the defendant, they can remove the provisional seizure, but this involves lengthy bureaucratic procedures. These include executing the judgement through an enforcement file at the court’s execution department, which informs the ASJC, which in turn notifies the relevant public entity.