The role of the public prosecution in administrative judiciary: A comparative study

The role of the public prosecution in the administrative judiciary holds particular significance, as the administration is a permanent party in these disputes, making the prosecution a neutral overseer of lawful application. Countries with dual judicial systems have emphasized the presence and organization of the public prosecution within the administrative judiciary, tailoring its function to their legal frameworks. For instance, France positions the prosecution within the Council of State, with administrative oversight but operational independence, while Egypt assigns jurisdiction across multiple bodies, each with specific scopes. Conversely, Iraq combines the public prosecution in both ordinary and administrative judiciary settings, leading to overlap between the two. Countries like Egypt and France typically incorporate three levels of administrative litigation with public prosecution presence at each stage, whereas Iraq limits administrative litigation to two levels, with the prosecution only present in first-instance courts. Additionally, Iraq's allocation of a single prosecutor across multiple first-instance courts restricts the prosecution's role, as they cannot attend all relevant cases. Enhancements in administrative prosecution, including an increased number of prosecutors and consistent representation across litigation stages, are essential to strengthen this function in Iraq.