Role of the Administrative Judge

Law No. 2019/24 of 24 December 2019 to institute the General Code of Regional and Local Authorities makes the administrative judge a central player, an arbitrator among the regional and local authorities themselves, and between the latter and the representative of the State.
Section 77 gives the representative of the State the possibility of referring to the administrative court any acts by RLAs which he considers to be unlawful. Similarly, in the event where this representative annuls the acts by the RLAs that he deems manifestly illegal (violation of right of way or assault), the Chief Executive may refer the matter to the relevant administrative court.
The administrative judge, in particular the president of the administrative court, issues a stay of execution of the acts of RLAs transferred to him by the representative of the State for annulment, including public contracts for which he may do so on his own initiative. It shall also rule on acts that are likely to compromise the exercise of public or individual freedom.
Section 79 introduces an innovation in that the refusal to approve the acts of local and regional authorities, on the grounds of excess power, may be challenged before the court. The court’s decision is equivalent to approval, as soon as it is notified to the authority. It also states in Section 241 that in the event of a conflict of power between the City Council and the Sub-divisional Council, the City Mayor or the Council Mayor may refer the matter to the administrative judge within this jurisdiction.
The administrative judge also hears acts of the Minister in charge of RLAs declaring a councillor to have resigned.
Section 129 of the Criminal Procedure Code guarantees the protection of local elected officials against threats, insults, assaults, slander or defamation to which they may be subjected in the exercise of their duties or by reason of their office. The elected official may therefore institute civil proceedings against the perpetrators of such acts.
For its part, the audit court is the judge of the regularity of the accounts of authorizing officers and accountants, including persons who fraudulently interfere in the management of funds (de facto accountants). This is the essence of Sections 475, 476 and 485.