The Apparent Competence and its Impact on the Administrative Decision (A Study Between Iraq, France and Egypt)

Public administrations in Iraq, Egypt and France strive to provide regular and continuous public services with the aim of meeting the public needs of individuals and achieving the public interest. And their tool in this is the privilege granted to it by law, and that is administrative decision-making. An administrative decision is an action taken by the administration with a unilateral will and with the aim of influencing the legal centers. Because administrative decisions are one of the most important privileges granted to the system to achieve the provision of public benefits and public services, which is the basic foundation on which the activity of the administration is based, because a real translation of the government’s will and the government’s way to achieve the desired goals. It is up to it to rely on legal and constitutional texts to regulate the work of the administration. And administrative decisions as an act issued by the government should be issued with accuracy and legitimacy. This will not be achieved by an administrative decision unless issued by government officials authorized to issue it. Whether originally in the jurisdiction or because of circumstances leading to an administrative vote, decisions based on the theory of apparent jurisdiction are fundamentally invalid under Iraqi law, except in terms of the effect they have on it. Lays are valid. The scholar considers French law to be an administrative decision regarding the decision of Iraqi law based on specific procedures and conditions of its operation. He considers jurisprudence as a means of achieving public interests, which should be noted that the closest laws in terms of content and texts are similar to the laws of France, Iraq and Egypt. As we found this in the practical application in administrative work and according to the subject of the research on apparent competence and its impact on administrative decision. To appoint a government employee to a government position, indicate the various conditions and procedures of the post and the job to be done. So, if he quits his job, this job will not be different from the invalidity of that job and he will be considered subject to termination or cancellation of work. This is inconsistent with the practical reality that motivates the realization of justice and the public interest. Contrary to what has been said, if the work of a government official is annulled, it will lead to the loss of public interests and the rights of those who have acted in good faith and with the intention of relying on the apparatus. The employee is a representative of government departments, and his trust in the government department is violated and he is prevented from carrying out administrative transactions, which is inevitable in the work of the department. Therefore, full legal protection should be provided to those who deal with this office in good faith and to ensure the regular and consistent operation of public services, and to instill confidence in those involved in public administration by adopting apparent positions in administrative decisions. Take place. In this research, descriptive and comparative methods have been used.