The Qualitative Jurisdiction of Urgent Matters Judge: “A Comparative Study

In this study, the researcher examined the qualitative jurisdiction of the urgent matters judge. In his focus on explanation of the jurisdiction of the qualitative urgent matters, the researcher’s vision is that in urgent matters the rights of one of the litigants is vulnerable to imminent danger or harm and this would likely happen and then it would be difficult to avoid, if the decision on it were left to the routine procedures of litigation, which often takes long time, but without harming the origin of right. The researcher clarified the urgent matters judge’s qualitative jurisdictions, given their importance and frequency in practical life, as stipulated in the Fundamentals of Civil and Commercial Trials Law. These matters are namely request for proof of case; request for return of necessary services of public facilities; precautionary confiscation of property; appointment of caretaker of money; and prevention from travel. The researcher also shed light on the qualitative jurisdiction of the urgent matters judge in urgent issues stipulated in other legislations, in accordance with a legal and explicit text that judges on his/her jurisdiction. In this regard, the researcher studies the texts in the Law of Evidence, Insurance Law, Arbitration Law, and Execution Law which cannot be based on except by the general jurisdiction of the urgent matters judge. The researcher finally clarified the qualitative general jurisdiction of the urgent matters judge, stipulated in Article 102 of Fundamental of Civil and Commercial Trials Law, pertinent to his/her general jurisdiction to look into all matters in which it is feared time would run out, and these can’t be limited. When the conditions of the qualitative jurisdiction for litigation in urgent matters become available in civil and commercial issues, the urgent matters judge would take over authority in it. In this authority, the urgent matters judge would probe into the extent of the presence of submitted apparent evidence. He would verify the extent of the availability of the urgency in the matter but without trespassing the origin of right and also without establishing his litigation on reasons stemmed from origin of right. Resorting to ordinary judiciary, regardless of its close dates, does not achieve the protection sought in urgent judiciary. Urgent judiciary, the owner of general jurisdiction, can be resorted to in order to look into urgent requests to obtain a temporary verdict which does not harm the origin of right. It temporarily protects it if it deserves protection. The judge would decide on taking the necessary timing procedures to prevent an inevitable danger or to protect a real legitimate case or to maintain a legal existing position if it was found that the situation required an objective checking of evidence and he/she could not issue a decision until he/she has trespassed the origin of right. Then he/she would decide not to look into it as it’s outside his/her jurisdiction. The researcher has explained in this study the opinions of the Palestinian, Jordanian and Egyptian lawmakers concerning these jurisdictions as they are close to the Palestinian law. This study was an attempt to refine this type of litigation as more people resort to it in practical life due to its dramatic development in all aspects of life and the burgeoning role of urgent judiciary. It has become a must to develop the legal systems in order to quickly settle disputes between individuals, something that requires development of the urgent judiciary job to serve justice. In the conclusion, the researcher highlighted the most important findings and offered a number of recommendations, hoping they would receive the interest of those in charge of the Palestinian legal system in general and the Fundamentals of Civil and Commercial Law # 102 of 2001 and the draft of the Palestinian Civil Law which has neither seen light nor passed.