Abstract

Objectives: This research aims to demonstrate that the exercise of discretionary power is carried out within the framework and limits of the law governing every administrative decision, and that the authority of the administration- whether discretionary or bound- is merely a means of implementing the law. Methods: The study adopts the descriptive and analytical approaches, as they are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives of the research. Through the descriptive approach, the researcher examines and analyzes the subject matter in connection with practical reality. The analytical approach is used to clarify the relationship between expediency and discretionary power, ultimately leading to an examination of administrative judicial review over the assessment of expediency in administrative decisions. Results: The study concludes that the discretionary power of the administration is no longer linked solely to the position of the legislator, but rather ultimately rests with the administrative judge, who delineates the limits of such power with respect to administrative authorities. In this context, the administrative judge acts both as a judge of legality and as a judge of expediency. Conclusions: The study emphasizes the necessity of distinguishing between discretionary power and judicial review thereof, as the judge's role in examining such discretion falls within the scope of the judge's original function of overseeing the legality of administrative actions, either by annulment or by upholding them through the examination of expediency.