Limits of Legitimate Judicial Expansion in the Jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court

Abstract

This research deals with the discussion of the concept of judicial expansion, its legitimate limits, and when it turns into exceeding the limits of jurisdiction, and it is based on the hypothesis that the constitutional competencies prescribed for the Federal Supreme Court in some of them are flexible discrimination in terms of the parties or in terms of the subject matter of jurisdiction, which gave the court a wide space for judicial jurisprudence in interpreting the limits of this jurisdiction in a broad or narrow way, and the research focused on the analysis of Article 93 of the 2005 Constitution, especially the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs as one of the jurisdictions with The research concluded that the third paragraph establishes a dispute jurisdiction that can only be held in the presence of a dispute that arose from the actual application of a federal legislation or procedure that resulted in a direct legal effect that distinguishes it from the constitutional control stipulated in paragraph one, as the research showed that the fourth and fifth paragraphs are directed to disputes between government units, and that the inaccuracy of the constitutional wording and the absence of a clear definition of the place of dispute in the procedural organization contributed to opening the field of jurisprudence for the Federal Supreme Court. Examining some of proposals, foremost of which is the legislation of a law detailing the jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court in line with what is stated in Article 92/paragraph two, and an amendment, as well as calling for the reformulation of the fourth and fifth paragraphs in a way that eliminates ambiguity and prevents a specialization vacuum, and ensures the direction of judicial expansion within its legitimate constitutional limits