Administrative Court cancels Article 15 of the 'Commerce' decision regarding product delivery platforms and apps in the lawsuit filed by 'Talabat'

Abdulkarim Ahmad

The Administrative Court ruled to annul Article (15) of the executive regulations for the sector of intermediary electronic platforms and applications for displaying, requesting, and delivering products to consumers, which was attached to Ministerial Decision No. 109/2026 issued by the Minister of Commerce and Industry on July 8, 2026. This ruling came in the lawsuit filed by Talabat company, along with all legal consequences thereof.

In its judgment, the court relied on the principle that the authority of the Minister of Commerce and Industry to regulate services and issue necessary decisions to implement the law does not empower him to create new administrative penalties of a punitive nature unless there is an explicit legislative provision granting him this authority.

The court noted that the legislator himself determined the penalties prescribed for violating regulatory and pricing rules, as well as the competent authorities responsible for imposing them, which means the executive regulations cannot add new penalties not stipulated in the law.

The court found that the annulled article established a graduated system of penalties, including warnings, administrative closure, suspension of activity, and temporary blocking, up to license revocation and permanent blocking. This, according to the judgment, exceeded the legal jurisdiction granted to the Minister of Commerce and Industry.

The court emphasized that the determination of penalties and their distribution between the judiciary and the administrative authority is specifically outlined in the legislation, and it is not permissible to expand jurisdiction or create new penalties through regulations.

The court also rejected the Ministry of Commerce’s reliance on similar provisions in other laws, clarifying that jurisdiction is not presumed or derived by analogy from legislation regulating different fields, but must be based on an explicit legislative provision.

It pointed out that the gradation of penalties, according to the severity or recurrence of the violation, does not alter the issue of jurisdiction, affirming that well-structured regulation of penalties does not negate the necessity of a legal basis authorizing the administrative authority to impose them in the first place.

The court also addressed the Ministry’s reliance on Legislative Decree No. 10 of 2026 concerning the regulation of work in the digital trade sector, explaining that the decree, issued on February 22, 2026, and published in the Official Gazette on March 1, 2026, was not in force at the time the contested decision was issued. This is because its implementation was linked to the passage of one month from the date of publishing its executive regulations in the Official Gazette, which had not yet occurred at that time.

The court added that even assuming the legislative decree was in force, it would not provide a basis for creating the penalty system outlined in Article (15), as the legislator specifically regulated blocking and assigned it to the Violations Committee for a period not exceeding 30 days, according to rules determined by the executive regulations.

The court concluded that Article (15) was issued beyond the legal jurisdiction of its source, and therefore ruled to annul it and all its consequences.

The court also ordered the administrative authority to bear the costs and pay 10 dinars for legal fees, while rejecting all other requests made by the company.