Syrian Parliament approves repeal of barriers to justice

The Syrian Parliament discussed the draft law during its second session, held over two days,Sunday and Monday, as part of its first regular session. The bill seeks to repeal all legal provisions that restrict the right to seek judicial recourse or shield any administrative act or decision from review by the competent courts, wherever such provisions appear in the country’s legislation in force.

On Monday, Parliament approved a draft law repealing all legal provisions that restrict the right to seek judicial recourse or shield any administrative act or decision from review by the competent courts, wherever such provisions appear in the country’s current legislation.

The bill removes legal restrictions that prevent citizens from challenging certain decisions issued by administrative authorities. It also brings the actions of government institutions and bodies under judicial review, allowing those affected to seek a review of decisions that affect their rights and interests in accordance with established legal procedures.

According to some members of Parliament, the law goes beyond repealing provisions that restrict access to the courts. It also addresses legislation that has shielded certain actions by state authorities from accountability and limited citizens’ access to justice.

Remaining steps before the law takes effect

Parliament will refer the draft law to transitional President Ahmed al-Sharaa for promulgation, in accordance with Article 39 of the Constitutional Declaration. Under this article, the president may object to the bill through a reasoned decision within one month of receiving it. The bill would then be returned to Parliament for reconsideration. If Parliament approves it again by a two-thirds majority, The enactment of the law becomes a judgment.

Once the promulgation procedures are completed and the law is published in the Official Gazette, it will enter into force on the date specified in its text.

What does this mean for citizens?

If approved and brought into force, the law would mean that citizens harmed by administrative decisions could no longer be prevented from challenging them simply because a legal provision shields those decisions from judicial review.

For example, if a government body dismisses an employee, revokes a citizen’s license, or denies them an administrative right, and a legal provision bars appeals against such decisions, repealing that provision would allow the affected person to petition the competent court to examine the decision’s legality and lawfulness. This applies directly to Article 137 of the Basic Law for State Employees, which allows an employee to be dismissed from service without the right to challenge the decision before any judicial authority.

This does not mean that the court will automatically overturn the decision or that the citizen will necessarily win the case. Rather, it means that access to the courts and the right to have an appeal heard will no longer be blocked by such provisions. The court will rule on the case in accordance with the law.

Article 17 of the transitional government’s Constitutional Declaration guarantees the right to seek judicial recourse, defend oneself, and pursue available avenues of appeal. It also prohibits shielding any administrative act or decision from judicial review.

Another related provision is Article 48, which calls for laying the foundations of transitional justice by repealing exceptional laws, unjust rulings, and security measures that violated Syrians’ rights during the previous regime.

Legal background: Exceptional legislation restricted access to justice in Syria

Shielding certain administrative decisions and actions from judicial oversight was not a new practice in Syria. During the rule of the former regime, exceptional legislation was introduced that restricted the right to seek judicial recourse and pursue legal action in specific cases, while granting certain security agencies broad powers beyond the scope of effective judicial oversight.

Among the most notable examples were Legislative Decree No. 14 of 1969, which established the State Security Department, and Legislative Decree No. 69 of 2008. Both included provisions granting legal protection to security personnel against prosecution for actions related to the performance of their duties. Other measures established exceptional courts, including the Supreme State Security Court, created under Legislative Decree No. 47 of 1968, whose rulings could not be appealed before the ordinary courts.

Although Article 51 of the 2012 Constitution guaranteed the right to seek judicial recourse, defend oneself, and appeal, and prohibited shielding any administrative act or decision from judicial review, exceptional legislation and security practices undermined the effectiveness of these guarantees. They allowed practices to continue that prevented people harmed by abuses from accessing the courts or holding the responsible authorities accountable.