Proportionality Review of Administrative Actions in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Proportionality analysis is a tool that administrative courts use to evaluate the measures taken by administrative agencies and determine if these measures are reasonable in terms of the significance of the facts. This study focuses on the extensiveness and intensiveness of the practice of proportionality review in administrative courts in Saudi Arabia. This research finds that administrative courts in Saudi Arabia engage in proportionality review under three situations: Extravagance Theory, Balancing of the Benefits and Costs Theory, and when a specific law has a provision allowing the court to replace the agency’s determination of facts with the court’s determination. This dissertation also finds that once the court engages in proportionality review, it evaluates the measure taken by the administrative agency by applying at least one of three tests: (1) comparing the measure at hand with other measures taken by the same agency for similar violations; (2) examining whether the administrative penalty is reasonable in the context of the circumstances of the violation; and (3) evaluating the effects of the measure on the concerned person and others, depending on the severity of the violation. Also, this study demonstrates the practice of judicial review of discretion in terms of the reasonableness of administrative actions in four jurisdictions: (1) the United States, (2) Germany, (3) France, and (4) Egypt.