BY SHAZIA SALEEM
The Administrative Court has ruled to cancel Article 15 of the regulations governing intermediate electronic platforms and applications for displaying, ordering and delivering products to consumers. The court found that the provision exceeded the legal powers granted to the Minister of Commerce and Industry by creating administrative penalties without an explicit legislative basis.
The ruling was issued by a bench headed by Counselor Mohammed Jassim Bahman in a lawsuit filed by Talabat Company. The company challenged Article 15 of the regulations attached to Ministerial Resolution No. 109/2026, issued on July 8, 2026. The court ordered the administration to bear the case expenses and pay 10 dinars in legal fees, while rejecting the company’s other requests.
In its judgment, the court acknowledged that the Minister of Commerce and Industry holds broad authority to regulate service provision, apply pricing controls and issue necessary implementing decisions. However, it stressed that this authority remains bound by the limits set by the legislator and does not extend to creating punitive administrative penalties without clear legal authorisation.
The court referred to Decree Law No. 10 of 1979, which specifically regulates penalties for trade supervision violations and distributes jurisdiction between the judiciary and administrative authorities. It held that this jurisdiction cannot be expanded through administrative regulations. Article 15 had established an independent penalty system ranging from warnings to administrative closure, suspension of activity, temporary blocking, license cancellation and permanent blocking—measures the court deemed beyond the minister’s legal powers.
The court also rejected the administration’s claim that the penalties were supported by other laws on commercial licences and consumer protection. It emphasised that administrative jurisdiction cannot be presumed or derived by analogy from unrelated legislation. Authority to impose penalties must stem from a specific legislative provision covering the exact case.
Further, the court examined Decree-Law No. 10 of 2026 on digital commerce. Although issued in February 2026, its executive regulations had not been published by the hearing date, meaning the law had not yet entered into force. Even if it were applicable, the court noted, it only authorised limited blocking by a Violations Committee for up to 30 days and could not justify the broader sanctions under Article 15. Consequently, the court cancelled Article 15 and all its resulting legal effects.
