Judicial Oversight of Public Procurement Contracts by the Administrative Judge

Judicial oversight exercised by the administrative judge over public procurement contracts represents a fundamental safeguard for ensuring the administration's compliance with the principle of legality and for protecting the rights of contracting parties.Public procurement disputes often arise from administrative decisions related to the preparation, conclusion, or execution of such contracts, which necessitates the intervention of administrative courts to maintain legal balance and transparency in public administration.This oversight manifests through various legal mechanisms, particularly the action for annulment of unlawful administrative decisions and the exercise of full jurisdiction by the administrative judiciary in disputes concerning administrative contracts.Within this framework, administrative judges possess the authority to adjudicate claims for compensation and to determine the liability of the administration when damages arise from violations of contractual obligations or abuse of administrative powers.Moreover, legal doctrines such as the theory of the financial equilibrium of the administrative contract play a significant role in maintaining fairness in contractual relations between the administration and private contractors.These doctrines aim to preserve the stability of contractual commitments while ensuring the continuity of public services.Consequently, judicial oversight contributes not only to the protection of public funds but also to reinforcing transparency, accountability, and trust in public administration.The present study therefore examines the scope, mechanisms, and limits of judicial review exercised by the administrative judge in public procurement disputes, as well as its effectiveness in safeguarding legality and ensuring sound public financial management.Citation