Parliament is the elected authority by the people to express the general will of the nation and the sovereignty of the people. In accordance with the general political and constitutional principles, it enjoys wide power in legislation whereby it governs various aspects of the social, economic and political life etc.

The sovereignty enjoyed by the parliament made its authority not responsible for the damages to the members of the society; in addition other arguments justified absolving the Parliament from any judicial or political oversight and with the principle of no liability of the state for damages caused by the laws to individuals regardless of their magnitude of privacy.

Based on the above, the Administrative Court has interpreted its categorical refusal on the possibility of determining the responsibility for the damages caused by the parliament and settled on this approach for a long period of time. Significant changes have taken place in society particularly in the legal life and the perception of the individual rights and freedoms. These changes go in the direction of restricting the realm of public authorities in favor of the respect of individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, the principle of state responsibility for damages resulting from laws and new concepts replaced the authoritarian views. The concept of sovereignty is no longer considered an absolute instead it abides by the provisions of law and accountability in case of their violations.

According to the principle of rule of law, all the authorities, including legislative ones are bound by it, or else they must be revised as the law is above everyone. The administrative court determined the responsibility of the executive branch, but not only that, it went to the extent of establishing the liability of the legislative branch for the damages caused by laws passed by that authority if some of the conditions that are not disposed by the legislator to compensate the damages must be special and exceptional.