Unlawful rule of the Ministry of Finance

Abstract

This article aims to examine the legality of the Ministry of Finance’s regulations prohibiting the reimbursement of SYSADOA medications and intra-articular injections for osteoarthritis treatment under the Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme, as well as to analyze the scope of judicial review exercised by the Administrative Court over administrative discretion within the framework of administrative law and the rule of law. The study employs documentary research methodology based on judgments of the Central Administrative Court, relevant legislation, public law theories, and both domestic and international academic literature.

The findings reveal that although the Ministry of Finance possesses statutory authority to prescribe rules governing medical reimbursement, the exercise of such authority must conform to the principles of legality, reasonableness, and proportionality. The issuance of the disputed regulations prohibiting reimbursement for the medications was based on academic and medical evidence that remained inconclusive regarding the drugs’ effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, objections were raised by professional medical organizations and individuals directly affected by the regulations. The study also found that alternative measures were available to control healthcare expenditure while imposing less restrictive effects on beneficiaries’ rights, such as limiting reimbursement according to specific medical indications.

The Central Administrative Court therefore held that the disputed regulations constituted unlawful administrative rules on the grounds that they represented an improper and disproportionate exercise of administrative discretion, thereby adversely affecting the healthcare welfare rights of civil servants and state officials. This case reflects the significant role of the Administrative Court in reviewing the exercise of administrative power to safeguard individual rights and uphold the rule of law in a democratic state.