Direct the subsidiary Civil Action before the Civil Judiciary: A Comparative Study between Yemeni and Egyptian Law

Abstract

The study addressed the subject of direct subsidiary civil action before the civil judiciary according to Yemeni and Egyptian law. It sought to understand the relationship between the criminal and civil judiciaries and the extent of their influence on each other. This study raises several questions, including: What is the extent of the impact of filing a criminal action on a civil action? What are the conditions and effects of applying the rule "criminal action suspends civil action"? What is the extent of the validity of the judgments issued? The study aimed to demonstrate the impact of filing a criminal action on a civil action, to understand the conditions and effects of applying the rule "criminal action suspends civil action," and to demonstrate the validity of judgments issued in both aspects of the dispute. The study was divided into two sections, using a comparative analytical approach. The study reached several conclusions, the most important of which are: that the rule "criminal action suspends civil action" aims to prevent conflicting rulings, but it may lead to prolonging litigation; that the civil action is independent and does not affect the course of the criminal action; and that the criminal judgment has conclusive force that restricts the civil judge from considering what has already been decided. The study recommended reconsidering the application of the rule "criminal action suspends civil action" so that the cases of suspension are clearly codified, ensuring that the rights of the injured party are not disrupted for an extended period. It also emphasized the need to strengthen the independence of the civil judiciary in considering subsidiary civil actions, so that it is not completely restricted to awaiting the final criminal judgment, when it is possible to resolve the civil dispute without legal conflict.