The jurists defined the error in the application of the law as working in the lawsuit with a legal rule that does not apply to it, or applying this rule in a way that leads to legal results that are contrary to those that the law wants. From this we conclude that there are three images, namely
1- Violating the law: Violating the law means: the judge’s denial of the existence of an existing legal rule or his assertion of a non-existent legal rule. Whether this rule is one of the procedural or substantive rules.
2- Error in applying the law: it means one or both of them:
A- Applying a legal rule to an incident that does not apply to it. B- Refusal to apply a legal rule to an applicable incident.
The error here relates to the court’s conditioning of the facts: in other words, the judge makes a mistake in the conditioning, that is, he makes a mistake twice: the first because he applied a rule that is not obligatory. The second is because it ruled out the application of a legal rule that was applicable.
3- Misinterpretation of the law: It is related to the judge’s misinterpretation, in the sense of giving the law or text a meaning other than its true meaning.