Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


    The Federal Supreme Court decides the unconstitutionality of three paragraphs of the Code of Judicia

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 269703
    Join date : 2012-12-21
    • Post n°1

    The Federal Supreme Court decides the unconstitutionality of three paragraphs of the Code of Judicia Empty The Federal Supreme Court decides the unconstitutionality of three paragraphs of the Code of Judicia

    Post by Rocky Tue 08 Nov 2016, 4:45 am

    The Federal Supreme Court decides the unconstitutionality of three paragraphs of the Code of Judicial Oversight Commission

    Tuesday 08-11-2016 | 1:20:19







    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
    Twilight News / Federal Supreme Court held a meeting on Tuesday have considered a number of cases brought before them.
    The judge said Abdul Sattar Bayrakdar spokesman for the judiciary said that "the Federal Court heard an appeal with a number of parties law No. materials (36) for the year 2015".
    Bayraktar said that "the court found that the material (24 / IV), and (16 / I) and (16 / II), and (2 / II) and (5 / II) and (17 / I) and (4 / III and 11 / first: b) and (11 / II c) and (14 / I) and (25 / II) and (57) and (11 / I. b / Terms of the founding parties) of the political parties Act may embarked according to the legislative option, which authorized the House of Representatives under the provisions of Article (61 / I) of the Constitution. " And there is no violation of the Constitution
    He pointed out that "the material (11 / I) and (41 / I), and (44), and (24 / VII) of the impugned law has been judged unconstitutional by the judgment issued on 09.08.2016 by the Federal Supreme Court ".
    Bayraktar said that "the Federal Court heard the appeal filed on the second paragraph of Article (2), first and seventh paragraphs of Article (3) of the judicial supervision" Commission Act No. 29 of 2016.
    Bayraktar said that "the court decided the unconstitutionality of these paragraphs," pointing out that "Article (II / 2), has been subjected to appoint a vice chairman to the approval of the House of Representatives contrary to the provisions of Article (61 / V / a) of the constitution despite the above-mentioned article came Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 47, which states the separation of powers. "
    He pointed out that "the exception included subjecting specific addresses for judicial positions and not one of them (vice president of judicial oversight body)," noting that "the Court emphasized the constitutional and jurisprudential Qaeda is not permissible expansion of the exception."
    Birqadr It was to be "material (3 / I) Federal Court of Cassation included oversight and supervision by the judicial oversight body."
    And he added that "this provision is contrary to the norms and judicial contexts stable," noting that "the judges of the Court of Cassation with special grades and chief rank of minister and appointed by a presidential decree and the nomination of the Supreme Judicial Council and the consent of the House of Representatives."
    "The supervision of the court is under Article (15 / I / c) of the Judicial Organization Law No. 160 of 1979, the validity of the President of the Court and not from the supervisory body."
    Birqadr He added that "the law of judicial oversight body nut set judicial supervisor of the judges of the second class by the Judicial Council without going through the stages of the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Federal Court of Cassation."
    He said that "Article (3/7) of the Law Commission authorized body accomplish what transmits head of the Supreme Judicial Council by the federal or a member of the House of Representatives or a single judicial supervisors according to law."
    He went on to "a member of the House of Representatives belongs to the legislative branch, not to the judiciary and to bring the head of the Supreme Judicial Council or the treatment of the issue to accomplish is contrary to the principle of separation of powers Alorad in Article 47 of the Constitution."
    Bayraktar and ended by saying that "the amendment of the contested material is not the jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court provided for in Article 93 of the Constitution and Article 4 of the law, and that the focus of that to the House of Representatives."
    BACK TO


    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    • Back to top
      Current date/time is Wed 08 May 2024, 5:46 pm