Federal Court: there is no law be held accountable president on charges of perjury

Federal Court: there is no law be held accountable president on charges of perjury

 Baghdad / term

Federal Court announced yesterday, response action was held against the President of the Republic of Hnth perjury and violation of the Constitution.
The court had announced the receipt of a lawsuit against the president of the republic accused of not fulfilling oath against the background of the flag of the Kurdistan region in the province of Kirkuk.

The Federal Court confirmed the "response proceedings brought against the President of the Republic , in addition to the fact that his binding court under Article (93 / VI) of the Constitution , the existence of a law regulating the separation process in the accusations against the President and the Prime Minister and ministers."
The court said , "This law has not been enacted by the House of Representatives so far, so the consideration of the case was not supported by the Constitution."
Article 93 of the Constitution provides that the Federal Court is concerned with the following:
First: - control over the constitutionality of laws and regulations in force.
Second: - interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution.
Third: - Chapter in issues that arise from the application of federal laws, decisions, regulations, instructions, and procedures issued by the federal authority, the law guarantees the right of each of the Council of Ministers and stakeholders, individuals and others, the right of direct appeal to the court.
Fourth: - Chapter in disputes between the federal government and the governments of the regions and provinces, municipalities and local administrations.
Fifth: - Chapter in disputes between the governments of the regions or provinces.
Sixth: - Chapter in accusations against the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, and is regulated by law.
Furthermore, the Federal Court dismissed the suit and the Minister of Education in addition to his job "to challenge the decision of the House of Representatives questioned him."
The court said it "found that the formal requirements set forth in the Constitution and the rules of procedure of the Council of the full House of Representatives in the request for questioning, and that direct parliamentary question something and questioning something else, and all of them arranges different from the other impact, and that the merits assessment of the interrogation and verification is subject to assessment Parliament".
The court said it "looked on the grounds of the appeal, paragraph (a) of item (1) of Article (19) of the Civil Service Law No. 24 of 1960, as well as appeal to paragraph (a) of item (2) of Article (6) of salaries of state employees and public sector law No. (22) for the year 2008 and decided to dismiss the case as a rule is not based on the support of the Constitution. "


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]