Federal elects new experts in the appeal against the budget and three suits are filed

Federal elects new experts in the appeal against the budget and three suits are filed


11:36 - 27/07/2017




The Supreme Federal Court on Thursday elected five new experts to submit a technical report in the appeal case against some articles of the General Budget Law for the current year, while three constitutional claims were rejected because there is no constitutional basis for them.

A statement issued by the Information Office of the Federal Supreme Court received a copy of which the court held its session today and considered a case concerning the challenge of the Prime Minister, in addition to his duties, constitutionally, 23 Articles of the Federal Budget Law for the current year. Noting that "the parties to the lawsuit asked the court to elect five experts, and may agree on the names put forward by the court in today's hearing."

The statement added that "the court elected five indigenous experts and two reserves, and decided to invite them for the purpose of tasking them to prepare a report containing the technical aspects of the subject of appeal," noting that "questions will be directed by the Court to the experts related to a statement that what the House of Representatives on the draft budget law Federal Federation of 2017 submitted by the Government of the transfer of funds between the doors or chapters or the amendment of the amounts of some of its materials or the addition of new materials and amounts did not exist in the government project.

The court asked whether these "variables have added new financial burdens phenomenon or not, but will appear when the implementation of the budget items."

He explained that "the experts will be charged with preparing a report containing an answer to those variables in the subject of the appeal, and whether some changes came as recommendations that the government can overcome and implemented through budgets for the coming years?

The statement pointed out that "the Court also wondered whether the revised budget approved by the House of Representatives during this week include what intersects or affects the objections to the constitutional, and what is? The required statement of experience with any transfer or modification or addition was the object of the appeal plaintiff in addition to his job in the case.

He pointed out that "the court also inquired about the amounts resulting from these variables and whether it would increase the ceiling of the total amounts of the federal budget for the year 2017, the ceiling contained in the government project before the variables of the House of Representatives, and what the amount of this increase."

The statement added that "the court listened to the comments of the parties to the case regarding the questions and has taken them and decided to postpone the case until next Monday, 31/7/2017 for the purpose of inviting experts and formally assigned to their task after the swearing-in and give them the period deemed appropriate by the experts to submit their report."

"The second lawsuit that I have considered concerns the request to rule on the unconstitutionality of Article 6 of Section 8 of Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 65 of 2004, which states that decisions of the Appeals Board are final decisions."

He explained that "the court found that the Appeals Board (the Appeals Board) formed by Order No. (65) for the year 2004 consists of three members headed by a judge and represents a competent legal challenge," noting that "this Council specializes in the consideration of appeals submitted to decisions issued by General) or (Hearing Committee) in the Information and Communications Authority ".

He explained that "the decisions issued by the Appeals Board are of a special nature that requires consideration on the one hand includes in its membership with the subject of the subject of appeal and headed by a judge," noting that "the presence of an appellate represented by the Appeals Board is in accordance with Article (100) of the Constitution does not violate."

"To say otherwise, there must be multiple interlocutors to consider the decisions of interlocutors stipulated in the law and this will put us in an endless cycle," the statement said.

"Article (100) of the Constitution did not provide for restricting the appeal of administrative actions and decisions before the judiciary exclusively, but it stated a general constitutional principle, which is not to immunize these decisions from the appeal, and left the legislator to challenge the appellant according to the work and administrative decisions issued by the administrative bodies, "He said.

The statement added that "identifying the appellant identified by the legislator in Article (6) of Section (8) of CPA Order No. (65) of 2004 is a legislative option does not constitute a violation of the Constitution."

He pointed out that "this is what was settled by the constitutional judiciary in Iraq in many of the decisions, including the ruling on the case No. (50/2017), on 20/6/2017 and therefore the court decided to return the lawsuit because there is no constitutional support for them and will pay the amounts of fines, "He said.

The statement said that "the third case pending from the court was set up by Mr. Safa al-Din Rabie and requesting the ruling to oblige the defendant the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in addition to his job to cancel and invalidate the decision to exempt him from the post of Chairman of the Information and Communication Authority, issued on 11/4/2017, (24) because of the lack of legal and constitutional cover. "

The statement added that "the court found that the plaintiff has served as the head of the media and communications agency, and was questioned in accordance with the constitutional principles as the head of an independent agency, based on the provisions of Article (60 / VIII / e) of the Constitution.

The statement added that "the interrogation was conducted in the absence of the prosecutor who failed to attend several times without excuse to be convinced by the House of Representatives, who took a decision to exempt after the members of the Council convinced evidence provided for exemption.

He pointed out that "the House of Representatives directed to question the officials of the independent agencies and their absence in accordance with the direction of the constitutional judiciary in Iraq, where the Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling on this direction on 25/8/2017 and number (33/2017).

The statement states that "the entry into force of Order No. (65) of 2004 does not preclude the application of the provisions of the Constitution provided for in Article (61 / VIII / E) because they are supreme in application according to the provisions of Article 13/1 of the Constitution. The plaintiff lacks its constitutional mandate and decides to respond. "

The statement said that "the Federal Supreme Court also considered a lawsuit set up by the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners in the Independent Electoral Commission, in addition to his job to request a ruling as a vote of non-conviction in accordance with the data of the session of the House of Representatives numbered (28) on 25/4/2017 unconstitutional.

He added that "the court found through the explanatory regulations that the interrogation was provided in accordance with its constitutional principles in accordance with the provisions of Article (61 / VIII / e) of the Constitution of the plaintiff."

He explained that "252 deputies came to the session of the vote (119) deputies not to be satisfied with the answers plaintiff in return for (118) conviction, while 15 abstained from voting for either side of the two teams."

"The court also found that the plaintiff's claim that the court has no jurisdiction over the appeal is unconstitutional because article 93 (III) of the constitution provides for the jurisdiction of the court to hear appeals against" procedures issued by the federal authority. "

He added that "the quorum of attendance at that meeting was achieved in accordance with the provisions of Article (59 / I) of the Constitution and that the vote was true and by one vote, while (15) deputies who abstained can not be counted for either of the teams whether convinced of the answer or unconvinced, where Does not attribute to the silence of the statement and therefore the lawsuit has lost its constitutional pledge and decided to respond. " Ending / 25

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