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


    Federal Court claims to challenge the constitutionality of some articles of the law of law

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 268447
    Join date : 2012-12-21

    Federal Court claims to challenge the constitutionality of some articles of the law of law Empty Federal Court claims to challenge the constitutionality of some articles of the law of law

    Post by Rocky Wed 20 Dec 2017, 3:28 am


    Federal Court claims to challenge the constitutionality of some articles of the law of law

    11:21 - 20/12/2017
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    Information / Baghdad ..
    On Wednesday, the Federal Supreme Court replied to the law to challenge the unconstitutionality of some articles of the Law No. (173) of 1965, asserting that the legislation was in accordance with the legislative powers provided for in Article (61 / I) of the Constitution.
    "The Federal Supreme Court considered in its last session this year, four cases to challenge the unconstitutionality of a number of articles of the law of the law, and issued a ruling on the response of those appeals," said the spokesman of the court Iyas al-Samuk in a statement received.
    Al-Samok added that "the first appeal was made to articles (113 and 116) of the law where the plaintiff stated that the case against the lawyer is considered in a secret session and ruled if one of them or one of them is absent and the defendant in absentia can not exercise his right to object to the absentee decision, Article (19) of the Constitution. "
    "The court rejected this appeal, because the decision issued in absentia against the lawyer according to articles (113) and (116) of the law is not immune, but created the same law, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 110 a way to challenge these disciplinary decisions before the Court of Cassation, To make the case of the disciplinary case against the lawyer in his favor in order to preserve his reputation and also to protect the reputation of the law, and that the articles subject to appeal do not violate article (19) of the Constitution.
    "The second appeal was related to Article 110 of the law, which provides for the formation of a Disciplinary Board for a lawyer from a council formed by the Council of the Bar. The Court found that this does not contravene the provisions of Articles 2 / C, 13 / II / 19 / III ) Of the Constitution that the article contested unconstitutional came as a legislative option for the legislator within the legislative powers provided for in Article (61 / I) of the Constitution so that the power to discipline the lawyer in front of members of the union and that is sufficient guarantee for the lawyer; because the union is aware of the mandate and context.
    "The third appeal was related to Article 91 of the Law, which provided for the vacancy of the position of the captain for any reason and the position of the representative of the trade union. The court found that this article was enacted in accordance with the legislative powers stipulated in article 61 / Of the Constitution ".
    He explained that "the fourth appeal was made to article (123) of the law, which allows the council of the union to draw the lawyer's opinion in case of violation of the profession's traditions and ethics or prevent him from exercising the task for a period not exceeding three months, since these powers according to the plaintiff's statements were also given to the disciplinary board Duplication of powers ".
    "The court found that the court found in this article that the convicted lawyer has the right to challenge discrimination before the judiciary, and therefore there is no constitutional violation, and the status of the article was a legislative option under the provisions of Article (61 / I) of the Constitution," asserting that " That the lawyers if they have ideas and proposals for the amendment of the law law in force can be submitted to the House of Representatives or the executive authority. Ending / 25

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

      Current date/time is Fri 19 Apr 2024, 11:30 pm