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 Policy A case against Halbusi and the President of the Judicial Council

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 282074
    Join date : 2012-12-21
    • Post n°1

    Federal Court Policy A case against Halbusi and the President of the Judicial Council Empty Federal Court Policy A case against Halbusi and the President of the Judicial Council

    Post by Rocky Sun 03 Feb 2019, 7:21 am

    [size=32]
    Federal Court Policy A case against Halbusi and the President of the Judicial Council[/size]
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

     3 hours ago



    The Federal Supreme Court issued a constitutional ruling on the Criminal Agreement in Penal Code No. 111 of 1969, noting that its concept differs from the freedom of expression contained in the Constitution.
    "The Federal Supreme Court held its session under the chairmanship of Judge Medhat al-Mahmoud and the presence of all the members of the judges, and the case was considered by the prosecutor, both the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Judicial Council, in addition to their functions," the court's spokesman Ayas al-Samuk said in a statement.
    Al-Samok added that "the plaintiff challenged under his petition the unconstitutionality of Article (56) of the Penal Code No. (111) of 1969, which penalizes each member of a criminal agreement with the specific penalty for each crime that was the subject of the criminal agreement, even if he did not initiate it."
    He pointed out that "the Federal Supreme Court found that the provisions of the criminal agreement were mentioned in Articles 55-59 of the Penal Code. It is clear that the criminal agreement is the presence of one or more persons who agreed to commit an act that the law criminalizes as a crime or misdemeanor such as theft, This agreement is organized and continued even for a short period. "
    "The court explained the meaning of this as the crime that is the subject of the agreement that is liable to be exposed to the security of the society or to one of its natural or moral persons and indicates the deviant behavior of the members of this agreement," the official said.
    "The court went on to rule that this act must be dealt with either with the penalty of reform or with an amnesty for punishment if it is initiated to inform the public authorities before the crime occurs and before such authorities act against the perpetrators as required by Article 59 of the Penal Code "He said.
    "The plaintiff relied on Article 38 (1) of the constitution, which stipulates that" the state shall ensure that it does not violate the public order and literature: - First: the freedom to express opinion by all means. "
    "The Supreme Federal Court found that the purpose of this text is different from the objective that the plaintiff wants in his case. The freedom of expression is linked to the system, the criminal agreement, and the violation of public order and public morality. The Egyptian judiciary in one of its decisions in this regard does not abide by the Iraqi judiciary to the difference of obligations and place and time.
    "The court decided to respond against the first defendant, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in addition to his job, because it is not based on the Constitution, and the lawsuit against the second defendant, the president of the Supreme Judicial Council, in addition to his job,



    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    • Back to top
      Current date/time is Fri 13 Dec 2024, 12:07 am